Posted on 08/27/2012 7:09:13 AM PDT by xzins
If youre not going to act against the reactor, then we are, PM told president, says advisor Elliot Abrams. Then, as now on Iran, the US favored Ehud Olmert ordered the 2007 strike on a Syrian nuclear reactor immediately after former US president George W. Bush informed him that the Americans would not attack the facility, according to a Channel 10 report aired on Sunday evening.
Bushs deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams was present when the president called Olmert on September 6, 2007 and made clear that the US would not take action, and that then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice would fly to Israel to hold a joint press conference with Olmert to alert the international community of the secret reactor. The US had decided to handle the Syrian threat via diplomacy.
Olmert responded to Bush that the secretarys visit would not be necessary and that Israel would deal with the nuclear facility on its own.
If youre not going to act against the reactor then we are, Abrams quoted Olmert as saying during the teleconference. You dont want to know where or when, the former prime minister reportedly added.
The Israelis were convinced that time was fairly short, and that they had to strike the reactor built by the Syrians with extensive input from the North Koreans before it went live, the TV report said.
Israel has never claimed responsibility for the strike, named Operation Orchard, which occurred shortly after midnight on the same day. And Syria has never acknowledged that its nuclear reactor was destroyed.
According to Abrams, three hours after the strike, Olmert called the former US president and spoke briefly regarding the mission.
I did what was necessary, Abrams quoted Olmert as saying. To which Bush simply replied, I thank you.
According to the Channel 10 report, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was initially against the strike, possibly because of personal political considerations. However, the only minister who actually voted against taking out the reactor was Avi Dichter.
Dozens of Syrians were killed in the strike, as well as 10 North Koreans who were presumably helping with technical aspects of the secret facility, the TV report said.
The TV report was broadcast amid reports in recent days that Israel is considering a strike against Irans nuclear facilities. In contrast to the public silence before the Syrian strike, and before Israels 1981 raid that destroyed Saddam Husseins reactor at Osirak, however, the question of whether Israel should resort to military intervention against Irans nuclear facilities has been the subject of feverish public debate for months.
With Iran as with Syria, however, the Americans are urging that more time be given to diplomacy, and the Israelis are stressing the urgent imperative for action.
>The US had decided to handle the Syrian threat via diplomacy.<
.
The same way that the US handles the muslim threat — invite them into their house so that they can destroy it and its occupants while they’re asleep.
Bush bobbled....
Wasn’t the first time ....
What a disappointment he is.
What's the problem? This worked as it is supposed to! This was Israel's job to do, and Bush let them do it. Meanwhile Obama has gone to every length to betray Israel and prevent their action on Iran, including the Stuxnet leak, leaking Israel's plans to use Uzibekistan bases, and coordinating with the left-wing Israeli daily Ha'artez to try and slant Israeli opinion - not to mention constant pressure against them, warnings and getting Euroweenies to also warn them against it.
I don’t know if I’d call this a Bobble... if you are talking with someone who you know is going to take care of it if you don’t, do you risk international strife or simply tacitely endorce the foe without being directly liable?
I don’t think I’d call this a bobble. If Israel we knew were not going to act on their own, and allowed the reactor to exist, and we did nothing that would be a bobble.
I see this as tacit approval, We aren’t going to do it (wink wink, knudge knudge) but without saying it, we are not going to stand in your way of doing it either.
I don’t know if I’d call this a Bobble... if you are talking with someone who you know is going to take care of it if you don’t, do you risk international strife or simply tacitely endorce the allies actions without being directly liable?
I don’t think I’d call this a bobble. If Israel we knew were not going to act on their own, and allowed the reactor to exist, and we did nothing that would be a bobble.
I see this as tacit approval, We aren’t going to do it (wink wink, knudge knudge) but without saying it, we are not going to stand in your way of doing it either.
It seems more than ever a strike against Iran is imminent, the public, especially in Israel are being conditioned for it, more so than I can ever remember.
May God protect Israel and those that serve in this brave but necessary operation.
The difference is, if the same “threat” was made to the current administration, the Iranians would know five minutes* later. Bush had no desire or reason to warn the Syrians.
*An exaggeration for effect; it might take ten or 15 minutes.
The point, of course, is not about Bush, it is about Israel’s reaction when the US backed off.
The last paragraphs lead us to look at what Israel did then compared to what it will do now with Obama as president.
If he tells them no, then their track record is to go it alone.
That it is founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it is written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority are sinners, that it is their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle is sure to go to Paradise.
Thomas Jeffersons testimony to the Continental Congress, citing the [muslim] Barbary ambassador to England, concerning the activity of the [muslim] Barbary pirates preying on Christian ships, 1786
I submit that nothing has really changed in the last 226 years. The dysfunctional culture created by the "gunpowder"* of religions remains primitive and delusional.
We ought not to fight them at all, unless we determine to fight them forever.
John Adams on the [muslim] Barbary Pirates, 1787.
I further submit that the sicko koranimals are genetically predisposed as a culture to rule or commit suicide.
*Like gunpowder, islam is composed of three indivisible parts; delete one, and it is no longer islam. I leave it to the informed and aware civilized human being to grasp the metaphor.
I agree that W bobbled at times; and was also a disappointment, at times.
But this was not one of those times.
Has the US taken out the Syrian reactor, Russia, China and every sandmaggot country (and their surrogates worldwide, including in the US (!)) would have landed on us with both feet.
Many atrocities were averted, and the job got done.
OK.
Good points, all of them.
God bless you!
I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
To start with, the Syrian underground facility was very close to the Iraqi border. It was blown up with a big bomb, like a MOP, needed to penetrate deep enough to do a real job on it.
So the first problem is how to transport such a terribly heavy bomb to target. Unfortunately, the biggest aircraft the IAF has is a Boeing 707, ill equipped to carry such a cargo, for which you need an aircraft like a C-130.
Second, how to do so without being very illuminated by the good quality Russian built air defenses of Syria?
When the Israel Air Force attacked, they came in from the sea, on the far side of the country, making “a lot of noise”. So the Syrian air defenses and radar all turned toward the sea.
Which left “the back door open”.
So some slow, heavy transport aircraft likely came in from the Iraqi side and dropped its bomb, then went back over the border and vanished.
Q.E.D. This had to have the involvement of the Americans.
Credit must go to the brave Israeli fighter pilots for going through very dense AAA as a distraction.
But the US had to disavow official involvement, because the Russians and others would have gotten seriously bent out of shape about it.
Ben will find out if he can trust Obamuzzie by giving him a key piece of info then seeing if the Mullahs respond. That’s what the Israelis have been doing anyway with all the news coverage-—watching how the Persians jump when Israel sneezes. They are not “cool”, they can’t help it but they will move something, shoot something, or otherwise give themselves away everytime their perceived threats change. No power on earth will protect Obamuzzie after he leaves office if he double crosses Ben and the IDF.
We ought not to fight them at all, unless we determine to fight them forever.
John Adams on the [muslim] Barbary Pirates, 1787.
.
What an utterly inane statement.
We should be prepared to fight them forever after we remove their privilege of 1st Amendment protection. They’re not a religion but nothing more than a political movement.
John Adams made that clear.
"I did what was necessary," Abrams quoted Olmert as saying. To which Bush simply replied, "I thank you."
“genetically predisposed”-—well, yeah, maybe. but I read that as sister banging, inbred, genetically defective, miserable pieces of krap that can’t explain what their own problem is. And are so dam backward they are willing to fight the flush toilet.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Why should he have acted?
He was assured the threat would be removed by the IDF to whom it was a direct threat. American interests were not directly threatened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.