quote:

---

The Euphemism

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,

"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"

He replied,

"All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations - without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News, August 14, 2005, said the same.

"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."

But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position - making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.

Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in New York, said,

"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep all options on the table."

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.

---

quote:

---

Can you see a difference?

---

Certainly.

The only ones who "can't see a difference" between, say Bush and Obama, or Newt Gingrich and John Edwards, are those who are observing from way, way, out there.

That meme is also used by those who belong to a third party, but are afraid to admit it.

I think it is pretty clear, for example, that
john Kerry would never have invaded Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

---

quote:

---

I think it is pretty clear, for example, that
john Kerry would never have invaded Iraq.

---

You know, I've often said the same, but it occurs to me that while him or Gore would never have invaded and occupied (mainly because they're not that stupid), they certainly would have continued the crippling siege-like sanctions regime and frequent bombing campaigns. It may sound insane, but perhaps this whole fiasco might be wrapped up in a shorter time than the kinder, gentler genocide of the Clinton administration, which might have stretched on for decades more under other Democrats. With global opinion so heavily against the invasion one can hope that a real chance for the Iraqis to rebuild their country with no interference and significant support might not be too far behind an American withdrawal. Is it possible that between the two choices of a quick boot in the face and a slow, suffocating death, the boot might end up doing less damage?

quote:

---

Highly speculative, to be sure, but not impossible. In any event we shouldn't disregard all the pain and suffering that Democrats have inflicted on the Iraqi people just because they're too smart to attempt an occupation.

---

Since it was a Republican in charge, they canonized him.