Bush: US would defend Israel against Iran ("You Bet")

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

By Steve Holland
14 minutes ago

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday the United States will rise to Israel's defense 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" that the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency will 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."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20060201/pl_nm/iran_nuclear_bush_dc_4

[saigon68]

1. Here comes WW III

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. Bush was banging the war drums last night in the SOTU address:

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon - and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions - and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/State_of_Union_excerpts._0131.html

[bluestateguy]

3. Israel can defend herself

That a YP not an MP.

[Nomen Tuum]

4. With what?

Gee, the troops are all stuck in Iraq.

I guess all we got left is :nuke:

[Kagemusha]

8. You say it like that's not enough.

nt.

[Nomen Tuum]

12. It's not enough according to Bush!

Remember that ass AND 90% of Congressional Repbulicans believe in the Rapture. They want to trigger :nuke: because they believe that asinine book of fairy tales.

Are they in for the shock of their lives when Jesus pulls a no show...

[hack89]

16. No - there's still the Navy and Air Force

we would bomb the hell out of them - no need for ground troops.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Even if Israel starts a fight and then claims self-defense?

[daleo]

6. Austria-Hungary and Germany, 1914

The latter rose to the former's defense, even though the former was the one who attacked Serbia. Disaster followed.

On edit - Interestingly, Serbian "terrorism" (murder of the arch-duke) was the trigger for the Austrian attack.

[teryang]

22. Exactly! the alliance with Austria-Hungary was a noose...

...around Germany's neck and made the outbreak of world war and defeat a forgone conclusion.

What did Bismack say? I wouldn't give the bones of a dead Pomeranian foot soldier for an alliance with that state?

[daleo]

23. That sounds about right

Bush, on the other hand, makes very free with bones, especially those of American foot soldiers.

[Poll_Blind]

7. Israel would only be taking a page from our "play book" n/t

PB

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Now we know why Lieberman was giving Bush tongue last night.

[MrPrax]

10. Which Holocaust is he talking about?

The one that happened in Europe or the one that he is contemplating for the planet?

I sure hope that calmer heads prevail and the other part of the Quartet isn't willing to go all the way to protect the Zionist bust-out scheme...

[EuroObserver]

11. Observe that * still hopes for a 'referral' to the UNSC;

However, the US-EU-Russia-China negotiations on Monday agreed only to 'report' to the UN Security Council. A 'report' does not pave the way for sanctions or other action the way a formal 'referral' could.

Here's the statement:

Statement from permanent Security Council members:

The Foreign Ministers of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union met this evening, 30 January 2006, and agreed the following:

"Ministers:

- underlined their commitment to the NPT and their determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons;

- shared serious concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, and agreed that an extensive period of confidence-building was required from Iran;

- called on Iran to restore in full the suspension of enrichment-related activity, including R&D, under the supervision of the IAEA;

- agreed that this week's Extraordinary IAEA Board meeting should report to the Security Council its decision on the steps required from Iran, and should also report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue;

- agreed that the Security Council should await the Director General's report to the March meeting of the IAEA Board, which would include a report on the implementation of the February Board's Resolution, and any Resolution from the March meeting, before deciding to take action to reinforce the authority of the IAEA process;

- confirmed their resolve to continue to work for a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem."

ENDS

I noticed also that the NYT in this (smelling all over of PSYOPS) article (DU thread) also referred to 'referring', rather than 'reporting', or 'informing', which is what has been agreed. This kind of manipulation is, frankly, despicable; and is being observed, and taken into account, all over the world (see eg. here).

[Ms. Clio]

18. Thanks VERY much for clarifying that

And thanks as well for the additional links. Very interesting, in fact, it looks like Bush is not actually winning this one yet, since I also read something a few weeks ago about the neonazicons' unwillingness to wait for the March meeting, yet here they are agreeing to that. Maybe that's why they are pulling out such almost-laughable BS as that "nuke-making guide" based on "U.S. intelligence."

[Megahurtz]

13. Why? Why Not let them fight their own battles?

We have enough problems to deal with here at home that could use
all of those billions of dollars that are constantly handed away to Isreal.:think:

[jpak]

14. I always wondered who would be the one (US or Israel)

that would actually "do" the attack.

It's all now perfectly clear.

Operation Clusterfuck II

[mitchtv]

15. Pakistan, India, China , downwind

try it mother fucker.

[springhill]

17. Haven't you ever heard Bill Clinton say........

he would give his life for Israel? Well, I think they expect everyone to feel the same.

[Demeter]

19. How About Defending Iran From Israeli Attack? Sauce for the Gander?

No, I didn't think so.

[twaddler01]

20. With what money?

:shrug: What a hype!

[VegasWolf]

21. Yes, the Rupture won't work without Israel. nt

[oneighty]

24. Perhaps Israel is a tool?

Useful only as a stepping stone to mideast oil and to Armageddon?

Curious.

When the music stops and the dance is done who will go home with Israel?

No one?

180