White House: U.S. not to attack Iran

White House: U.S. not to attack Iran

news.xinhuanet.com

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 (Xinhua) -- The United States said Tuesday that it is not about to attack Iran and reaffirmed diplomacy in trying to solve the thorny issue of Iran's nuclear program.

"There's no reason for people to think that the president is about to attack Iran. I think that we need to make that clear," White House press secretary Dana Perino said at a briefing.

"He doesn't want people to fear that, because what he is doing is pursuing a diplomatic track," Perino said.

(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 30-10-2007 by anhinga]

Seems like cleaning up the mess from some of the lunatic comments made recently by the prez.

news.xinhuanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by anhinga


I have to agree. Unfortunately, I don't believe this for a second.

As I have said before, I expect another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to happen that leaves the President with "no choice" but to strike back. Naturally, I expect Iran to have absolutely NOTHING to do with this new "attack".

If we aren't in Iran before the middle of '08, I will be surprised and, dare I say, pleased.


Jasn

Yeah, I hear that.

The U.S. can't afford to attack any more nations -- I really think this is a lot of saber-rattling. Plus, I don't know if I go for the whole 'peak oil' thing. After some of the Iranian prez comments about Zionism, I guess the Z's in government had to say something back.

Again, like you said, unless they're another terrorclass attack, I can't see it, even then, w/ China and Russia supplying weapons and the U.S. supplying the nuke reactor decades ago -- seems like something else happening. Remember how North Korea was threating w/ nukes in American cities years ago -- look at them now, begging for aid for their starving people.

I guess, I actually do believe the WH then. Think about the holiday season, there won't be (I assume) any more saber-rattling now that sanctions are happening, once that squeezes them, you'll hear about the IAEA and the rest of the song and danse -- a lot of users on this site like the sensationalist headlines, always wars in some minds.... also, on the sanctions, Iraq was in awful shape w/ forced sanctions for decades -- Saddam milked the money for himself. Whereas other countries will play by the rules and get results.

Look at Libya. State terror for decades, now, in the UN!!

[edit on 30-10-2007 by anhinga]

Hmm... this doesn't sound right to me:

"There's no reason for people to think that the president is about to attack Iran. I think that we need to make that clear," White House press secretary Dana Perino said at a briefing.

Obviously, there's plenty of reason to think that the US really wants to attack Iran.
Ummm...

"There's no reason for people to think. We need to make that clear," White House press secretary Dana Perino said at a briefing.

That's better!
Fixed!

Why does peoples reaction always have to be bad? Lets push them for democracy then, hold them to this report to stop Iran occupation.

reply to post by Spawwwn


Because we (I) are (am) jaded by the constant stream of BS that comes out of the mouths of those who run things.

If Bush was to tell me the sky was blue, I'd take a really hard look at it before believing him.

Ha!
If Bush wanted diplomacy, and Ahmadenameisdumb wanted diplomacy, there would be some friggin' diplomacy by now.

That being said, Dana Perino is hot. I'd like to light a fire in her middle east, if you catch my drift.

That whole diplomacy with Iran is a scam, the WH never intended to do diplomacy with Iran. NEVER. They overthrew their government and put a dictator, then when he was ousted, the US saw that as an act of war. Yeah sure, the people free themselves from one dictator and it's not a demonstration of a people wanting democracy it's an act of war... then on 9/11 iranians were praying for the death, then they helped NATO taking cares and catching talibans, then Bush branded them axis of evil... Stupid moran. Then Ahmanejidad called for a TV debate, Bush never accepted, send a letter to Bush, probably never red it... then called for him to come in an Iranian university, never accepted...

Bush don't want diplomacy, he wants war and he's preparing for it since 1979.

Obviously, they WANT a war w/ Iran but I am not sure if it'll happen, again, a lot of armchair QBing going around.

"There's no reason for people to think that the president is about to attack Iran. I think that we need to make that clear"

I know it's just "semantics", but Mr. Bush himself will NEVER attack Iran.

I find it disturbing how "president" and "country" can sometimes mean the same... It's like when we read in history (or stories?) books: "...the roman emperor then attack the enemies..." when, actually, the COUNTRY (or it's army) did the attack.


I said it before, and I'll say it again: watching all those news is like watching a very bad plotted action movie.

Peace

From all the articles recently, I can't see this happening w/ Russia, China and the IAEA on Iran's side -- which is good, how can anyone not be for peace?!?!

Also, the U.S. prez is complaining about the Democrats lately about more money for war. They debated that yesterday, we'll see soon enough how much he gets for the troops ALREADY in a war zone -- Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like I mentioned prior in this post -- a lot of saber-rattling seems to be all this is.