So Sy Hersh Says That Bushco Is Planning To Nuke Iran

[cali]

Those infernal bastards. In the new issue of the New Yorker, Sy Hersh states that the admin is going to nuke Iran's nuclear facilities, and that quite a few in the Pentagon are seriously upset about it. No one has better sources within the Defense Dept. and the Pentagon than Hersh. I don't know how this can be stopped. but it must be stopped and Democrats and sane Repubs in the Congress must stand up and denounce this insanity. I've contacted my Congressional reps on this. I hope everyone will do so.

[PerceptionManagement]

1. link anywhere?

[cali]

2. Link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary

[maddezmom]

14. link to The New Yorker article

thanks to bananas
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[EVDebs]

43. William Arkin disclosed this as Conplan 8022 last year May '05

Nuclear War against Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
January 3, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

and also disclosed by Wm. Arkin of Codenames fame last year as Conplan 8022

Not Just A Last Resort?
By William Arkin. Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page B01 ... CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html

( this site may be down, why I don't know, so try this one as a reprint
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20060102&articleId=1704 )

I'm impressed with this part in the article:

""But the global strike contingency plan cannot be a credible threat if it is not publicly known. And though CONPLAN 8022 suggests a clean, short-duration strike intended to protect American security, a preemptive surprise attack (let alone one involving a nuclear weapon option) would unleash a multitude of additional and unanticipated consequences. So, on both counts, why aren't we talking about it?""

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. But using nukes as part of long term strategic foreign policy is new

Ellis posed the following question to his audience: "If you can find that time-critical, key terrorist target or that weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpile, and you have minutes rather than hours or days to deal with it, how do you reach out and negate that threat to our nation half a world away?"

They're now saying "if you have years rather than hours or days to deal with it, can we just use our nukes anyway?" Contemplating using nuclear weapons as an alternative to international talks really is new. It would surely count as aggressive war. If it happened, I think I'd demand that my country (the UK) seize the US nuclear subs stationed here, and the surrender of all US forces on UK soil. If they didn't, I'd join in an attack on the US bases - I think we'd have to do it for the safety of the world. If someone didn't remove the US government who'd ordered such a thing, we'd have to consider ourselves at war with the US. Frightening stuff.

[YouthInAsia]

57. I agree. Its time for the people of this country to STAND UP AND FIGHT

revolution if this occurs? I say yes, it has to happen. This could be the end of this country as we know it.

[The Straight Story]

65. Look for an enabling attack here first to win support

A nuke in US or close allies (England or some place like France even) followed by threats against more targets. People will be pressuring regime to do something to save us, then bam. Poll numbers go up, etc (or they could decimate some city that is heavily dem before election, helping to tip votes in rest of state, etc).

[YouthInAsia]

68. yeah, they'll probably pull another 9/11 and get the quivering

sheep all huddled in fear. That'll get the support of the idiots here in america. How is it possible that we're so easy to "play." How sad.

[EVDebs]

62. Not really "new". Dr Kissinger proposed this limited nuclear stuff

back in his early years, which got him into the government circles to begin with (I believe through Gov. Rockefeller). He is the prototype for Dr Strangelove according to some:

""But anyway, there are several major guesses as to who provided the basis
for Strangelove. The favorite seems to be Henry Kissinger, a former
Harvard professor who served as Secretary of State for Presidents Nixon
and Ford. At the time of STRANGELOVE's production, Kissinger was at
Harvard, and had written at least two books on nuclear war by 1960. (One
was published by the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a Book-of-
the-Month selection.) In his books, Kissinger argued for various
"strategies," including limited nuclear war, tactical nuclear weapons,
etc.""

Just who WAS Dr. Strangelove, really?
http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q06.html

Although Kubrick denies that Dr K was the inspiration for Strangelove at

""...Both Kubrick and Sellers denied that Dr.Strangelove was inspired by Henry Kissinger. Sellers said, "Strangelove was never modeled after Kissinger, that's popular misconception. He was always Wernher Von Braun. But the one gloved hand that kept rising to salute, well, the man was a Nazi. That idea just came to me, it was entirely spontaneous. And Stanley stopped everything and shot the gesture with three cameras."""

http://www.moviediva.com/MD_root/reviewpages/MDDrStrangelove.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Who did Kissinger want to use the nuke on? (n/t)

[EVDebs]

86. Vietnam. Part of his and Nixon's "madman" theory

Described in Hersh's Price of Power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. But that was after the USA has started fighting Vietnam, wasn't it?

The equivalent of this would be nuking North Vietnam in 1958 or so - before any acknowledged fighting between the US and North Vietnam. This is proposing nuking a country because it is suspected of arming itself.

[EVDebs]

88. Dr K wrote about 'limited nuclear war' in the early '60s.. pre-war

[nonconformist]

3. Holy fucking shit!

What wonderful news to wake up to! Christ, I'm speechless.

K & R.

[cali]

4. Sorry.

I actually held off posting this for a while because when I read it I felt like I'd been sucker punched. I hate posting something so depressing, but it is important.

[nonconformist]

5. VERY important. Thanks for posting it. nt

[0007]

30. I agree. It puts the mind in motion with full attention on the sickness

of this administration. Another tragic mistake is in the making, this one may be bigger than the last mistake and perhaps this will be the last mistake for humanity.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Stop the World, I want to get off.

:-(

[PCIntern]

6. Yeah, this just gets better and better...

Makes me wish the good old days of the Cuban Missle Crisis...this whole thing reminds me of the line in the film RED OCTOBER uttered by no less a luminary than soon-to-be-senator Fred Thompson R-Gravelly Voice), where he watches a plane crash on his deck and he says that this situation is "out of control".

[file83]

69. From that article, listen to what one "House member" said:

Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

We are SO screwed with this guy in charge.

[cali]

70. Yes. That is by far the scariest

aspect to his personality, particularly combined, as it is, with overwhelming hubris and a near total lack of curiosity. It's a deadly mix.

[Marie26]

76. The scariest part,

to me, is that Iran's President also has a messianic complex. So both are more than willing to create nuclear war to bring about the return of their respective messiahs. It's like the two forms of fundamentalism finally coming to a head.

[sheelz]

82. This is scary!

"It's like the two forms of fundamentalism finally coming to a head."

Finally???? Is that something you wish for? :spank:

[Marie26]

83. That's right

Oh, yes, everyday I think about how much I want us to start a nuclear war. You've discovered my secret agenda.

[C_U_L8R]

7. If BushCo goes Nuke

The entire world will rise up against them (and us with them)

[KarenS]

8. I so don't want to believe this,,,,,

:cry:

but all the signs are there.

:cry:

[Meldread]

9. At least ONE Dem?

"In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said."

Fifty Bucks says it's LIEberman.

[cali]

12. My money's on Jane Harmon

but I doubt we'll ever know.

[BiggJawn]

29. No, Steve Buyer

He wanted to Nuke Afghanistan and Iraq.

[EVDebs]

46. Talks 'in camera' and closed session. Will prosecute leakers.

AUMFs giving Bush 'as he determines' powers, which contradict the War Powers Act of 1973, effectively shortcircuits Congressional notification and participation. Besides, any whim or fabrication Bush comes up with will be rubberstamped, its clarity and truthfulness left unexamined, again in violation of WPA73

[YouthInAsia]

58. I say is Lieberman too. And my mom concurs.

[Terran1212]

61. How many Dems WOULD vote against bombing Iran?

Not many. We lack doves in the senate.

[cali]

63. I think you're way off base.

I don't think any dems would go along with nuking Iran. None. Zip. Nada. And yes, I'm including Lieberman and Ben Nelson. I also think there are at least a dozen repubs who would vote against it. You're seriously misreading the Senate of 2006 if you believe they'd go along with this. Hell, half of them voted against the IWR, and that vote was in Dec. 2002, little more than a year after 9/11. Resistance to granting bush any leeway has grown, not lessened. Anyway, who'd vote for what is a moot question. He'd bypass the Congress.

[SOS]

66. No vote needed

The imbeciles who voted to authorize Bush the sole determination to attack Iraq, also allowed for this.
The IWR covers "terrorist nations". So if Bush says that Iran is supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, the IWR allows him to attack Iran.
There won't be any vote in the Congress.

[michael_1166]

10. Does anyone know if Bushco holds shares in

companies specialized in nuclear decontamination techniques? First creating the mess, then making money out of it?

[Nomen Tuum]

11. President Chucklenuts WANTS to start Armageddon

I wonder how Chucklenuts and his Bible Beating Boobs will feel when Iran blows Jerusalem and Tel Aviv off the map?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. And Israel blows every Arab capital and holy site

off the map... yeap... won't be pretty. I'd rather have those two go at it in a cold war.

[Deb]

13. Dear God no

I wouldn't believe this if it wasn't coming from Hersh. I'll write and call my Reps asap too, this madness has to stop.

[dogday]

15. We are considering nuking them because

they are considering building nukes... What a hypocrisy!!

[regnaD kciN]

16. Like father, like son...

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

Every time there's a middle-eastern country we want to attack, their leader suddenly becomes "another Hitler."

If Godwin's Law applied to politics, the Bushes wouldn't last five minutes. :eyes:

And, also...

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

And greet us with flowers, right?

Do these people ever learn??? :argh:

[cali]

19. No. They have no interest in learning.

One can only conclude that they want to instigate a worldwide conflagration, a final showdown between the forces of "good" and "evil". Oh, right. That's called Armageddon.

[Domitan]

17. Time for those upset in Pentagon and elsewhere to take action

Remember the movie, Dead Zone? Martin Sheen played the psychotic Presidential candidate who Christopher Walken's character foresaw as a planet killer. In one of Walken's visions, Prez Sheen ordered his top general to turn the second key necessary to initiate nuclear missiles against USSR. The general protested against this act of mass murder, but his fucking sense of duty overcame his sense of morality. He complied and turned the second key. Ka-boom went the planet not too long after that.

For the love of humanity, to those in the military and govt against all of this, don't cower back because you "have to listen to the Prez". Take the right and bold actions for all of our sake!

[Nomen Tuum]

73. Action? All of the military is brainwashed by Jesus

This is the organization that controls America's military!

http://www.forceministries.com/

They all are committed to "Christ-Centered" Duty, INCLUDING triggering Armageddon!

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

75. This is why we shouldn't have nukes in the US at all

Nuclear weapons + widespread Armageddon-centered theology = a very bad combination. The worst part is, the Bushies and their fellow nuts seem intent on forcing their own mad beliefs onto the rest of us as well.

[salin]

18. Only chance to stop it - imo, is sunlight

so much of the public now questions the credibility of bushco - and even more so in the international community. Were the administration put in the position to repeatedly have to deny such stories they would be further hamstrung from acting - something that wasn't true three to four years ago due to the public here wanting so badly to have a strong leader and rally behind that leader in the "post 911 world" that many were willing to suspend disbelief. Those days are long past. And bushco just seems to be figuring that out.

[AndyA]

20. Good grief - Bush is so stubborn, it's easy to see he's digging in his

heels about Iran. We know he won't pay any attention to what experts tell him. Even if they say this will start WWIII, he won't care. We must get this nutcase out of the White House.

I thought the comment that Bush views Iran's leader as Adolf Hitler was ironic, since many here and abroad view BUSH as Adolf Hitler.

This must be stopped!

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. What's the date on the issue of The New Yorker?

I have my March 20 and April 10 issues here and Hersh isn't in either. Is it next weeks issue? I always look for articles by Hersh when I get my New Yorker. I hope I didn't miss it. Can you give me the date of the issue? I'd love to read it.

This is the scariest thing I've heard about this regime and after Iraq this would be the WORST thing they could do. SURELY the Democrats know about this? SURELY they will impeach this guy before he can do anymore damage? I cannot see the Senate allowing this!

[cali]

23. It's the 4/17 issue.

You can read the article on line. Someone up thread has posted a link.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. I found it...thanks. n/t

[Lerkfish]

22. as recently as 4 months ago, I was called a tinfoil hatter for suggesting

this very thing.

as per usual, I see the writing on the wall, I mention it and get shot down for it, and it comes to pass anyways.

I'd much rather be wrong.

Bush should not be allowed to use fingernail clippers, much less anything "nukular"

[Slit Skirt]

24. you just have to keep posting....

no tinfoil hats here....just a strong dose of reality. Tin foil hatters will get their vindication...we seem to get validated little by little, day after day

[Lerkfish]

32. true. but I'd rather NOT be vindicated, if you know what I mean.

[Slit Skirt]

71. i know exactly what you mean...it would be nice to be wrong

[converted_democrat]

33. I don't think you're a tin foiler, I think you're a realist.. This is

making me sick.. I've known that they were capable, but I guess I wanted to believe that it wouldn't happen.. This isn't going to go over real well with the international community.. My other real fear is that if they are willing to nuke Iran, what will they be willing to do to the people here at home that don't agree with their stances and positions?? I fear for the people of Iran, but I fear for the people of America too.. I'd bet my last dollar they will try something to silence the dissent, and no one has any idea just how far they could truly go.. Iran is facing hard times, but the free thinkers in this country are facing hard times too.. I'd bet everything I own on it.. I fear for Iran, but I fear for the people of this nation too..

[Lerkfish]

41. fear for the entire world. once we go nuclear, all bets are off.

every country (or terrorist group) that has nukes, bioweapons may and probably will use them.

[cali]

35. And as one of those who may have

thought you were way off base to think we'd actually nuke Iran, I sincerely apologize.

[Lerkfish]

40. no apology necessary. I wish you were right, instead. I fear for all

if this warmonger goes nuclear, its all over. Life as we know it will have been irrevocably changed. Even if they succeed in cowing Iran, the race will be on to cow US, and it will be us against the rest of the world. It won't be pretty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. many of us have, that is the ONLY way we can

even possibly think of carrying this with a stretched military...

I will now say... the draft is not far behind this... WW III is clearly on the wall, BASTARDS

[Marie26]

25. I think it'll be soon.

I will call my Congressmen, but the sad part is that no one's asking them. They have no say. The Bush Admin. has already stated that the Afganistan War Resolution gives them the authority to expand into other countries in order to fight "the war on terror."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. That's a helluva good reason for Iran to make a preemptive strike.

Isn't the rationale that Bush is using against Iran? That Iran "might" pose a threat to us in 5 years? Yet, here we are caught planning a nuclear strike and they are expected to sit quietly by and let the holocaust begin.

Insanity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. We have a winner....

[femmedem]

27. No no no!

Sometimes I play a little game with myself: "What would be the most heinous thing the administration could do next?" And that's usually what they do.

But this is the worst yet. Unthinkable.

I'll definitely contact my reps. Thanks for posting.

p.s. If they think this will protect them from Fitz's investigation, they're wrong. I'm sure in my bones that they're going down.

[cali]

28. I hope you're right

about the Fitzgerald investigation. My bones aren't nearly as hopeful as yours, and btw, welcome to DU!

[femmedem]

45. My arthritic bones are very sensitive to the political weather!

And thanks for the welcome. :hi:

[mdmc]

36. No Nuclear War !

spread the word DU!

[pinniped]

37. Believe it, these punks are crazy enough to try anything.

Now we know why they are not concerned about the leak story. That will be a distant memory with shroom clouds rising all over the place.

[etherealtruth]

38. I can't even form a coherent response ...

... this is so horrendous.

What has this evil bastard done to my country that "we" would contemplate the use of nuclear weapons in such a cavalier manner?

I just can't take this.

[RedEarth]

39. George is like a vampire.... he needs blood

[Marr]

42. It's like they're TRYING to make the biggest mess they possibly can.

Nuking the Iranian nuclear sites. That's just brilliant. Not even a hint of arrogance or hypocrisy in that, oh no. I'm sure that'll build *tons* of international support.

[lonestarnot]

44. San dan donia!

[KyndCulture]

48. oh dear God...

this has me so rattled I'm crying... WTF???????

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Ah yes the smell of WW III in the mornnig

whoever is leaking to Sly Herrch deserves a medal

[TheFarseer]

50. Very bad news

They are still pushing for this. If you think we have won the fight against insanity, you are wrong. We are still fighting it. Just think, if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had a more pronounceable name, we would probably be at war with Iran right now. Hard to get an illegal war that doesn't make any sense drummed up without a villain.

[Pavulon]

54. 20lb sledge to kill a fly

Does anyone really think the us is going to use nuclear weapons to deal with a country that has zero ability to prevent a massive conventional strike.

There is no military reason that we need to use nukes. We can take, hold, and destroy buildings in Iran without the bomb. Iran does not have any real capability to prevent the us from turning off their power and communications, destroying their minimal air cover, and then prevent forces from destroying targets with conventional force. Including putting men on the ground to destroy targets.

Is their a plan somewhere that includes nukes, you bet, but I doubt it is a first strike plan.

This story is fox news like. Lite on fact, big on reaction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yes... yes they will

for many reasons, including the fact that our military is so stretched that we no longer have the capacity to HOLD on to territory for long. Moreover, Iran, unlike Iraq, has a military that is somewhat capable... and you know what? Once the boys in the Admin use nukes... we will have precious little time to debate... for guess what? At that moment WE ARE the pariah nation of the world.

Go ahead, and believe it is fox news lite... after all Sly Hersh has no record of credibity :sarcasm:

[Marie26]

78. Yeah, they would

You're expecting them to make sense. It's not about what's rational or needed, it's about what they want. Cheney wants to nuke Iran & has wanted that for awhile. Attacking Iraq didn't make any sense either, but they did it, because they wanted to. There's no questions about strategy or morality, the only motives are what we want & what we have the power to take. It's like a two-year-old's version of geopolitics.

[Neil Lisst]

56. cali, I have ZERO doubt Bush intends to bomb Iran - all nuclear sites

He is going to do it, probably somewhere between October, 2006 and February 2007.

[cali]

60. Well, Neil

then we have to stop him. I don't know how. I feel pretty damned impotent, but this simply cannot be allowed to happen.

[Neil Lisst]

89. I don't think he can be stopped.

Provoking an incident would be easy, and he'll probably do that.

Gulf of Tonkin 1964.

[Joe Fields]

59. I believe Bush is going to make nuking Iran a reality.

But, I believe that the ONLY justification to do so, and get support from here and abroad is if a devastating "event" happens on U.S. soil. THIS is what scares me.

[EVDebs]

64. If Iran simply let the Russians process the fuel this would blow over like

the Cuban missile crisis. Trouble is neither Bush nor Amadinajhad know how to "blink".

[wickerwoman]

80. And if Saddam had agreed to let in the inspectors

and if the Taliban had offered to hand over bin Laden we never would have gone to war there. Oh, wait, they did and we did anyway.

There is absolutely nothing on earth Iran can do (short of revealing the ability to hit U.S. targets with nuclear weapons) that will stop Bush from attacking. Bush has proven time and time again that he's after war first. Fulfilling his pretexts will just force him to find new ones.

[Marie26]

81. Why are we really doing this?

It's not the nukes, but what is their real motivation? I've seen lots of theories floating around, but no one seems to know for sure what the real motive is. Any ideas?

[wickerwoman]

84. I won't pretend to know for sure.

But I suspect a combination of goals:

1.) perpetual war means perpetual profits for the military-industrial complex. Things are winding down in Afghanistan and Iraq. There's not the same profit in feeding soldiers, buying bullets and building schools as there is in dropping enormous bombs on people. Plus a new war will give Bush a bounce in the polls and bump the Fitzgerald indictments off the front page.

2.) Iran opened a new bourse that trades oil in Euros instead of dollars. The fear is that the rest of OPEC will start trading oil in Euros and that will crash the U.S. economy which is being propped up by all the free/super-cheap goods we get in exchange for dollars that other countries buy so that they can get oil. (I think that's how it works, but I'm no economist.) We invaded Iraq shortly after they started trading oil in Euros.

3.) Iran is a major supplier of oil to Russia and now China. The Bushies are scared shitless at the prospect of China overcoming it's energy woes. It's only the lack of natural resources that's holding China back from modernizing even faster than it already has. They want to prevent the emergence of another super-power by squeezing China's fuel supply.

Probably half a dozen other things we won't know about for decades.

[ewagner]

72. I think we're misunderstanding the Congressional

(Seante and House Members) involvement with Bush on this issue. Bush's rationale behind involving some congresscritters and "at least one Democrat" is NOT to secure Democratic approval, but to serve as cover....

cover?

Sure, think about it...

WHEN NOT IF Bush attacks Iran, he can say that he did so "after consulting with Congress members from both political parties." He doesn't have to say that they

a: agreed with him, or
b: that they had ANY INPUT into the decision whatsoever

he only needs to say that they "were briefed".

This is how the sonofabitch works...he implies that he has support/consensus, when in fact it's all counterfeit.

[Marie26]

77. Exactly like the NSA program

"Congress was informed..." meaning 4 Senators were notified after the fact & sworn to secrecy.

[Nothing Without Hope]

74. From the New Yorker article - these people are truly insane:

Excerpt (link in Reply #14 upthread):

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

How could anyone possibly believe this? It's the possible spark to World War III. China and Russia would not sit silently by, and there are other countries on that list too.

[Seabiscuit]

79. "Sane Republicans"? An oxymoron.

[Land Shark]

85. Well this certainly will make anyone thinking about blowing whistle

on Bushco think twice about disclosure,,, don't want to put the administration 'over the edge' eh?