Jesus f**king Christ how stupid is this going to get before it all falls apart???
I’m not too worried about contingency plans. The military has all sorts of contingency plans for all sorts of outlandish scenarios. It’s how officers justify their jobs ;-)
Yeah, but Cheney apparently recently ordered this, so it’s not like this is some plan being drawn up by military officers just to be filed away. Also, this plan is apparently being set up for deployment if the US is ever hit again like it was on 9/11, even if Iran has nothing to do with the attack.
Brett- Is there any sourcing at all on the plan being put into action if Iran isn’t involved?
I would assume (though correct me if I’m wrong) “American Conservative” is not exactly the liberal media??? God only knows who slipped this one to them - probably a disgruntled military officer realizing just how appalling an idea this is and if we execute on it, we deserve to get nuked ourselves.
I dunno, this all sounds wildly unlikely. The administration is having enough trouble maintaining support for the current war, let alone a new one against an “enemy” that the majority of the American public probably doesn’t evenconsider to be an enemy… with tactical nuclear weapons? Sounds like Chicken Little material to me.
Scott McConnell founded The American Conservative with Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos in 2002. A Ph.D.in history from Columbia University, he was formerly the editorial page editor of the New York Post and has been a columnist for Antiwar.com…
Yeah, not exactly a reliable source.
WOW THE EDITOR IS A CONSERVATIVE! HES LYING! HES REALLY A LIBERAL BECAUSE BUSH IS THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE JUST LIKE CLINTON IS THE TRUE LIBERAL! DONT SEPERATE AT ALL KEEP TO ONE SIDE AT ALL TIMES!
mtkafka- The whole thing is from the isolationist/nativist kook end of the right, and it’s a completely unsourced three paragraph story.
I suspect the “plan to nuke Iran” part is true and the “even if Iran has done nothing wrong” part was “slipped” to them from the fiction-creating part of the author’s brain. I’m impressed he didn’t claim it was all because of the Jews.
Why? It’s entirely consistent with the so-called Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against perceived or potential threats to US interests.
Congratulations, you’re an idiot.
Is he? Why again are we spending thousands of lives and 100s of billions of dollars in Iraq?
Another question: are you able to debate politics without acting like a first-class, grade-A prick?
Yes, when I’m not asked to seriously believe that we will unprovokedly use nuclear weapons. Sorry, if you believe that you’re a conspiracy nut. Conspiracy nuts are idiots.
Come on Ben.
In the hours and days immediately after 9/11, when all the evidence and analysis was pointing to Bin Laden, guys like Wolfowitz were demanding that we nail Saddam, even though there was (and still is to this day) no evidence linking him to 9/11.
This isn’t just liberal fantasy, either. The account of the discussion that took place at Camp David is hard fact. The people who participated at it have spoken on the record about it.
The neocons just want a reason–any reason–to attack Iran. I completely believe that if, nay, WHEN, Al Queda hits us again, their immediate impulse will be to press bomb Tehran.
You guys don’t seem to remember the runup to the Iraq war. They won’t be able to fool people twice, they burnt a lot of political capital on Iraq.
People were fooled? News to me. I think the OSP, for example, was formed to funnel desired information directly to a eager WH.
There’s an old saying in Tennessee… I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee… that says, fool me once, shame on… shame on you… fool me… you can’t get fooled again.
Here’s an article from The Washington Post which fleshes out some of the story referenced in the original post: Not Just A Last Resort?
"Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret “Interim Global Strike Alert Order” directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.
In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons."
The rest of the article provides a detailed discussion of how and when a pre-emptive strike and the nuclear option might be exercised. Call it a conspiracy if you want. </shrug>
Why? It’s entirely consistent with the so-called Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against perceived or potential threats to US interests.[/quote]
So invading a nation is the same as nuking it?