Bush rules out bilateral talks with Iran, then rules them in again minutes later
posted at 8:17 pm on April 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
In an interview, Bush initially appeared to rule out any contact with Iran, a member of his “axis of evil.”
“What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,” he told PBS’ “The Charlie Rose Show.”
Later, he said Rice and Iran’s foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. “They could. They could,” Bush said.
I figure he probably meant he’s okay with bilateral talks about Iraq but not about the nuclear program. They already tried the bilateral approach last month in Baghdad, you might recall. It … didn’t go so well.
The Telegraph updated the countdown to Iranian nukes this morning. Four years, maybe longer:
Iran’s underground facility in Natanz has space for 3,000 centrifuges, the devices used to enrich uranium. Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that only 1,312 have been installed so far.
Once all 3,000 are in place, the machines must be fitted together to form 18 cascades. Then technicians must introduce uranium in the form of gas into the centrifuges. The machines must then spin at 1,500 revolutions per second to separate out the uranium-235, the fissile material capable of producing the chain reaction unleashed by a nuclear bomb. Weapons grade uranium must be enriched to 90 per cent purity.
But the smallest particle of dust - even a fingerprint - can disrupt enrichment. Iran will have to spin all the centrifuges inside a vacuum without any interruption for a period of about one year.
Overstating the threat from Iran is one of the crimes with which Cheney is charged under the articles of impeachment introduced today by Congressman Truther. Just for context, no less a progressive hearthrob than Silky Pony insisted recently that Bush hasn’t done enough to deal with the Iranian threat.
Ahmadinejad thinks he’s got the perfect solution. What could go wrong?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hmm
derbal on April 24, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Can somebody find Bush’s brain and give it back to him? I thought he didn’t do nuance.
PRCalDude on April 24, 2007 at 8:20 PM
I don’t necessarily like what he’s saying, but it’s perfectly consistent. He won’t sit down with them, but Rice could.
Farmer_Joe on April 24, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Yeah, I suspect we’re just missing something here. He’s not a “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” kind of guy. You may not like his policies, and you may even try to find flip flops where they are usually adjusting to events as they present themselves (the libs love to say he campaigned on “no nation building”, but they don’t take in to account 9/11), but when he has a position he has a position and isn’t going to strongly say “What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,”, and then minute later say that we might.
Allah’s analysis here seems accurate:
Which makes me wonder, “why the post?” If you follow the link the story is about a conference on Iraq.
In fact, here’s the opening paragraph
Pretty clear, no? Again, why the post that makes him look like a flipflopper?
RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Yeah, that’s what I’m readding too. Like there will be no special one on one meetings with the U.S. and Iran, but if two ambassadors are at a group meeting, then there is nothing with the two of them going off and having a private sit down.
- The Cat
P.S. So if I say I’m working on nukes, do ya think Condi would have dinner with me? 2nd thought, I don’t like prison food.
MirCat on April 24, 2007 at 8:39 PM
P.P.S. That was a crack about the eventual outcome. I was in no way saying that Condi is a bad cook. And I am also in no way saying that she would be the one to cook. And I am also . . .
MirCat on April 24, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Tit for tat
?Kidding.
I’m not one to usually, ahem, jump to his defense, but it sounds reasonable to me.
SouthernDem on April 24, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Not sure if you mean “tit for tat”, or “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” (Seinfeld tangent warning -
Anyway, I just really don’t understand the point of the post and the speculation on “what he meant”, when the opening paragraph of the actual article makes it quite clear.
RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Read the excerpted bit again. It says he initially ruled out “any” contact with Iran. And then, a little while later, he didn’t.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Sounds like a good strategery to me.
thedecider on April 24, 2007 at 9:03 PM
It is to me.
TheBigOldDog on April 24, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Yeah, I get what you’re saying… But who’s interpretting this:
Us… Or the AP? I think it’s pretty clear what he was saying and your guess as to what he meant is on the money. Again, he may not be the smoothest talker, but he means what he says and doesn’t float foreign policy ideas to see which will score the most political points. I think this is a case of deliberately misleading the reader with out of context and limited quotes that don’t indicate the specific questions that were asked.
RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Actually, the Telegraph is wrong. The Natanz facility can hold over 50,000 centrifuges. The one centrifuge hall inside the facility that Iran is putting its first centrifuges in, can hold about 3000 of them.
NPP on April 24, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Whoa Giuliani
Free Constitution on April 24, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Well, he’ll offend our true leader, Nancy Pelosi. Doesn’t he know he should be speaking with her?
thedecider on April 24, 2007 at 9:43 PM
I took it the same way as Farmer Joe. He won’t talk to them, but the State Dept might. That would be their thing anyway, right?
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 9:49 PM
“What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,” he told PBS’(BUSH) Last year, I announced readiness for a televised debate over global issues with his excellency Mr. Bush. And now we announce that I am ready to negotiate with him about bilateral issues as well as regional and international issues,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying Monday on the Web site of Al-Alam, Iran’s state-run Arabic satellite television channel.
Was GW refering to himself personally as opposed to Condi?
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 10:27 PM
he he What could possibly go wrong? Uh mabey this?
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 10:30 PM
AP, I didn’t read that as a flip flop.
Two possible senarios, besides yours.
1) Bush personally will not have bilateral talks with Iran, but Condi et al could.
2) Bilateral talks are not an option between the US and Iran by themselves, but condi can have a side bar type discussion with Iran during the course of the internation conference.
csdeven on April 24, 2007 at 10:43 PM
That’s a red meat topic just waiting to happen!
csdeven on April 24, 2007 at 10:45 PM
If you can’t dazzle them with determination, baffle them with bullshi’ite.
If GWB is trying to keep the Iranians off-balance, this may be the strategy.
But I haven’t been able to figure him out since he invited Muslims to speak after 9/11, and kissed the Saudi after 9/11 and called Islam a “peaceful religfion: after 9/11.
Maybe he’s just not keen on the details.
I like Barney, though, and Miss Beasley.
profitsbeard on April 24, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Oh, I don’t know, maybe more delays, more promises to be broken, more chances to to meet with Nancy Pelosi, or the ultimate goal, give them more time to find that guy in the well……..?
PinkyBigglesworth on April 24, 2007 at 11:35 PM
If you can’t dazzle them with determination, baffle them with bullshi’ite profitsbeard on April 24, 2007 at 11:18 PM
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I beleive the saying goes . If you cant dazzel them with brilliance ect.
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 11:37 PM
sonnspats-
Going for the alliteration.
(And no one thinks of brilliance in this context.)
profitsbeard on April 24, 2007 at 11:59 PM
profitsbeard on April 24, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Oh yeah DD to BB thats cool but I think D to BBB works better when spoken in the correct cadence. Also I like the word brilliance here in the context of dazzle where they relate well together. Anyway yours looks good in print and it works for me.
sonnyspats1 on April 25, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Reminds me of that famous TS Eliot line, “…this is how the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper…” How far has Bush fallen from the days immediately 9/11 when he at least appeared focused and energetic?
That’s what strikes me now whenever I see him, he’s just calling it in. Well the Presidency has ground down better men than him.
honora on April 25, 2007 at 8:41 AM
I say GW debates him… and during the debate he he turns to Ahmadinejad announces that the bombs will fall on his Nuke facilities in 5… 4… 3… just to see if he wets himself on World Wide Television…
of course on the down side, Ahmadinejad could then reveal the suicide bombers vest under his jacket, that I’m sure every repsectable jihadi wears everywhere he goes…
mmmm stalemate…
Kaptain Amerika on April 25, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Can’t send Condi, she needs to testify about something that is not against the law. Send Pelosi, she has nothing to do of any importance and she is the Speaker of the State.
Wade on April 25, 2007 at 2:50 PM