If you plan on perusing lefty websites today, I highly recommend you put on a hazmat suit and take along a Geiger counter. Also, please make sure you’re wearing a good pair of cowboy boots because not only is it getting thicker and deeper than usual in moonbat land, but many of the denizens of the fever swamps have detonated their own weapon of mass stupidity regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States to destroy the underground infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program.
I personally think military action to take out Iranian nukes is self-defeating. But don’t tell the Iranians that. In fact, the more uncertain President Ahmadinejad is about our intentions, the better.
This little stratagem about keeping the Iranians guessing about our intentions seems to be lost on our rabid dog left wing who have swallowed what is almost certainly a deliberately planned leak on our military options against the mullahs and regurgitated the most hysterical nonsense this side of the Scooter Libby story:
John Aravosis: “Bush is out of control.”
Kevin Drum: “It may or may not be a bluff, but the PR campaign for an air strike against Iran is clearly moving into high gear.”
The Mahablog: “Our President, George W. Bush, has a messiah complex…”
HuffPo: “Imagine the unimaginable: George Bush becoming the first president to use nuclear weapons on another state since Harry Truman, and get this, without even declaring war.”
May we have a little sanity please? Dan Reihl:
To not plan for a possible military option as regards Iran’s nuclear program would be foolish. Emphasis my own, of course one plans for many contingencies. Said planning is as much a part of the diplomatic dialog as anything else and Think Progress and the AP are basically carrying the White House’s water by spreading the report. Too bad they can’t do it less sensationally.
Mr. Reihl tries valiantly to correct the record on what exactly Sy Hersh said in his anonymously sourced article but I fear he is getting the same result as whippoorwill singing in a whirlwind:
We don’t need mushroom clouded brains thinking about and discussing options for Iran just now. We need reasoned debate on a topic which poses a serious risk to world peace. An oil-rich country with no current need for nuclear energy appears determined to develop a nuclear capability, after having declared their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
No reasonable nation has gone on record as suggesting stopping them is a bad thing, most find it necessary. Planning for that is the prudent step. Characterizing it as demon, warmongering Bush taking up nuclear arms to confront Iran is not only silly, it’s harmful and misleading for the necessary discussion at hand.
Actually, Think Progress has a good round-up of a series of leaks in the past couple of weeks all designed to make the Iranian leadership very, very uncomfortable. Despite their bluster about nothing being able to stop their efforts to develop their “peaceful” use of nuclear energy, the fact is they are scared witless about an American strike. They realize that the military would insist on not only taking out their nuclear infrastructure but also their air defense system and probably their naval capabilities as well. Saddam never did fully rebuild his air defense system following the punishment it took during the Gulf War in 1991. And the Iranians need their navy in order to project the kind of regional hegemony to which they aspire.
One thing for sure; these leaks are putting enormous pressure on the domestic political situation in Iran which now pits the radicals who have pretty much taken over all top government positions against the not-so-radicals who used to run things and are mightily upset that Ahamdinejad has blown their nuclear cover and bollixed things up on the international stage so that Iran is once again a pariah nation:
Many Iranians are critical of Ahmadinejad’s forays into international affairs and his diplomatic blundering. The most intense and meaningful criticism has come from relatively centrist figures who represent an older generation of politicians – former Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, for example. They have spoken out against the undoing of their work, particularly the painstaking restoration of Iran’s relations with the international community.[...]
The international isolation Iran is facing due to its intransigence has contributed to the growth of fissures within Iran’s body politic. In an effort to end public debate on this subject and criticism of the executive, Rafsanjani announced at a March 8 meeting of the Assembly of Experts – a popularly elected body of 86 clerics tasked with supervising the supreme leader – that it was time for national unity in the face of “enemy” plots. Divisive comments, he said, undermined national unity.
The next day, Ahmadinejad accused unnamed Iranians of being agents of an enemy trying to divide the country. These efforts, he continued, were connected with the desire to undermine Iran’s nuclear pursuits. And on March 10, Friday prayer leader Hojatoleslam Ahmad Khatami’s sermon in Tehran, which was broadcast across the country by state radio, shed light on the political coloring of the call for unity. Khatami (no relation to the former president) noted that the current nuclear policy was not Ahmadinejad’s alone and had been shaped years earlier. “The decision was first taken during the previous government’s term of office. The current government is implementing the same decision now.” As for domestic critics, he said, “When the time comes, the great Iranian nation will give a harsh response to the insiders who move in the same direction as the enemies, just as it has given decisive responses to foreigners.”
And into this charged up atmosphere comes the anti-Bush forces screaming, in effect, that it is unfair not to tell Iran that we have no intention of using nuclear weapons or initiate a military strike of any sort. The left calls this “confidence building” – which is a pretty good descriptive except the only people’s confidence such a tactic builds is our own domestic moonbats whose opinion and confidence in their own superior moral certitude is affirmed. Meanwhile, our enemies snicker behind their hands and keep building their nuclear capability.
This past week has seen the Jack-in-the-Box left in all of it’s glorious moonbattery jumping up and down over a story that not only has been reported before but which promises to actually vindicate Bush in his denial that he ever told anyone to leak Valerie Plame’s name.
Given what’s at stake in Iran, I would hope that whatever the Administration decides to do about it, most of us from both the right and left would be supportive. I honestly don’t think the military option is in play in any serious way. Only if we discovered that Iran was closer to building a bomb than we thought or if they gave reliable indications that they were planning on using such a weapon against Israel or the United States would we go with a military option.
And there is absolutely zero chance – zero, zip, nada – of the US using nuclear weapons on Iran. Even with nukes that will detonate below the surface, there is going to be massive radioactive fallout drifting toward Russia – something I’m sure would cause President Putin to cancel his membership in the Official US Fan Club.
But for the loony left, it’s just one more way to bash Bush. So let them have their fun. It’s actually playing into the Administration’s strategy to give the Iranians pause and make them realize we can cause serious damage to both their military infrastructure and political unity.
8:02 am
Looks like you are in denial regarding the intentions of george and co. My suggestion is that you do as many of us on the right and the left are doing, and get in touch with your congressmen and women and tell them to reign in the real and proven moonbats: george, dick, condi, rummy, and also give them the go ahead for impeachment. Have a good one!
8:13 am
The left is in a total panic. The release of the captured documents has made fools and liars of the entire crowd. The one particular document showing Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the us six months prior to 9-11-01 has been translated by many different people with the exact same result. Add the fact Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa and the coordination between Iraq and Osama and that proves that the president was the only one telling the truth. Sort of shoots the ‘lied us into war’ strategy of the left down doesn’t it?
As for the plan to attack Iran with Nuc’s that would be an absulate truth (a plan has always existed), but the rest of the hype about the president should be disregarded solely based on who it came from , (Hirsh) and his failure to identify one of his sources. Have you heard of any mass resignations at the pentagon? No source identified makes any and all statements a probable lie. Have you not learned that lesson yet, if it’s printed/broadcast by any of the antique MSM there’s a 99.44/100 % chance it’s a lie.
8:20 am
Steve won’t have many supporters when the documented facts sink into the feeble minds of even the lefties. Only the same rabid left wing anti-american moonbats, howling at the moon and wearing the tinfoil hats will still be out in left field digging in the sewer. The left wing spin has lost it’s energy since the majority of the antique MSM is/or are going bankrupt.
8:57 am
... OK, nobody really wants to see another war, especially not one fought with nuclear weapons. Trouble is, sometimes you don’t have any good choices and I’d much rather see a mushroom cloud over Tehran than Ft. Worth. I voted for George Bush because I knew he’d do a better job of keeping my daughter and grandson safe from the jihadis than that other idiot would have. I don’t expect to see him let Iran get nukes and I don’t expect to see him leave the Iranian problem for someone else to deal with, or not deal with, when he leaves office. Short of the Iranian people rising up and throwing out their jihadi government I just can’t see any hope for a peaceful solution to this.
...
12:05 pm
So what would really scare the shit out of the left?
There’s story floating around has notable hand wringer, anti-American, pro-death of US soldiers, pro-embarrassment of the United States, peace monger Seymour Hersh finding out that the Bush administration has included a nuclear option for dealing wit…
12:31 pm
Rick,
As someone who disagrees with many of your positions, but who is also deeply respectful of the notion of a free-market competition of ideas, and who has no inclination to doubt the underlying motivations of my political opponents, may I make a simple request?
Lose this incredibly boring, and self-defeating tendency to lace all your comments with the standard junior-high school-level insults to those of us on the other side of the issues. They serve no purpose other than to make you sound juvenile, and unserious, when in fact you often have some interesting ideas. Who is going to bother picking through the sewage to find your pearls of wisdom?
You are a strange character. You clearly have the capacity to operate on a fairly high level, but you establish a site called the “nut house”, and seem deeply motivated to live up to that name. Whats up with that? Nut jobs are a dime a dozen, and the last thing that this country needs is more useless noise in our political discourse. And when smart people seem to actually aspire to be dumber than they actually are,,,, well, I just don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish.
2:19 pm
[...] Quite a few people seem to be all a-twitter about Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker about Mr. Bush’s plans to use nuclear weapons to end Iran’s nuclear weapons development program. I was going to to a complete round-up of my own but I see that it’s been ably done for me by Rick Moran and Joe Gandelman. [...]
4:45 pm
Hersh: Bush Plans On War With Iran UsingTactical Nukes (UPDATED)
A new, troubling story in the New Yorker from investigative reporter Seymour Hersh — who has had a pretty good track record in recent years — says President George B…
5:40 pm
The Iran Calculus
Has Ahmadinejad miscalculated? Does Iran want war? Has Bush gone too far in reports claiming that the Administration is planning nuclear strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities? Or, are we so devoid of actual news that we’re relying upon idle …
5:46 pm
Some people are obsessed with impeachment talk. Well, here’s some impeachment talk from me, though probably not the kind the Left wants to hear:
If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, I will support the impeachment of whichever President is in the White House at that time.
8:07 pm
So, Steve,
What are your grounds for impeachment? You don’t like the guy? You think he’s an idiot? You think he screwed up? You think he lied?
Check the grounds for impeachment in the Constitution…ain’t there bud….
Have a good one…..
8:27 pm
[...] Rick Moran [...]
2:03 pm
The Iranians are trying to get away with as much as possible given the world climate. They beat their chest to show how defiant they are to the west. The only thing they understand is fear. So long as we back up what we say, we stand a greater chance to push these two bit countries into their corners. The left has caused our enemies to mock us because they see us as divided and hence, wishy-washy. If Iran gets away with anything, thank those cowards on the left.
10:24 pm
As a certifiable left-wing crazy, I just hope you’re right about this one.
—Rick Taylor
2:43 am
You guys are amazing, you sit there telling us what a great military strategist Bush is when one prominent general after another is telling us that these guys are a bunch of screw-ups and that Rumsfeld should be fired. Anthony Zini says your genius administration ignored a decade of military planning for invading Iraq which took into account all of the terrible things that have happened to date.
Then you want us to believe that Sy Hersh is a wack-job making this stuff up, or is unwittingly being used. When Hersh reports every major news outlet in the world covers the story. We’re not talking about Jason Blair here. Of course everyone knows that Rightwing Nuthouse is the place to get the straight story.
And you call us moonbats…
10:45 am
I’m a very hard liberal, can’t bash President Jr hard enough or often enough
Having said that, I part company with my fellow libs about this issue
I’m in agreement with Rick’s overall view, that any US military strike on Iran will be self-defeating, and there will be absolutely NO nuclear strike against Iran
First off, there’s more anxiety on the part of the Iranian Mullahs now than at any time since the Shah’s overthrow, as the majority of Iranians weren’t even born at the time Khomeini came back to Iran in 1978. The citizens are growing increasingly restless with their theological overlords, and present a REAL opportunity for change from the current regime’s day-to-day operations
More & more, the Iranians are standing up to, and challenging, the Mullah’s tightfisted grip on power
A US Military strike would have the disastrous effect in that it would rally enough of the citizenry to their leaders to be able to marginalize those still speaking out for more freedoms in Iran
Let’s look at this with some logic
The first target Iran would retaliate against if it was hit, would be the US troops in Iraq-they’re already battling a Sunni insurgency, Shiite militias/death squads and foreign terrorists going into Iraq for real-world terrorist training. I’d say, and I’m thinking most of the politicains on Capitol Hill would say, that the US Troops in Iraq already have more than enough to worry about without adding Iran to the mix
But there’s two other reasons why any military strike is just rhetoric
Russia & China
Russia’s got Iran on board as a major business partner, and the nuclear might to dissuade the US from launching any military strike, let alone a nuclear one
China would present even more of a problem, as not only do they have nuclear missiles, but a devastating nonmilitary weapon as well
China is one of the largest holders of US debt currently (only Japan holds more US debt), and all they would have to do is tell the Administration that it would be such a shame if they weren’t able to buy up US notes anymore when auctioned off by the US Treasury Dept.
And since I post like you do Rick-taking hard shots at the other side while doing more analysis than emotion for a particular post, and rather numerous profanities-I say don’t change your style at all
If your post is well-written, people will still process it no matter how many other shots-hard, cheap or otherwise-you take at your opposition
So, while I’ll disagree with much of your asides in this particular post, I completely agree with your overall point about there being, logically, NO military or nuclear strikes against Iran
And I thank you for making the soapbox available-via Comments-to all interested enough to share their views, as there can never be enough free speech
11:51 am
So lets see who’s working with Bush and who’s working against him here. He wants to put the fear of God into the Iranians, by getting them to think that even after the disaster of Iraq he is nuts enough to consider a military strike against Iran. Tough sell, but give him points for trying.
Now Hersh and the left are saying we should take this threat seriously, thereby strengthening Bush’s hand with the Iranians.
Meanwhile, the rightwing nuthouse and other erstwhile Bush allies are reassuring the world that Bush isn’t really serious about this, and that it’s all a bluff. Sounds to me like an unpatriotric betrayal of the interests of the U.S. that will weaken the President’s position in these dangerous times.
With friends like these…
4:15 pm
Rick – I’ve read your commentary and the comments on your commentary, and since there is no reason seen in any of that to believe that any amount of logic presented in opposition to your argument will sway you or any of your fellow rightists, I’ll just ask you to ask yourself a question (it actually becomes several questions before it’s over). You don’t have to answer it here, but I hope you’ll answer it for yourself, in the privacy of your own thoughts.
What if Bush does what he says he’ll do with all this sabre-rattling? What if he does bomb or otherwise invade or attack Iran, thereby setting in motion the consequences that you term “self-defeating”, and that we on the “reality-based” side of the aisle believe will likely lead to something not unlike a world war?
Would that finally be enough for you? Would you at long last have to admit that, yeah, Bush really is as much a madman as we on the left think he is?
Or would you, as so many of your fellows do, find a way to justify even this piece of insanity somehow?
We (and I use the collective advisedly) reached that point – where we could no longer think Bush was merely opposed to us, but genuinely deranged – a long time ago. So I’m just curious – how mad does he have to be before people who think like you finally can’t deny it any longer?
And in reply to one of your commenters, nukes over Ft. Worth? Does it occur to you what would have to happen before that would even be possible? It would require a total breakdown of every single defense system this country has. And while Bush is trying to get there (total breakdown of our nation in so very many ways), he hasn’t yet. I sincerely hope he’s stopped before he does.
9:04 am
No responses to my #18 post – I guess you’ve lost interest in the topic of Bush’s sanity and World War III. Either that, or you see the signs that the rest of us are seeing, that this madman in the White House is indeed going to try to plunge us into another war, probably with nukes.
Let me make a few predictions, not that there seems any evidence that anyone is reading this thread:
1) Bush is indeed going to attack Iran, some time before the November elections, and most likely in September or October. How he will do so is unclear, but I’d be willing to bet that he wants – WANTS
– to be the first US president since Harry Truman to use nuclear weapons against another country.
2) He is going to do one of two things to justify it: either the broadly-worded original AUMF against Iraq, or NOTHING - he will simply assert that as C in C, he has the legal right to do it just on his say-so.
3) When January 2009 rolls around, or perhaps even November 2008, he will either suspend the presidential election or if the election goes ahead, refuse to relinquish power and try to stay in office.
Outlandish predictions, eh? Outrageous? Impossible in America? Well, I am so certain that some of these things, and perhaps all of them, are going to come to pass, that I hereby give my email address for anyone who reads this to write to me directly and tell me what a complete left-wing loony I am. But you have to wait till after the time frame has passed, to see whether I’m right or not. Just saying my predictions are nuts is not good enough until you see if it happens as I predict. Here’s the address: radicalleftie at aol dot com.
The gauntlet is thrown. If I’m wrong, there is no one in the world who will be happier to be so. If I’m right – well, it’s pretty obvious what it means if I’m right, isn’t it?
9:07 am
And one last thing, then I’m just going to sit back and see if anyone has the courage of his or her convictions (See: George Ryan Sr., among many others):
Never in all my life did I ever expect to see the writing of a person to whom the term “peacemonger” was intended as an insult. What is WRONG with you people?