Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
Okay, is this recent enough for you? 
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/...ess/index.html
"When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option [nuclear weapons use], what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president's office, said, no, let's keep it in the plan."
The White House is dictating military strategy again.
"So when they looked at the underground facility in Iran -- as I said, this place, the main place is 75 hard feet underground, the only way you can tell the White House for sure, folks, you have to use a tac[tical] nuke.
But that isn't what they were -- they were just giving the range. But it's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] in an uproar."
Is that enough to make you nervous? The White House is again driving the military and making them do what THEY don't want to do. |
But they aren't DOING anything. They are developing contingencies. There's a difference.
The White House has always been heavily involved in developiing military contingencies and military 'doctrine of the day'.
Besides, that's not what I meant by 'old news' anyway. I thought that you were telling me that officials were spouting off about using nukes, as in verbal threats or allusions.
I just misunderstood you.
For the record, I'm pretty much ready for Nov 2008. I've pretty much had it with Bush at this point. His second term has been extremely disappointing to me thus far, and I see no reason why that would turn around. I still wouldn't have voted for Kerry, knowing what I know now, but I didn't expect this either.