You say you don’t believe he said this? They have a link to the press conference; click it and see for yourself.
Sure enough, true to form, the NY Times misrepresented his answers to their questions.
Here's what they asked him about attacking Iran:
So taking the nuclear question off the table, is there some other kind of military steps that should be taken to save the lives of American troops from Iranian weapons in Iraq?
And this is his complete answer:
A. I think we can do some things. Clearly, there is a need to stop the — to stem the flow of that technology into Iraq and into Afghanistan. There is a very important focus on that right now on the borders on where it flows and on how to stop it, or how to make sure that once it’s in the country that it doesn’t kill Americans. That said, that doesn’t get at the source of it. I’m not — I think that the question you pose is still out there. And the question of should we in fact do that, and given the risks that are associated with that. And the implication is that should we in fact strike targets in Iran if we knew that’s where the, you know, if we had specifics about where that was coming from. That’s a, obviously, a very, very difficult question to answer because of the risks that are associated with doing something like that. It’s also one well above my pay grade, even in this job.
So you see, not only did he not reject attacking Iran, (As I posted before, that's not his decision to make), the reporter specifically asked him not to comment on the Iranian nuclear question. Yet the reporter still said this in the article:
He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops
Kind of a neat trick, isn't it? Ask him not to comment on the nuclear question, and report the answer as if he did. (And of course, misrepresent the answer.)
Once again, the NY Times lives up to its reputation for slanted reporting.
As for waiting for a retraction before I pass judgment, given the Times' notorious slowness in issuing retractions, I don't think I can wait that long.