Seymour Hersh: Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'

[Douglas Carpenter]

link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixnewstop.html

snip:"The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts."

snip:"Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran."

snip:"This newspaper (The London Telegraph) disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants."

read full article - link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixnewstop.html

[Rocknrule]

1. Nothing can satisfy Bushler's thirst for human blood

Not 3000 Americans, not 2000 American troops, not 100000s of Iraqis, probably not even 6 BILLION HUMANS!

[rodeodance]

2. sabble rattling. Even Bush would not be this stupid

[shraby]

3. Yes he would.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I hope you're right...but I didn't think Bush & Co. would have been

stupid enough to get America into an all-out invasion and occupation of Iraq when almost all of his daddy's advisers knew it was a bad idea.

[CoffeeCat]

5. I don't see how this could possibly happen...

Unless we have an administration that will completely ignore the American people--then Iran will not happen.

They couldn't ignore the American people regarding the ports deal. We have to coalesce the same uproar when it comes to Iran.

I just don't see how he could pull off another sick war--when it is clear that the first one is a total failure. Most Americans are very unhappy with Iraq. They don't like how it's siphoning money from the US and they don't like our soldiers dying for a cause that is worsening by the minute.

I can't imagine that the public would buy into this!

My husband--a cynical liberal--said, "Who are you kidding? Bush doesn't care what his polls are. He will do what he damn well pleases. He doesn't care who likes it. He doesn't care what his polls are." I tend to agree somewhat. However, he can't do it without the approval of Congress--and there's no way in hell this is going down before the 06 elections.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I can't visualize American standing for this.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. I doubt that he is planning a direct land invasion

but a bombing campaign seems quite possible. As crazy as it sounds to go nuclear (smaller than usual nuclear bombs, but still nuclear) -- they might be operating from the notion that that is the only certain way ending Iran's nuclear program. They probably think that such a move would gain reflexive support once it is carried out and that many Dems would be afraid of appearing unpatriotic if they should openly denounce it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. kik

[FrenchieCat]

8. Bush IS stoopid enough to do this.......

Definetly!