Hello, kiddies. I’ve finally recovered from a New Year’s Eve which involved several thousand happy Portuguese dancing in the streets of Porto, a visit to a gay bar where I was plied with champagne while watching buxom naked ladies swinging on swings to the music of Boney M., and the inhalation of veritable drifts of good cocaine. I hope yours was of a similar nature.
My head is still a little sore and any movement makes me a little dizzy. As a result, I have not been able to incline my head downwards to read the last few pages of posts on this blog, but I’m sure I haven’t missed anything.
I have, however, been reading the National Review. After a big weekend, one sometimes needs a little purge, and there’s no finer emetic than spending fifteen minutes reading anything by that vile Goldberg putz. After I had wiped my face clean and tottered back from the bathroom, I found myself reading an article by John Yoo.
Now, I admit that much of the last decade is a blur, but I was quite sure that Mr Yoo had been tried for war crimes years ago and locked up in a prison near the Hague somewhere, where he was denied access to writing implements and where two stern Dutch women waterboarded him and beat his testicles with golf clubs every morning.
No such luck, apparently. Instead he is free to tout that the Republican presidential candidates should all be preparing for military action against Iran:
President Obama has done more than merely delay the inevitable day of reckoning with Iran. He has left the public uninformed about the nature and possible consequences of military action, which must be serious and sustained enough to destroy complex, protected, and dispersed facilities — pinpoint bombing of a single facility will not end Iran’s nuclear program. Iran might respond by attacking Israel, Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia, and oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. President Obama has also failed to explain the heavy costs of containment, which would involve a constant, significant conventional and nuclear military presence on Iran’s perimeter. …
Military action need not go so far as an invasion or even a no-fly zone. Our forces would have to destroy Iranian air-defense sites, but otherwise, thanks to precision-guided missiles and drones, they could concentrate on a few links in the Iranian nuclear chain: the centrifuge facilities where uranium is enriched, the assembly points for weapons, and perhaps missile and air-delivery systems.
The surgical nature of such strikes would make them proportional to the military objective, which would be not the overthrow of the Iranian regime but the destruction of its nuclear capability. Nuclear-weapons infrastructure is a legitimate military target, even if some strikes may kill civilians. If casualties result because facilities are located beneath cities, the fault rests with the Iranians for deliberately using civilians to shield its military — a move long forbidden by the laws of war. Unlike Iranian-supported terrorist groups, the United States will assuredly do everything possible to keep civilian loss of life to a minimum.
The United States has assumed the role, once held by Great Britain, of guaranteeing free trade and economic development, spreading liberal values, and maintaining international security. An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, though it would impose costs in human lives and political turmoil, would serve these interests and forestall the spread of conflict and terror. The Republican presidential candidates should begin preparing the case now for this difficult but unavoidable challenge.
John Yoo and psychopaths like him will not be satisfied until the world is a smoking ruin.
I, for one, will not be happy, not least because those chain mail dresses that Tina Turner wore chafe like a bitch.