I’m not sure how seriously to take Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker piece on Bush’s desire to launch a nuclear war on Iran: The Iran plans. Hersh gets good information, I realize, but I think he has a tendency to go too far in the direction of the worst-case scenario. I’m thinking of Abu Ghraib, I guess: Yes, the reality of what the Bush team did there was awful, but not quite the apocalyptic end-of-the-nation-as-we-know-it stuff that Hersh portrayed.
Gah. That sounds like I’m defending the Bush administration’s use of torture as an instrument of government policy.
Okay; start over. Bush sucks, and his use of torture (and, to the extent that he’s contemplating it, his contemplation of using nuclear weapons in a bid to go after the Iranian nuclear program) is at the heart of the ways in which he is the most disasterously unqualified person to hold the presidency I have ever seen, or ever want to see.
But with that said, Hersh’s arrangement of the detail in his stories leaves me thinking that he misses a truer context, sometimes. In his Cassandra-esque keening about the evil he’s uncovered, I think he gets a bit carried away. I think that might be part of what’s happening with this story.
At least, I seriously hope so. Because the alternative is horrifying and depressing.