Bush says 'World War III is worth starting' over Iran

[Agaric]

In an appearance on NBC's Today Show, Air America's Rachel Maddow suggested that President Bush's warning against allowing Iran to acquire nuclear know-how should not be mistaken for a promise that Republicans can be trusted to prevent World War III.

"What he's saying is that World War III is worth starting, if only over the issue of Iran's nuclear know-how -- not even over the issue just of them having weapons," Maddow stated,

President Bush had indicated in Wednesday's press conference that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

"Right now probably the most anti-American country on earth is Pakistan," Maddow continued. "Pakistan not only has a nuclear weapon but has demonstrated that they will proliferate that technology on the black market. The idea that Iran would be cause for World War III but Pakistan's no big worry to us is psychotic."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Rachel_Maddo...d_War_1018.html

[August1991]

The OP is incorrect. That's not what Bush said, and this is Leftist spin at its worst.

IF what they say has unforeseen or unintended consequences, public figures often complain that their words were “taken out of context.” President Bush did not complain about the news coverage when he suggested that an Iran with nuclear weapons could set off World War III, but his remark cries out for context nonetheless.

The context is historical, geographical and perhaps even personal; one reasonable conclusion was that Mr. Bush was not really envisioning a match about to light a nuclear fuse.

But first, it would be good to review just what he said.

“We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” Mr. Bush said at a news conference. He was referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remark that Israel “will disappear soon,” words about as inflammatory as others the Iranian has uttered about Israel.

“So I told people,” Mr. Bush went on, “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

NYT

IOW, Bush is worried that a nuclear Iran might provoke World War III. The president of France shares the same worry as Bush. Indeed, any fair minded person would do the same.

It has always been a source of amazement to me that Leftists argue in favour of banning handguns but seem indifferent to the idea of rogue states such as the Iranian regime getting hold of nuclear weapon technology. (The other irony is that people like Bush defend an individual's right to have an AK-47 or an RPG yet want to disarm rogue states. Doesn't the Second Amendment extend to nuclear missiles?)

Edited October 21, 2007 by August1991

[Peter F]

The OP is incorrect. That's not what Bush said, and this is Leftist spin at its worst.

Who cares what Bush has to say on the matter? Iran can continue thier own Nuke program on their own - like pakistan or like everything else they've done since the Shah got tossed.

And maybe...just maybe...Iran has no interest in nuke weapons? Maybe they want Nuke power plants. Is that even remotely possible do you think?

Now, agreed, Amedjawhatever is a fruitcake for saying stupid things, but then GBush is also the dope who called for a crusade.

Do not put stock in what is said but what is done.

[sharkman]

No, it's not possible that Iran just wants nuclear power. They will indeed continue their own Nuke program until Israel precision bombs it into the stone age. George won't have a say on that, rest assured.

[Peter F]

They will indeed continue their own Nuke program until Israel precision bombs it into the stone age. George won't have a say on that, rest assured.

Very true. So what is Israel waiting for? Permission? They just bombed the Syrians for less, not to mention Iraq way back when. Whats the hold up? Something is keeping them back and it certainly isn't International opinion.

[ScottSA]

Very true. So what is Israel waiting for? Permission? They just bombed the Syrians for less, not to mention Iraq way back when. Whats the hold up? Something is keeping them back and it certainly isn't International opinion.

No one has any idea, beyond mere conjecture, why they bombed the Syrians. Except them and the Syrians, and the Syrians ain't saying. There's a reason for that. If it was the standard "peaceful nuclear reactor" meme, it would be plastered all over the news and the howls and keens of anti-Jewish anguish would reverberating unto the skies, but nary a word. I suspect it's some novel means of spreading death that the Arabs cooked up to further their agenda of dying in a big fiery ball of piosity or whatever dictate their psychotic prophet passed on to them this week.

[Topaz]

I don't know if Bush said that but I've have heard the Cheney and Bush want to go into Iran before the election because they feel that the Dems won't and they feel THEY need to do it! Last night , I heard this former Air Force guy, talking about his opinion on the nuclear missiles that were flown across the US. He said that they nukes COULDNT have been flown by mistake because of the extensive security procedures required to transport such ordnance, He believes that this incident has been used to siphon off a nuclear missile from its weapon arsenal. He, also expects the nuke will be used on a sparsely populated US interest and blamed on Iran in order to justify an invasion. Now I don't know for sure if this happen BUT after 9/11, I feel anything is possible. How would Cheney/ Bush invade Iran if they wanted to?? Bush doesn't have Blair now. This could turn the Middle-East into WW3 and everyone could be killed including all the soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would bring China and Russia against the US, with China called in the debt and Russia using their nukes, if threaten and let now forget Israel, Pakistan and India all have nukes. Does Bush still have the same thinking about keeping the war over there and not here, so a nuclear war wouldn't matter that much to the US???? This may never happen BUT we must think about that it could happen and prevent it from happening.

[jbg]

Last night , I heard this former Air Force guy, talking about his opinion on the nuclear missiles that were flown across the US. He said that they nukes COULDNT have been flown by mistake because of the extensive security procedures required to transport such ordnance, He believes that this incident has been used to siphon off a nuclear missile from its weapon arsenal. He, also expects the nuke will be used on a sparsely populated US interest and blamed on Iran in order to justify an invasion. Now I don't know for sure if this happen BUT after 9/11, I feel anything is possible....

The person you "heard" this from needs some serious help.

[sharkman]

I don't know if Bush said that but I've have heard the Cheney and Bush want to go into Iran before the election because they feel that the Dems won't and they feel THEY need to do it! Last night , I heard this former Air Force guy, talking about his opinion on the nuclear missiles that were flown across the US. He said that they nukes COULDNT have been flown by mistake because of the extensive security procedures required to transport such ordnance, He believes that this incident has been used to siphon off a nuclear missile from its weapon arsenal. He, also expects the nuke will be used on a sparsely populated US interest and blamed on Iran in order to justify an invasion. Now I don't know for sure if this happen BUT after 9/11, I feel anything is possible. How would Cheney/ Bush invade Iran if they wanted to?? Bush doesn't have Blair now. This could turn the Middle-East into WW3 and everyone could be killed including all the soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would bring China and Russia against the US, with China called in the debt and Russia using their nukes, if threaten and let now forget Israel, Pakistan and India all have nukes. Does Bush still have the same thinking about keeping the war over there and not here, so a nuclear war wouldn't matter that much to the US???? This may never happen BUT we must think about that it could happen and prevent it from happening.

I note with interest you didn't provide any kind of link on this 'army guy'. I hope you didn't hear this from a left wing kook conspiracy site, because that is what it smells like.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know if Bush said that but I've have heard the Cheney and Bush want to go into Iran before the election because they feel that the Dems won't and they feel THEY need to do it! Last night , I heard this former Air Force guy...

I agree....you don't know.

Nuclear weapons accidents and incidents have been around since such weapons and delivery systems were invented. Ironically, ferrying America's nuclear weapons for physics package (pit) removal and demil with B-52's contributed to the incident. Current plans to reduce the US nuclear arsenal by 50% presents security and transportation risks.

[Guest coot]

Nuclear weapons accidents and incidents have been around since such weapons and delivery systems were invented.

Speaking of not knowing, "Nothing like this has ever occurred," Maj. Gen. Dick Newton, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/19/loose.nuk...iref=newssearch

[bush_cheney2004]

Speaking of not knowing, "Nothing like this has ever occurred," Maj. Gen. Dick Newton, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/19/loose.nuk...iref=newssearch

Nuclear weapons accidents and incidents have never occurred? Understandable coming from a Canadian who only knows such things through American news media.

http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm

Edited October 21, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Very true. So what is Israel waiting for? Permission? They just bombed the Syrians for less, not to mention Iraq way back when. Whats the hold up? Something is keeping them back and it certainly isn't International opinion.

Iran has a large middle class and happens to be one of the few Muslim countries (along with Iraq) that has the potential to be more than a tinpot sh*thole. They would rather find a more surgical method than the "Stone Age" solution, I believe.

[Higgly]

Would somebody please post the exact words that Bush said? Thanks.

[jbg]

It has always been a source of amazement to me that Leftists argue in favour of banning handguns but seem indifferent to the idea of rogue states such as the Iranian regime getting hold of nuclear weapon technology. (The other irony is that people like Bush defend an individual's right to have an AK-47 or an RPG yet want to disarm rogue states. Doesn't the Second Amendment extend to nuclear missiles?)

Great point, August 1991.

I will expand that by saying that the Leftists were arguing in favor of a "nuclear freeze" on Andropov's provocation back in 1981 and 1982. They wanted this "freeze" when it was the US that would be "frozen" from catching up to the Soviet spending juggernaut of the 1970's, which in turn was fueled by disguised US aid (in the form of subsidized grain purchases) and the lopsided SALT I treaty. This urgency for a freeze has disappeared now that it is the Iranians that would be "unfrozen".

[Higgly]

Great point, August 1991.

Well it might be if anyone had ever proven that Iran actually was developing a nuclear weapon. Any takers? Maybe Homer Simpson can chime in here.

In any case, charity begins at home. Anybody who wants nuclear weapons in the Middle East is probably taking its lead from Israel. Take away Israel's nuclear weapons and then come and preach about non-proliferation.

[jbg]

Would somebody please post the exact words that Bush said? Thanks.

Yes, I would be pleased to. Here goes (I have enlarged and colored differently the most relevant portions, and the portions that Agaric was taking out of context. I will PM a non-highlighted version for those whose visual needs/preferences desire). Link to source, which is noncopyrighted White House official website transcript of October 17, 2007 Press Availability:

Q Good morning, Mr. President, thank you. I don't know if you saw the picture on the front page of one of the papers this morning of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin.

THE PRESIDENT: I did.

Q It looked like they were getting along pretty well. And they are among --

THE PRESIDENT: Surprised they weren't kind of fighting each other on the front page of the paper? No, man, come on.

Q It looked like they were enjoying each other's company. And I'm wondering, since they were leaders of five Caspian Sea region nations that have now declared each country will not be used as a base to attack the other, A, what do you make of their growing relationship? B, does it complicate what the United States can do in the region? And C, would you characterize that arrangement as some sort of Caspian Sea Truman Doctrine or something like that?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I -- I think it's hard to judge how their conversations went from a picture. Generally leaders don't like to be photographed scowling at each other or making bad gestures at each other. So I'm not surprised that there was a nice picture of them walking along. I try to make sure that when I'm with foreign leaders, there's a pretty picture of the two of us walking down the colonnades, or something like that, to send a good message.

Q Are you saying it's not so warm?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know yet. What I'm about to tell you is, is that I'm looking forward to getting President Putin's readout from the meeting. I think one of the -- the thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do. And I say "continues" because when we were in Australia, he reconfirmed to me that it is -- he recognized it's not in the world's interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon. And they have been very supportive in the United Nations. And we're working with them on a potential third resolution.

So that's where my concerns -- I don't worry about the pictures. I understand why they meet. I am -- will continue to work with Russia, as well as other nations, to keep a focused effort on sending Iran a message that you will remain isolated if you continue your nuclear weapons ambitions.

Q But this declaration doesn't speak to that, Mr. President. This declaration doesn't suggest isolation for Iran. Just the opposite, that Russia and Iran are going to do business.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll find out, see. You're trying to get me to interpret the meeting based upon a news story or a picture. I'd rather spend some time with Vladimir Putin finding out exactly what went on. Thank you.

Q Let's stay with the nuclear -- here. When North Korea tested a nuclear device, you said that any proliferation would be a grave threat to the U.S., and North Korea would be responsible for the consequences. Are you denying that North Korea has any role in the suspected nuclear --

THE PRESIDENT: See, you're trying to pull a Gregory.

Q Yes, I am.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, well, I'm not going to fall for it. But I'd like to talk about --

*********************

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow on Mr. -- on President Putin's visit to Tehran. It's not about the image of President Putin and President Ahmadinejad, but about the words that Vladimir Putin said there. He issued a stern warning against potential U.S. military action -- U.S. military action against Tehran --

THE PRESIDENT: Did he say U.S.?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, he did?

Q He said -- well, at least the quote said that -- and he also said, "He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb." Were you disappointed with that message? And does that indicate possibly that international pressure is not as great as you once thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?

THE PRESIDENT: I -- as I said, I look forward to -- if those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those, because when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's interest to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon. And that's why, on -- in the first round at the U.N., he joined us, and second round, we joined together to send a message. I mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, Bret, then why did we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?

And so I will visit with him about it. I have not yet been briefed yet by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin.

Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.

And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.

So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation.

Yes, ma'am.

Edited October 21, 2007 by jbg

[Higgly]

The way I read it is that if Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, we are gonna have world war III.

And some are asking "Why Israel? Why not Tibet?"

There you have it, JBG. You walked into that one, bud.

[jbg]

In any case, charity begins at home. Anybody who wants nuclear weapons in the Middle East is probably taking its lead from Israel. Take away Israel's nuclear weapons and then come and preach about non-proliferation.

Israel is most unlikely to use them except as a "Hail Mary" pass if they are about to lose a war.

[jbg]

The way I read it is that if Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, we are gonna have world war III.

And some are asking "Why Israel? Why not Tibet?"

There you have it, JBG. You walked into that one, bud.

Frankly, you and I agree. The Eisenhower Administration gave us a rich diet of words, and no action on the Tibet issue and Red China generally, the 1956 Hungary uprising, and took counterproductive action to stop Israel, Franch and Britain from saving the Suez Canal for Western interests. Don't expect me to carry Eisenhower's Presidential flag for anything other than standing up to Orville Faubus, a notorious Arkansas governor and first-class bigot, when the Courts ordered Little Rock's schools integrated¹.

¹Orville Faubus died deeply in debt, a former governor reduced to being a school janitor.

[Higgly]

Israel is most unlikely to use them except as a "Hail Mary" pass if they are about to lose a war.

Well you would believe that if you were a supporter of Israel. You would probably believe the corrollary if you were a supporter of Iran. There's the rub.

[jbg]

Well you would believe that if you were a supporter of Israel. You would probably believe the corrollary if you were a supporter of Iran. There's the rub.

Nobody's sworn death on Iran -- until they started threatening to incinerate Israel and making other threats against Western interests. Israel has never made those threats.

And your response to my answer on Tibet?

[Higgly]

Nobody's sworn death on Iran -- until they started threatening to incinerate Israel and making other threats against Western interests. Israel has never made those threats.

And your response to my answer on Tibet?

Yeah. Axis of evil. I got that part. Which answer on Tibet?

[jbg]

Yeah. Axis of evil. I got that part. Which answer on Tibet?

Use your cursor or, better, yet, I can help you with a link. Basically, I agree with you that we should have acted.

[August1991]

Well it might be if anyone had ever proven that Iran actually was developing a nuclear weapon. Any takers? Maybe Homer Simpson can chime in here.

In any case, charity begins at home. Anybody who wants nuclear weapons in the Middle East is probably taking its lead from Israel. Take away Israel's nuclear weapons and then come and preach about non-proliferation.

Higgly, do you see no difference bewteen Iran and Israel? Is your ability to discriminate so weakened?