Answering Kevin’s Question

by tristero

Riffing off Atrios, I’d like to take a stab at answering Kevin Drum’s question. Briefly, neocons like Kristol and others are calling for more troops, but there ain’t any, cause they’re really lowering standards to get more folks enlisted , so Kevin asks:

If we need more troops to win, but there aren’t any more troops to be had, then what?

And the answer, as far as Kristol, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration are concerned is obvious:

What do you think all those “tactical” nukes are for, anyway?

And anyone who doesn’t think the neocons aren’t advocating nukes as the answer to the troop shortage hasn’t been paying attention. Hersh made it clear that’s the plan back in April, 2006.

Nukes replace troops. Not to mention that Bush et al are jonesing to drop the first Big Ones since Dubya Dubya Two. For one thing, they don’t want Kim Jong Il, let alone other losers like India or Pakistan to have any fun before they do.

If that sounds gruesomely cynical, that’s because it is. And I hope to hell that is all it is. But I’m afraid it’s also an accurate description of the Bush administration’s thinking.

Folks, let’s remember this: The next time you vote for president that guy or gal is gonna have his hand on The Button. You think Frist or Jeb Bush is mature enough to control themselves? Or Rice? Or McCain? Let’s get real here. Say what you want, Kerry could. Clark could. Gore could. As Clinton could, and did.

Voting for president is serious bizness, people. You don’t vote for a moron like Bush if you’re serious. Ever.