| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
‘Warmonger’ Bush: We’ll help defend Israel if needed
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) – President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday the United States would defend Israel militarily if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “menacing talk” against Israel.
In a Reuters interview aboard Air Force One en route to Nashville, Bush also said he saw a “very good chance” the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency would refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
“I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel,” Bush said.
“Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel’s defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It’s not only disturbing to the United States, it’s disturbing for other countries in the world as well,” he added.
Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel’s defense militarily, Bush said: “You bet, we’ll defend Israel.”
Wonder how long it will take before the “Bush is a warmonger” crowd will crank out the “no war for oil!” rhetoric in response to his remarks?
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
34 Responses to “‘Warmonger’ Bush: We’ll help defend Israel if needed”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Well, the problem with the “no war for oil” rhetoric is that Israel doesn’t have any oil. Not that that facts matter.
Funny thing, Moses wandered the wilderness for decades, and was led to the only patch of ground in the region with no oil. Something tells me God was still PO’d about the golden idols…
Freightening Iran to the point that she threatens Israel’s existence and then being forced to publicly declare that the US would defend Israel militarily, shows a complete lack of competence on the part of the bush foreign policy. Peace
30 years of kissing Arab ass got us – Arabs who think they deserve kissing.
Said Steve- Freightening Iran to the point that she threatens Israel’s existence
When has Iran not threatened the existence of Israel? Please name a time when Iran was in support of Israel! That is the most ridiculous statement but so typical!
Steve said “Freightening Iran to the point that she threatens Israel” Hey Steve I think you better check the time line on who threatened who first then come back when you have the facts. Dude.
Good for the President. I’m glad he came out and said it. I wonder about Iraq and what side they’ll side with? I can’t imagine Iraq siding with or defending Israel…. could be a big mess.
PS…. which is not to say we shouldn’t have liberated Iraq. Of course we should. Iraq before would have surely piled on Israel with Iran. No doubt.
amy,
You are right the hate the Arabs are taught towards Israelis will bring two bitter enemies together against Israel. I don’t think there is any easy answers to the problems of the Middle East all I know is that anyone that has attacked Israel has ended up loosing troops and property.
Jim: And then when the dust settles, they whine and demand their things back.
Yep, Israel has no Oil, but that won’t stop the BDS folks from foaming at the mouth. At least steve hasn’t foamed yet.
Yet. Heheheee!
Humorous to say the least is you saying Iran has been “frightened” by Israel and the US. Talk about an apologist.
Here is some information to help you understand Iran:
How Iran entered the ‘Axis’
Additional information and questions/answers here
Read the rest here
From the day Khomeni came to power the chant of the Iranian government has been alternately “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. Pray tell me how in the hell Iran’s conduct is the fault of Bush’s foreign policy. Iran and Iran alone is responsible for her conduct. Her current president has been pushing for genocide from the day he took office. My personal feeling is that if Israel wants to turn Tehran into a sheet of glass we shouldn’t stand in her way because Tehran seems to wish to do likewise to Israel.
Too bad your not Jewish.
Anyway, great post.
Amy:
“I wonder about Iraq and what side they’ll side with? I can’t imagine Iraq siding with or defending Israel…. could be a big mess.”
“PS…. which is not to say we shouldn’t have liberated Iraq.”
Interesting comments. Does all of this point to a potentially bigger problem with the current foreign policy? I mean, if we’re knocking over countries in the region and setting up democracies, then those democracies elect anti-American/anti-Israeli regimes, where does that leave us?
Of course, that’s a very real possibility as evidenced recently by Palestine/Hamas.
Is the problem more with anti-American/Israeli ideology/sentiment as opposed to form of government? Should we be more committed to fighting terrorism itself as opposed to banking on a theory that requires us to nation-build, then cross our fingers?
- Not at all thatconfusedguy…. We can just sit on our collective asses until one of the Islamic extremist countries such as Iran achieves nuclear capibility, and watch one of our cities go up in atomic dust, along with a few million Americans, and that I’m pretty sure will clear it all up for the “elitist” chuckleheads that like to think themselves into a round little room where they run in circles disscussing alternatives until it doesn’t matter anymore. Yeh….. thats the ticket….
- If theres one thing history teaches us, its that you never know what tomorrow will bring….Might even be surprised at what happens in Palistine…. something like the audible moan from every Liberal/Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Progressive when the wall came down…. you remember….that one that you lefties couldn’t scream often enough about how wrong Reagan was….
- Bang
The nice guy has a good point. If Iran was filled with people like the ones in the Gaza strip, then they would democratically elect a terrorist organization to head Iran if given the option, just like they just did in Palestine.
I doubt the Iranian people would do that if actually allowed a democratic election, but the Palestinians did. So it’s not necessarily rare. After all, 1 out of 2 democratic Islamic countries have voted for terrorism.
I guess in that worst case scenario, if Iran became a democracy, and still supported terrorism, we could act with more confidence. We could bring down the wrath of the gods on them, knowing that at least half of them fully deserve it, since they voted for the gov’t. If we had done that in Iraq, 8 out of 10 people killed would have been good people. But not doing it that way cost us an extra 2,000 American GI’s.
We have 2 choices essentially.
There is currently a madman at the helm of Iran at this time. One who expressly desires to “wipe Israel from the map”.
This madman wishes to have nuclear wepaons, read previous post for proof of that. What do you think he will do when he achieves that goal of getting nuclear weapons? This person has already staed what he will do to Israel, and what he wants for America, “Death to America”. He has stated he will retaliate with physical force if sent to the UN.
What would you have us do? Wait?
Bang has a good point. When faced with a possibility of a terrosit group being put in charge (doubtful since Iranian people don’t seem to want the current terrorist in charge) or keeping a madman/terrorist/terroist-jihad-supporter in charge?
Sometimes you have to take a chance, same as we do here in the US. It is called Democracy. We have to be able to give them the freedom to vote hwo they wish and even if we don’t agree with that vote, we have to acknowledge it and work with it, one way or another.
Hamas was voted into power, they are a terrorist group, but we have a choice in dealing with them also. It also raises interesting questions, if a terrorist group (which before had no single country – and not subject to Geneva Conventions because of that)was suddenly voted into power in that Country, then I believe they would fall under Geneva Conventions, but more importantly the whole country can be held accountable for the terrorist actions.
Personally I am more worried about the current madman in charge in Iran who is threatening to wipe Israel off the map and death to america and who has terrorist ties and wants direct flight paths into the US for his commercial planes…….
Most people think bombs are the only answer that would work. I agree, but when it comes time to do it, how many? Just destroying the nuke facilities, assuming we could do that, would only make them angry and more prone to hate America.
More prone to hate America?
How much more “DEATH TO AMERICA” Prone can you get?!?!?
You are right though, there are different options in dealing with this.
But the madman in charge wants no punishment, no blockades, and has already stated anything (being referred to the UN or Santions) will result in severe Physical force from Iran.
Normally I would say Santions till they clean up thier act, but they have threatened if that has happened to attack others.
So what are your options in dealing with this?
I would also say sanctions but look at Iraq and the sanctions the (Useless) U.N. had on them and Saddam still found ways around them can anybody say Kofi Annan? Iran is acting like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum if they don’t get there way and they want it their way only. Once again embolden because of the oil the rest of the world needs. Looking at history in the 1930s there was a mad man and the world stood around trying to appease him letting him build armaments and getting entrenched. How long is the world going to stand around wringing there hands saying you shouldn’t be doing that?
I’m not sure yet, Sanity. It is my opinion that sanctions only work against democracies, where the people who are actually hurt by the sanctions have a voice. Also, they take too long to be effective, if they ever are (ex. Iraq).
Assisting pro-democracy groups in Iran is a great idea, but also will take too long. Israel and possibly parts of Russia (Chechnya) will be gone long before that happens.
In the end, no doubt bombs will fall. But it will only delay the problem, since they’ll just be more secretive. Oh well, I guess it’s a first step…
The US should immediately re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran and begin talks on setting up a nuclear free zone in the entire middle east, including Israel. There are 160,000 US troops in Iraq(west of Iran) and 25,000 US troops in the Afghan on it’s eastern border. The Sunni’s have hated the Shi’i for 1000 years and they populate evrything to the south of Iran and the Russians are to the north. On top of that Israel, India and Pakistan all friends of the US, are nuclear armed. Isn’t it possible that Iran is a bit paranoid? Peace
Drudge says Iran will restart all enrichment. Guess it’s time to send more carriers to the persian gulf area.
- Yes Steve. That and they’re losing they’re collective butts in the WOT/Jihad, which so far has been a disaster from the standpoint of their followers.
- On one level the nuclear threat and efforts was fairly predictable. They’ve come up short in every possible way. They’re surrounded by, perhaps imperfect, but never the less, forms of psuedo Democracies, with woman being viewed as something a lot better than part of the livestock. What other card did they have left on the table.
- One of the things that is absolutely basic to any sort of toltalitarian movement is just that. Movement. If things go too badly they lose all momentum and support, and its all over. This is the extremists way of trying to stay in the game, and even though they know it could end up getting them destroyed, and lot of their own people killed in the bargain, when did a little thing like that ever matter to the “peace loving” Jihadists.
- Peace doesn’t come on a platter. You have to be prepared to fight for your liberties. “Peace” as a pretty platitude, ignoring the realities around you, can get a lot of people slaughtered. But again who cares about a little matter like that, ‘eh steve.
- Bang
You also have to be wise enough to know when enough is enough. bush appears incapable of locating the edge of the cliff, so he keeps falling off. Taking Iran to war, at this point, is unnecessary and stupid. Peace
Good point Steve. Don’t attack Iran if they can’t destroy us totally. Let’s wait until taking Iran to war is life or death for us. Nipping in the bud is evil. Let’s hug everyone until they nuke us. Then, let’s hug them, but not as hard.
ST will probably edit this, but You’ve got a lot of $@&*($#^ saying that %#^*()#@%^& when we are @!~!!@$^&. I’m totally ^^%$#**@#$! my @#$$*(&$# off. Dou^@@ag.
No war for gefilte fish!
No war for challah bread!
No war for mezzuzahs!
No war for kreplach!
No war for Manchevitz!
Steve, you silly blindered boy, sit down and chat with the guy who helped lead an act of war on the US already [the embassy attack was an act of war, you know]:
“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.” Jonathan Swift
Now off to my krav maga class. Those IDF guys really know how to invent a shit-kicking martial art/self defense system.
Bang:“We can just sit on our collective asses until one of the Islamic extremist countries such as Iran achieves nuclear capibility, and watch one of our cities go up in atomic dust…”
My post was about options to nation-building. I didn’t say we should do nothing. Clearly something needs to be done about Iran, but continously toppling regimes in the region is, in my opinion, not the answer.
There are other options.
So, I’m questioning the Neocon/Bush ideology/theory which holds that democracy is the key to ending terrorism. I’m asking if it’s a gross over-simplification, and I see that blogagog took me up on that (thanks).
So Blogagog, you said:
“I doubt the Iranian people would do that if actually allowed a democratic election…”
Right. It’s hard to know what they’d do.
I just wonder if we’re underestimating the “hearts-and-minds” battle here (as with Iraq–the whole “greeted as liberators thing”). The U.S. has not taken an even-handed approach with regard to Israel/Palestine. Israel does rain fire down on the heads of Palestinian innoncents in retaliation, doing their share to continue the cycle of violence. Killing is killing.
And when the U.S. steps in without (earnestly) condeming–through words and policy–those acts as well as Hamas’ violence, we are not trusted in the region as a whole. They see us as not just pro-Israel, but anti-Muslim/Arab.
So, this notion that Democracy will produce this intense love for the U.S., ending terrorism may be wishful thinking. They’ll vote with their interests, and to many in the region, it doesn’t seem that the U.S. holds their interests at heart.
Chances are good that we’ll have more Hamas-type situations. When innocent countrymen are being killed or there is a perceived threat, the people gravitate toward the group who’ll take a hard line to protect them. There’s also nationalism at play. Many Iranians are reported to like the position their leadership is taking on nuclear “energy” these days.
And the anti-American/Israel sentiment is running so high that U.S. officials over there are concerned that it’s strong enough to unite Iran with some Iraqi factions. Now that’s powerful.
In the end, is the U.S. creating an impossible situation? Without winning hearts and minds but perpetrating more violence in the region against more Muslims, are we creating an endless supply of jihadists?
And this is not about being soft. It’s about being pragmatic.
The goal of having democracies and promoting freedom is still the best course, it just might not be the end of conflict with other countries. In most cases, I believe it would, but probably not all.
In those few cases where the majority of citizens are actually pro-terrorism or world domination, it is still better to have them be democracies. Why? Sanctions work against democracies, and don’t work against any other form of gov’t. When the people see how badly they are being hurt by their aggressions, they become less aggressive.
Not so in countries that don’t have the freedom to become less aggressive.
I hear you blogagog, but I’m not so sure.
For one, it’s hard to imagine that people who embrace an ideology that includes suicide bombing would be so moved by sanctions.
And does your statement that sanctions work against democracies but no other form of government apply here? I mean I don’t know if we have any empirical evidence when that democracy is one that embraces terrorism and a radical agenda. Of course, you can’t discount the oil factor either. For instance, Iran knows the world is reluctant to impose sanctions.
All this is not to say that there’s absolutely no value. Just that it comes with tremendous cost (opportunity and otherwise) and breeds more terrorists.
There may be better ways to bring international pressure to bear in isolating the terrorists/drying up their recruitment pool.
Niceguy, I think you may be right when you say, “There may be better ways to bring international pressure to bear in isolating the terrorists/drying up their recruitment pool.” I would love to hear the better way, especially if it is less costly in terms of human life.
I’m unwilling to accept new theories without facts that back it up though. Democracies typically don’t war with each other, and can be more easily reprimanded for committing atrocities against humanity (imo only. I have nothing to back this up). That’s why I support the forced imposition of democracy on all gov’ts. The resulting fact that newly formed democracies have to do what their people want (in theory at least) is just a perk. The real goal I am supporting is no wars, and no threat of impending wars (more accurately, impending doom). A war to end war sounds like an oxymoron, but it really isn’t, if you take the time to understand it. It’s easy to make fun of though, since it clearly sounds silly (I’m not suggesting that you are doing this, just that many people do).
As for those who “…embrace an ideology that includes suicide bombing…” they all have to die, and we have to be the ones who kill them. I’m not a big believer in rehabilitation, and this is no exception. They have to die because their existence is incompatible with the existence of everyone else who isn’t a sharia abiding muslim. We have to kill them because no one else can.
The rest of the world certainly has irreconcilable differences with Islam. My only hope is that there is a ‘rest of the world’ when those differences get forcibly solved. I’m really hoping nukes are not involved in the resolution.
When a hysterical child is throwing a tantrum and waving around a gun (or in this case say strapped up with a bomb) with its finger on the trigger…
What do you do when the child throwing the tantrum does not want oto listen and has stated over and over again it wants to kill you?
How do you reason with someone like that who is intent on destroying you because they think God (Allah) has ordained it?
You have only one chance, the wrong move could get you killed and everyone else with you….how do you proceed?
America is Israel’s little puppy. I hope Iran beats the crap out of Israel.
When will the imbecile American wake up to the cost of doing the Jew’s dirty work in the mideast? How about letting the Jews defend their own stinking, thorn in the side country?? Maybe then, the world will be at PEACE! But, the carved out Israel will be land grabbing, stealing, and causing trouble in the world until the end of time!