Bush won't give up military option on Iran: Rice

Tue May 8, 2007

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush will keep a military option on the table as he seeks a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran over its nuclear plans, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

"The American president will not abandon the military option and I believe that we do not want him to do so," Rice said in an interview with Al Arabiya television, part of which was broadcast on Tuesday.

Iran is embroiled in a standoff with the West over its nuclear ambitions. The West suspects it is seeking to develop atomic weapons but Tehran says it wants only to generate electricity so that it can export more of its oil and gas.

Rice in remarks dubbed in Arabic said Bush remained "committed to the diplomatic option. If the world remained strong, there would be a chance for the success of the diplomatic option".

Two sets of United Nations sanctions have been imposed on Iran since December and major powers have warned a third, tougher resolution might be needed if Tehran did not halt uranium enrichment.

"I say to the Iranians ... there are two options -- isolation and dialogue," she said.

Analysts say the measures, including arms and financial sanctions, are hurting business and deterring foreign investment in the Islamic state, which despite its oil wealth is struggling with inflation and unemployment.

Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected Western demands to halt work to enrich uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear power plants or make atom bombs if refined further.

Rice reiterated that Washington would change its policy against Tehran, adopted after anti-U.S. Iranian clerics toppled the U.S.-allied Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in an Islamic revolution in 1979.

"The international community has made its demands through the United Nations; Iran should stop nuclear enrichment, after that there would be a change in the U.S. policy that has been going on for 27 years and then I can talk to them about any issue."

Washington severed its ties with Tehran in 1980 after students seized the U.S. embassy there and held 52 hostages for 444 days.

Bush is A commander guy, not THE commander guy

What about a good command of English for a change?

Confusion stirred over US president’s linguistic mix up on his role in Iraq causes media satire.

WASHINGTON - The White House is trying to clarify something: President George W. Bush is "a commander guy" but not "the commander guy."

Or something like that.

On Wednesday, speaking to a friendly audience, Bush talked about his troop build-up in Iraq and rejected efforts by the Democratic majority in the US Congress to force him to accept a withdrawal timetable.

Bush, whose approval ratings have dropped as the Iraq war moves into its fifth year, contended that he had the authority to send the troops.

"The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm a commander guy," Bush said.

The official stenographer of the event recorded Bush as having said he was "the commander guy" and some reporters did as well. It was not far off from his past description of himself as "the decider."

But the quote prompted chuckles around Washington that Bush had given a new nickname to his constitutional role as the commander in chief.

So the White House sprang into action to try to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino took to the podium on Friday to clarify, while acknowledging to reporters that "you might find it a little strange."

"It's been reported that the president said, 'I'm the commander guy.' He did not. What I recalled was that he said 'I'm a commander guy,' meaning that he's one of the people that listens to the commanders on the ground," Perino said.

"Does he consider himself over the other commanders?" a reporter asked.

"He is the commander in chief," Perino said. "But the context of what the president was saying is that when it comes to making decisions about Iraq or war policy, that the president listens to commanders on the ground, not politicians in Washington."

The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him

Pelosi calls out Bush for 1999 statement on timetable.

Reacting to President Bush’s veto of the Iraq supplemental bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted this evening that Bush once believed it was important for a president to lay out a timetable:

The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him. The president said, in his comments, he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5th, then-Governor Bush said, about President Clinton, “I think it’s important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn.” Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activities. Standards — that’s the issue.

If the president thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, then it’s clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him. I agree with Leader Reid. We look forward to working with the president to find common ground, but there is great distance between us right now.

Watch it:

Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill

Mr Bush said the US "surge" of troops needs time to work

US President George W Bush has vetoed a Congressional bill that would have linked war funding to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Speaking in Washington after signing the veto, Mr Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal would be "setting a date for failure" in Iraq.

He said the funding was needed to give time for the new strategy of a surge of reinforcements in Baghdad to succeed.

Mr Bush said he would seek a compromise with Congressional leaders.

It is only the second time since taking office that Mr Bush has used the presidential veto.

Earlier on Tuesday, leaders of the Democrat-controlled US Congress signed the controversial bill agreeing to $100bn (£50bn) in further funding on condition US combat troops begin to withdraw this year.

The president wants a blank cheque; the Congress is not going to give it to him Nancy Pelosi Democratic House Speaker

Mr Bush criticised the bill, saying it "substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgement of our military commanders.

"I believe setting a deadline for a withdrawal would demoralise the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments," he said in a televised speech.

Compromise talks

The veto is the latest stage in Mr Bush's clash with Congress over the conduct of the Iraq war.

Reacting to the veto, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill reflected the wishes of Americans to have benchmarks for what is happening in Iraq.

"We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people deserved.

"The president wants a blank cheque; the Congress is not going to give it to him," she said.

President Bush has poured extra US troops into Baghdad

The Senate last week voted 51 to 46 in favour of the legislation, which said the pull-out must start by 1 October and sets a target of completion by 31 March 2008.

Mr Bush will now meet congressional leaders on Wednesday to try to reach a compromise on a revised funding bill for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats acknowledge they will eventually have to soften their bill as they cannot risk being accused of undercutting the troops during wartime, says the BBC's James Westhead in Washington.

Revised legislation would have to be agreed by both the House and the Senate before being presented to him again.

'Publicity stunt'

Tuesday was the fourth anniversary of a speech in which Mr Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over, standing beneath a banner proclaiming "mission accomplished".

Speaking before the signing of the bill, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused the Democrats of cynically delaying the move so it would coincide with the anniversary for political gain.

"It's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and the troops' families and the resources they need to try some PR stunt on this day," Ms Perino said.

Mr Bush is committed to his "surge" strategy, under which thousands of extra US troops are being poured into Baghdad.

The top US general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has said reducing forces could lead to increased violence.

If Rice bumps into Iran official, she'll be polite

Monday, April 30, 2007;

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bumps into the foreign minister of Iran, she will be polite but firm about U.S. resolve to convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, President George W. Bush said on Monday.

Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Rice could encounter each other at a conference in Egypt this week on stabilizing Iraq. Their attendance at the same forum has raised speculation about bilateral talks.

"Should the foreign minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won't be rude; she's not a rude person. I'm sure she'll be polite," Bush said at a news conference after meeting with European Union leaders.

"She'll also be firm in reminding the representative of the Iranian government that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people than isolation," Bush said.

The meeting at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh will bring together Iraq's neighbors and members of the Group of Eight nations and the European Union.

The United States has accused Iran of helping to destabilize Iraq by allowing arms and foreign fighters to cross its border. Tehran denies the charge.

The United States and other Western countries accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons, but Tehran says its program is for generating electricity.

"I happen to believe a significant threat to world peace today and in the future is the Iranian threat if they were to end up with a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "Today is the wrong word -- in the future -- they don't have a weapon today."

He said if Iran wanted a dialogue, it should give up its nuclear enrichment activities.

"If in fact there is a conversation, it'll be one that says if the Iranian government wants to have a serious conversation with the United States and others, they ought to give up their enrichment program in a verifiable fashion and we will sit down at the table with them along with our European partners and Russia as well, that's what she'll tell them," Bush said.