In a speech yesterday, President George Bush clarified the administration’s policy on Iran by stating, “The notion that the US is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.” However he then quickly went on to add “All options are on the table.”
So how are we supposed to read this? That the idea of invading Iran is ridiculous but we’re thinking about doing it anyway?
Calm down, I’m not going to hit you. But I will wail on your ass if you don’t get to bed right this instant, young man!
Basically, it means that no matter what he does, the True Believers can say it’s all right there perfectly clear in black and white. No promises broken, no mistakes made, no lies told.
Read it just like he meant it: “I’m attacking Iran and there’s nothing you puny humans can do to stop me.”
It helps me to think of him with glowing yellow eyes and a sort of Godzilla-like demeanor.
It means that he’s not planning anything now, but if it looks like Iran is going to start making nukes, he’ll think about it.
Since when has being completely ridiculous stopped this guy?
This?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050224.html
That’s the closest thing I could find that resembles your comments, and that’s a stretch. Have you a better cite?
It’s from a speech/press conference in Belgium this past Tuesday:
“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.”
Perhaps the President means the US is ready to attack Iran.
The phrase “all options are on the table” is practically a boilerplate response with the U. S. Government, and not just the Bush administration. It’s almost like they are afraid that if they ever seem to completely rule out any particular course of action, then that will be an invitation to our enemies to run wild.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-options.htm
The Secretary quoted here is Madeline Albright, discussing Kosovo in 1999. http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/WF990528/epf504.htm
“It depends on what your definition of ‘is,’ is.”
Double-speak, obfuscation, and verbal slight-of-hand are key elements that no self-respecting President can be without.
I’m not sure why people get upset by these kinds of highly politicized statements. I am not a Bush supporter but neither am I willing to call him on the carpet for this sort of hedging and fence sitting. He’s not the first nor last politician to take a neutral position on a serious subject. I suppose he may be waiting to build public/global opinion, gather more facts, see how back door negotiations with Iran and other friendly and unfriendly nations play out.
In my opinion, it is a smart position to take when significant further considerations must be examined before commiting to a course of action.
So the following options are on the table:
Nuking Tehran
Genocide
Sending in the Marines to rape every Iranian woman between 16 and 60
Sending in the CIA to torture every Iranian man between 16 and 60
Sending in Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld to do a song-and-dance routine on the ashes of Tehran?
:smack:
[Bill Clinton]
What do you mean by ‘attack?’ If by attack you mean to come at somone or something with an object with an intent to smite it bodily then no, I would NEVER attack a sovereign nation! Yes, all options are on the table, and military action could be construed as one of the hundreds of ‘options’ we might consider. A game of Twister is another, so is a dinner party–which would also include a table. I really think it boils down to what you mean by ‘attack.’ And ‘option’ for that matter. Do you mean like stock option? option pass? option as in alternative? I don’t mean to disemble, but your questions are very vague and I just want to be clear what it is that you’re asking about what our options might be? The idea of smiting a sovereign nation with any hand held object is ridiculous…
(5 months later, the land that once contained a nation called Iran is a radioactive smoking hole)
As I said, “The idea of smiting a sovereign nation with any hand held object is ridiculous” but that’s not what happened. We launched a number of thermonuclear devices in that general area, sure, but the US does not and never did have any hand-held thermonuclear devices, so by the previously agreed upon definition of “attack” this is certainly not what happend. I did not attack that country! You are twisting my words to further some partisan agenda!
[/Bill Clinton]
Full disclosure: I do not trust George W. Bush, President of the United States, to ever say what he actually has in mind, or to tell the unvarnished truth about anything.
That to one side, however, it’s instructive to note what happened to Harry Truman in 1950. His full intention from the moment we got involved in Korea was simply to restore the status quo, to end North Korea’s attack on the South and ensure that it would not recur. All our policy-making with regard to the Korean War was posited on avoiding either allowing the North to overrun the South or to allow the war to grow into an international Free World vs. Communist world conflict.
But when he was caught unprepared at a press conference, he refused to rule out the use of atomic weapons, if necessary. He’d already stated his policy in full, and he was simply trying to say that we’d do what it takes to win the Korean War. But it was painted as warmongering of the worst sort, for him not to rule out a worst-case scenario, by the Republicans of the time.
I think Mr. Bush’s actions and intentions bear careful watching. But I hear “all options are on the table” in exactly the way Mr. Truman meant it 55 years ago – we have no plans to do X, but we won’t rule out doing it if it becomes necessary to do so.
Yeah. That’s exactly what’s being considered…
:rolleyes:
Thanks to Shibb and Rufus Xavier.
I’ll be over here practicing my Google skills.
I didn’t intend this as a Bush bashing or a serious discussion of American policy towards Iran. I just thought the juxtaposition of the two statements was funny. I can even imagine what was going through Bush’s mind as he said them:
"Mr President, is the United States planning to attack Iran?"
Oh jeez, why do people keep acting like I’m going to attack every country on Earth? I’m here trying to build some bridges. No way are we going to start another war when we’re already neck deep in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m going to squash this idea and squash it hard.
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous."
Wait a second. I think I went too far on that one. Sure we’re not going to invade Iran but if I say it so clearly, we’ll never get them to negotiate. I better give us some manuevering room so Condy has something to hold over their heads.
"Having said that, all options are on the table."
This doesn’t seem to mesh with your “Say What You Mean” thread in the BBQ Pit. 
You forgot:
Sending in John Ashcroft to sing Let the Eagle Soar to help break down resistance.