Gone from 'Iran is a terrible threat to the world' back to 'a state sponsor of terror'?

Question

Bush's televised Rose Garden speech made me do a double-take:

Did he just CONCEDE on the 'drumbeat for war' idea with Iran?

I mean...think about it:

Bush said once that he wouldn't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.

"If you're interested in preventing World War III..." (famous quote)--remember that one?

NIE comes out=hopes dashed for a third-front war.

Bush and Chenicons are pissed.

Time passes...more saber-rattling...and Iran still hasn't budged on its uranium-enrichment program.

Israel threatens to bomb the country and now Bush is saying that "Iran is still a menace--it is a state-sponsor of terror."

Does this mean that Iran is no longer the double-threat guy Bushco painted it to be in the past?

"State-sponsor of terror...state sponsor of terror..."--and...(so what's your point, Georgie?)

Does this mean we won't be going to war after all? Being a state-sponsor of terror doesn't exactly rank high on Bush's "Countries to Hit"-list, does it?

Answer 1

If Israel bombs Iran you can still bet that the Bush Administration will do its best to follow suit, saying that Iran is a state-sponsor of terror makes the country sound smaller and unjust to its own people and since the U.S. is at war against terrorism to say that Iran is a complete state of terrorism then he essentially is saying we are or shold be at war against it (we are at war against terrorism right?)