CNN: White House: Can't rule out attack on Iran

[DeepModem Mom]

White House: Can't rule out attack on Iran
January 14, 2007


Nsational security adviser Stephen Hadley, appearing on "Meet the Press" Sunday, says the White House is not planning military action against Iran.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran, but refused to rule out the possibility, bucking pressure from several senators who said the administration is not authorized to do so.

Asked whether the United States is preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley told NBC's "Meet the Press," "No, the president has said very clearly that the issues we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically."

But, on ABC's "This Week," Hadley would not rule out the possibility of such an attack and would not say whether he agrees with those senators who say that the Bush administration would need congressional backing for such a move.

The sharp questioning about U.S. plans for Iran followed Bush's address to the nation Wednesday night announcing his strategy for Iraq, in which he vowed the United States "will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The Bush administration accuses Iran of sending fighters into Iraq and attacking U.S. troops. Tehran denies the charges....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iran.us/index.html

[xultar]

1. I saw an interview with Feingold on CNN and he said all options are on the table

where Iran is concerned.

Now I like Fiengold...so I know what he's saying. But lots of people blast any and everyone who also say that all options are on the table where Iran is concerned. I hope if you blast one person for saying it you blast everyone who says it.

[EST]

3. Under the circumstances, I would suspect it's to be preferred

that the Iranian leaders should be uncertain about just how crazy * really is.

Perhaps in some future world promises will always be kept and nations' leaders can say exactly what they mean.

[xultar]

8. Exactly. If people can't get that and lambaste everyone they will have no one

to support.

[BayCityProgressive]

5. Well

I guess I can scratch Feingold off my list then..

[lostnotforgotten]

7. Dennis Kucinich Is The Only Progressive Option We Have

All other candidates except Al Gore are seriously tainted in one way or another.

(this includes Obama mainly because of name recognition - the Repugs will splash adds with him and Osama as they already have)

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Which option did Pelosi take off the table?

What option do you think Russ is saying is back on the table?

[msongs]

2. dear congressional cowards: only the congress has the power to declare war and if BUSH

launches another attack he must be fired, immediately and legally.

then again, will Americans actually turn off their ipods and nfl football for even one second in the event of another attack on another country by Bush?

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[HockeyMom]

11. When their gas goes to $10 a gallon,

they most certainly WILL.

[BlueJac]

4. Just the next step for PNAC......

the real enemies of this country!

[Supersedeas]

54. the keepers want more oil...therefore someone must sacrifice more blood...who next?

[chill_wind]

6. "Far-fetched DU hysteria" eh? K&R to the top! (nt)

[jpak]

and another...

n/t

[Kagemusha]

9. Carrier diplomacy?

No Democrat forced Bush to mention the carrier heading to the Gulf in his speech.

[doublethink]

36. The USS Stennis ...... is leaving port this Tuesday ......

link here .... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3112067&mesg_id=3112067

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Haven't we heard this before?

"the White House is not planning military action against Iraq...Uh, Iran."

[EST]

19. "There are no war plans on my desk."

"War is an absolutely last resort."

[goforit]

13. Can't rule out arresting criminals in the white house either.

[Tuesday_Morning]

15. true!

:rofl:

[Mythsaje]

14. And next, as an encore, we're going to attack the Sun!

With about as much chance of success.

[daleo]

34. Caligula attacked the ocean once

So, there is a precedent.

[bklyncowgirl]

35. Yup, he ordered his invasion fleet to cross the English channel at the wrong time--they ran aground

Caligula was planning to invade Britain--he wanted to do what Julius Caesar couldn't (sound familiar). Unfortunately, he refused to listen to the advice of his admirals as to the right time to sail (sound familiar) The ships ran aground and Caligula's invasion plans were spoiled. He then declared war on Neptune (his fellow god, you know).

Caligula gave up on that Britain thing, but decided to celebrate his victory by ordering a temporary bridge built so he could ride his horse across what I think was part of the Bay of Naples. I don't know whether the horse was Incitatus--the racehorse he named Consul of Rome--or not but at any rate he did it.

Those Roman engineers were damn good.

[daleo]

48. I have read that he captured a lot of seashells, too

Some people around here call Bush "little boots" in honor of Caligula.

[bluedog]

16. I say e-mail call every rep and senator

in DC................this insanity has to be stopped............bush is not a dictator.......the US is not a dictatorship...........if Congress feels they cannot stop bush.......then they should just seal up capitol hill and go home.........

[Rex]

17. Since they only lie, they are plannng an attack on Iran!

Just a matter of time.

[wryter2000]

18. Am I the only one who sees an invasion of Iran as an utter disaster for Bush?

Of course, it would be a disaster for the soldiers who had to fight in it and anyone who gets caught in the crossfire of Ahmedinejad (have I finally learned how to spell that?) and Bush.

But, seriously...the Chimperor announces his "surge," and his poll number go down 9 points in 3 days. Many of his party have deserted him. Who in the country except for the few hard-core PNACers would support an invasion of Iran? Even most of the PNACers have jumped the Bush ship because he screwed up their glorious plans for world domination.

Seriously, wouldn't this be his downfall?

[VegasWolf]

39. Yes, of course, but this Iran attack fever seems to come around here

every so often. Just wait it out.

:toast:

[wryter2000]

49. Sure

Pass me some :popcorn: and :beer:

[jpak]

50. Invasion, no - air and naval campaign, yes

Air strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure and naval assets, special ops raids into Iranian territory, but no outright invasion...

[maddezmom]

20. White House defends pursuit of Iranians

WASHINGTON - The White House said Sunday that Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they "put our people at risk."

"We are going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

~snip~


Hadley asserted that if Iranians in Iraq "are doing things that are putting are people at risk, of course we have the authority to go after them and protect our people."

Hadley sidestepped a question about whether U.S. forces would move across the border to pursue Iranians who are helping Iraqi insurgents.

more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

[acmavm]

21. The bush** administration has put our people in Iraq in jeopardy. They

wouldn't be in a dangerous situation if he hadn't sent them there based in lies, deceit, and greed. And if he pulls them out, they'll be safe.

You can't go into someone else's country and start to indescriminately murder the populace and not expect resistance. How could that piece of intelligence escape these clowns. Just like I think we'd fight for our country, they're fighting for theirs.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Their intention to widen the war is clear. NT.

[AliceWonderland]

23. This is how a larger action will be sold. Not "are we going to declare war on Iran?"

But declaring that the war in Iraq cannot be "won" without dealing with Iran. It's the only way to "victory," don't you know.

[papau]

24. Why does main stream media not discuss the invasion - the raid on the Iranian Consulate in Iraq? n/t

n/t

[Igel]

25. Because there are conflicting stories.

And few of them are from the Iranian side.

Liaison office, office, consulate ... I've even seen it referred to as 'embassy'! The distinction among these terms isn't trivial, the translators are stringers on the ground that don't always know the fine-grained distinctions, the politicians and military guys in Kurdistan and the US aren't always unbiased narrators, the details of the office's status are difficult to come by in any event, and the law makes assumptions that aren't necessarily met in all cases. The actual status of the office depends precisely on how the details interact with the law.

If China sets up a liaison office in Texas and doesn't notify anybody but the DLC, is it a consulate? If they call it a consulate and tell the folks in Austin, is it a consulate? What if they've started the process, but it's not been finally approved in DC?

And if the Iranians do what they have to do, and say it was actually a fully peaceful mission? If the Kurds trying to ease tensions across the border and make sure Iranian Kordestan residents can live in peace say what they have to, and defend their guests? If the US says what it has to to justify its raid? How do you cut through the biases?

Egads, I'd hate to be trying to report on this.

[papau]

28. Thanks for the "heads up" - I thought Baghdad determined it to be a consulate - but if

that is denied by Baghdad, then your point is well taken.

So I change my question - Why has our media not asked Baghdad what status the office had under Baghdad law? And why has the response not been published (because I believe the question has been asked and answered - by persons in the Iraqi government - and if their authority to answer is in doubt, perhaps the media could be pointed to the person who has the authority - or perhaps there should be a story about how the Iraqi government has no authority and all such questions will be answered by Central Command)?

[leQ]

33. just what is the iranian side? anybody know?

[papau]

44. Seems we did a raid again - those Brits that could not find arms from Iran must feel stupid since we

have found evidence - twice.... or is that just an accusation by a military that has been caught telling fibs in the past ... perhaps we should wait for what comes out at the trial --- or did we have a trial that they can't tell us about for security reasons. And I wonder if all Iranian government offices are now considered fair game for raids?


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1487138.htm

Arrested Iranians tied to group arming Iraqis--US

BAGHDAD, Jan 14 (Reuters) -Five Iranians arrested by U.S. forces in northern Iraq are connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard group that provides weapons to Iraqi insurgents, the U.S. military said on Sunday.

The five were arrested on Thursday in a U.S. raid on an Iranian government office in the Iraqi city of Arbil -- the second such operation in a month.

"Preliminary results revealed the five detainees are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - Qods Force (IRGC-QF), an organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the Government of Iraq and attack Coalition forces," the U.S. military said in a statement.

[Tellurian]

26. Bush's goal is to secure the Iraqi pipeline...

He refuses to grasp the fact it's NEVER going to happen.
Meanwhile, thousands of our troops will be paying with their lives,
trying to accomplish an impossible dream fostered by billion dollar oil contracts.

His father knew it was a fool's errand...enter, the "fool" on a misguided errand.
Congress has got to put a stop to this nightmare. Recommending removal of this administration
acting in the name of private interests, not in the best interests of our country.

[progressivebydesign]

27. Bush's rationale for ATTACKING IRAN.

THe PNAC plan is going well for Bush, don't you think? He can now say that Iran is sponsoring terrorism and deserves to be invaded. See, the PNACers and Neocons can't rest until they control Syria, Iran, and Iraq. It's the oil... and some Christianity thrown in there. The more we talk about this, the harder it will be for him to push the Iranian war on us.

[kimmerspixelated]

31. That's right!

Spread the horrible plans of PNAC like wildfire. EXPOSE<EXPOSE<EXPOSE!

[OKthatsIT]

47. Definitely a psychopathic borderline personality disorder

time for some diagnostic analysissssssssssss!!!!!!

[Dogmudgeon]

29. It's 2002 all over again

The déjà vu cycle is down to 4 1/2 years. No wonder I'm dizzy.

--p!

[LynnTheDem]

30. Imagine: "Iran; can't rule out attack on America"

Who threatens whom?

America, threatening other nations.

Who invades whom?

America, invading other nations.

Imagine if any other nation did exactly what America does and threatened to attack us. The screeching would be loud & immediate.

[mmonk]

32. Enjoy the ride.

[sarcasmo]

37. Kick, for the final push, looks like WWIII. The Armageddon the Religious Zealots want.

[lovuian]

38. Oh we are going to attack Iran make know mistake about it

Have you heard so much hemming and hawing...biding time

[IndianaGreen]

40. Bring it on!

The sooner Bush attacks Iran, the sooner the inevitable and humiliating defeat of the US will be upon us and with it, the end of American imperialism forever.

Bush attack on Iran will be a blunder of historical proportions, on a par with Napoleon's invasion of Russia and Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union.

[Maeve]

41. You CAN'T solve thing diplomatically until you F-ING TALK TO THEM!!!!!

Sheesh, will someone give them a dollar to BUY A CLUE??????????

[Harper_is_Bush]

42. I can't rule out buying a gun and killing some people

is that the world we're living in? Don't "rule out" anything, no matter how stupid or illegal or retarded it is?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. what happens if the White House instructs the military to attack without Congress?

where's the constitution

[Doctor_J]

45. I guess this is one of those urban legends that's true

per Tony Blow.

[Roland99]

46. Why this man (and many others) isn't behind bars shows how far this country has sunk.

[Az_lefty]

51. their doing their level best to provoke Iran into some action...

that's the excuse their looking for. These rat-bastards have become so predictable.

[0007]

53. Rat Bastards are to good of a name to be wasting it on

this administration. Let's call them motherfuckin' cocksuckers, 'eh?

And we wonder why the world hates us..............

[donkeyotay]

52. Let's review how we got here.

Bush wanted to kill Saddam because "he's a bad man."
We said no thank you.
So Bush said Saddam was part of al qaeda and was going to nuke us.
So Congress did the whole "united not divided" roll over for our Popular Wartime President and authorized him to attack those who had attacked us if all other options had been exhausted.
So George said they were, they had, and he did.
Later we were all shocked to find out it was all made up.
After we got to Iraq, this administration screwed it up as badly as Brownie did in New Orleans.
Except that lots of money was transferred from our pockets to Hallibuton, et. al.
Now, we can't leave because it would be a bloodbath.
We can't stay because it would be a bloodbath.
Iran is the problem.