Bush, on avoiding use of force in Iran: "As you know I'm skeptical"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Bush refuses to rule out force against Iran

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050812/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearusisrael_050812182333

When asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomatic efforts, Bush said: "All options are on the table."

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said in a clear reference to Iraq, which the United States invaded in March 2003.

"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we are working feverishly on the diplomatic route and, you know, we will see if we are successful or not. As you know I'm skeptical," he said.

[whistle]

1. Wow, that is a "dumb fuck" look if I ever saw one!

[jimshoes]

2. George has gone around the bend

if this picture is any indication of his mental status.

[WildClarySage]

3. Last resort my ass... Go outside and tell that one to Cindy Sheehan,

you dumbf*ck.

[ClintonTyree]

4. Just like he refused to rule out the use of force in Iraq?

Which means the intelligence has been formed around the agenda and the plans are on the table already. :eyes: He's SOOOO transparent!

"Iran made this decision because they are getting the impression that the United States and the Europeans are spineless," a senior official from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office told AFP Tuesday.

Well, they know the president of the United States is spineless. He won't even meet with a 48 year old woman. He's pretty free and easy with anyone else's lives though, getting other people killed for his fuck-ups doesn't phase him a bit.

[yorkiemommie1]

5. george . many of us still have the memory function of our brains

n/t

[donkeyotay]

6. All options are on the table redux

This taken from Q&A portion of a Blair/Bush press conference from Crawford in April 2002. (About the time of the Downing St. Minutes, while they were pretending to not have made up their minds to go to war.)

<snip>

President responding to question about Europeans not seeing linkage between Saddam and 9-11:

History has called us into action. The thing I admire about this Prime Minister is he doesn't need a poll or a focus group to convince him the difference between right and wrong. And it's refreshing to see leaders speak with moral clarity when it comes to the defense of freedom.

I intend to speak with clarity when it comes to freedom, and I know Prime Minister Tony Blair does, as well. And we will hold Saddam Hussein accountable for broken promises. And that's what a lot of our discussion over there on Prairie Chapel Ranch has been about. And, other than eating lunch, which we're fixing to go do, we're going to continue our discussions.


Q Thank you. Mr. President, you have yet to build an international coalition for military action against Iraq. Has the violence in the Middle East thwarted your efforts? And Prime Minister Blair, has Bush convinced you on the need for a military action against Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Adam, the Prime Minister and I, of course, talked about Iraq. We both recognize the danger of a man who's willing to kill his own people harboring and developing weapons of mass destruction. This guy, Saddam Hussein, is a leader who gasses his own people, goes after people in his own neighborhood with weapons of -- chemical weapons. He's a man who obviously has something to hide.

He told the world that he would show us that he would not develop weapons of mass destruction and yet, over the past decade, he has refused to do so. And the Prime Minister and I both agree that he needs to prove that he isn't developing weapons of mass destruction.

I explained to the Prime Minister that the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam and that all options are on the table.

THE PRIME MINISTER: I can say that any sensible person looking at the position of Saddam Hussein and asking the question, would the region, the world, and not least the ordinary Iraqi people be better off without the regime of Saddam Hussein, the only answer anyone could give to that question would be, yes.

Now, how we approach this, this is a matter for discussion. This is a matter for considering all the options. But a situation where he continues to be in breach of all the United Nations resolutions, refusing to allow us to assess, as the international community have demanded, whether and how he is developing these weapons of mass destruction. Doing nothing in those circumstances is not an option, so we consider all the options available.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020406-3.html

"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we are working feverishly on the diplomatic route and, you know, we will see if we are successful or not. As you know I'm skeptical," he said.

I'm skeptical, too.

[NoFederales]

7. Dumber than a sack of hammers; this is total shitfaced lying (and by the

way--looking at that caricature of a Bushface is pretty sickening).

Special Forces is in Iran; the US is constantly trying to provoke the Iranians into a "mishandled" situation--sound familiar? Those boys who get killed "out of Iraq" don't really exist on any roll and are unreported as KIA by the military. How many?

Our pResident and his goon squads oughtta be tied up in gunny-sacks like the pol-kitties they are, and dropped into the midst of the devastation they've created. Oh, and we won't report about it either.

NoFederales

[kevsand]

8. "As you know I'm skeptical."

He's flat out saying that he doesn't think diplomacy will work, even before it's been exhausted. That demonstrates a willingness and, in fact, an eagerness to attack militarily. He just telegraphed the punch.