Michael Perelman wrote:
Yes, Bush lackes a pretext. Let's say a military barracks gets bombed
or something less extreme. Bush rallies the public. He returns as
commander in chief. Remember Mencken about underestimating the
intelligence of the American public.
But it is too early for such things. Wait till Sept. or Oct.
Or perhaps sooner...
From TalkLeft: [Blitzer interview with Hersh on CNN]
Full transcript here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/09/le.01.html
Video links @
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Late-Edition-Hersh-Iran-4-9-06.wmv
or Quicktime: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Late-Edition-Her.mov
BLITZER: Well, what do you think? Given the enormous military
headaches the United States now has in Iraq, does the U.S. military have
the wherewithal to launch another preemptive strike, this time against Iran?
HERSH: Oh, sure. We have plenty of air power. We can do it. We have
great precision bombings. There's been a lot of planning going on. It's
more than planning, it's operational planning. It's beyond contingency
planning. There's serious, specific plans. Nobody's made a decision yet.
There hasn't been a warning order or an execute order. But the
planning's gotten much more intense and much more focused.
However, there seems to be a certain degree of 'stalling for time':
U.S. Tries to Dampen Talk of Iran Strike
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 34 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran
The White House on Sunday sought to dampen the idea of a U.S. military
strike on Iran, saying the United States is conducting "normal defense
and intelligence planning" as President Bush seeks a diplomatic solution
to Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program.
Administration officials — from President Bush on down — have left open
the possibility of a military response if Iran does not end its nuclear
ambitions. Several reports published Sunday said the administration was
studying options for military strikes; one account raised the
possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.
Britain's foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike
"completely nuts."
<...>
However, Sy Hersh has this to say in the interview:
JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: The idea of a nuclear strike on
Iran is completely nuts.
BLITZER: He didn't mince any words: "completely nuts" in his words. You
want to react to that?
HERSH: Well, what he didn't say -- he didn't deny that there's serious
planning about the military strike is the point. I mean, he's absolutely
right about a nuclear option, but there is serious planning for a
conventional war.
<...>
The AP article also includes some quotables from some notables:
Some great quotes such as:
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy
our strong ally Israel," the president said last month in Cleveland.
"That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a
threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it
clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally.""
and:
"Vice President Dick Cheney told the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC
last month,"
Oy vey!
Leigh
http://leighm.wordpress.com/
