Tony Blair Calls in Chits? Pushes Bush to Negotiate with Syria and Iran

-

blair_bush.jpg
I read Tony Blair’s speech, given a few hours ago. It’s getting some whopper attention, but I think it’s a far less robust declaration that America should wrestle “directly” with Syria and Iran than the press thinks it is — but that said, I agree completely with the ‘perceived’ sentiment.
So Bravo, Tony — the press seems to want to move us towards direct deal-making with Syria and Iran. I’m willing to tag along (but think that Blair could have been less oblique).
Hopefully, he’ll be blunt and direct with the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group tomorrow.
More soon.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

29 comments on “Tony Blair Calls in Chits? Pushes Bush to Negotiate with Syria and Iran

  1. FFIX says:

    I am not a game, I am not a world, I am WOWgame

    Reply

  2. wowgold says:

    Evil monster ages, open a free account number of the area VIP to rob to note lately medium!The quantity is limited, do you want to own?game

    Reply

  3. RichF says:

    I agree that even the process set out in the Constitution, by which Congress formally debates and issues a Declaration of War, CAN lead to mistakes.
    It’s just much less likely to.
    When the evidence is in full public view, when the justness of the cause is fully examined, when the extent of the threat to REAL national security is exposed to public view–then a much sounder decision is much more likely to be reached.
    Plus, it lends the legitimacy of law to what is otherwise adventurism and high-handed unilateralism on the part of an unaccountable Exec. It also UNIFIES the country, because it’s obvious that elected leaders are adhering to the process that defines us as nation and are accountable to the People that they serve. Without those elements, this country is “America” in name only, and has no recourse to assign itself any kind of “exceptionalism.”

    Reply

  4. MP says:

    Rich F wrote: “Whatever outcome the process would generate is irrelevant. If we’d had a Congressional debate and Declaration of War, and had Bush the integrity to stand in front of Congress and request the same, just as FDR did when the country was in REAL danger, then I’d have no problem at all with this war. No matter how difficult.
    It is certainly clear-cut THAT those principles be applied. It’s not an optional tool. It’s false and a red-herring to state I think it’s easy to say “a case is clear and principles are easy to apply in retrospect.” I said the same thing BEFORE we went to war in Iraq. And I said it about Nicaragua and about Vietnam too. That’s why I said the idea is not that hard to grasp: debate by Congress PRIOR to war guards against UNJUST wars, bad intel, and unprincipled or ignorant leaders.
    I would never argue for the glorious leader option. And I do believe that Congress should be the only ones to declare war. I believe that such debate HELPS guard against unjust wars, but I’m less than sure it GUARDS against unjust wars. Certainly, it is hard to argue that the outcome is “irrelevant.” A war can’t become just just because a lot of people agree that it’s just. Nor can I imagine myself going along with the Iraq invasion, even if all our reps had discussed it and said okay.

    Reply

  5. RichF says:

    MP–
    Whatever outcome the process would generate is irrelevant. If we’d had a Congressional debate and Declaration of War, and had Bush the integrity to stand in front of Congress and request the same, just as FDR did when the country was in REAL danger, then I’d have no problem at all with this war. No matter how difficult.
    It is certainly clear-cut THAT those principles be applied. It’s not an optional tool.
    It’s false and a red-herring to state I think it’s easy to say “a case is clear and principles are easy to apply in retrospect.”
    I said the same thing BEFORE we went to war in Iraq. And I said it about Nicaragua and about Vietnam too. That’s why I said the idea is not that hard to grasp: debate by Congress PRIOR to war guards against UNJUST wars, bad intel, and unprincipled or ignorant leaders.
    “…or when you only have to agree with yourself as to the nature of the situation.” There are oodles of folks who agree with me, Thank You Very Much.
    More important, my whole point and the entire purpose and point of the Founding Fathers was to ensure that Exec & Leg branches and the spectrum of Congressmen DID SPEAK TO EACH OTHER. Point is to INSIST that one person and one faction listen to those that disagree. Tinpot despots and pro-war hawks and those merely saddled with dictatorial compulsion or a general bullheaded malfunction are precisely the type likely to go to war w/o due process and on an illegal and or unjustified basis.
    “when . . . the situation is ambiguous, then it becomes difficult.” Again, I disagree that ambiguity equates to any difficulty over which our shared Constitutional mandate can be cavalierly sacrificed. That very ambiguity is why the Power to Declare War is seated in the Legislative Branch. Debate all sides; then vote. Congress has no Power at all to capitulate that obligation and that Power to the Exec.
    Ambiguity is NOT difficulty. ANY American can tell if a war is justified based on a) self-defense, or b) a just cause. There’s obviously a bit more to it.
    But there’s no way to tell ahead of time which of the pre-emptive wars of either Hitler or Bush could be justified. Which is a) why there can be no justification for preemptive wars (the lesson of WWII, as a defective tool can never justify the end, and proves the leader defective; and b) why a PRIOR Congressional Declaration is a necessary pre-requisite.
    What you seem to be saying is that American Democracy is hard–therefore, let’s let a glorious leader decide.”
    And again the ICBM-modern technology argument doesn’t bear the weight Reason, nor of minimal examination. Since the consequences of engaging in unjust wars, wars of aggression, foreign entanglements, etc.–ARE SO MUCH GREATER–all the MORE REASON to exercise Prudence by exercising the Law/Constitution. This is not optional. And it never was.
    Your tech argument just proves the Founder’s principles MORE relevant in PRACTICE today, not less. Think about it: piss off the British in 1776, and the consequences are fewer–they can’t fire a musket over the Atlantic. They couldn’t project enough power to hold territory in 1812. But when North Korea nears nuclear missile capability, wouldn’t you want to take care not to piss ’em off? Carefully assess the case for war–in Congress, based on facts? And on the moral cause? The Constitutional safeguard EVEN MORE critical, with the stakes that high.
    Not difficult at all.

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    RichF: “They are not had to understand. They are not difficult to apply. Had Congress insisted on exercising its Power to declare war, rather than meekly capitulated to the ‘Executive’ via an Irresolution, had they debated the evidence for war and the justness of the cause–we would be more secure, and better off–and not in Iraq.”
    But what if they had done so and decided to go in? They might debate the issue, but there’s no guarantee they’ll come up with the “right” answer–assuming we can tell what the right answer is in all cases.
    I think it’s easy to say a case is clear and principles are easy to apply in retrospect…or when you only have to agree with yourself as to the nature of the situation confronting the country. But when you’re colleagues agree, or the situation is ambiguous, then it becomes difficult. It’s obviously much easier to judge Hitler’s intention in retrospect than it was at the time, even though many people were certain they knew and thought it obvious and their judgement turned out to be correct.
    I don’t exactly agree that the “world is the same, only more so.” (Unless I’m misunderstanding you.) The Founders didn’t have to live ICBMs…didn’t have to live with pollution drifting across borders or depleting the world’s ozone layer…or huge migrations of people across the globe…or epidemics traveling by jet plane…or just the huge and instantaneous awareness people have of what is happening to their brethren next door. Of course, I could go on…the US economy depends on SA in a way that it just didn’t in Jefferson’s time, though there were other connections to be sure.
    (Mind you, I’m NOT arguing that the world wasn’t interconnected back then, just that it is MUCH MORE SO now. And the “much more” makes a difference.)
    Also, people have a more advanced notion of who “their brother” is and whom they have some personal responsibility for. And when and how they should do something about it.
    This doesn’t argue for abandoning our foundinig principles–that’s not my argument–but it probably makes for a more nuanced application of them. For at least a bit more humility when one is deciding how to apply them. In many situations, I don’t think their application is as clear cut as you seem to think.

    Reply

  7. RichF says:

    It’s always been true the world is interconnected.
    Which is all the more reason to follow our Constitutional precepts abroad, and make them come alive in our relations with other nations. Globalization is a fig-leaf for a lot of things, too often but a cheap excuse for what you were gonna do anyway. In this case, that means betraying America’s one true founding principle by meddling with another country’s internal affairs and perverting an election–even if that involves going against everything this country fought for in 1776.
    Think about it on a literal level: The British abused us, so we held a little revolution to insist on a little representation, form a more perfect union, and speCIFically–avoid the foreign entanglements that got the Brits on our bad side. So WHAT do we go and DO? We repeat the filthy CANARD that the conduct of our foreign policy is free of our own legal framework: free to entangle all it wants, to screw with other countries, to bring down contempt and outrage upon us all–even though the whole point of America and of self-determination in general is to AVOID bloody wars by RESPECTING the sovereignty of other nations.
    Free to do to other countries eXACTly what the British did to us. Go figure.
    It’s kinda like neutering not even your children (the practice of democracy in Nicaragua), but yourself–hence the loss of “influence.”
    I disagree that:
    “The Founders’ views about foreign entanglements have become quaint in a certain way because the world is much different from the one they lived in.”
    It’s clear the world is the same, only more so. The Founder’s views about foreign entanglements are all the more pertinent, and eminently practical. Are the crimes horrific? Are the stake high? Our Founders gave the legal and political tools to deal with any circumstance, if we would but use them.
    They are not had to understand. They are not difficult to apply. Had Congress insisted on exercising its Power to declare war, rather than meekly capitulated to the ‘Executive’ via an Irresolution, had they debated the evidence for war and the justness of the cause–we would be more secure, and better off–and not in Iraq.
    Equating election-rigging with Darfur or Iraq smacks of moral relativism. But it’s not hard to distinguish when to get involved, and on what side. You just have to be willing to try.
    It’s not hard to distinguish a bloody dictator like Somoza from the citizens trying to take their country back. Ed Abbey said that ‘a patriot is someone willing to defend his country from his government.’ Hmm, death squads or democracy? Which one is more consistent with America’s security interests, its founding motivation, its core values? Which option will yield global admiration, and which will reap the wind? You’ll be judged by your practice, not on the historical documents you treat as dead letters–and as justification for misdeed.

    Reply

  8. MP says:

    RichF says: “But these same folks didn’t have the gumption or incisive thought-process to speak up and make themselves heard as Bush bent and warped, and broke, the process for going to war in 2003. (Even though any one could tell there were no WMDs or any evidence for war.) Their gravitas wasn’t worth much then to the country then, and it’s worth even less now.”
    That’s the problem: How many people did speak up at the time when speaking up could have changed the course of events? Very few in real positions of power. They were cowards–afraid of being found out to be wrong after the fact.
    But on the broader point: When or whether to interfere in another country’s business. In general, we shouldn’t. OTOH, more and more, no country is an island; we all interfere with each other inevitably. The Founders’ views about foreign entanglements have become quaint in a certain way because the world is much different from the one they lived in. Darfur? Rwanda? The Congo? Auschwitz? Kosovo? Do we just stand by? Or do we interfere? Almost every (US) interference seems to go awry–but standing by also seems wrong.
    And the same question repeats itself in a different way when you look at smaller units of government or social organization–the state, the town, the family, the person.
    You can say that interfering doesn’t necessarily mean war. OTOH, if the situation is bad enough, you can’t expect evildoers to go gently into that good night.

    Reply

  9. wowgold says:

    The synchronously latest suit weapon+the latest FB+latest edition!Don’t enter a station to see!game

    Reply

  10. RichF says:

    Here’s a little exercise:
    Ignore the fact there are no Middle East Experts on the Iraq Study Group.
    But go take a look at the roster of people they’ll be interviewing. And the folks who are on their working groups.
    Pretty sad. Sure, you gotta interview some of ’em. But the number of non-sycophants is practically nil. They’re interviewing Tom Friedman–primary war cheerleader and worse: refused to listen to those of us who knew better than he did. It’s a Condescension Colloquy
    Clifford May, of the Foundation to Defend Democracy. Ever wonder who’s on their boards of directors, advisors, etc.?
    Forbes, Kirkpatrick, Kemp
    Freeh, Lieberman, Gingrich, Woolsey
    GAry Bauer, Krauthammer, Donna Brazile, Kristol
    Frank Gaffney, Zell Miller, Chuck Schumer, Pham
    So instructive.
    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm
    The same pattern applies for those being interviewed by, or on the working groups for, the Iraq Study Group. Are some of them the Best and the Brightest? Sure. And they are the “students” of geopolitics who failed the real-life test the first time around.
    George Will. William Kristol. Fred Kagan. Liberman. Friedman. Sure, you wanna hear from all the players who got you into this mess. But the cheerleaders, too? They can’t open it up to the folks with perspective? The ones with solutions? The ones who have the capacity fix what many of the folks delivered to US, FUBAR?
    The whole exercise has the distinct, unshakeable feel of one of those VIP helicopter tours into Vietnam, in which the Member of Congress, journalist or other warhawk is shown a Potemkin Village, treated to a staged show with pre-picked GIs and then helicoptered back out of Khe Sahn or Fallujah so their plan can corkscrew out of Baghdad the same way it corkscrewed out of Saigon.
    Only it’s the intellectual-policy version of that.

    Reply

  11. RichF says:

    And if I recall correctly, Lee Hamilton was also chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal.
    While checking this I discovered that then-Rep. Dick Cheney was the ranking Republican on the panel investigating the Iran-Contra scandal.
    While I don’t remember Cheney’s actions at the time, there was one mention that Cheney blocked Democrats from deposing Vice President George HW Bush (& ex-CIA chief) on what he knew of Iran-Contra.
    And Lee Hamilton’s explanation? Accountability Bad: “wouldn’t have been good for the country” to put the country through an impeachment trial. Hmm.. our Founding Fathers–and Reps. Gingrich, Graham, and Sensenbrenner–would disagree. ‘Twas the Lies, not the sex, that grieved them so.
    And yet at this late date, some of us still wonder how it’s come to pass, that America can no longer “influence” the outcome of an election in a small sovereign nation like Nicaragua. It’s really interesting all right.
    It is, of course, that very willingness to “influence” elections that has cost us the respect, moral stature, and influential status in first one hemisphere and then the next.
    But when you’re pumping hundreds if billions into the rocky political soil of Mess-o’-Potamia, there’s not quite enough liquid cash left over to flood another Nicaraguan election with oodles of dollars, with whole libraries of disinformation, just as the U.S. had with the Ortega-Chamorro campaign. Not to mention the brutal bloody return of Somoza’s National Guard.
    If that is “influencing” an election, then it is as much a betrayal of all things American as anything else you or anyone else can think of.
    It’s the very willingness to interfere; to resort to death squads and torture (whether hands-on or by proxy; whether directly supervised or merely trained at the SOA)–it is THAT that has wrought America’s decline. That’s the kind of thing that–factually speaking, mind you–makes Chavez by contrast look stable and by any measure a moral example. “Influence” is not the ability to get away with anything you want, no matter what means you require, murder and torture included. Influence is the capacity to get what you want from and with others, WITHOUT having to resort to such means. It’s the real Realpolitik–or should I say, the Realpolitik Realpolitik.

    Reply

  12. RichF says:

    And yet . . . the invaluable Juan Cole has THIS to say about Tony Blair:
    “UK PM Tony Blair’s speech on Monday, which had been bruited as a change of course in foreign policy, struck me as just a ‘stay the course’ standard bromide. He blamed Iran for instability in Iraq, whereas most of that comes from the anti-Iranian Sunni Arabs. He blamed Iran for supporting Lebanon, even though he had done nothing to stop the brutal Israeli bombing of south Beirut. He just gave the standard Bush speech, which even Bush may not be giving long. As for Israel and Palestine, he is right that it is the core issue. But it is pitiful for him to keep saying that as the situation drops into the 13th level of hell for the Palestinians, and to fail to do anything practical about it.”
    Blair, who, unable to make the distinction between plucky and truculent, is . . . just passive. In the face of accelerating events, mind you.
    On the other hand, an Iraq Study Group consisting of:
    James A. Baker
    Lee H. Hamilton
    Robert M. Gates
    Vernon E. Jordan
    Edwin Meese
    Sandra Day O’Connor
    Leon E. Panetta
    William J. Perry
    Charles S. Robb
    Alan K. Simpson
    just isn’t going to be brimming with fresh ideas or effective solutions. Are they “respected” elder statesmen? Some may think so.
    But these same folks didn’t have the gumption or incisive thought-process to speak up and make themselves heard as Bush bent and warped, and broke, the process for going to war in 2003. (Even though any one could tell there were no WMDs or any evidence for war.) Their gravitas wasn’t worth much then to the country then, and it’s worth even less now.
    Lee Hamilton is the guy–according to a former Reagan official–you call when you don’t want to find anything out. As is Robert Gates, whose major accomplishment was failing his country by putting the lid on the Iran-Contra criminality.
    That, too, was a war waged without a declaration. Perhaps if we honored our own laws, and sided against a dictator now and then just on principle and not for oil (citing GWB), our “influence” wouldn’t be declining.
    America used its Iran-Contra program to send death squads after Nicaraguans who’d merely taken their country back from Somoza, a vicious dictator. Negroponte was there, then; now Negroponte has been there, in Iraq.
    Even if the remaining members of the Iraq Study Group had not been around to look the other way, to see no evil, they are all still drawn from the same poisoned well that produced Bush I and Bush II.
    They won’t come bearing solutions. They may force George W to face a little reality. But they’re soaked with the culture and are root and branch of the same malignant framework that has generated these failures. These failures of legal framework, of policy, of politics, and consequently, of war.

    Reply

  13. DanSoon says:

    Tony Blair should go resign with his ridiculous suggestions.
    He always pretends to be the “smart guy” but he is a total looser..
    How many times do the west need to sell Lebanon to Syria to get a deal in Iraq and Israel suffers.
    In Gulf war I, the US and Britain sold Lebanon to Syria without even asking lebanon. this lead to the formation of Syrian terror in Lebanon for more than 15 years that ended up attacking, killing and suffering in Israel.
    Now again, Tony Blair is asking our Administration to do the same mistake again,
    “Talk to Iran and Syria, and beg them to help us in Iraq.” We don’t want terrorist states to help us in Iraq.
    Also Syria and Iran want to regain control of Lebanon and turn it into a Shiite State the could piss off Israel whenever they want.. Syria and Iran will keenly help in Iraq if they get back Lebanon from the March 14 Forces. If that happens,
    then welcome to Terror World Threee…
    If Tony and his friends sell lebanon to the Shiite Iran this time, we will have to pay for a costly mistake in another 5years from now when Iran through Hizbullah will blow off Israel and drag us and the rest of the Civilized world to Armagedon!
    Tony Blair should be the first person to pay for all his looser realpolitik..that have costed the Israeli and the Lebanese too much hate and suffering by strenghting terror shiite groups in lebanon..
    Wake up Blair! are you o.kay if ten years from now you retire and we need to clean up your mess?

    Reply

  14. barrisj says:

    Oh, you must mean “yo, Blair!” Tony Blair, the PM who has Junior’s enormous and unconditional respect and to whom he always defers…ah, THAT Blair.

    Reply

  15. McPherson says:

    AMERICAN lieutenant William Calley, found guilty of the massacre at My Lai in Vietnam where more than 500 unarmed civilian men, women and children were killed, was sentenced to life imprisonment – progressively reduced until commuted by Richard Nixon, to just over three years of “house arrest” at his home base, Fort Benning.
    I wonder what horrendous crimes the US Government thinks David Hicks guilty of to lock him away for longer than that in Guantanamo without even a trial. Do tell, then we might understand!
    Steve McPherson, Shearwater, Tasmania

    Reply

  16. Mocu says:

    And when Iran and Syria don’t cooperate, guess what happens? Watch out. Its a set-up.

    Reply

  17. John says:

    William S. Lind (not Michael Lind) makes a convincing argument that nothing will change because no one wants to get blamed for losing Iraq.
    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=10012
    Interestingly, he doesn’t mention other powerful interests intent on maintaining the status quo, such as Cheney-Halliburton/KBR.

    Reply

  18. ... says:

    Welcome to Bushworld.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at November 14, 2006 09:54 AM
    No. welcome to your world. It sure seems like a horrible place to be. I’m sure that you’d agree.

    Reply

  19. Pissed Off American says:

    Meanwhile, in Lebanon and Gaza, the blood keeps flowing.
    China surfaces a sub in the immediate proximity of one of our carriers, undetected until on the surface. Coincidentally, (yeah right), they do so when the high mucky-muck of the Pacific Fleet is touring China.
    Russia refuses to buy into the Bolton sponsored UN gang bang of Iran.
    And huge groups of Iraqi militia in police uniforms are doing bulk kidnappings, tortures and murders.
    But hey, Tony blithering Snow says we are still “winning” in Iraq.
    Israel is just exercising a little selective “defense”.
    Bolton is doing a heckofajob.
    And Pelosi’s past is being erased by Google.
    Welcome to Bushworld.

    Reply

  20. sdemetri says:

    Scott Ritter makes the case for engagement with Iran:
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/ritter

    Reply

  21. DonS says:

    . . . meanwhile the “perceived sentiment” seems to be that “Bush, responding to concerns . . . Olmert brought to the White House” . . . wants to further isolate Iran.
    Yawn. No surprise here.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/13/national/w100832S24.DTL&type=politics

    Reply

  22. RichF says:

    Not sure I believe that either Tony Blair or James Baker are cut out for “confronting” each other.
    Blair has always made the mistake of believing that being articulate could ever substitute for sound policy, realpolitik, or personal and political integrity (not unlike george will). He lost all that when he waved around that 28-page “dossier” replete w/graduate student thesis and claimed it was evidence.
    He may be able to recognize political reality, but that doesn’t minimize or erase the fact that he is and was Bush’s full partner in the Iraq folly.
    And James Baker? Whether one views him as political fixer, consigliere, or just a guy who gets the job done, you can’t overlook his list of clients. I haven’t compiled a list, but I’m sure it doesn’t end with the Saudis or the Carlyle Group.
    The idea that Blair & Baker would confront each other with blunt talk is akin to saying that Michael Moore and Ralph Nader would confront each other about the need to put a palatable face on socialized health care.
    An imperfect analogy, but you get the idea.

    Reply

  23. War Crimes says:

    Campbell
    John Howard and Philip Ruddock were both lawyers before entering Politics…Who they represented is up for conjecture, not likely any defence work except the bosses, I would imagine. They certainly were no Clarence Darrow’s. They both should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves to have called themselves any sorts of legal eagles.
    Howard refuses to have David Hicks bought back home to stand trial for his alleged acts of terrorism..There is no law here in Australia that he has broken asserts Howard and his team of cronies, who want a military court to try him.
    The Supreme Court in America has condemned the Guantamino Bay Military court as un-constitutional and nothing but a Kangaroo court, but Howard and his mates Ruddock and Downer wanted him tried there….No American detainee was ever tried in a conjured up Military Court for illegal combatants, the term of the making of the literaly disposed Dictator G W Bush and his now sacked war mongering mate Donald Rumsfeld.
    Why Hicks is not tried in a civil American Court is because he would have rights of appeal, the rights of cross examination of the accusers and if in fact he was committed, which would be extremely doubtful, as there would be no legal law to convict him on either.
    These American puppets of G W Bush wanted a conviction and don’t give a hoot how it is was obtained, the Second Military tribunal is no different to the outlawed first one, according to Hicks Lawyer Michael Mori.
    Still in solitary confinement after five years of psychological and physical torture, are they waiting for him to completely lose it before any action is taken by this Australian Government…Like the Iraqi, war public opinion is starting to gather strength and people can now see what a travesty of human justice it is….Why has Ruddock waited five years to call on his return, if he is not tried soon or has the political climate changed so much now he has to act and tell the Australian people he was responsible for his release..Is there no end to the hypocrisy of this Government. Will things change here now, that their war criminal mate has been tethered amd made a lame duck, whom the Democrats have started to pluck his feathers ??

    Reply

  24. Marcia says:

    For those not in awe of the Baker Commision there is a must read in the Washington Post by Michael Kinsley, “Get Jim in Here Pronto.”

    Reply

  25. Dick Durata says:

    Tony says what he’s been told to say.

    Reply

  26. gq says:

    Hopefully Blair isn’t full of macaca.

    Reply

  27. Carroll says:

    So who is Bush going to listen to? Blair or the… Ugly Israelis?..to quote Haaretz.
    Ugly Israeli Number One:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787766.html
    Last update – 06:15 14/11/2006
    Netanyahu: It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust
    By Peter Hirschberg, Haaretz Correspondent
    LOS ANGELES – Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world.
    While the Iranian president “denies the Holocaust,” Netanyahu said, “he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.”
    Criticizing the international community for not acting more forcefully in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power – “No one cared then and no one seems to care now,” he said, again drawing on the Nazi parallel. .
    “What happens in Iran affects what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the other way round,” he said.
    Netanyahu said he believed that Iran could still be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. “There is still time. All ways must be considered. We can’t let this thing happen,” he said.
    “No one will defend the Jews if the Jews don’t defend themselves,” he said to loud applause. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions have to be stopped.”
    Ugly Israeli Number Two:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787238.html
    Olmert draws fire in U.S. over praise of Iraq war
    By Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondents and Agencies
    WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush, speaking after a meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, called Monday for the world to unite in isolating Iran until it “gives up its nuclear ambitions.” In addition, Olmert publicly praised the American operation in Iraq, which he said brought stability to the Middle East.
    Tehran’s goal is to “ultimately wipe Israel off the map,” Olmert said on NBC television’s “Today” show. “The whole world has to join forces in order to stop it
    He said Bush expressed pride in the American veto at the UN Security Council regarding a condemnation of the Israeli shelling of the Gaza town of Beit Hanun.”
    BUT HELLO!!!!!…..this is what the article quoted a dem offical as saying..
    “Politicians from the Democratic Party said they wanted to speak to Olmert about his comments on the Iraq war before responding publicly, but said they were uncomfortable with the comments. If Olmert planned his remarks and intended them to come out as they did, a Democratic official said, then they are not acceptable and can be seen as an attempt to influence the American political dispute.”
    >>>>>>>>
    Hummm… Bibi is LA whinning how no one cares about the jews..well wonder why? ..could it possibiliy be their behavior? And then implies Palestine will be rubble if we don’t attack Iran for them.
    And then Olmert (what is that man smoking that he thinks Iraq is a success) tells us how proud Bush is for not condemning the Israeli massacre that killed 18 people, 9 children last week in Palestine.
    Whoa…this is getting real sick and really pushing the envelope. We have two uber Israelis visiting the US to stir up the jews here so they will get the US to attack Iran for Israel or back an Israeli attack. Wonder what chapter this will be in when the dust settles on Isrmerica.
    BUT…THE DEMS SAID SOMETHING..THEY ACTUALLY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT NOT INTERFERRING WITH THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS. Let’s hope it was sincere and not a pretend cover for future moves.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *