digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Bush's Nuclear Option

thinkprogress.org — Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tcbishop12, on 06/22/2008, -7/+96And that's why we're appointing you as Ambassador to our consulate in Tehran until the election, Mr. Kristol.
    • sarixe, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7I would go so far as to say Billy Crystal would be better suited for this position.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 06/23/2008, -7/+3more think progress propaganda.. 'think progress' -- so if you don't agree with them you're not forward thinking? what a bunch of pretentious arrogant pricks
      • CryRightardCry, on 06/23/2008, -4/+3Hey, thanks for the comment, rightard.
        When you extremist ***** get something RIGHT, you can comment.
        Given that you are simply a cheerleader for corruption and failure, ***** off.
        Oh, right.
        You are pretending that LGF is not right wing extremist propaganda of the most vile kind.
        One more rightard failure. Yawn.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1another typical 'think progress' comment littered with liberal propaganda, ie the same old tired cliches. hey buddy, just cause you say something 1000 times, closing your eyes, and sticking you fingers in your ears, like a Juvenile doesn't make it true .. how long has thinkprogress been spamming digg?
    • nickert0n, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1http://digg.com/world_news/Zeitgeist_A_movie_all_A ...
    • spankaccount, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1It's really hard for me to take George Soros's ThinkProgress seriously. This is basically a propaganda site and does not belong on Digg.
  • Arishia, on 06/22/2008, -21/+7
    pillage bomb besmurge threaten bluster obliterate
    mofos....grrrrrrr......
  • m4532v, on 06/22/2008, -5/+123Don't forget that Kristol was one of the people who came up with "Project for the New American Century" . When you keep that in mind, nothing that involves war surprises me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A ...
    • NewGTGuy, on 06/23/2008, -2/+32Yup, he is a very powerful fascist er ah....I mean neoconservative...
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -4/+14Neoconservative.

        You can make comparisons to fascism, seeing how they believe in many of the same nationalistic ideals, but we are in the 21st century. Just because our president's grandfather did business with the Nazis does not mean they are fascists. Fascism was just another of many flawed ideologies.

        These guys believe they have a new, better ideology. American Hegemony is a new and brighter world view.
        • NewGTGuy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+11Agreed, however do you believe fascism = corporatism?

          Whatever we have, it's not free-market.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/23/2008, -0/+14Neo-cons sell fears instead of dreams.

          A Neo-con will say we need something because a threat exists, and other ideologies like conservatism or liberalism will say we need something because we can achieve a goal.

          Other than this fact, they're essentially fascists. This is the only thing separating them.
          Fascism and Neo-Conservatism aren't mutually exclusive.
        • NewGTGuy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Excellent commentary.

          Thank you!
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1NewGTGuy, I will say that this is definitely corporatism. And Fascism was an earlier form of corporatism, but that still doesn't mean that neoconserviitism equals fascism.

          Of course, I look at all the "isms" a bit more deeply than most people. At their core, all of them are just different paths towards the same goal.
      • viggooo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Supervillain?
    • Swanston, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6"It's a gut check of what you believe!
      Will you stand up for democracy?
      or a New American Century?"
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Him saying it scares me...who the hell are Bush's string pullers anyway. I'm certain that he doesn't make his own decisions.
      • midbc, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Cheney is the one calling the shots
      • sHockz, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Keep asking the question. You are almost there. Let me confirm to you though, the president of the US is a middleman at best. He is not the one who is really in power. There are puppeteers pulling the strings.
    • loki440, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7Whoa. . .before we get too excited about this, remember the source. We're talking about Bill Kristol here. When was the last time this guy was right about anything? I'm reminded of an old Navajo saying that I think is appropriate here. I think it goes:

      "Bill Kristol doesn't know sh*t."

      It's as true for us as it was for their people...

      • zombies187, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Wow, we can really learn alot from our native American brothers.
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1He was right that we were going to invade Iraq. He was right when he co-signed the "On Rebuilding America's Defenses" document that called for a "catastrophic and catalyzing even, like a new pearl harbor" in order to bring about the changes the document described, to give the green light for the new American hegemony.
    • nickert0n, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/world_news/Zeitgeist_A_movie_all_A ...
    • Observer001, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3"It sounds so innocuous. Who could object to a project for a new American century? It's a new century, and we live in America! What could possibly go wrong?"

      Some of PNAC's stated goals other than presidential primacy:
      * "To make the case and rally support for American global leadership."
      * "To shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests."
      * "A foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad."
      * "Maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East."
      * "To increase defense spending significantly."
      * "To strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values."
      * "To promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad."
      * "To accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

      Thanks, Rotten Library.
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2You forgot to mention that the authors, in that very same document said:

        "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

        http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

        It's funny, you used to be able to find this informatoin direct from http://www.newamericancentury.org/ but now that site is down, and it has become really hard to find copies of their September 2000 document.
  • tmyprod, on 06/23/2008, -15/+187Correction: Bush's "nuclular" option.
    • Sil369, on 06/23/2008, -4/+31It's pronounced nu-cue-ler

      nu-cue-ler
      • MxM111, on 06/23/2008, -11/+2You mean, it should NOT be pronounced that way, right?
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -2/+8Well, it's actually pronounced Newkleer, or nuclear, but I get your point, Lil Georgie thinks it is newkular, or nucular or however you spell that mispronunciation.

        But, as long as he can strategerize, we'll be safe, so don't worry that only the folks that watch cars drive around in a circle for 500 laps understand him. Trailer parks all over America have finally found representation!
    • MxM111, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5Nukelar
    • Snooper1989, on 06/23/2008, -6/+1Nu-clear
    • AdmiralAcbar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7The s is silent.
  • ruddy, on 06/23/2008, -21/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnMDrv8Mx3E
  • styleomatic, on 06/23/2008, -36/+123all speculation, buried.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -24/+19speculation? buried?

      Your conclusion that facts are speculation proves you are oblivious to reality.

      "On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected."

      “I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:

      "WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

      KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force."

      Not speculation. Simply listening to neocons discuss their reality.

      • wolferz, on 06/23/2008, -6/+12"Your conclusion that facts are speculation proves you are oblivious to reality."

        Your circular reasoning doesn't prove anything.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -7/+4I'm not the one with circular logic. The person who attempts to dismiss facts by calling it speculation is the person with circular logic.

          You see, Fox News only prepares you to make their arguments, they don't prepare you to make a cogent argument.
      • slvrbullet87, on 06/23/2008, -3/+10Point to me where in the conversation or article there is anything about Bush using nukes
        • Twenty, on 06/23/2008, -4/+2It's just a phrase, not a literal term. Although here it is used brilliantly for effect.
      • barthrh, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6So because you saw someone speculate on the news, it's not speculation?
      • Gamer2k4, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2"On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected."

        Fact or speculation?

        “I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,”

        "I do wonder" Sounds like speculation.

        WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

        "So, you're suggesting" Sounds like speculation.

        KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force."

        "I don't know" "I think" (x2) Sounds like speculation.
      • a2fan, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4It's speculation ... and malarkey. The only way we would bomb Iran right now, is if we had an obvious reason to, with irrefutable proof to back it up. And it would be a conventional strike - no one is going to use a tactical or strategic nuke unless there is a war between superpowers.

        The exiting administration is highly sensitive to the WMD in Iraq fiasco and is under international pressure to avoid a military conflict with Iran (or else Iran wouldn't be thumbing their noses at us).
      • styleomatic, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1hey phil.... yes speculation from the sources and BURIED! here's some key words in your excerpts:

        "more likely to attack Iran if he believes" IF = maybe

        "WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact" MIGHT IN FACT = this doesn't even make sense.

        "it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses" GUESSES

        It's even harder to watch and stomach "NEWSERTAINMENT." One should try to stay emotionally sober when dwelling on speculative crap. It's bad for your complexion.




    • endersshadow, on 06/23/2008, -4/+12This went from "He may launch a military strike on Iran" to "He will bomb Iran" to "He will nuke Iran" very quickly. Remember that military strike != nuclear bombing. Bush has pulled off two military strikes without breaking out a nuclear weapon. How is taking a "I think he would worry about [launching a military strike]" to "He will vaporize Iran" _NOT_ speculation (and wild, baseless, and irresponsible speculation at that)?
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -5/+4Then you haven't been paying attention.

        Most of the Iranian nuclear research facilities are built into very hardened bunkers that will withstand almost all conventional weapons.

        Even by earlier neocon statements, it will take nuclear weapons to penetrate these facilities.

        We don't think that they will vaporize Iran. We know that tactical nukes, like the "dial a yield" tactical nuke developed in 2002 or 2003 will be used.
        • endersshadow, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3Generally the last thing you want to do to a nuclear facility is start an uncontrolled fission reaction. Even if the goal was to take out these facilities and a military strike _did_ happen, a commandeer tactic would be first and foremost over any setting off a nuke inside a nuclear research facility.

          Even politically speaking, this would be a move of last resort. Bush (and his advisors) know that launching a nuclear strike would destroy any hope of a Republican majority any time within the next decade.

          Nobody anywhere near the President would allow risking Israel and/or the Republican Party as a last hurrah because Obama may win.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3In a facility that cannot be attacked with conventional weapons, it would be viable to use tactical nukes, in the 1 to 10 kiloton range, and not only would that destroy the facility, but the fallout would be minimal. Not only that, but whatever nuclear material they destroy would be mostly, but not entirely, contained within the facility.

          We are not talking about a megaton explosion, and we ARE talking about a low yield weapon designed to penetrate several meters, if not several hundred meters of earth and concrete.
        • DaDrake, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3No actually.... we have bombs that can penetrate a ***** mountain and suck all the air out. Don't underestimate the brutality of some of the modern conventional weapons the human race invented =p
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3"Generally the last thing you want to do to a nuclear facility is start an uncontrolled fission reaction."

          You know nothing about nuclear physics. It is not possible to start an uncontrolled fission reaction in this manner.

          The conditions required to create nuclear fission are difficult to set up. Bombing a facility holding nuclear material or weapons will NOT start a chain reaction.

          In any case, since when did this administration take into account the possible blowback from their reckless military actions? They thought going into Iraq would have them greeted as liberators, in spite of many, many experts and foreign policy wonks telling them it would lead to a quagmire.

          They're hardly likely to be worried by concerns over a nuclear chain reaction from bombing Iranian facilities, because they are a bunch of deluded crazies.
        • jeffhansen, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1@Warty
          "You know nothing about nuclear physics. It is not possible to start an uncontrolled fission reaction in this manner. "

          But I saw it happen in a movie! It must be true!
      • kreneskyp, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2its "nuclear" not in the sense of using nuclear weapons but that this would be a last resort to ensure his policy is acted upon.
    • morcheeba, on 06/23/2008, -4/+5It's called an opinion piece. If you demand only facts from your news, you'll only know what has happened - not any ideas about what could happen.

      It's still speculation, and you have to add your own opinion to see if it make sense, but don't bury it just because it is speculation.
      • wolferz, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Some of us are capable of forming our own ideas. We don't need them spoon fed to us.

        Btw, they didn't provide any facts... at least none that I could see. And they seem to be billing this as reporting, not speculation.
        • morcheeba, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yep, I agree it's a factless article. The point of what I was saying is that isn't necessarily bad.

          Also, what's with the offensive tone? Did you read the second half of my post? I never said that people who read opinion pieces weren't capable of forming their own ideas, nor were they being spoon fed. In fact, I said quite the opposite - that you need to add your own opinion and then make a judgement call.

          p.s. Really? You can form every possible idea about every possible topic? I can't. That's why I'm open to others' opinions.
        • wolferz, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Didn't mean to seem offensive. However, I really would rather have only facts. No I can't form every possible idea but at least the ideas I form I know I can trust as not being based on some one else's bias. Based on this article it could be insinuated that Bush has already announced plans to nuke Iran if they don't capitulate... the entire article seems to hinge on this assumption. And yet, no where can such a claim or even reference to the possibly of such happening be found and correlated to any one in the white house. This is called spin and it is "wrong" in the moral sense of the word.

          My first hand dealings with the media has taught me to never trust them beyond the basic facts. Anything beyond that, if not built on the bias of the reporter/producer, is spin and presented form an angle designed to make it in some way controversial or more interesting that it otherwise would be. A good reporter is very good at spinning facts into half truths. Such half truths are profitable. Am I jaded? You betcha.

          Add to that that, even when they are trying to be totally honest, in the end every one has bias. No one is capable of telling the whole truth, not even the whole truth as they know it. Once a person forms an opinion about something to him that opinion is the correct one and, intentionally or not that person will have a tendency to ignore facts and evidence that doesn't support his opinion. This is why peer review is so important in the scientific community.

          If I can't trust their opinions to be based anything more than a need to turn a larger profit or personal bias, then why have them at all?

          Finally, and the most significant problem with pieces like this is the shear number of people who, having already formed related opinions, will lap up whatever is told to them without question or consideration simply because it reinforces whatever opinion they already have.

          Peaces like these should be and, IHMO, are bad journalism. If they want to theorize about the means of the collected facts of something they should do it separately from the facts and clearly mark it as such.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because no one can extrapolate things without political pundits. All fact based news would be awesome. All political pundits are parasites who prey off fear and bias... regardless of their 'party affiliation.'
      • 2612, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Then put it under Political Opinion, not 2008 US Elections. But that would be less dramatic, wouldn't it?
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Keep in mind that the story comes from a website called "Think Progress". The title alone should tell you something about their bias. President Bush has waged war for all of these years without ever pulling out a nuke. What makes people think he is going to start nuking Iran?
    • scoottie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3but speculation is what makes the internet work
  • Dumbledorito, on 06/23/2008, -7/+59I miss the days when "nuclear option" in domestic politics didn't involve actual nukes.

    So is this a "bizarro world" attempt to allow Republican hacks to somehow equate voting for Obama as a vote for bombing Iran? If so, can we please start some kind of mental stability screening for party operatives and candidates, because it sounds like the GOP is ***** insane no matter what the reasoning behind their actions lately.
    • slayerab, on 06/23/2008, -2/+9No, I think its a way of guaranteeing further war and conflict as a legacy behind for a person who doesn't want a war.
  • zebco, on 06/23/2008, -27/+205Why the ***** wouldn't he. This man has done everything but publicly piss on the flag and shred the constitution and NOT A SINGLE PERSON in government, republican or democrat, has stood up to challenge him other than a few debates in the House and Senate. It's ridiculous. Why wouldn't he ***** nuke them? He certainly can. He's gotten away with murder, literally, and he's walked away with a smile on his face, uncontested, unchallenged. He knows he can get away with anything, beat the system and the dems won't stand up to challenge him or make him answer to anything. *****, he's given himself immunity for everything possible!
    So yeah, he probably will. Yes it's speculation but the best way to presuppose a speculation is to base it on history and fact. Fact is, he's already responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and won't have to answer to a single one.
    Why would he worry about killing hundreds of thousands more?
    Seriously...let's be honest for a minute. He can, he might...what the ***** of it? What will YOU do? What will the Senate do? What will the House do? What will Pelosi do?
    Absolutely nothing. The same thing they did/we did/she did. Absolutely not a ***** thing.
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/23/2008, -2/+16Hopefully there would be enough people in the silos, onboard the boomers, and on the flightline that would know that this launch/release order is logically corrupt to the point that they would refuse to turn the key (silos), pull the trigger (boomers), and flip the switch (flightline).

      I really hope I'm right. I pray that I don't have to hope that I'm right.
      • phrenzy, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8TURN your KEY, SIR!
        • soulkitchen, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4Nice "Wargames" quote...I think.
        • Duositex, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Nope.. Crimson Tide. Gene Hackman FTW
        • jgzman, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Incorrect. It is from Wargames. The initial Silo scene, when the younger man is holding a gun on the older man.

          Love Crimson Tide, though. I need to find my old copy.....
        • TheObviousChild, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I concur.
        • phrenzy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yep, Wargames. In Crimson Tide the fight was over possession of the key itself, not turning it.

          "Screw the procedure. I want somebody
          on the goddamn phone before I kill
          20 million people"
        • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I've always wondered about this: If it takes two officers to complete the launch sequence in a silo, doesn't it take two crews to complete the launch sequence? How else would the silo crews practice for Doomsday?
      • sodade, on 06/23/2008, -5/+1I do not trust anyone in the military to behave responsibly. It seems that the only ones who have a conscience are the grunts.
        • Joe11Blue, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0We prefer to be called Infantrymen, not grunts.
      • Lithpiperpilot, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1boomers?
        • Kakemonstere, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You know, from Gears of War.
        • fuzzybeard, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Boomers: An American military idiom referring to the classes (types) of submarines designed and built to launch ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles).
    • Zarokima, on 06/23/2008, -3/+48Kucinich has done a hell of a lot more than anyone else.
      • zebco, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Agreed 100%. And I think it's a shame that people have distanced themselves from him politically as a result of doing the right thing.
    • Tiltmenot, on 06/23/2008, -2/+6Europe wouldn't be pleased if Bush would consider a nuke.
      • Kyrgizion, on 06/23/2008, -0/+14As a European, I am sorry to have to say:
        What would we do? Europe didn't like Bush going to war with Iraq either, but they didn't stop him. If he plans the same for Iran, do you really think they, too, would pull their support?

        As long as the people making these decisions are the same people with stock options in global arms manufacturers, this entire point is moot.
        • theaceoffire, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Iran has close ties to Russia and China, much closer than Iraq. There is a high chance that they could get involve if we attack, and then we are *****.
      • fuzzybeard, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1*****, *I* wouldn't be pleased if Bush nuked somebody!
    • Tankslap, on 06/23/2008, -3/+13Digg needs two thumbs up for posts like this.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5Don't forget about the Bill of Rights.
    • Hangly, on 06/23/2008, -0/+16Does Cheney have China and Russia's nuts in a jar somewhere or something?

      The silence of the rest of the world is absolutely deafening.
      • RequiemHunter, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1China don't really care about much other than the Olympic right now.
        Russia might actually want US to nuke Iran. Do remember that Russia is also a oil producing nations. As more problem occur in the middle east regions (ie. an attack on Iran) will drive up the international oil price - giving Russia more profits for their oils. In the event of an nuclear strikes, the fallout radiation might cause a massive number of oil field to be inoperable for decades. Considering how much oil Iran is producing today, the complete destruction of that in an event of nuclear strike, rising oil demand from Indian and China, the drop of the dollar value cause our economy went to ***** thanks to all these conflicts, I think $8 a gallon oil wouldn't be out of reach.
    • oli5993, on 06/23/2008, -2/+12That was the ***** best post I have seen in a long time.
    • soulkitchen, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4What do you call the person who aides a murderer with his escape? At this point we call that person Madame speaker and shes culpable. If Bush is the target, we break down every wall between us and him one by one; that includes Democrats.
    • Zarchon, on 06/23/2008, -16/+2What a bunch of alarmist crap. No matter who is president, if it is a Republican then he is absolutely the worst president in history and is comparable to Hitler. Don't you guys get tired of saying the same thing about different people just because their ideology doesn't agree with yours? You guys don't even have the balls to stand up and say you are socialist. If you did you would never win another election because no matter how much America may hate a president they would choose another Bush over becoming a socialist country. But you do have one thing right, most of America is stupid and can be convinced of anything. You have the majority of people believing this is Bush's war alone and that nobody supported it. Good job on your part. And no, a two party system doesn't work. We are too opposed in our views. I think the left IS the enemy.
      • Defuser, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9Oh, please. I'm a Republican, and I spent the first three years of Bush's first term telling everyone "hold on, give the guy a chance, let's not jump the gun..." But you know what? Bush had his chance, and he blew it. America went from the #1 nation in the world to a complete Orwellian hell-hole, and it's entirely Bush's fault. He's a guy that apparently has regular oral sex with the Oil Sheiks of OPEC, yet he can't even keep gas under four bucks a gallon.
      • xEn1gma, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5I would not chose another Bush over a socialist country.

        I would simply move out of the country if there is either of the two.

        And one more thing I would like to kindly point out...

        "Don't you guys get tired of saying the same thing about different people just because their ideology doesn't agree with yours?"

        ...followed by...

        "I think the left IS the enemy."

        Good one, hypocrite.
      • sjm20k, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1you are guilty of the same accusations that you are making. case in point. if you feel threatened by people who believe bush did a horrible job as president, perhaps you aren't even secure in your own view?
  • LKnight, on 06/23/2008, -11/+24Bush might bomb Iran just because the voices tell him to do so.

    Do you think they all sound like Cheney and Rumsfeld?
    Yes, they do.

    Would bombing Iran be a form of diplomacy?
    Sure. Big sticks have always been a part of it.

    Do you miss Rumsfeld asking questions he wants to answer in press conferences?
    Well, it was more entertaining than what we get now...
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -1/+11voices don't tell him to do so. God tells him to. He hears god in his head. He truly hears god telling him to embark on fiascos and blunders.

      Apparently his god is not infallible.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5You only have to read Genesis to realize god is not infallible. He couldn't even find a couple of nudists hiding behind a bush in the garden of Eden. "Adam, where are you?"

        Some supreme being.
        • sodade, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3***** hilarious - thanks for making me smile this morning - I thought it would be a long time coming after reading of Carlin's death.
        • zomglolcats, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1I always thought the same thing when reading the bible. God is all-knowing... Wait, what? He can't even find his creations in his own garden.

          But of course the bible is a bunch of fables, so that is to be expected.
        • jgzman, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Well *****. I didn't know he had died. Now I'M depressed.
        • dkapuchino, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1One the first things you learn when studying the bible is exactly this. It's called a literary technique. The bible was never meant to be interpreted word for word.
  • 3242130193, on 06/23/2008, -11/+31All presidents run on a free will when their terms are running down and Bush will be no exception. He has already gotten away with lying to an entire country to get us in Iraq, there's no reason why he shouldn't be even bolder seeing as nothing's happened to him from the first time.

    The solution: impeach NOW!
    • Sil369, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5Dugg for your name
    • dayal911, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Actually, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry started the lies of Iraq having WMD's in the 90's.

      John Kerry even wrote a letter to Clinton URGING him to do something about it in 1998.

      Do some research, please.
      • Zarchon, on 06/23/2008, -3/+7No no no, dude, this is Digg. Bush is the ONLY person who wanted the war. He is responsible for everything bad that happens. Facts? Who needs facts? This is DIGG!
      • spongya77, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The difference is that Clinton knew better than to start a war. (Though he is certainly responsible for a tremendous amount of suffering due to the embargo.)
      • 3242130193, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You missed - I never said that Bush was the only one or even the first, all that I said was that he lied to get us into it. In fact, I took extremely special care to phrase that comment in a way that wouldn't make it inaccurate while saving myself the pain-in-the-ass hassle of finding any sources to back it up. Please don't add meaning to my words.

        On that topic, you didn't cite any sources anyway, so how can we believe your 'research'?
  • futureisours, on 06/23/2008, -22/+8Well then maybe you should vote for McCain then?
    • damntourists, on 06/23/2008, -6/+11who would do something silly like that?
    • Vet4Peace, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4LOL. Or maybe just do a write-in vote for Beelzebub himself?
  • DiggDuggDugged, on 06/23/2008, -3/+40I think Kristol is speaking around the edges here. The likely scenario is the US essentially green lighting an Israeli strike on Iran some time between now and the election (the smart money is on late August through September). If my analysis is correct, this would be seen as playing to McCain's strength while serving Obama an epic ***** sandwich. I wish I could feel clean after saying all this but the last seven years of neocon-AIPAC domination has consistently shown that they will not be satisfied until they've thrown their ***** on all of us.
    • Sil369, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9DiggityDuggityDoo
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6The problem with your theory is that Israel does not have the munitions necessary to penetrate Bushehr, which is a hardened bunker site.

      Only America can do so. That is why we violated a few non-proliferation treaties to create the "dial-a-yield" nukes necessary to penetrate the hardened facilities in Iran.
      • crazydiode, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2its still a possibility that israel would do it with American weapons..
        • moonlessrat, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2sure, why not...after all, all their nukes came from America!
        • thepain353, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3actually they came from FRANCE back in the 50's.
        • dkapuchino, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1being that we just freely give out our nukes..
        • SakisRakis, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Israel still does not admit to having nuclear ordinance.
      • jeffhansen, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Maybe they'll borrow one of ours.
    • sodade, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I don't know if it is "smart money" or not, but you can actually bet on an overt US or Israel strike on Iran on www.intrade.com - the contract is actually down quite a bit lately.
      • sodade, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Whoa - today the contract is up quite a bit - obviously related to this *****'s BS. Still indicates only 23% "chance" of happening.
  • Smooooth, on 06/23/2008, -13/+23This ***** is ridiculous. Who knows what Bush is thinking? This is just some conservative editor that has a belief about Bush's tendencies. This would be news if it was Bush who said these things but he didn't. Buried.
    • NewGTGuy, on 06/23/2008, -4/+9William Kristol is a very influential neoconservative. The President listens to everything he says.

      Check PNAC and the Iraq war. These guys have wanted to bomb Iraq and Iran for over a decade.
      • Smooooth, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Believe me, I understand the influence that Kristol has. Additionally, as an Iranian citizen, these types of allegations hit home rather severely. All that I am saying is that think progress and huff po are putting words in Kristol's mouth and making it seem as if he is implying things that are much more grave than he intended.
    • enantiodromia, on 06/23/2008, -4/+4do you even know who Kristol is? i think not.
      • Smooooth, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I know who he is, thank you. The fact of the matter is that Kristol does not even say what this article is trying to imply. It is blown out of proportion.
    • Vet4Peace, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3"Who knows what Bush is thinking?" Are you kidding me? Have you been paying attention the last seven years?

      Hint: This is a man who thinks the Book of Revelation is literal prophecy.
    • jgzman, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1I know what Bush is thinking.

      "Ok, let's see, pants first, then shoes. He, he, he. OK, toes go in first. Yea, yea. Someone get Laura in here to help me with these knots. Yea, and my tie too. He,he,he. Oh, look something shiny. Shiny, shiny, shiny."

      I think I'm pretty close.
      • s5demigh, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0You hit the nail on the head. To be honest...people are influencing him to do this. I mean, from Bush's standpoint, the only real reason he would wanna nuke something is to hear a loud boom with a bright light preceding it, lol
  • damntourists, on 06/23/2008, -12/+9oh god dammit bush! you're going to dig our grave even deeper!
  • Realnemesis, on 06/23/2008, -2/+14And the day he nukes them is the day we have a state of Anarchy..

    Don't do it... even the pawns are useful once in a while.
    • Sil369, on 06/23/2008, -1/+610$ its on July 4
      • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4I'd take that.

        I think we'll do it, but it won't be that early.

        My tokens are on late September.
    • Risingashes, on 06/23/2008, -2/+9The majority of Americans wouldn't do *****. They'd bitch and moan and forget within a month.

      The news will stop talking about the approaching apocalypse except in 5 second soundbites to announce the latest country that no longer exists.

      25% of the country will still support the President's actions as they sit around in circles waiting for the rapture.

      Kucinich will introduce an extra reason for impeachment which no one will listen to.

      Every major corporation will relocate to Dubai overnight.
      • jgzman, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3If nukes are launched, I would expect there to be no US within a month. At least, none to speak of. Same for China, Russia, Europe, and any other area you care to name.

        The first nuke opens the way for all the others.
      • kenedamick, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The pussification of the USA. Makes me ***** sick that we are not out there protesting the ***** that we are forced to swallow on a daily basis.

    • jeffhansen, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Hmm...
      * Bush nukes Iran, on July 4 for maximum SHOCK+AWE
      * Stock market rallies as Iran "issue" is dealt with
      * Anarchy and related craziness ensues
      * Stock market drops as Wal-Marts across the country are looted
      * Martial Law imposed
      * Strict Curfew imposed closing many Late-Night Taco Bell Drive-Thrus
      * Elections "postponed" indefinitely
      * Bush executes executive order #069 to change the title of President to "Supreme Deciderer"
  • Berkana, on 06/23/2008, -8/+19The day Bush bombs Iran, call your congressmen and cuss them out for not impeaching.
    • zadadka, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7The day Bush bombs Iran, kiss your *ss goodbye.
      Anyone that thinks there'll be little retribution is asleep and dreaming.
      • Micktion, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Or they simply do not understand what Iran as a country actually is...

        Iran is one of the greatest cultural capitals of the world, it has history reaching back thousands of years, back to the dawn of civilisation itself. It is totally riddled with historical architectural wonders that compete with anything you can find in Europe.

        You can spend hours on flickr looking at pictures from Iran like these...

        http://flickr.com/photos/youngrobv/905050412/
        http://flickr.com/photos/luisferreira/349466395/

        People don't give a crap about the Iranian government, but they care about it's people, and if you mess with its historical treasures, you're playing with fire.

        At the very least, after bombing iran, the US wouldn't be able to afford what the gulf countries would want to charge them for their oil.
        • Berkana, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Iraq was a cultural capital as well, and we didn't give a damn. We secured the oil ministry while the museum of mankind got looted. What makes you think our red-neck minded moron-in-chief would have a second thought about ancient Persian cultural monuments? He probably doesn't even know Iran = Persia. Bombin Iran would be an atrocity, but that's not going to stop Bush.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6***** waiting...call them now. If Iran gets nuked, the whole world is going to feel it...
    • triad203, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Please tell me you're joking. "cuss" your congressmen? Really? That's all you've got? No wonder Bush does whatever he wants with impugnity.
  • comptonstomp, on 06/23/2008, -5/+23sooooooooo has anyone let iran know about this cuz i can imagine they wont be very happy
  • monkeyrun, on 06/23/2008, -17/+8Bush MIGHT Bomb Iran.....
    AND Obama MIGHT have sex with McCain.
    • Shaman760, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Maybe PPV could televise it and the profits could go towards wiping out the national deficit.
  • TinternAbbot, on 06/23/2008, -3/+13I'd bet against it.
    • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2Enough to enlist?
      • overridemymind, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2*****, I'm already enlisted.

        GAME OVER - FATALITY.

        lol, No, but really -- I'm gonna die. j/k
      • jzuska, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Sure.
        • bjornski, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Let me know when you do, then.

          I won't hold my breath.
  • ralphthemagi, on 06/23/2008, -4/+23He's not going to bomb Iran at a whim, just like he didn't invade Iraq at a whim. An operation of that magnitude requires a thumbs up from the Congress. Believe it or not, ole' GWB had the full support of the Congress before the Iraq Invasion in 2003. It wasn't an "illegal" invasion. It was talked about for month before it happened, and then the Congress signed it into law.

    Nothing like that is even really being debated right now. Most of the "Iran invasion" stuff is hearsay. Sure, the US is working on a contingency plan for Iran, just like they have contingency plans for every non-allied nation. It doesn't mean it's going to happen.

    And if, by some chance it does, it will have the full backing of the Congress. It's not going to happen overnight.
    • JHB800, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9Yep. As I recall it, there are currently plans to invade Canada as well. They have plans for every nation on earth, allied or not.
      • Pittance, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Unlike Iran, I think we might actually gain something if we invade Canada. Think of all the money we'd save on bottled water and ice!
    • elam82, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4I'm with you, I don't know why people think Bush can single-handedly declare war on country... and they act like he has taken over all of congress and instituted his own war crazy policy on everyone. The media these days man...
    • Skiamakhos, on 06/23/2008, -1/+15It was illegal according to international law. However, the US has declared itself to be outside the jurisdiction of the International courts, following the ruling against them in the case of Nicaragua vs the United States of America, where Nicaragua accused the US of international terrorism & won. The US remains to this day the only country indicted & convicted of international terrorist offences in a court of law, yet it is pursuing a war against terror. As Chomsky says, the simplest way to get rid of most of the world's terrorism would be to stop doing it & stop funding it.

      Scary thing is, Hillary Clinton was saying she'd bomb Iran too. o.O
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0International law doesn't apply to the US, since the US sits at the top.

        There exists no court with actual international authority, and no internationally enforceable legal system.
    • stickyman, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2@ralphthemagi.
      Can you guess why so much of the world hates America?
      The American government, and a significant proportion of the American population (including you it seems) believe that American law applies to the whole world.
      Just because your government decides that it's legal to bomb, invade, destroy, kill, torture, render, undermine or subvert another country, place, or people does not make it legal, and it DEFINITELY doesn't make it moral.

      How pissed off do you think the brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, uncles and friends of those killed are?
      How pissed off would you be if the same thing happened to you, your friends, your family or your country?

      The current problem of Islamic extremism is the product of the hate the west (and America in particular) has created in the Islamic world for the last 50+ years.

      If America or Israel drop a nuclear weapon in Iran, the whole Islamic world with ignite, and probably justifiably so.

      And then we really will be in the *****.
      • mvader, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1You just don't get it do you?
        Radical (note: I said RADICAL) Islam hates the US because:
        1. We allow women into positions of power
        2. We allow freedom of religion
        3. We allow people to make money based on their merits rather than their usefulness to religion (prime example: Porn stars... they make lots of money --ok, the famous ones-- and they certainly aren't useful to any organized religion I know of...)

        Radical (once again... note: RADICAL) Islam doesn't hate us because we hate them. They hate us because we stand for everything their religion stands against.
        • moonlessrat, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1dude.....I don't think you are really seeing the big picture. It must be very comforting to simply ignore all the horrendous things your country has done to others and then just blame their response on "they are just jealous cos we got fweeeeeedoms!".
        • stickyman, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That is the most stupid thing I have heard all year.

          Where did you get that idea?
          Have you ever heard, read or known of any radical Islamic group, organisation or person to say anything like that AT ALL? because if so, I would like to hear or see it.
          Provide references.

          The only people who I have heard trying to explain the root causes of radical Islamic terrorism like that are US politicians, and right wing US political commentators.

          Have a look at what the Al'Qaeda terrorists say in their martyrdom videos, read the things that
          Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawia, the London tube bombers and Spanish train bombers have said.

          They say that their actions are the direct retaliation for US/Western support for Israel, the treatment of the Palestinians, bombing and invading their "holy lands", invasion of Iraq etc etc.

          If you can find one quote of Bin Laden or anyone else like him saying that he hates America or The West for its freedoms or anything else like that I would love to see it.

          have a look at this:
          Bin Laden on 911
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dls5JTD-uG0
          London tube bomber
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4206708.stm
          London tube bomber
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Va-CuaO9M
        • otros, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Ok, it's not Bin laden, but i think it applies:

          http://apps.facebook.com/causes/65315?facebook_url ...

          i would classify it as a retaliation for freedom of speech
  • luseton, on 06/23/2008, -8/+9F@#$ !! Impeach him now..so that he can't do that at all. I can't believe we are just sitting around watching this unfold. Although I am not sure what else we can do.
    • elam82, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2If you would check your AP Government book, you would see that Bush can't declare war on country. And then if you would turn the page you would also see that Bush will be out of office in about 6 months. It took 5 months for Congress to get Nixon to resign with evidence against him. You think the Congress who fully backed the war in Iraq will impeach Bush for it? You are out of your mind...
    • overridemymind, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Nevermind - and yeah, I know I'll be dugg down for saying "nevermind"
  • Nintendesert, on 06/23/2008, -8/+24How much kool-aid do I need to drink before I start believing ***** articles like this?
    • ndgcs, on 06/23/2008, -3/+21.2 gallons half/half with everclear.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -8/+6Don't worry. You've already drank enough kool aid to ensure that you DON'T believe articles like this.
    • wolferz, on 06/23/2008, -4/+4sadly... none

      Some people are just this stupid.
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -4/+5You're right. Some people are stupid enough to buy into the neocon philosophy without any outside influence. They don't need to drink the kool-aid. They're uneducated enough to support a "war president" blindly.
        • elam82, on 06/23/2008, -4/+4Are you aware that you have used the word neocon in almost all of the 176 comments you have posted on this article?
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Yes, because the article discusses a TV interview with William Kristol, the co-founder of Project for a New American century, a neocon think tank.

          If I were to discuss an article about Barack Obama, I might use the word liberal, or democrat. If I were to discuss an article about John McCain, I might use the word conservative or republican.

          The count at the top, where I can click "only mine" says "only mine (15)", not 176. But I get it, you were being hyperbolic.
        • wolferz, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1wow philesh69, from now on know as Mr. If-I-don't-believe-everything-negative-some-internet-journalist-sias-about-bush-co-no-matter-how-absurd-I-must-be-a-bush-supporter. Good job of putting words in my mouth. Now go back to your little imaginary black and white world. I'm gonna stay here in the real one where things aren't ether/or.

          Oh and good job also of showing how fanatical political agendas get in the way of common sense and reason as well.
    • Xviper78, on 06/23/2008, -5/+5Kool-aid is the drink of choice here. Digg is just FOXNews for Democrats.
    • Proctor, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3You're a dumbass. Watch the video. Fox News at it again. Spewing ***** & Propaganda to misinformed American citizens.
  • NewGTGuy, on 06/23/2008, -7/+18I think we can agree that Bush is looking for any excuse to bomb another country which didn't attack us.
    • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7It's not just any country.

      PNAC has had Iran in their sights for a LOOOOOONG time.

      Kristol is a founding member of PNAC.

      The entire administrations agenda has been following PNAC agendas.

      Kristol saying this isn't to be taken lightly. They see that they've got a 6-month window in which to wrap up a few more of their "projects" before it gets too late to start them.

      These are the same crooks that have been in the back-rooms since the Nixon administration, and it will take more than a change of figureheads to root them all out of their positions of influence.

      They should all be hanged.
      • n00854180t, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4PNAC really needs to be infiltrated and taken down from the inside.
      • NewGTGuy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Fully agree. Great points!
  • heliox, on 06/23/2008, -12/+6Even the die hard liberal diggtards must think this is crap.
    Stop posting from these ***** sites (thinkprogress, huffington etc). It is BS propaganda.
    At least try to seem intelligent.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5Stop trying to seem intelligent by parroting the Fox News Channel party line.

      You do know that Fox News Channel is owned by an Australian Globalist, don't you?

      Have you ever heard of the Yellow Journalism or William Randolph Hearst?

      It's okay, their message is the same. Corporate interests trump the public good or the public will.
      • JHB800, on 06/23/2008, -4/+1Thinkprogress, HP, and Rawstory are all textbook definitions of 'yellow journalism'. They will do or say anything to push their ideology and to further their goals, without regard to the truth or reality.
      • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Phil, he's lucky to know what's ON The media, much less who owns it or their agendas.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I bet he knows what Britney Spear's little sister was wearing when she went to the hospital in labor, or what Angelina Jolie wore to her latest premiere, or who's the favorite to win the next American Idol or American Gladiator, or whatever.

      • PhilLesh69, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3JHB800, if you cannot understand that all information is biased, but can understand that the people who report things you don't believe in are biased, then you are halfway there.

        However, if you continue to take in everything that makes you feel comfortable, everythin that agrees with your opinion, and still recognize that people will lie to you (but only when they are trying to report a different world view), then you have only locked yourself into your belief, and you have figured out a way to deny every other piece of information that does not support your opinion.

        Be intellectually honest. Do your best, and try to be intellectually honest.
        • Zarchon, on 06/23/2008, -1/+0Phil, you mean like come here to Digg where honest wins out? Pahhh leeeze.
    • Vet4Peace, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The article is simply reporting what was said by some very high-level neoconservatives. So, who's "propoganda" is this?
      If I quote you, would that be my propaganda or yours?
    • zaptoman, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1"NO! We are the liberal diggtards, and we don't want to SEEM intelligent, we want to digg you down!!" Sorry mate, that's the attitude around here.
  • colincornaby, on 06/23/2008, -5/+26Title is inaccurate. Bush hasn't said this, some wing nut speculated this. And the last thing we need to do is give any of those loons attention. Buried.
    • mrzeero, on 06/23/2008, -3/+4Exactly, we should let them continue to operate in secrecy, it is really the best for all of us.
      • colincornaby, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Operate what in secrecy? There's no operation. If I went out on the street and said that Obama should put Arabs into concentration camps, would someone plaster Digg with a headline saying that Obama wants to put Arabs into concentration camps?

        I hate when people shove words into Obama's mouth, and I don't like this either.
    • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Do you know anything about PNAC, colin?

      Look at their members. Read their agenda. Look at recent history.

      Nah. That "wingnut" that said that is just to be dismissed!

      Have some more kool-aid.
    • laserdog, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Kristol toes the party line, and is on the list of people who get fed their talking points.

      99% of them time you hear him he's parroting exactly what Dana Perino is saying that day.

      So yes, while this isn't Bush's actual mouth, this administration is known for enforcing a strict "march step" in any and all communications.
      • triad203, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1It's the other way around. Kristol is the one doing the writing. Perino and Bush are mouthpieces.
    • Vet4Peace, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2colincornbaby: you say "Bush" and "wing nut" as if those are two separate things...
  • mrzeero, on 06/23/2008, -5/+5I predict that someone will get bombed first with the missing nuke they flew across the US a few months ago. Everyone will fall in line and we will have started WWIII. Oh and remember how supposed nuke plans were found recently. *****

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qVNpbT24hc
    • vladimirpoopen, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Umm the nuke is not missing. Press reports it as 6 nukes as of 3 weeks ago
      • mrzeero, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1I am glad to hear they only accidentally flew 6 nukes across the US. I guess my theory is blown.
      • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Which press?

        Link?
  • Shaman760, on 06/23/2008, -2/+10On Bombing Iran, Mr. Scott Ritter....
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

  • dkitch, on 06/23/2008, -2/+18*adjusts tinfoil hat*
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I find that magnesium works better in deflecting alien mind-controlling waves.
  • KingGorilla, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5I was thinking of a different nuclear option. A more useful environmentally friendly one where we power things instead
  • FELIXSANCTUS, on 06/23/2008, -6/+7KRISTOL publishes THE neoconservative magazine in Washington. I would take *EVERYTHING* he says with a grain of salt. He's out of touch with reality of course, but this article smells of paranoid left-wing internet ***** also.

    However, even the Russian state news has said that the US military is going to bomb Iran, and it hasn't happened yet. Maybe it will.
  • MrsJay, on 06/23/2008, -5/+3http://digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_loves_George_W ...
  • Acuraracer32tl, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1Thats what she said.
  • shrimp1970, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4You MUST skew this story NOW at http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/7682?sectio ...
    • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Interesting site, I'll skim it for a few days to check it out.
  • siali, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5It seems Kucinich's time will be better spent if he works on revoking Bush's war-authorization powers instead of impeachment. Even if his impeachment gets anywhere this so-called "Bush's Nuclear Option" could stop that too. With that power gone, the "Bush's Nuclear Option" is not going to be an effective factor in the election and there will be less chance of starting war with Iran. Still it remains a fact that Israel could start that war . That says something about the depth of their influence on the US politics beyond the power of lobby, etc.
  • loveandrockets, on 06/23/2008, -3/+6This just shows how little Bush cares for his country. If he would think of bombing Iran only if McCain is losing (as I certainly think he will) he doesn't care one bit about America and the working folks and the people in uniform.

    Bombing Iran will be a disaster. We will feel the repercussions immediately and they will be BAD.
    • overridemymind, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5I agree. Bombing iran (preemptively) at all could spell disaster, as a THIRD middle eastern war would either require a draft, or require that our forces be spread so thin that the US could no longer fend off a surprise stateside attack from a *real* army such as China.

      And let's not even talk about the "nuclear option"

      Have we forgotten that cold-war ideology that follows: As soon as we have outbound nukes in the air, we'll have inbound nukes in the air in fifteen minutes or less.

      See, we're not exactly friends with EVERY country that has nuclear-tipped ICBMs, and a few of 'em are just ITCHING to push their version of the proverbial big red button.

      The idea would probably go something like this - "the americans are finally off their nuts, they're preemptively striking with NUCLEAR weapons. We're not an allied nation, and we have nuclear weapons -- what's to keep them from nuking us next? Well, we should strike their nuclear installations before they can strike ours... I mean, its okay for THEM to strike preemptively, why can't we do the same"

      BOOM - WW3. China, for example, "preemptively" sends nukes-a-flying towards the US, which is picked up by what, kids? Good - early warning radar. So we track the flight trajectory back to China, We send nukes flying their way, and by the end of lunch hour, at least two countries, if not more are radioactive, smoldering piles of rubble.

      Nukes... should not even be anywhere near anything but a "last resort" consideration. The fact that an idea of a nuclear preemptive strike has even crossed the minds of any active politician *ahem* McCain *cough* *cough* should be grounds for barring said politician from running for President if not removal from office.
    • bjs3171, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1This just shows absoultely nothing. it was speculation by Kristol. that is all.
  • Qtip42, on 06/23/2008, -5/+7The current administration and congress have destroyed this country, our freedoms, and our ability to travel without watching our back. Thanks to everyone for being passive while these idiot leaders try to sabotage our country. I say we stop being passive and start getting aggressive with congress and the administration. Americans are no longer being represented by their leaders and that is just sad.
  • Qtip42, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7By the way did anyone notice the Freudian slip? Israel nuking Iran........This is bush's likely plan. He'll back them 100% and say we're not involved but it's a complete fabrication.
  • mrb4b00, on 06/23/2008, -4/+8Not true, tabloid material.
    This is political suicide for Republicans.
    • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3That's what a nuclear option normally entails, yes.
  • thegodfaza, on 06/23/2008, -4/+8"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
    To the music of Barbara Ann.
  • rdldr1, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8From what I remember, congress has to ratify the President's war declaration. I doubt congress will approve another war.
    • elam82, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2See why do you have to ruin a perfectly good bitch-fest? If they want to pretend Bush has the power to nuke Iran and rape their women, so they can get all of their crusty whitey-tighties in a wad, you ought to let them.
    • enantiodromia, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2the war is already a few years old dude. we dont go to war against countries anymore, we go to war against subjective ideals now. that way, you dont need Congress to say "yes" more than once.
  • Tenzy, on 06/23/2008, -4/+3"Nuke the bastards" isnt such a good idea if they can nuke you back
    • Justice101, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Ummm...having nuclear weapons is a far cry from being able to deliver them in a timely and strategically effective manner.
      • ciaran036, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2They said that Iran is at least 10 years away from building a nuclear bomb. In other words, they haven't even started yet. They do not have a nuclear weapons program.
        The USA has more than 9,000 active nuclear warheads.
    • ciaran036, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2The CIA and IAEA confirmed that Iran do not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran does not own a single nuke. The USA, on the other hand owns more than 9,000 active nuclear warheads.
      • Tenzy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0Yes but the CIA has a habit of getting things wrong
  • bsmeteronhigh2, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3I would hope that our fearless leader would avoid such behaviour and realize that the far right neocons do not have his nor the nation's best interest at heart. I'm sure they all think this is an amusing game filled with bluffs and *****, but I've grown weary of the antics and would like the grownups of the world to tell them to stop acting like complete assholes. This goes for all of them.
  • Skurj, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4impeachment long overdue. i doubt it but wouldnt it be nice if this sped things up a little?
  • 223Sniper, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4so what ever happened to the armed revolt that Thomas Jefferson mentioned should happen, should your government turn on you?
    • Gemfinder, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Thomas Jefferson didn't count on gun control legislation.
  • censorme, on 06/23/2008, -2/+10The headline is a bit misleading. This is only based on the opinion of Bill Kristol, who is just another political news analyst. Man, digg is just one big Obama love fest these days. How did we go from an overflow of pro Ron Paul posts to mass Obama propaganda? Ron Paul and Obama are miles apart on policy. Oh but that's right, nobody cares about policy details anymore. Let the mud slinging begin.
    • faster6969, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Thank god someone else has some common sense. Many of the people commenting on this sound like they didn't even read the article. This is an analyst speculating and people on Digg take it as fact. Ridiculous.
    • Dr.Fade, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1I agree with your statement for the most part. The exception would be your assessment of Bill Kristol as "just another political news analyst" That guy is far more dangerous than that. He is a co-conspirator with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al in a group called The "Project For A New American Century", who's neo-Nazi philosophy is what got us knee deep in this crap to begin with.
    • mike4444r, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1it's beacuse Dig is full of sheep that fall for Democrat propaganda then claim the truth is in fact "propaganda"
  • doyoulikeworms, on 06/23/2008, -4/+18THIS IS WHY ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR.
    • enantiodromia, on 06/23/2008, -0/+19when was the last time real war was actually declared?
      • Defuser, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2World War II. Presidents from both parties have been unilaterally declaring wars via the Magic Trick of calling them "police actions" ever since.
        • Enfenestrate, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but name a recent conflict and it's almost certainly been authorized, at some point, by Congress, though they've stopped short of a formal declaration of war ever since WW2.
      • BomanTheBear, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1By America? World War II. Not even ***** you. That was the last time a constitutionally legal war was declared by the chambers. Everything since then has been declared on groups within countries and the governments themselves, but not on the countries. It makes it easier to initiate military action when you can just sidestep one of the main balances of power.
    • amightywind, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2Nancy Pelosi is too busy regulating Chimpanzee handlers to worry about something as trifling as war with the mullahs.
      http://monkeydaynews.blogspot.com/2005/03/chimpanz ...
      • Rodalli, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1"This is a timely and prudent move by Congress,' he said. "(The pet trade) is virtually unregulated. Primates are treated like personal property, like a sack of potatoes, and this legislation elevates their status.'

        This is great news! It seems primates now have rights just about on par with what blacks had after the Emancipation Proclamation. Before you know it, they'll be voting! I wonder what platforms they will support. Can McCain and Obama court the banana-eating demographic?
    • Biohazard6601, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Bush doesnt seem to care, and Congress is still too stupid to stop giving him funds
      • amightywind, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Yeah. It is a shame the democrats won't pull the plug when victory is at hand. The democrats would have surrendered to Hitler after the Battle of the Bulge.
        • bbqsalad, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2LOL! You're so demented its scary. What is victory? I thought we already won? There is a slight difference here.. Hitler was trying to take over the world, Now we are. How about pulling your dumb head out of your fat ass?
        • amightywind, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1@bbqsalad Al Qaida wants to establish a new Caliphate fro Andalusia to Indonesia. Indeed their ambitions are even more grandiose than Hitler. You are very ignorant.
        • sjm20k, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1you're making wild assumptions and your arguments are particularly false, as usual. by the way, FDR was a democrat if you'd care to remember.

          first, your argument that America would have pulled out of the European front after the battle of the bulge is false due to a couple of reasons - 1st, its wild speculation.

          2nd, if youre line of reasoning is, since some modern democrats want to pull out of iraq, if faced with WWII, they would also want to pull out. This makes the assumption that a) iraq is somehow equal in some intangible way to the conflict of WWII, and b) that the straw man you've built up as the "democrats" would choose to surrender, which essentially means they would have given sovereignty of their nation to Germany, which is a wildly speculative and ridiculous claim. Your argument is not only logically false, but also shows a lack of analytical thinking and insight into anything other than what you hear other people spew on about on AM radio.

          Also your assertion that a faceless terrorist group's asperations are more grand than Hitler's, while also speculation since you're not good buddies with their leader (I'm assuming), is completely irrelevant due to their lack of a) a nation to tax for funding - to fund a b) military/industrial nation that could c) actually leverage sovereignty over other nations. They're nowhere near as developed as Germany was during the 2nd world war, and to suggest that their aspirations somehow equate them with Hitler's army is to suggest that because a little girl with a horrible singing voice has aspirations of being the next pop sensation, we should preemptively give her loads of money, a mansion, and a fleet of cars, because her aspirations mean that she will accomplish her goal for sure.

          I hope you realized that it's YOU who might be "very ignorant". Turn off the TV and the Radio and start thinking for yourself.
        • amightywind, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1@sjm20k FDR was a piece of crap. Social Security alone is enough of a legacy to make us curse his name. Last year the democrats voted overwhelmingly to vacate a war that both Pelosi, and Harry "White Flag" Reid declared lost. They are in continual denial even though General Petraeus has the US on the threshold of victory. They showed supremely poor judgment. They are a party who refuses to fight. Their fecklessness in the 40's would have had even more magnified consequences. That was my point. The rest of your post is pure smoke and deserves no comment.
        • sjm20k, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2the fact that you would call my request for you to use logic when constructing arguments is a pretty good indication of how much weight any of your arguments hold.

          Again your assertion that victory is imminent is hopeful, but also wildly speculative. So is your assertion that a modern democratic government would not fight under any circumstances. to be taken seriously when making political analysis you need to make logical arguments that are based in analysis and logic, and not speculation and pure inflammatory name calling.

          it's clear to me i can't get through to you by either being equally nasty as you choose to be to get attention to yourself, or being level headed and deconstructing your poor arguments logically - so i offer you this:

          http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

          that is a breakdown of all of the possible logical fallacies that a person can make when constructing an argument. a valid argument does not contain a logical fallacy by definition. your arguments have let to have any logical coherence, and if your argument to hold any weight at all in reality, it must be logically sound.

          if this is just "smoke" to you, then you lack any grasp on what it means to argue a point, but i was pretty sure you lacked that to begin with.

          learn and think for yourself.

          also to address your statement that "FDR was a piece of crap" - while not a valid argument in itself, your sentiment is not shared by those who fought in WWII, i can assure you.

          based on your comments, it seems as though your blind patriotism is not even to the USA, but to certain political commentators.
        • xEn1gma, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1AMightyWind, you just got pwned sir.
  • itsfunny, on 06/23/2008, -3/+6I doubt even Bush would be stupid enough to do something like that...but we all know his brain is run by a little cockroach pulling levers.
    • jeffhansen, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Do not under-estimate the depth and breadth of Bush stupidity.
  • Denneval, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Iraq/n/j/p/l/d/@/$/*/+
  • Denneval, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Ira(n)
  • MortalynFlux, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2This is obviously a Fox News scare tactic to make people vote for McCain. What gives it away is the focus on Ahmadinejad. He is just a figurehead. The power in Iran is a bit more complex. This shows that Fox news is either ignorant or is purposely misleading the viewers with these statements. Either way, it means nothing. Just your typical Fox News sensationalist *****.
    • Gemfinder, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1"This is obviously a Fox News scare tactic to make people vote for McCain."
      Who wants to bomb Iran, too.
      We'd be screwed either way but the scenario is merely theoretical.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.