hersh must be right about the intention of the US to use nukes against underground facilities, because they're already denying it
The US has rejected suggestions that it might be preparing to use nuclear weapons against targets in Iran.
A report in The New Yorker magazine said the US was increasing planning for a possible air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
It said one option being considered was a tactical nuclear strike against underground nuclear sites.
Dan Bartlett, a senior adviser to President George W Bush, said the report was "ill-informed".
Those who drew definitive conclusions based on normal defence and intelligence planning "are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran", he said.
[...]
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said talk of a US nuclear strike was "completely nuts".
UKers may recall that jack straw was the mendacious little weasel who said a couple of years ago that he couldn't see the US/UK attacking iran. now he's narrowing it down to just 'attacking iran with nukes'
of course, this could all be a clever ploy to divert all debate about an attack on iran more generally into a mere bust-up about the exact kinds of weapons that would be used [insert X-Files music here]
i also found this gem of hilarity in the BBC profile of hersh:
After being targeted in one of his articles in 2003, former US defence secretary Richard Perle said Hersh was "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist".
i think hersh has become a bitch to the bush admin...they feed him bs...he actually believes it and write about it...seems fairly obvious he is being used by the necons...
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Freakaloin wrote:i think hersh has become a bitch to the bush admin...they feed him bs...he actually believes it and write about it...seems fairly obvious he is being used by the necons...
Dan Bartlett, a senior adviser to President George W Bush, said the report was "ill-informed".
Those who drew definitive conclusions based on normal defence and intelligence planning "are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran", he said.
If those are the strongest terms Bartlett is using to deny it, then we should be worried.
He's basically saying "Hey, talk of nukes and such is really all just part of normal defence and intelligence planning - nothing to draw definitive conclusions from."
In other words -- "Sure, we've talked about nuking them -- that's just in the planning phase though, it doesn't mean we would actually do it! Trust us!"
there is no way the us will use nukes in iran...unless iran uses this nuke...u know...the one they got from dick cheney... http://www.rense.com/general70/chenn.htm
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
hmm...maybe hersh is right...scott mcclellen was asked about hersh at length at the wh press gaggle...he said wild speculation 9 times or so...but denied it 0 times...
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
I think this is a perfect example for something that was mentioned in the "Secrets from inside the White House" thread (no matter how much truth there is to it):
There are plans for EVERYTHING. Some dude in some thinktank wants to make a name for himself, so he thinks up a crazy plan, which will 99.99999% never see the light of day.
Then by some odd chance journalists get a hold of that plan and the next day the newspapers say: "White house plans internment camps for muslims on the moon!"
