Wingnuts advocate nuclear annihilation of countries that haven't attacked us

Glen Greenwald speaks out:

Add pre-emptive nuclear annihilation of entire countries to the list of policies (along with the use of torture as an interrogation tool, rendition, laweless detention of U.S. citizens, and presdiential law-breaking) which are so self-evidently contrary to the defining values of our country that they used to be taboo even to advocate, but are now commonly accepted policies among many mainstream pundits, including those who most ardently support the current president.

Here's an excerpt from the Walter Williams column he's reacting to:

Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.

I suppose it's just "handwringing" to think about the tens or hundreds of millions of people who would be killed in such an annihilation. And please, spare me the "those of my generation" condescension. It seems to me that those who fought World War II did so with a greater sense of moral responsibility than Walter Williams is showing here (not to mention a better grasp of global strategy than our administration is displaying). In World War II, no one in the United States was advocating the annihilation of nations that hadn't even attacked us. And from what I've read there was a good deal of "handwringing" about the atomic bomb and the firebombing of Axis cities. And there's a good deal of debate today as to whether those actions were an optimal use of military resources, and whether they were morally justified.

I hope that as the wingnut moral insanity becomes more and more visible, people become more and more repulsed by it. Please, in 2006 let's get some grown-ups in control of Congress. And as soon as possible let's get a grown-up on "The Button" too.

UPDATE: A commenter, zAmboni, on Greenwald makes an important point:

Of course the article is ridiculous. But that is the point. The right is trying to define the boundaries of the ME debate and it usually starts out by coming up with some extreme ridiculous argument.

This argument gets played up and then the rest of the conservative pundits swoop in with slightly less ridiculous "solutions" to the problem which appear to be tame in context. I think Digby has talked about this type of tactic a bunch of times....

Of course use of nuclear weapons would be ludicrous....but now when the neocons come in later and say that limited airstrikes on strategic targets in the ME is the solution, it seems reasonable in comparison (but ridiculous in terms of ME stability itself)

So when some other commentator comes out pushing for a "limited bombing" campaign, be sure to evaluate that proposal on its own merits. Don't be fooled just because it sounds more reasonable than nuclear genocide.