BUSH: 'In the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid'...

Drudge ^ | 5/23/06 | Drudge

[Vision]

BUSH: 'In the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid'...

[HitmanLV]

A typo. The war in Iraq.

[AnnaZ]

1/2 of Americanns in the wake of 911 don't even want to defend America. Hard for me to believe that they would suddenly want to avenge a crater.

I disagree. I will never believe that more than 15% of the country is that self-hating, while 15% more will nod to them to be included in their "cool group". Another 15% watch too much "Oprah".

The destruction of the smug MSM is the key.

The American people are preponderantly "good" -- they believe in justice, and they will root for the underdog. Iran is far too unpalatable to win many, outside of the 30%, supporters.

[HitmanLV]

I didn't suggest an unknown aircraft. A regularly scheduled, passenger filled, aircraft, with a nuke in its cargo hold.

As for their defenses, I hope they do look out for such things and am sure they do. The bad guys have to be right only once.

[JewishRighter]

I said: I'm not going to engage in some of the retarded rhetoric your post inspired in others. But I think (or maybe I hope) that if we get nuked and we can pin it on someone, there will be a large, smoking crater where they used to be about twenty four hours later. Why twenty four hours later? To give all good Americans time to stock up on popcorn and beer to watch the show. This particular reply was in response a post of yours that said you didn't see America reacting to 2 or 3 nukes on America. Wasn't talking about the response to an attack on Israel, though I'd like to think the American Israel friendship and shared interests would be enough for America to go to bat there as well.

[Mamzelle]

If you read David Horowitz (and I click there everyday), you will see a picture of US intellectuals who are pro-Pali and hate Israel. Does the NYT support Israel? I sure don't get that impression. Leiberman is about the only consistently pro-Israel pol among the Dems. Would Schumer go hawk for Israel?

To beat the drums of war for Israel, you'd need someone with clout. Like, who? You'd certainly have the neos telling Joe Sixpack that he'd better pack up his guns and get with it. The evangelicals would be on board, and the neos would try to hide their Icky Shudders at having to rub elbows with Baptists...

I see your point.

[HitmanLV]

I would like to agree with you, AnnaZ. 15% + 15% + 15%, no matter how misguided, is still 45%. That's a lot and I don't think anything would inspire them to jump to Israel's defense. I just don't see it.

I look at the political landscape and don't see much that gives me that confidence. Hope we don't find out.

[HitmanLV]

I just don't have that confidence in a majority of Americans, either in their own defense or the defense of Israel.

[Taylor42]

- To all -

This has been a fun discussion but I must drop off now - bye

[Steve_Seattle]

"No poster has explained specifically why they think the American people would rise and unite to avenge a nuked out Israel. No one has come close. Sorry to point that out."

In an earlier post I said that the psychological effects of a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would change the world, but in a way we can't predict. As far as the American public is concerned, it could lead to a fearful withdrawal from world affairs - as you suggest - or it could stiffen our resolve and make us see things more the way Bush sees them. Or, with help from the Dems and the MSM, a blame-Bush mentality could set in, leading to all sorts of horrific concessions to the Islamic world. But I don't feel absolutely confident in any one of those scenarios.

[HitmanLV]

Keep the faith! ;-)

[HitmanLV]

I agree. I admit, I have more confidence that the USA would not be that animated, rather than solidifying our resolve.

[LadyNavyVet]

Just barely possible, but I think you're giving the Iranians and their fellow travelers much too much credit to pull that off.

Sneaking one over the border in the back of a truck is more likely, although still a long shot.

[HitmanLV]

Yep. You're right.

[Mat_Helm]

Specifically why do you think that? What in the response to 9-11 makes you think the USA would go nuclear on some nation's arse? There would be a response, but no nukes. That's not naive nor stupid. The USA isn't nuking anybody in that context, anytime.

Boy are you wrong! You are just hoping we would not, but we would massively. The American people will stand up and cheer. Yes the majority of American's would demand it. The majority would cheer when Damascus, Tehran, and other places ceased to exist overnight. Israel would respond as well with her own submarines and nuclear tipped cruise missiles as well as Jericho missiles in hardened silos. The President does not need permission and just like 911 the whole country including the delusional media would be calling for blood. Even Dan Blather was crying after 911 and acting like a panicked little girl wetting her pants the day after 911 and kept it up until he fealt is was safe to be a liberal pansie again after no more hits occured on U.S. soil. Americans ae sick of terrorists, radical muslims, sick of Iran, and sick of the last three decades of letting these little sh*ts jab at the Untited States with their murderous little terrorists and than claim they can't be held responsible. Well, when they set off a nuke anywhere all bets are off and they are to late to say it was not their fault.

[sirbeastly]

The President has only two years remaining in office. Politically speaking, he is invunerable. Now, with someone like "the other Clinton" in office, Iran should wait for a more opportune time. You definitely do not want this President PO'ed.

[AnnaZ]

I have that much confidence in President Bush, tho'.

Our memories are dim, but there are some things that can instantly resharpen focus. A devastating hit to Israel would be, in my opinion, exactly such a thing.

[HitmanLV]

People got squeamish about a few thousand innocent Iraqis dead. I think they would flip out over 100,000s of innocents dead.

I just don't see the steely resolve that you see, that's all.

[HitmanLV]

Hope we never find out.

[streetpreacher]

Sounds like Bush is baiting them.

[ml/nj]

Any Freepers have a problem with this?

I don't have a problem with the concept, but I do have a problem with President Bush making such a statement. He is effectively making a treaty without Senate concurrence, or else he is giving Israel nothing more than a two year commitment at best. I say "at best," because I'm old fashioned enough to think that Congress should have some say regarding the use of the United States Armed Forces.

Just because the Democrats routinely circumvent the Constitution, it doesn't mean the Constitution is obsolete.

ML/NJ