Bush apparently stopped Israel from attacking Iran?

[Eikon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...nnews

This is a pretty interesting article. It goes against the pictures that many Bush critics like to paint about him.

He's often accused of war-mongering. He's often accused of bowing to Israel's desires.

First off.... do you think this article is even true?Second, do you think it was a good decision or a bad one?Third, does this change any opinions on Bush?

[themadscientist]

does this belong here? Seems like a politics forum item.

[Eikon]

As Homer Simpson would say -> doh!

fixed.

[HashiriyaS14]

We've heard a number of rumors that Bush/Cheney was dead seat on hitting Iran before they got out of office, but I never really bought into it. If the need to strike was immediate that would be one thing, but I don't really believe that Bush is the sort of person who would attempt to kick up a whole new dust cloud just as he's leaving town. I do, generally, still believe that he does what he believes is right for the nation, however misguided I sometimes deem those judgments to be.

I'm happy to see that the man I campaigned and voted for in 2000 isn't as much of a dummy as the public and media sometimes makes him out to be.

Actually, on that note, has anyone else noticed that in the last couple years or so, Bush has become a markedly better President than he has been for the rest of his time in office? He's shown an increased willingness to work towards bipartisan solutions, an increased willingness to listen to his military and intelligence advisors, et cetera. I can't help but think that some of this stems from Cheney's decreased involvement in the day-to-day during the second term as relative to the first. I think this definitely deserves a thread, but I with withhold from making a "GWB Legacy Thread" until he actually leaves in January.

[audtatious]

He got more done in the 1st than the 2nd term. 2nd term showed his flaws with immigration reform and global warming crap. I think regardless of what he tries to do the Pelosi party will want to kill it and then implement something similar to it if Obama gets in office. Otherwise it will be the same ole partisan BS we see today.

[HashiriyaS14]

2nd term showed his flaws with immigration reform and global warming crap.

Well, I happen to be in support of immigration reform and "global warming crap", and so I suppose I view the situation differently. In his 2nd term, he is acting more like the President he promised he would be during his 2000 campaign, which is to say a very centrist Republican.

[smockers83]

I don't want to say it was the only reason, but after 9/11 he was brought into the neoconservative arena by his advisers. Either that or lately he's just swallowed his pride and ego that he developed then and maybe returning to what he was those first 2 years?

[Eikon]

I still like Bush. I am quite sure his legacy will be negative, but I don't think he deserves as much crap as he gets.

I think he was still fighting terrorism from the 9/11 attacks long after the rest of our country forgot about it. I honestly think the whole Iraq and Afghanistan issues are a continuation of the 9/11 response. But most of the world and our own nation doesn't connect the real origin and thinks it's just GW acting on his own personal designs.

If you did a poll back in 2001 and asked people what the likelyhood is that we'd have more terrorlst attacks on our own soil... I bet most people would have said yes! - for sure we'll have more in the near future. But to my knowledge, there has not been one single notable terrorlst attack on our own soil since that day. That is something I give GW a ton of credit for. We took the war to them instead.

If you forget about the 9/11 attacks and have no basis to understand our nations actions... I would completely agree that he's been a terrible president. But remembering where our country was 7 years ago at this time... I think he's done just fine. I sure do appreciate that I can board a plane, or attend a sporting event, and close my eyes at night without worrying about a terrorlst blowing me up.

[audtatious]

Well, I happen to be in support of immigration reform and "global warming crap", and so I suppose I view the situation differently. In his 2nd term, he is acting more like the President he promised he would be during his 2000 campaign, which is to say a very centrist Republican.

My idea of immigration reform is to close the borders, enforce current laws and only let additional immigrants in from Mexico if we need them (via work permits) and hold those who hire them accountable if they do not go back when the permit expires.......Remove the baby clause too.

I'm all for being environmentally conscience but the press to fix MMGW is absolute crap.

[Jesda]

Tax and spend.Tax and spend.Tax and spend.Tax and spend.Tax and spend.

I know war is expensive, but the goodies that the GOP took with it were irreponsible and unjustifiable. Bush only gave lip service to vetoing big budgets. 2002-2006 was an orgy of pork.

I voted for him in 2004 because the Democrats were in opposition to Iraq without logical reasoning. All they had to offer was "BUSH IS HITLER! RAWR! BLARGHSDFASDF! HE'S A BIG MEANIE!" At the time, arguments of favor of the war were pretty solid. Unfortunately, military leadership and preparation was poor.

And Badnarik was a pretty lame candidate.

Back on topic.. Israel has a right to defend itself.

[szh]

Back on topic.. Israel has a right to defend itself.

Defend ... yes.

Offend ... no.

My opinion.

Z

[HashiriyaS14]

Defend ... yes.

Offend ... no.

My opinion.

Z

Yep.

Furthermore, Israel should NOT have nuclear arms. We gave them nuclear arms and we need to demand that they disarm IMMEDIATELY. This is the only intelligent response to the new mideast arms race. It would remove the most credible reason Iran has for wanting a nuclear arsenal.

Iran wants it as a DETERRENT, they do NOT want it so that they can give it to Hezbollah and get themselves blown up by Israel and the United States. They aren't stupid.

Anyone who thinks otherwise watches too much "24".

[Jesda]

I've never seen 24. It seems like the kind of show that offers annoying cliffhangers at the end of every season.

[audtatious]

Israel is not going to disarm. The only way they will is if Pakistan disarms and all the Islamic nations agree and practice peace.

As far as Iran, I do find this interesting and would like to hear something about it via our MSM:

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/...93f74

"Submitted: 1 hour ago - A tense standoff has developed in waters off Somalia over an Iranian merchant ship laden with a mysterious cargo that was hijacked by pirates.

Somali pirates suffered skin burns, lost hair and fell gravely ill “within days” of boarding the MV Iran Deyanat. Some of them died."

I've tried to hit the main news site that is running the story listed but it seems a whole lotta other people are as well so it never transfers the page (sits and spins).

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Yep.

Furthermore, Israel should NOT have nuclear arms. We gave them nuclear arms and we need to demand that they disarm IMMEDIATELY. This is the only intelligent response to the new mideast arms race. It would remove the most credible reason Iran has for wanting a nuclear arsenal.

The problem is that it wouldn't be too difficult to level an area the size of Delaware with conventional weapons. That's Israel's problem; to pose an equal threat to those that want them dead (and many, many states do), they have to be able to reply with an equal threat.

Also, we gave them nothing to do with nukes. If you want to blame a western power on that, it'd have to be France . To this day, the US Intel agencies can't verify 100% that Israel has the bomb.(1)

[szh]

Also, we gave them nothing to do with nukes. If you want to blame a western power on that, it'd have to be France . To this day, the US Intel agencies can't verify 100% that Israel has the bomb.

Hmmm ... I have to say that I cannot agree with the above. We, the US, may not have openly given them nukes, but given the close ties between the nations and the peoples, and given the way Mossad actively worked inside the US (quite hidden from most of us), it is a certainty that they got a lot of information from us on how to do it.

Plus, I seriously doubt that the US intel agencies are not completely aware of Israeli nukes - they just don't want to talk about it publicly. Israel is perhaps not an "official" member of any Nuclear Club, but it is pretty damn certain that they are one of the more nuke capable nations - larger than just about all the "non-declared" nations.

Z

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Hmmm ... I have to say that I cannot agree with the above. We, the US, may not have openly given them nukes, but given the close ties between the nations and the peoples, and given the way Mossad actively worked inside the US (quite hidden from most of us), it is a certainty that they got a lot of information from us on how to do it.

Mossad intelligence gathering inside the U.S. is hardly considered what Hash stated. By that logic, would we have given the U.S.S.R the bomb? The government of the U.S. did not give Israel nuclear material, technology, or manpower. Though I seem to have misplaced my collection of flight manifests of black helicopters...

Plus, I seriously doubt that the US intel agencies are not completely aware of Israeli nukes - they just don't want to talk about it publicly. Israel is perhaps not an "official" member of any Nuclear Club, but it is pretty damn certain that they are one of the more nuke capable nations - larger than just about all the "non-declared" nations.

Z

Oh, I'm sure the alphabet soup knows Israel has the bomb, but like O.J. Simpson, they can't prove it (or haven't announced they can prove it).