Attack on Iran Not on U.S. Agenda -- Rice

Feb 4, 2005

LONDON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said on Friday a military attack on Iran was not currently on the agenda and played down differences with Europe in policy toward Tehran.

"The question is simply not on the agenda at this point, we have diplomatic means to do this," said Rice at a news conference, when asked if she could envisage circumstances under which the United States would attack Iran.

Rice, on her first overseas visit since taking office, aims to heal transAtlantic ties damaged over Iraq (news - web sites) and launch a new U.S. push for peace in the Middle East, but Iran is an area of possible tension.

Three EU countries are trying to negotiate with Iran to stop it developing nuclear weapons, but Washington takes a tougher line.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050204/wl_nm/rice_iran_dc

Because you can always believe what Dr. Rice says. Always.

:eyes:

agenda.

Yeah, I sure do feel reassured hearing that from her. Bigtime.

BTW - please disregard the sig line. I'm not sure how to delete it at the moment, but sad to say, that toll free number has been disconnected.

I know I don't and wouldn't turn my back on her or anyone else in that regime.

The invasion is coming. Sad.

...for a future attack.


Oh, I ain't gonna lie no more, no more
I ain't gonna lie no more
We'll turn Iran
into Hiroshima, Japan
I ain't gonna lie no more...

uh-oh.

when did they change the constitution so that the SOS can decide who we are going to war with next?

She is just a mouthpiece. State has no power at all.

Who told her to say this?? I wonder.

Yes.. Iran may obtain nuclear weapons soon, has sunburn missiles, a military that would have trounced Iraq without trying, biological and chemical weapons no doubt, and we have diplomatic means to do this.... Condi, blow it out your backside. Hypocrites all, painting a grand illusion of American supremacy in the world. How sick and deranged is that.

that sure makes me feel better


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

like create jobs, better the education system, ease the poverty lines, FIND WMDs...

It would probably be better if it were on their agenda.

especially when you know that whatever they say, they really mean the opposite.

exactly WHY?

:scared:
dbt

Perhaps they were on a coffee table instead. But the plans nonethelsss existed and later were implemented.

The News Hour Interview with NSC Advisor Condoleezza Rice

March 11, 2002

>JIM LEHRER: Now, back to the Cheney visit to the area. Taking action against Iraq is something he's going to be talking to these folks about, is that correct?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: He will certainly talk about Iraq, but I think that people need to get out of their minds the kind of image of Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney who went in the fall of 1990 in advance of imminent action against Iraq. President Bush has made no decision about the use of force against Iraq. The vice president will go there. He will consult with our allies and friends in the region.

Obviously, President Bush has put the world on notice that the status quo with Iraq is not acceptable. We have a country that continues to flaunt its international obligations undertaken in 1991 in the armistice, that continues to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction. After all, there is a reason that Saddam Hussein does not want weapons inspections in Iraq. It's...obviously he's got something to hide.

And this is a regime that continues to threaten its neighbors, threaten its own people and threaten world peace and stability. And so it isn't a situation that can continue forever. And the vice president will talk to our friends in the region about what we might do, but he is not carrying a decision by the president of the United States to use force against Iraq. That simply isn't the case.<
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-se1167.html



----



May 23, 2002

Bush says there are "no war plans on my desk"

>"And I told the Chancellor that I have no war plans on my desk, which is the truth, and that we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein. And I appreciate the German Chancellor's understanding of the threats of weapons of mass destruction. And they're real.

Now, I know some would play like they're not real. I'm telling you, they're real. And if you love freedom, it's a threat to freedom. And so we're going to deal with it, and we'll deal with it in a respectful way. The Chancellor said that I promised consultations. I will say it again: I promise consultations with our close friend and ally. We will exert a unified diplomatic pressure. We will share intelligence. We love freedom, and so does the Chancellor, and we cannot allow these weapons to be in a position that will affect history.<



>snip<
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let's see, part one of a four-part question. I live in a bubble. That's what happens when you're the President. So, unfortunately, I don't get to see as much of Berlin as I'd like to see. That's just life. So when I come back at some point in my life, Mr. Chancellor, you can show me around. We'll go fishing together."
http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAffairs/May2302BushSchroederIraqTerrorism.html


----




THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP

HOST: JOHN MCLAUGHLIN

JOINED BY: LAWRENCE KUDLOW, TONY BLANKLEY, MICHAEL MANDELBAUM AND GERARD BAKER

TAPED: FRIDAY, JULY 19, 2002


PRESIDENT BUSH: (From videotape.) As I told President Chirac, I have no war plans on my desk, and I will continue to consult closely with him.
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=305#top



----


PRESS GAGGLE BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN
DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

September 16, 2002

Excerpts

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think, one, let me remind everybody, the President has not made a decision about any particular course of action, so it's premature to speculate about decisions the President has not made. Remember, there are a number of options available. The only option that is not available is to do nothing. So our focus continues to be on working with the international community and Congress to address the grave and gathering threat that the Iraqi regime poses to the world.

So I think it's -- again, I think it's premature to speculate about any particular course of action. Those decisions have not been made.

>MR. McCCLELLAN: I'm saying that I don't want to speculate about -- preemption is not an option for spokespeople. I don't want to speculate about a particular course of action that the President has not decided upon.

>Q: Scott, if I could revisit the cost of the war. I mean, to be fair, before the President considers a tax cut, you cost it out and figure out what it's going to cost. Now, the American people do have a right to know if they're going to be led into war what it's going to cost them. So why can't you say if the White House has costed out what a war would cost, why can't you tell us whether or not --

MR. McCLELLAN: You said, if the nation is going to be led into war. I mean, again, no decision has been made about any particular course of action, so --

Q: -- under the false assumption that a final decision has been made. Do you mean to suggest that, unlike all other domestic or international spending initiatives haven't you been costing out the potential cost of a war?

MR. McCLELLAN: I understand what your question is. But again, I'd go back to what I said. We're not going to speculate about a particular decision the President has not made.

>
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/WH/wh-fleischer-091602.htm




----

THE STOVEPIPE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.
Issue of 2003-10-27
Posted 2003-10-20

The White House, meanwhile, had been escalating its rhetoric. In a television interview on September 8th, Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser, addressing questions about the strength of the Administration’s case against Iraq, said, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”—a formulation that was taken up by hawks in the Administration. And, in a speech on October 7th, President Bush said, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact



----


30,000 BRITISH TROOPS ON STANDBY FOR BATTLE IN IRAQ

Dec 18 2002

By Tom Newton Dunn, Defence Correspondent


A BRITISH military task force is on standby for war against Iraq at a moment's notice.

Up to 30,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen have been ordered by the Ministry of Defence to be ready for action, officials said yesterday.

The alert came as America suggested that Saddam Hussein's 12,000-page weapons declaration was unacceptable. Its analysis will be completed by the weekend.

A round-the-clock air assault, followed by a mainly American invasion involving 250,000 troops, may now be just weeks away.

>Despite the detailed preparations, they insist war is not inevitable and no exact timetable has been set.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12463180&method=full&siteid=50143

:D No, we won't get fooled again!

Bush's remarks enraged Iran's conservative state-controlled media. State television accused Bush of trying to capture Middle East oil under the pretext of promoting democracy in the region.

"Why is Bush only interested in promoting democracy in oil-rich regions?" asked one radio commentator.

Showing pictures of civilians killed in neighboring Iraq (news - web sites), state television demanded Washington rethink policies which it said were creating anger in the Middle East.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050203/pl_nm/bush_iran_dc_2

Liars and thieves! Liars and thieves! Liars and thieves! Liars and thieves! Liars and thieves! Liars and thieves!

You are a 'effing, 'effing, 'effing liar.

But soon...



Redstone

Thus, any war plans are merely 'historical' documents

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt!

Context is key.

... is leading with headlines of "not on the agenda", and then, typically, buried in the story is "at this point."

it sure is. :)

His Fraudulency's first term.

Condaliar strikes again.

Lock and load boys youre gettin ready to go in.

:eyes: :puke:

Why can't Iran have nukes when Israel is bristling with them?

:eyes:

Jay

eom

Condo Rice continues to be a sleazy liar...

While technically true, it was intellectually dishonest.

DO THIS!

George says, "The plans are not on my desk, but, I am carefully studying the "invasion" plans with Pickles every night". :-)

Condi says, "The question is simply not on the agenda at this point....

Maybe tomorrow or the next day, but, not at this "nanosecond"!

n/t

that they did not have a WMD program for nuclear. But of course she then started spreading the word that we could end up with a MUSHROOM cloud in our backyard within a year if we did not stop Saddam!!! So I agree , what she actually is saying is that they will not tell us until we are already seeing the bombs fly after it has already started. They do not want to let us in on their game plan to early. We could possibly muster up a defense to stop the Thief before he commits to another illegal preemptive strike!!!

if it will prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons?

If we would get off of our high horse and start working with the other countries in discussion's with Iran. We would be able to monitor their Nuclear program to make sure that it stays a Nuclear program for electricity only.

I would hate to see Iran with nukes. I actually hate to see any country with nukes, including us.

is that if they did. How secure could and would they make sure that they could not get into someone else's hands. President Clinton said it right when he stated that "If Iran had a nuclear bomb and used it , they would be toast". But the possibility of extremist or evil people getting a hold of them would be scary!!!

is quite used to lying to the American people and the world, as well as lying to Congress under oath.

Israel has had nuclear armaments for quite a while. When the "cold war" began after the Second World War, the major "check and balance" of those possessing nuclear capabilities was the "nightmare" of the reality which could be played out if any of the "Super Powers" of that day would actually utilize them. I believe that the Cuban Missile Crisis of the Fall of 1962, when Kennedy forced Khrushchev to "blink", was as close to the "bad dream" as we have been; halted because the powers of the time used more reason; because they all knew the consequences.

Does anyone remember the 1959 movie - "The Mouse That Roared" ? We are very much living in a time when the notion that all a country needs to have power, is the "BOMB"! There are so many discussions which could entail. Should Israel have a right to be supported by the US in their nuclear capabilities, and, then, for us to condemn any other country of that region to neutralize the power that Israel possesses? Do I want Iran to have nuclear capabilities? NO!

Do we want, as a nation, to allow for the escalation of such a dangerous power to in the hands of ANY countries, including Israel, in such an unstable region? NO!

The United States is the only country which has utilized the tremendously, devastating power of unleashing atomic weaponry upon the world. Truman made a decision that on August 6th, 1945, that an atomic bomb would be dropped upon Hiroshima. I suggest a good read by John Hersey - "Hiroshima" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679721037/ref=sib_fs_top/002-0527596-9126407?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S008&checkSum=f8GZ443%2FjtwNdenghDes2e4Cl3Hn5qloSt%2FKj4DjShI%3D#reader-link). The infrastructure of Hiroshima was so obliterated that the remainder of Japan had very little concept of how powerful this type of warfare was, to say less about how to react. Then, on August 9th, 1945, another "bomb" was dropped on Nagasaki.

The rationale of the United States was that the losses which would be incurred by the allied forces attempting force Japan into surrender would be so devastating that the use of the "atomic bomb" would be justified. At that time WE were the only ones to have such a devastating military capability. Germany became extremely close to the development of a military nuclear capability during the late stage of WWII. One by one, over the years the population of nations grew; having fully developed this destructive force.

Is "diplomacy" worth the risk as opposed to pre-emptive warfare to prevent seemingless never ending instability in the world? YES! If we have learned anything about Viet Nam, and Iraq, then we should be much more wise in the decision to ascertain whether the threat is outwardly antagonistic or, merely a buildup of a new "cold war" of technologically younger nations.

This is where "diplomacy" is tied in; and, unfortunately I don't believe Rice or anyone else in this administration IS!!

There are no plans now to attack Iraq, he told reporters before his speech.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/23/140128.shtml

President Bush says there are "no war plans on my desk" for dealing with the threat posed by Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, but that "we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein."
http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAffairs/May2302BushSchroederIraqTerrorism.html

the "no plans to invade Iraq on my desk" was a line * used over and over. Maybe he keeps the "agenda" on his desk, too. He's not really at his desk all that often, either. That, and the fact that they always do the opposite of what they say, tells me Iran is next on their list. This administration needs to be STOPPED.

sure, condi, whatever you say.