Bush Will Not Rule Out Nuclear Strike on Iran

By: Lowell
Published On: 4/19/2006 7:40:08 AM

This is stunning, even for George W. Bush.  Look, there's no question that Iran's nuclear ambtions are a problem, and how the world community deals with those ambitions is up for serious debate.  But can we just take off the table RIGHT NOW the threat of nuclear attacks on Iran?  Unfortunately, it appears we can't, at least if you ask President George W. Bush.  According to Reuters:

Asked if his options included planning for a nuclear strike, Bush said: "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so."

This is frightening and uncalled for.  Nuclear weapons have not been used in anger since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 61 years ago.  Now is certainly not the time to dust them off again and start using them.  What is Bush thinking?  IS he thinking, or has Dick "Torture" Cheney possessed his brain?

By the way, on another topic, does anyone think that Bush's shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic - moving the guy who's presided over the worst budget deficits in U.S. history to Chief of Staff; moving the trade representative who got nowhwere in trade negotations to be the new budget chief - is going to prevent the ship from going under?  Right, I didn't think so.  Just as nuking Iran is not going to solve any problems, only make them worse then ever.

Perhaps the Bush Administration's slogan should be:  if it ain't broke, we'll "fix" it (snicker, snicker); if it IS broke, we'll make it much, much worse!

Comments



Nuke 'em (Teddy - 4/19/2006 9:47:01 AM)
Bush et al have continuously fussed with the American nuclear arsenal and nuclear policy (see Bush's new treaty with India), and his crowd is in love with the idea of a nuclear bunker buster designed to penetrate several feet underground and take out hidden arsenals. They also are like kiddies with a new toy: must play with it, must play with it.

Everything Bush says about Iran reminds me of what he said about Iraq: try to solve "it" diplomatically, give the Iranians a chance to do what's right, etc, meanwhile attempting to encourage regime change... and all that when he has already decided on war. War just in time to affect the November elections, perhaps? Given the stretched military, the nuclear "option" may be the only one he really has left.



So what should we do with Iran? (jskirwin - 4/19/2006 1:37:42 PM)
Iran has said it could obliterate Israel with a single nuke. It says that going nuke is its right. And the current President converses with the 13th (Hidden) Iman.

What should we do with Iran?



I agree that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable (Lowell - 4/19/2006 9:36:44 PM)
...but I'm not sure what to do.  Ideally, the world would be unified and impose stringent economic sanctions aimed at the Iranian regime. However, we - and that's pretty much all of NATO this time - don't have Russian or Chinese support, it appears.  That doesn't leave many options, now does it?  I'd love for someone to explain to me how a nuclear Iran is not a bad thing for US interests, and for nuclear non-proliferation in general.  I'd also love for someone to tell me how we prevent Iran from going nuclear without using force, if we can't get the Russians and Chinese on board for sanctions.  I honestly don't know, but I DO know that it's a bad idea for regimes like Iran's, North Korea's, and other state sponsors of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.