Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

Whenever I read a Sy Hersh piece I think the stuff he says cannot be true. "No they wouldn't do that, it's too nuts!" I often initially think to myself. But as time rolls on I--we all--discover that yes it may be too nuts, but the W Administration will do it. It was Mr Hersh's reporting that first informed us that Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident but part of a systematic program of torture to soften detainees up for Military Intelligence interrogations. He reported that the authority for the program went right up to the Pentagon E Ring offices. At first that story seemed preposterous, we were Americans, aka THE GOOD GUYS, and good guys don't torture people. But then came the Gonzalez memos providing the President with a legal justification for torture; and suddenly we knew we were through the looking glass.

Now Mr. Hersh writes in the New Yorker that bombing Iran to take out the nuclear weapon making infrastructure is under serious consideration at the White House. Some options even call for the use of tactical nuclear weapons to get at hardened underground labs, (that would be a precious irony; using nukes to prevent the spread of nukes). Again, my first reaction is "Why that's just nuts! We are not winning in Iraq as it is, the last thing we need now is a war with Iran!"

I keep forgetting. I am a member of the "reality based community." For me things have to make sense and add up. Bombing Iran does not make sense nor add up.

But then again I am just not amoral and ruthless enough to see that bombing Iran does make sense. With poll numbers as rotten as Bush's and with the prospect of one or both houses of Congress going to the Democrats in November now would be the time for some of that "Commander in Chief" razzle dazzle. If he lays some of that famous "Shock and Awe" on Iran it could change the political dynamics here at home. Rove is probably focus grouping it right now.