June 7, 2007
Republican Presidential Candidates Threaten Nuclear Bombing of Iran (Brent Budowsky)
The Republican presidential candidates have a big problem, which is why they spent the last debate criticizing George Bush.
Consider what these presidential candidates said about the incompetence, mismanagement and negligence of George Bush’s failures for the first four years of the Iraq war.
The core problem for Republican presidential candidates is this: They are forced to continue to support the escalation of the war, while they are forced to appeal to a hard-core, right-wing base that is far out of touch with American opinion.
What do they do? They start talking about the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran.
Everybody who believes this is what Americans want, a new war in the Middle East and our country dropping nuclear bombs, raise your hands.
Make no mistake: Iran is a problem and major multinational action to prevent Iran from being a nuclear power and from giving military aid to terrorist or hostile groups is needed.
Dropping nuclear bombs? This is certifiable, both as a lunatic policy idea and an example of why the United States has become so alienated in world opinion.
Throughout the free world, among America’s best friends, George Bush and his policies are widely despised at great damage to our credibility, our security and our worldwide role of moral leadership.
This kind of far-out, nut-case perversion of conservatism has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan and nothing to do with traditionally accepted policies that both Republican and Democratic presidents have historically agreed on.
What happens when the pundit-appointed savior of the Republicans, Fred Thompson, is asked to explain his desire for regime change in Iran and exactly how he expects to achieve it? Does he want another Middle East war, and which branch of the military service does he plan on using? If not, besides dinner-party talk for neoconservatives and their discredited ideas, what does he mean?
Does Fred Thompson really believe it is honorable, patriotic and moral to be lying under oath, or risking the lives of our covert agents fighting against terrorists, by disclosing their identities?
This latest business of Republicans seeking to follow George Bush as commander in chief — hinting, implying or threatening to drop nuclear bombs on Iran — is another example of a party totally divorced from national security reality and American public opinion.
Dropping nuclear bombs? If Republicans believe that is what Americans want in the post-Bush era, and if they believe that is the way for America to regain our leadership of the free world, that is the stuff that Democratic landslides are made of.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 23 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
When Iran refuses diplomacy Brent, what is the alternative? Go back and read what was being said about Reagan and his policies back in the 80's (you may have been one of those critics). It is the same thing they are saying about Bush's policy today. Sometimes leadership means standing alone when others cower. Reagan's results are now seen as visionary. Hmmm. Valerie Plume a covert agent? A little exagerated I would say. Her husband and Valerie were quite vocal and open about her job at the CIA. Americans understand the complexity of the Middle East and the need to get them connected with the rest of the world in a democratic way. Ridding the world of Sadam, Ahmadinejad, the Saudie Family are all goals for a lasting peace. Diplomacy will work for some, and military threats for others. You can't take threats off the table and at some point there has to be a consequence for Iran's threats toward the destruction of Israel. If we would have believed Hitler's threats and reacted, maybe a few lives would have been spared the brutality of his regime. Have we learned nothing?
Comment by Rich — June 7, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Stupidest post you've ever made. It may come to the point that Iran tries to nuke Israel. I really don't think that may happen but one never knows when our enemies are the real lunatics. Of course, you in all your liberal wisdom know better and feel that this relationship will lead to better things. I personally hope so, but these Islamic facists can't be trusted. So, I guess we'll see. In the meantime the only thing the democrats have proposed is higher taxes. Gee, that will really help us when we're under attack.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 7, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Boy we must have been watching two different debates. What was said prior to where you and your news pimp buddies always start out is that no option should be taken off the table.
You must have missed that part of the discussion because you had to get your dinner guest some more whine.
Comment by David Hamlin — June 7, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Keep in mind that Wolf Blitzer phrased the question as "…would you use tactical nukes against Iran."
He doesn't phrase the question like that to the democrats.
Comment by Cynical Geek — June 7, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
The Iraq war could have already been stopped.
The latest spending measure would have ended it by Sept 2008 and Bush's VETO would have ended it immediately.
Isn't that what many wanted anyway??
"Rubber Stamp" Democrats wanted the war to continue for ExxonMobil's sake.
Comment by Donald — June 7, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
The good part: all the studies indicate it will lead to Global Cooling. Talk about two birds with one stone!
Comment by Igor R. — June 7, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
The most obvious correlation is the fact all of these crazy-eyed Neocons calling for 'nuking' Iran have never served? What's more is the fact they were all draft dodgers, yellow bellies. In the case of the 'commander guy', 'The Decider", he was a draft dodger, went AWOL from the Guard, turned in to a drunk and coke-head, got born again, the wrecked a couple of companies handed to him on a silver platter, wrecked Texas, then wrecked America. If I'd had put my faith in him, voted for him, I guess I'd behave like Igoe, Robert and Rich. Because they got fooled, and fooled bad.
Comment by Chris in NM — June 7, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
America deploying missle technology that doesn't work against targets that don't exist mystifies — as well as terrifies — rational people throughout the world. Just consider this rough translation of what best buddies and sometime-soulmates Dubya and Vladimir probably said to each other recently.
Deputy Dubya Bush to Vladimir Putin:
"I have looked into your eyes, and my gut tells me and your soul that the missiles I want to place on your border don't theaten you and don't work anyway; so what makes you so upset over nothing?"
Vladimir Putin to Deputy Dimwit:
"I look in your eyes and I see neither brain nor soul. Either your demonstrated record of malicious mendacity means I can't trust your protestations of innocent intentions, which means that you will "pre-emptively" try and hit my country on purpose; or, your demonstrated record of technological incompetence means that your dysfunctional missiles will fall short of their imaginary targets and hit my country "by accident." Have I got that about right?"
Trying to talk sense with America's dipshit disgrace of a sub-literate "leader" must drive the intelligent and articulate leaders of other countries near to distraction. My goodness, but how sentient carbon-based life forms on Planet Earth, both domestic and foreign, long for January 21, 2009 — assuming a non-radioactive world lasts that long — when ostensibly some rare form of intelligence, competence, and veracity will once again occupy America's White House. This means Democrats, of course; not because they always get things right, but because they've never gotten things so outrageously wrong as the Republicans have — and all in only six short years.
Given all the talk about nuclear first strikes (on behalf of Israel, of course) by that rabble of Republicans running for idiot-of-the-moment (dis)honors, it should come as no surprise that the "word" of a Republican president (who shamelessly panders to the same rabid "base") doesn't go very far — if any distance at all — in a world where America's pompous posturing induces more retching than "confidence."
Comment by Michael Murry — June 7, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Well, the Republican candidates really don't have much choice, do they Mr. Budowsky? Most Republicans I'm sure would consider the use of nuclear weapons to be the last resort, but there is a small percentage that like the idea of mass murder as a "preventive measure" that are very loud and obnoxious, as evidenced on these various blogs. They're forced to throw those bloodthirsty dogs a bone in order to pick up as many votes as possible. Then, of course, due to the composition of the current Republican party, they have to turn around and declare how precious the life of every human being on earth is to them (nope, nothing ironic there!)
The "kill them all and let God sort them out" and "turn the Middle East to glass" radical mentality had to find a home somewhere, I suppose, but I think there are more than a few moderate Republicans out there that find it disturbing that it was with their party. As you say, that's what landslides are made of. Perhaps even the restructuring of the Republican party or emergence of a new one.
Comment by Derek D. — June 7, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Make no mistake: Iran is not a problem except that it (like Syria) refuses US hegemony in the Middle East and (unlike Syria) it has a lot of oil and gas which brings it to prime time. Iran won't toe the American line and so it has been in American crosshairs since Mossadegh.
Make no mistake: Iran has never threatened the destruction of Israel.
Make no mistake: Iran has every legal right to be a nuclear power and it has never been and is not a threat to any other country. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and has always been in compliance with it, even agreeing to additional protocols until Bush threatened nuclear attack in January 2006.
Make no mistake: Israel, Pakistan and India are non-signatories of the NPT but have nuclear weapons and so can be considered a current threat, unlike Iran.
Make no mistake: Two principal Dem presidential candidates, Clinton and Edwards, with Obama close behind, have also threatened nuclear attack with their 'all options are on the table' remarks–it isn't only the Repubs.
Make no mistake: Iran has been trying for years to negotiate with the US but the US has declined to talk, doesn't have any relations with Iran and has even kept the Iranian president from addressing the United Nations.
Make no mistake: Igor's sick joke that killing Iranian men. women and children is good for the environment is really sick, but I repeat, for emphasis. This is the sort of destructive inanity that causes people throughout the world to consider America itself as a sick joke. Thanks, Igor, for contributing to future editorial comments in Madrid, Berlin and wherever else your ugly American remarks may be read and republished. Or perhaps you're not an American–let's hope.
Comment by Don Bacon — June 7, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Maybe Iran needs to hear that if they keep up their antics there will be severe consequences. If Iran listens only to Democrats, it will think it can build up its nuclear arsenal with no pushback from the U.S.
Democrats want to wait until there is a mushroom cloud in Times Square before they take action.
Comment by John Simmons — June 8, 2007 @ 8:23 am
The GOP is no JFK. He had a nuclear stand-off also, and managed to end it without war.
With the GOP war is always the only option on the table.
Comment by W.D.Russell — June 8, 2007 @ 8:24 am
They're all scrambling for that AIPAC endorsement.
Comment by Frank — June 8, 2007 @ 8:38 am
Republicans: WRONG on Iraq
Republicans: WRONG on Iran
It is Conservatives,
who refuse diplomacy, reason, logic, facts, and substitute these things with LIES, with real conseqences and real harm for America.
Hey #1: When Bush refuses diplomacy Brent, what is the alternative? Clinton’s results are now seen as visionary.
Ridding the world of Bin Laden, Bush, the Saudi Family are all goals for a lasting peace.
Comment by OH — June 8, 2007 @ 9:03 am
For those with open minds and who want to know what President Ahmadinejad really said about Israel, you won't read it in US corporate media, you must go to a German article which describes Ahmadinejad's speech. In the speech the Iranian president quotes former Iranian leader Khomenei who said that the regime that occupies Palestinian lands must be removed.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
The later false charges that Ahmadinejad wants to 'raze Israel from the map' and 'destroy Israel' came from a perverted translation by the Zionist information agency MEMRI, which was founded in February 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence. This mis-information was picked up by the New York Times (naturally) and has been stupidly repeated ever since, most notably by chimpy, the idiot son of George: "But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course — (applause) — the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. 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, Israel (applause.)" –George W. Bush
The strong alliance Bush refers to is an unwritten pledge by the US government to defend Israel.
Iran has consistently said that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and has no intention of attacking any country. But the less intelligent among us will say: "They're lying, the truth is what Bush says they said". That about sums up US foreign policy (see Iraq).
Comment by Don Bacon — June 8, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Bush was claiming Iraq had an active nuclear program while U N inspectors were in Iraq and saying NO THEY Don't.
Bush and Company wanted war at all costs and the U N was making his gerrymandered intelligence reports showing just what the lies they were.
So Bush drove the U N Inspectors out of Iraq and invaded.
Comment by Donald — June 8, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Don, Ahmadinejad is simply a misunderstood civil engineer with a heart of gold. Or what is he???
Comment by Igor R. — June 8, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Mr. Budowsky. Next time you write an article about Iran, please explain very succinctly why "Iran is a problem" and why "we are not a problem."
Comment by Dieter Heymann — June 8, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Igor, I don't know Ahmadinejad personally, and probably neither do you. As far as I can tell he's similar to Bush, a not-very-bright guy taking orders from someone else, in his case the Grand Imam. His popularity is low just like Bush's, and nevertheless he seems to have the same 'I'm the best' attitude.
The debate should not be on what he is, but on the record and on the facts of what the US and Iran have done and are doing. This is important–the future of the planet may be at stake if a nuclear holocaust is unleashed. Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, it has defensive weapons including an array of cruise missiles that can send aircraft carriers to the bottom of the Persian Gulf with all hands. I don't think you take this seriously. War is a game to you; I guess you haven't seen it close up or thought about it much. What are you?
You can't deal with the issues, obviously, so you try to redirect the debate to personalities. How about Paris Hilton, while we're at it?
Comment by Don Bacon — June 10, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Dieter, when a mad fanatic is pointing a gun at you and you are at him, he is the problem, not you. If you believe that you're the problem, you will be destroyed by the fanatic and your opinion won't matter. Pacifism and/or hatred of the United States isn't a way forward.
Comment by Igor R. — June 10, 2007 @ 1:35 am
If the Republicans are going to continue to employ nuclear threats to scare the public out of their votes and pretend to be macho, the least one of the front-runners could do would be to come onstage in a wheelchair with dark glasses and issue his pronouncements in a funny German accent while trying to keep his arm from saluting. Not only would this make the GOP debates more watchable as theater of the absurd, but it would be a more accurate representation of the sheer unthinking madness the threat embodies.
Everyone rattling the nuclear saber might recall that when radioactivity leaked from Chernobyl years ago, it tainted the cow's milk in Sweden a thousand miles away. And that was just a slow leak, not an aboveground explosion where the fallout would be taken by the upper atmospheric winds and potentially could drop on our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Have you considered that horrible 'blowback' scenario (among hundreds of others) when considering using nukes against Tehran? Apparently, our brave dimwits running for president under the Republican label have not, but, then, most of them don't have much use for scientific fact anyway.
Aside from that, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs aren't impressed by the empty threats of the GOP junkyard dogs; they know the US couldn't afford the worldwide opprobrium such a nuclear attack would engender, and if Asia and Europe stop loaning us money, that's the ballgame — we wouldn't be able to pay for our mighty military, nor anything else.
Reply to this bit of misinformation by Rich: "Hmmm. Valerie Plume a covert agent? A little exagerated I would say. Her husband and Valerie were quite vocal and open about her job at the CIA."
Oh, brother — look, the director of the CIA has admitted she was a covert asset, working as a non-official cover for a CIA front company and her specialty was stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Her colleagues at the CIA have also said she was covert. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame only talked about her status at the CIA AFTER she was outed by Bob Novak. Her neighbors didn't even know she was working for the 'Company.' Can you get that straight, Rich?
Comment by RS Janes — June 10, 2007 @ 8:15 am
[...] But, warns Brent Budowsky, as bad as these things are, they pale in comparison to the openly stated desires by Bush - and those seeking to take his place - to use nuclear weapons on Iran. [...]
Pingback by American Realistan » Blog Archive » This Way To The Egress — June 10, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Don, no I don't want to bomb Paris Hilton. Besides, she says she is growing and learning from her latest experience, and I'm so happy for her.
As far as my lack of concern for the unpleasantness of war, I'm simply more concerned about letting Iran get nuclear weapons. I also don't like that now they are literally killing Americans with impunity. That's one heck of a lesson for them and other enemies of America. I think regardless of who takes orders from who in Iran they will develop nuclear weapons if nobody does anything about it. That will be quite an unpleasant fix for the whole world, so something has to be done.
Comment by Igor R. — June 11, 2007 @ 12:39 am