Good Widdle Jewboy: Gayhud Olmert Obeyed Bush Not To Strike Iran

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Bush Forbade Israeli Strike On Iran, British Newspaper Reports

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080926/ts_nm/us_israel_irannews

This piece speaks for itself--Holemert (ys"vz) is a kapo pig beyond words, but the real issue is that two insane, retarded, suicidal heads of state are more afraid of hurting Moozie "civvies" than averting a world-ending nuclear apocalypse. I don't really have anything to add here. The truth is bad enough.

Bush rejected Israeli strike on Iran, says paper
Thu Sep 25, 8:53 PM ET
 

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel gave serious thought earlier this year to a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by U.S. President George W Bush he would not support it, a British newspaper reported on Friday.

The Guardian, quoting what it called senior diplomatic sources who work for a European head of government for its information, said Bush also told Israel he did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency.

Then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has since announced his resignation, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said.

"He took (the refusal of a U.S. green light) as where they were at the moment, and that the U.S. position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office," said one source.

Israel, widely thought to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, believes Iran could have a nuclear bomb by 2010 and says an Iranian nuclear weapon would threaten the existence of the Jewish state.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, denies seeking nuclear arms and says it is enriching uranium only for use in generating power to meet the demands of its economy.

The Guardian said the European head of government met Olmert some time after Bush's visit and that although their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended he subsequently divulged the contents to his officials.

Bush's decision appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said.

One was U.S. concern over Iranian retaliation, which would probably include attacks on U.S. military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Gulf.

The other was U.S. anxiety Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with dozens of aircraft and that it could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war.

The United States and other Western countries have been involved in a long-running standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, suspecting it is a front for efforts to produce an atomic bomb.

Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the standoff but has not ruled out military action as a last resort.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Bump

[2honest]

From a military point of view: Does Israel need US support in order to conduct air strikes against Iran?
Is Israel dependent from lets say American air craft carriers in the region?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Good questions, actually. If the answer to them is yes, she has nobody to blame but herself. 

[4International]

While it is no surprise that putz Omert was taking his instructions from his master - the other putz George Bandar Wahabbi Bush - was taking his cues - as in idiot cue cards - from the Globalist (i.e.Marxist-socialist) CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).

All the way back in July 2004 the CFR explicitly warned Bush that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities by either Israel or the United States would"hurt US interests in the region".The CFR big-wigs explicitly stated that if Israel went alone in launching a unilateral strike on Iran that this "would be blamed on the United States and hurt its interests in the region" and therefore the White House should pressure Israel not to attack Iran.

Of course since putz George Bandar Wahhabi Bush is a CFR member like Clinton before him and believes wholeheartedly in its globalist ideology, he did exactly what the CFR instructed him to do - tell putz Olmert that Washington is against a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran.


"CFR to Bush: Stop Israeli strike on Iran's nuke sites"

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

A report by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations urged the Bush administration to stop any Israeli attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The council warned that such an Israeli attack would be blamed on the United States and hurt its interests in the region.


"Since Washington would be blamed for any unilateral Israeli military strike, the United States should, in any case, make it quite clear to Israel that U.S. interests would be adversely affected by such a move," the report, entitled "Iran: Time for a New Approach," said.

The U.S. report, drafted by an independent task force sponsored by the council, said Washington should resolve concerns over Iran's nuclear weapons program by coordinating with the European Union.

But the council ruled out any military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"In addition, any military effort to eliminate Iranian weapons capabilities runs the significant risk of reinforcing Teheran's desire to acquire a nuclear deterrent and of provoking nationalist passions in defense of that very course," the task force said. "It would most likely generate also hostile Iranian initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan."


The report also said direct U.S. efforts to overthrow the Iranian clerical regime would not succeed. The council said the regime could eventually provide greater liberties to its people.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/ss_israel_07_30.html

=================================================================================================================

'Journalist Joseph Kraft, a former member of both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, said the Council "comes close to being an organ of what C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite – a group of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes."'


"Giant multinational corporations, and their economic satellites, in alliance with governments and the big banks, are in the process of extending their influence on a global scale: they dream of a world central bank, global planning, and an international welfare state, with American troops policing the world to guarantee their profit margins.

After the long battle to create a central bank in the U.S., the high priests of high finance finally seized and consolidated control of domestic economic policy. It only remained for them to extend their dominance internationally, and for this purpose they created the Council on Foreign Relations, and, later, the Trilateral Commission.

These two groups have been seized upon by the new populist Right as the virtual embodiments of the Power Elite, and rightly so. It is only by reading Rothbard, however, that this insight is placed in its proper historical perspective. For the fact of the matter is that, as Rothbard shows, the CFR/ Trilateralist network is merely the latest incarnation of a trend deeply rooted in modern American history. Long before the founding of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission, there was a power elite in this country; that elite will likely endure long after those organizations are gone or transmuted into something else. Rothbard's unmasking of the historical and economic roots of this trend is vital in understanding that this is not a "conspiracy" centered in the CFR and the Trilateralist groups, as such, but an ideological trend traditionally centered in the Northeast, among the upper classes, and deeply rooted in American history.

I put the word "conspiracy" in quotes because it has become the favorite swearword of the Respectable Right and the "extremist"-baiting Left. If it is conspiracy-mongering to believe that human beings engage in purposeful activity to achieve their economic, political, and personal goals, then rational men and women must necessarily plead guilty. The alternative is to assert that human action is purposeless, random, and inexplicable. History, in this view, is a series of discontinuous accidents.

Yet it would be inaccurate to call the Rothbardian world view a "conspiracy theory." To say that the House of Morgan was engaged in a "conspiracy" to drag the U.S. into World War I, when indeed it openly used every stratagem, every lever both economic and political, to push us into "the war to end all wars," seems woefully inadequate. This was not some secret cabal meeting in a soundproof corporate boardroom, but a "conspiracy" of ideas openly and vociferously expressed. (On this point, please note and underscore Rothbard's analysis of the founding of The New Republic as the literary flagship of "the growing alliance for war and statism" between the Morgan interests and liberal intellectuals – and isn't it funny how some things never change?)

A conspiracy theory attributes virtually all social problems to a single monolithic agency. Radical feminism, which attributes all the evil in the world to the existence of men, is a classic conspiracy theory; the paranoid views of the ex-Communists in the conservative movement, who were obsessed with destroying their ex-comrades, was another.

But the complexity and subtlety of the Rothbardian analysis, backed up by the sheer mass of rich historical detail, sets Rothbard on an altogether different and higher plane. Here there is no single agency, no omnipotent central committee that issues directives, but a multiplicity of interest groups and factions whose goals are generally congruent."

Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
by Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

[zachor_ve_kavod]

The very idea of an Israeli Prime Minister seeking permission to live is beyond disgraceful.  First of all, why did Bush say no?  Second of all, why does it matter why he said no?  It doesn't matter that Bush said no.  What matters is that Olmert would seek his approval in the first place.  Olmert does should not even need to give Bush a heads up, if Israel were to strike.  That would be a courtesy, but not necessary.  But to seek approval?  By doing that, Olmert is saying to Bush that the lives of Jews are only worth what Bush thinks they are worth.

[Zelhar]

Israel should most likely ask for a 'free pass' over Iraqi skies, in that respect we are dependent. There are alternative routes but as they involve American allies like Georgia and Turkey they too depend upon American approval.