Posted on 05/20/2008 6:40:47 PM PDT by RDTF
The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."
Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
The official reportedly went on to say that, for the time being, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic.
The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has established de facto control of the country, was advancing an American attack.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
...better check with Bela “the hawk” Pelosi first.
I hope i get to see it
I am convinced that a healthy percentage of losses we have suffered in Afghanistan and Iraq have been as a result of someone speaking out of turn to a reporter or other person who told a reporter and disseminated the info all over the world. I am equally certain some important plans have been aborted for the same reason.
And why aren't some of these warped individuals prosecuted. The laws are in place, use them The public has no “right to know” military battlefield plans. Key congressmen,yes - public, no!!
Shouldn't be hard to figure the date.A weekday after the Dims convention would deliver the correct political message and make the Dims get on board also.
If America strikes these groups it might as hit the nuke sites also since the forces will be in place to do so.
The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term.
That's not news. Of course no-one is going to admit they are planning an attack. Kind of takes away tactical surprise. Even if they're not planning an attack, you never let the other side know exactly what your plans are, or are not. That element of uncertainty almost always works in your favor.
It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."
Here again, non-news. Of course diplomatic means are always the preferred option. Only a sociopath would prefer force of arms with all the destruction in men and material that implies.
...that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
Of course it may be called for, but is it at the point where it is worth it? Some would say military action against Mexico is called for. After all, their citizens keep invading our country. They are literally invading while their own government does little if anything to stem the tide. An invasion? Hey, that merits military action to counter it. But is it worth it? Similarly, Iran has clearly done things to merit a military strike. But the relative cost of such an action must be balanced against the costs and outcomes of other means. (for now)
etc. etc... No real new information here. And this is what these people get paid for? Nice work if you can get it. Re-hash some obvious facts, try to spin a little sensationalism and controversy into it.
I don't follow your reasoning....help me out.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
BOOM!
They won't want to appear to be the appeasers and anti-americans that they are.
How can they argue against protecting American troops by attacking the sources of men and equipment that is prolonging the fighting in Iraq?
The cruise missile supply is being replenished and the Buffs are rested in Diego Garcia so surgical strikes without ground forces is the way to go. Dissident Iranians are already providing plenty of target info so there is no need to disturb the non-manical Iranians.
And, one of the "blue light specials" to this is that some of the Special Groups are based next to nuke facilities. Twofers.
Depends - McCain wins election, no attack. ‘bama or Hilly win, attack.
I'm with you on everything except this perception. Leapords don't change their spots...and "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is a powerful disease that affects normally rational people!
I'm of the belief that any raid will have as its primary target Natanz and the many other nuke and missile development sites. There may be a "decapitation" element to it also. Any strike on the Quds Special Groups will be a side show....
More than enough to send Democrats into a frothing-mouth frenzy, assuming there aren't any that are already there.
roger that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.