Earlier I posted on a report in the Jerusalem Post suggesting that the President and Vice President were in favor of an attack on Iran before the end of the Bush Administration. As I noted in the update, the White House has “denied” the truth of the story. But as I also noted in the update, the denial is really not a denial at all–it simply says that the Administration wants to pursue peaceful means for now.
At today’s press briefing, the press went after Press Secretary Dana Perino on just this point, noting the parallels to the Iraq War:
Q: Look, skepticism seems warranted here, because in the run-up to the war in 2003, the line was officially that negotiations were still called for and that there was no decision to attack, when, in fact, subsequent reporting has shown that there probably was a decision to attack well before the attack took place. So why shouldn’t we be skeptical of the claim that there’s no intention to bomb Iran?
MS. PERINO: Bill, you can be as skeptical as you want to be. I stated what our policy is, and I don’t have anything else that I can give you. I’m not going to be able to — if you’re going to be a skeptic, that’s your right — you’re fourth estate, go for it.
Not exactly reassuring.
TedF
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i…
90 days people, 90 days.
Shouldn’t we, as the world’s preeminent military power, address the threat that the world’s #1 state sponsor of terrorist acts presents? If talking and sanctions fail what should do? What do you think we should do if Iran actually follows through on their threats to “wipe Israel off the face of the planet”?