The United States assists Israel in bombing the living isotopes out of two uranium-enrichment plants and a reactor. Leaving aside the pre-emptive nature of the attack, it unleashes a public health catastrophe with untold ongoing consequences on a country where the public-health system is rudimentary at best. Which results in a population that is so excited about being bombed and sickened that it rises up and overthrows the government and installs one more likely to be friendly to the powers that have bombed and sickened them.
That quote is from Pierce, though you would be excused for any confusion.They must be competing with the WashPo for Mark's love. Liberal media? It must suck to be on the same side of an issue as the pathologically insane.
Salon sees the Times as doing a reverse end around of some sort. I'll go with that, the devious bastards.
The New York Times editorial page pulled a fast one on Iran hawks today by publishing an op-ed from the most indiscreet member of their rank, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. While some Times readers may have been aghast to see the venerable paper publish Bolton’s ravings — under the headline “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran” — the editorial decision should be cheered. Here we have a leading conservative hawk plainly admitting that the alternative to the deal currently under negotiation is not a “better deal,” but is a bombing campaign followed by some hazily defined efforts at “regime change.” Meaning, ultimately, war with Iran.
Well, it is the paper of record. And Bolton as a member in good standing of the neocon crowd is now on record calling for mass murder.