Bush says diplomacy way to tackle Iran

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday called Iran a "grave national security concern," but said he sought a diplomatic way to cap its nuclear goals.

The U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, will tackle Iran's case early next week after the U.N. nuclear watchdog sent it a report this week saying it could not verify that Iran's atomic activities were purely peaceful.

Bush said U.S. concerns were the result of Iran's stated desire to destroy Israel and Washington's belief that Tehran wants to build nuclear bombs -- something the Iranians deny.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060310/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc

what b.s.

"Disarm or we'll attack." A logical fallacy was the extent of so-called diplomacy.

You know, i have no special training in sociology or psychology, and believe me, I'm no genius with people. I feel rather inept. But why is it that I can see through this "set up" and most of America can't?

Perhaps it was the extensive training during my marriage with lie-detecting and motive-detecting analysis that got me to spot b.s. from a mile away.... In which case, maybe I do have special training, LOL.

Can't have it both ways * eorgie....Condi, Rummy, Bolton and McFellon are saying there will be dire consequences for Iran..

:rofl:

Diplomacy, my ass!

Does the chimp even know what the word means?

"an issue of grave national security concern" yeah, sure. and he's already admitted, on at least two occasions, to having no interesting diplomacy other than as part of a march to war. just yesterday some us diplomat mentioned military action too.

is no more capable of diplomacy than I am of polka dancing.

that's a long shot. truly.

Yikes. If they bomb Iran we are in so much trouble I can't even imagine it.

That's the same thing he said about Iraq.

Part of the reason we want our ships in the U.A.E. port.

A high-risk game of nuclear chicken
By F William Engdahl

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html

snip

The neo-conservatives, although slightly lower profile in the second Bush administration, are every bit as active, especially through Cheney's office. They want a preemptive bombing strike on Iran's nuclear sites. But whatever Cheney's office may be doing, officially, the Bush administration is pursuing a markedly different approach than it did in 2003, when its diplomacy was aimed at lining up allies for a war. This time, US diplomats are seeking an international consensus on how to proceed, or at least cultivating the impression of that.

snip

Conplan 8022
In January 2003, Bush signed a classified presidential directive, Conplan 8022-02. This is a war plan different from all prior in that it posits "no ground troops". It was specifically drafted to deal with "imminent" threats from states such as North Korea and Iran.

Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it could be launched, a process of months, even years, Conplan 8022 called for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent's response-cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications and hacking computer networks.

Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating "mini" nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran's. Last summer, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing around-the-clock military readiness to be directed by the Omaha-based Strategic Command (Stratcom), according to a report in the May 15 Washington Post.

Previously, ominously enough, Stratcom oversaw only the US nuclear forces. In January 2003, Bush signed on to a definition of "full spectrum global strike", which included precision nuclear as well as conventional bombs, and space warfare. This was a follow-up to the president's September 2002 National Security Strategy, which laid out as US strategic doctrine a policy of "preemptive" wars.

The burning question is whether, with plunging popularity polls, a coming national election, scandals and loss of influence, the Bush White House might "think the unthinkable" and order a nuclear preemptive global strike on Iran before the November elections, perhaps early after the March 28 Israeli elections.

Entire (excellent) article gives perspective on EU/Chinese/Russian/Israeli relations to ongoing Iranian situation

:rofl: Sure, he says one thing while Condy and Cheney up the rhetoric - sorta reminds me of the way he ran his last political campaign...