Marvin Gandall wrote:
The odds of deploying more ground troops in another invasion I think are practically nil. But my sense is that air power is being seriously considered as a militarily "safe" option, especially if there is confidence in the efficacy of tactical nuclear weapons. The big dilemma the Bush administration will have to weigh up to the last is the political and economic fallout from a bombing campaign.
This morning, my favorite commentator stated: "Sy Hersh is right more often than George Bush lies." and even though I posted this last night, I'll reiterate: [...] Britain's foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike "completely nuts." <...> However, Sy Hersh has this to say in the interview: [Bltizer quoting, or video] 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. <...> Leigh http://leighm.wordpress.com/
