Bush Explains Why Pearl Harbor Was Justified

[ihavenobias]

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."
-- George W. Bush

This is George Bush talking about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program. He explains that a National Intelligence Estimate that says they have no program is a warning that they might have one. Obviously this has to win some sort of award for circular reasoning (come on, how ridiculous is it that he says the fact they don't have one proves they might have one later), but there is one other problem.

Couldn't this apply to almost any country in the world? Is President Bush really claiming the fact that someone could start a nuclear weapon program at any time is justification for threatening them, including keeping military attacks against that country on the table?

Couldn't the Philippines start a nuclear weapons program at any time? How about Canada? How about the dangerous folks in Botswana?

How could the fact that someone has ended their nuclear weapons program years ago be justification for attacking them because they might restart it? Can Bush really believe the things that he says?

And if he does believe this absurdity, then wasn't Japan justified in attacking us in Pearl Harbor?

They heard that we had a nuclear weapons program - and we did. And that we might be able to start it any time - which was relatively true. And that if we had nuclear weapons, we might use them against Japan one day - which obviously proved to be true. So, they launched a pre-emptive strike against the United States because we had a nuclear weapons program they feared we might use against them at a later time.

Under the Bush doctrine, isn't Pearl Harbor the perfect case for using a pre-emptive first strike? Japan was rightfully concerned about our weapons program and they rightfully struck us first.

Of course, the only problem with that theory is that there is an excellent chance we would have never used those nuclear weapons against Japan if they hadn't attacked us first. Gee, I wonder if this could be a decent argument against pre-emptive strikes...

For the rest of this piece, click here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/bush-explains-why-pearl-h_b_75378.html

[AndyA]

1. I don't see any reason to not by wary of Iran. They have not always been our best friend.

But that goes for pretty much all countries. Today's friend could be tomorrow's foe, so I think we should be watchful of what goes on around the world, and I believe we are.

I also believe it's necessary to maintain a dialogue with these countries, even if it's on a very general level. We can never expect to resolve differences or address problems by slamming doors.

Sure, Iran could restart their nuclear program, so we have to watch for that, but at the same time we should try to improve communications between the two countries to see if there's a way of preventing this from being an issue again.

[ihavenobias]

7. Of Course

I don't think anyone would disagree with being "wary" of Iran (or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or several other countries for that matter). The issue is how we choose to act based on the available information.

I think this video clip from this morning (with Cenk and Wes Clark Jr) gives an interesting take:

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2007/12/5/111740/472/tytvideoclips/President-Bush-Reveals-How-He-was-Briefed-on-Iran-s-Nukes-

[rAVES]

8. I wouldnt be our friend either after the shitty end of the stick we gave them.

[JDPriestly]

9. Wary -- absolutely yes.

Preemptive strikes -- absolutely no.

[ihavenobias]

10. Exactly

[ladjf]

2. Bush's logic is too absurd to even debate rationally. He's either

"nuts" or a total "flim-flam" man or maybe both.

[Union Thug]

3. Bush borrows from Minority Report - opens Department of Pre-Crime.

[whistle]

4. Bush is advocating "Shock and Awe II" for Iran massive bombing to stop the flow of Iran oil

....This will have the effect of making Iraq's oil production which now is controlled by U.S. and British companies and must be paid for in U.S. Dollars vital in the world market and put a freeze on Iran oil which is traded in Euros.

Wall Street again becomes relevant and the European Union is forced to suck hind tit!

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Isn't Bush the one who demanded the USA begin new development of 'short range' nukes?

Guess he's just asking for some other country to 'strike us again'. One other question, why doesn't Yale teach students logic or didn't George take the subject?

[bpj62]

6. History Lesson

Although I have no love for the current Iranian Government, people need to realize that the American Goverment has had a direct involvement in the Iranian Government for years. The CIA overthrew a monarchy in 1952 and installed the Shah of Iran. We then supported him until 1979. His security service tortured and killed thousands of Iranians. Now 26 years after the fall of the Shah we are once again messing with the affairs of another government.