Mr Bush was joined on the red carpet by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (R) and Israeli President Shimon Peres (L) as he was greeted by religious leaders.
Source: Israpundit
Bush confirms that only a self-reliant Israel that is willing to stand up to America and win is considered an asset by the American establishment. Everybody supports winners especially Americans and Israel is not perceived as a winner by those who count. I can only but concur with that perception. It’s not too late to change that perception though but I fear it won’t happen under BB. Yamit
Reuters has an advance copy of George Bush’s memoir Decision Points, in which Bush writes that he received–and turned down–a request by then-Prime Minister Olmert to bomb the Syrian nuclear plant:
Former President George W. Bush says he considered ordering a U.S. military strike against a suspected Syrian nuclear facility at Israel’s request in 2007 but ultimately opted against it.
Israel eventually destroyed the facility, which Syria denied was aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.
In his memoir, “Decision Points,” to hit bookstores on Tuesday, Bush wrote that he received an intelligence report about a “suspicious, well-hidden facility in the eastern desert of Syria” that looked similar to a nuclear facility at Yongbyon, North Korea. This prompted suspicions that Syria was trying to develop a weapons program with North Korean help.
Shortly afterward, he spoke by phone with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
“George, I’m asking you to bomb the compound,” Olmert told Bush, according to the book, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.
Bush said he discussed options with his national security team. A bombing mission was considered “but bombing a sovereign country with no warning or announced justification would create severe blowback,” he wrote.
As it turned out, Israel went ahead and attacked the Syrian facility on its own–a mission that for which Bush did not give the green light, nor was he asked for it.
And what was Bush’s reaction to Israel’s attack?
Bush wrote that Olmert’s “execution of the strike” against the Syrian compound made up for the confidence he had lost in the Israelis during their 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Bush feels had a mixed outcome.
Keep in mind that the war with Hezbollah began in July 2006–yet the Bush administration apparently had begun to lose confidence even before then.
According to a post on IMRA back in April 2006, Bush did not think that Israel was up to the challenge of the war against terrorism:
Bush and some of his aides have been quietly concerned over the image of Israel as a country ready to withdraw in the face of terrorism. Privately, leading aides and strategists believe that Israel’s hesitancy to fight Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups could encourage Al Qaida and those sworn to defeat the United States. They also see Israel’s failure to defeat Palestinian insurgents as encouraging Iran’s belligerency.
…Bush’s attitude toward Israel has changed as well. Until 2002, Bush saw Israel has a powerful ally of the United States and able to deter its enemies. Today, the president sees Israel as weak and Bush has publicly pledged to protect the Jewish state from an Iranian attack. Quietly, Israeli defense officials dismiss Bush’s pledge was little more than symbolic given the start of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
“The feeling in both the administration and among belatedly among many conservatives in Congress is that Israel has to accept the fate of a small nation reliant on a superpower patron,” a leading U.S. analyst who is close to the administration said.
So which is it: did Bush start losing confidence in Israel because Israel was hesitant to engage Hezbollah, among others, or because it did engage Hezbollah–but fought it to a draw (at best)?
Of course, today it is a moot point–Bush’s concerns are not Obama’s and Obama has shown no real interest in Israel as a military asset, let alone as an ally. If anything, the current president would welcome a more hesitant Israel.Following the midterm elections and the Republican resurgence, however, a more assertive Israel might not only be more welcome, but also more appreciated as well. If indeed the Republicans are in favor of a more aggressive policy towards Iran, Israel may once again be perceived as an asset and not as the roadblock to peace in the Middle East.
My Notes:
Presidents come and go with each election - some remain in office 8 years, while others can barely survive 4 years before America says "Enough"! It is apparent that since America spoke in last week's elections, Obama will NOT be able to hang around the White House when Americans speak out in 2012.
Unfortunately, Obama's words since last week's elections demonstrate a man who just doesn't get it! Arrogance towards both domestic and foreign policies will surely bring about a quick end to one's presidency - and this Administration's decisions will go a long way in making it a brief notation in America's history.
However, what is different between Bush and Obama, relating to its treatment towards Israel? I give former President Bush high marks for respecting and visiting Israel (something Obama has not shown towards Israeli leaders since he took office). But, as the question may go unanswered since Bush has written his Memoirs, when did he lose and regain his "faith" in Israel? Israel has always been prepared to assist the United States and offer assistance in this War on Terror. After all, Israel has been fighting for its survival since its existence against the same type of terrorism that struck America's soil on September 11th.
To ignore the threats of Iran towards Israel and the "Zionist" should have become more of a concern for the United States; as Iran has also threatened the United States. Instead, after months of "talking", Obama finally begins sanctions - sanctions that do not deter Iran from its goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
When I read the headlines from the liberal press i.e. MSNBC, that state:
Iran sanctions 'having an impact,' Gates says
Defense secretary disagrees with Israeli leader over need for 'credible military threat' to tackle nukes
msnbc.com news servicesEvan Vucci / AP
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates hold a news conference at Government House in Melbourne, Australia, on Monday.
I have to ask myself if history, once again, will prove the United States should have acted sooner, supported Israel NOW instead of relying on sanctions, to stop the insane leader in Iran. Is it possible that the United States actually thinks that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be concerned about "sanctions", when to all who have heard Ahmadinejad's threats understand that when it comes to common sense, there is absolutely no way anyone can reason with the insensitive, insane leader of Iran.
Yesterday, I posted an article: Containment is off the table?
Senator Lindsey Graham has made a clear and just case for Congress advising the Obama Administration for proceeding with more than "sanctions" against Iran. Congress needs to WAKE UP this Administration to the perils of ignoring Iran's madman Ahmadinejad. Otherwise, one day, rather than Obama writing his own Memoirs, there will simply be written for all mankind two words: "THE END" (brought to you by Iran's madman).
America has two choices: they can listen to the misguided words of a madman, or they can listen to its ally, Israel - the final decision will be Obama's, but if our leaders in Congress understand the urgency facing the world today, Congress will SPEAK UP and make their voices heard - or forever hold their peace.
Bee Sting
