Blinded by the light of George's brilliance, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino addressed Iran's statement it would retaliate against any attacks by Israel in a press briefing.
Q You said Iran's comments about a plan to retaliate against Israel were -- those comments almost seemed provocative. What does that mean? Does that mean you think that Iran is trying to start something by saying that?
MS. PERINO: I can't think of any other motivation for why somebody would say that. I won't ascribe motives to them, but it does seem provocative. And I will tell you that Israel doesn't want war with its neighbors. And what the world has asked for is for Iran to comply with its Security Council obligations to stop its movement towards a nuclear weapon. And that way, the people of Iran, who can do much better than the government that they have now, would be able to prosper and have a free and good life.
I can't tell you why somebody in Iran would say something like that about Israel. It was totally unprovoked and unnecessary.
Apparently, Ms. Perino is shut off from the greater outside world, like much of the White House not sharing hot buttered rolls with Tony Blair. Last summer the Middle Eastern democracy attacked its democratic neighbor to the north, Lebanon. As a going away present, it left millions of unexploded carpet bombs, illegal to use on civilians in international law. Speaking of which, Israel is not a signatory to the U.N. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and doesn't allow IAEA inspectors into the country. But those are asides, the issue is Israeli statements about attacking Iran. These come from a column in this week's Asia Times.
On June 9, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Saul Mofaz stated that "the military option is on the table". On January 21, 2006, Mofaz had stated publicly: "We are preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program." His boss, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told the press in April that "nobody is ruling out" a military strike on Iran by Israel, adding: "It is impossible perhaps to destroy the entire nuclear program, but it would be possible to damage it in such a way that it would be set back years ... it would take 10 days and involve the firing of 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles."
Olmert's foreign-policy speeches are increasingly filled with blunt threats against Iran, continuing a trend. Last October 19, Olmert was quoted by the Israeli press as stating that Iran will have a "price to pay" for its nuclear program and Iran's leaders "have to be afraid" of the actions that Israel might undertake against Iran's nuclear program.
Can we get people in important government administrative jobs that keep up with world events and can speak intelligently on such? Curious George's staff is remarkably incurious, and repeatedly not credible.
Q You said Iran's comments about a plan to retaliate against Israel were -- those comments almost seemed provocative. What does that mean? Does that mean you think that Iran is trying to start something by saying that?
MS. PERINO: I can't think of any other motivation for why somebody would say that. I won't ascribe motives to them, but it does seem provocative. And I will tell you that Israel doesn't want war with its neighbors. And what the world has asked for is for Iran to comply with its Security Council obligations to stop its movement towards a nuclear weapon. And that way, the people of Iran, who can do much better than the government that they have now, would be able to prosper and have a free and good life.
I can't tell you why somebody in Iran would say something like that about Israel. It was totally unprovoked and unnecessary.
Apparently, Ms. Perino is shut off from the greater outside world, like much of the White House not sharing hot buttered rolls with Tony Blair. Last summer the Middle Eastern democracy attacked its democratic neighbor to the north, Lebanon. As a going away present, it left millions of unexploded carpet bombs, illegal to use on civilians in international law. Speaking of which, Israel is not a signatory to the U.N. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and doesn't allow IAEA inspectors into the country. But those are asides, the issue is Israeli statements about attacking Iran. These come from a column in this week's Asia Times.
On June 9, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Saul Mofaz stated that "the military option is on the table". On January 21, 2006, Mofaz had stated publicly: "We are preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program." His boss, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told the press in April that "nobody is ruling out" a military strike on Iran by Israel, adding: "It is impossible perhaps to destroy the entire nuclear program, but it would be possible to damage it in such a way that it would be set back years ... it would take 10 days and involve the firing of 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles."
Olmert's foreign-policy speeches are increasingly filled with blunt threats against Iran, continuing a trend. Last October 19, Olmert was quoted by the Israeli press as stating that Iran will have a "price to pay" for its nuclear program and Iran's leaders "have to be afraid" of the actions that Israel might undertake against Iran's nuclear program.
Can we get people in important government administrative jobs that keep up with world events and can speak intelligently on such? Curious George's staff is remarkably incurious, and repeatedly not credible.
