Relax! NY Times: Four officials deny report U.S. considers nuking Iran

[Imagevision]

An article set for Sunday's edition of the New York Times calls into question a magazine article which claims that the U.S. is considering a nuclear attack against Iran, RAW STORY has found.

"One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites," wrote Seymour Hersh for New Yorker magazine.

Along with relying on claims from unnamed officials to refute the article, the Times adds that some critics see Hersh as "too eager to report assertions critical of the government that are difficult to fully substantiate."

four Pentagon, military, and administration officials who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran and who were granted anonymity to speak candidly rejected the article's contention that the Bush administration was considering nuclear weapons in a possible strike against Iran.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_Four_officials_deny_report_0408.html

[Notoverit]

1. Is Judith Miller back then?

[Imagevision]

2. (?)

[me b zola]

3. Not buying it

Sounds alot like their ramp up to Iraq. On one hand they would say that they were pursuing a diplomatic solution but at the same time would have other mouth pieces making the case for war. I see the same happening here.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. And you believe those four unnamed U. S. officials because......?

[OregonBlue]

5. Note that they are not considering "nuclear" weapons in a possible

strike. They are of course considering a strike. They really are going to get us in to still another war!!

[annabanana]

6. Just "trust me"

Anyone who takes this crap at face value should be incarcerated.

[jmowreader]

7. And this means the Bush administration will definitely nuke Iran

The United States is the only nation to have ever employed a nuclear weapon against another country.

However, when we nuked Japan we were already in the middle of a very bloody war against them.

I can almost justify using nuclear weapons in that situation. And if the enemy is loading a nuclear bomb onto their plane for immediate deployment, then nuking the airfield while the plane's still there is definitely justifiable.

But you Never. Ever. In a million years. START A WAR with a nuclear weapon.

Oh God, I think this fucking moran Bush really is the Antichrist.

[peekaloo]

8. FumbleFuckWit has been itching to use a nuk-yu-lar dee-vice and unless

saner heads prevail I imagine he will.

:-(

[DeepModem Mom]

9. From the NY Times article re. Seymour Hersh's article --

"...four Pentagon, military and administration officials who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran and who were granted anonymity to speak candidly rejected the article's contention that the Bush administration was considering nuclear weapons in a possible strike against Iran."

"'The article contains information that is inaccurate,' said Michele Ness, a spokeswoman for the Central Intelligence Agency. She declined to elaborate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html

IMO, the New York Times has given us little reason to trust unnamed sources quoted in their pages, or government officials, more than Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker.

[radfringe]

10. unnamed officials????

"four Pentagon, military, and administration officials who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran and who were granted anonymity....rejected the article's contention that the Bush administration was considering nuclear weapons in a possible strike against Iran

===========

that tears it for me -- when do we invade? bush*'s numbers are in the toilet, and expected to go even lower... repugs are running away from him, scottie's spin ain't working very well (except among kool-aid drinkers)

so we have a terror attack or one that was thwarted at the last moment (with credit to illegal wire tapping), blame it on Iran, bush*'s numbers go up and we invade (nukes or not)