Bush: Olmert asked to me strike Syria, but I refused.

Bush: Olmert asked to me strike Syria, but I refused.

www.jpost.com

Former US President George W. Bush has revealed that he considered ordering the US military to strike a suspected Syrian nuclear facility at Israel's request in 2007, however in the end he opted against it.

In his memoir, "Decision Points," which is due to be released on Tuesday, Bush says he received an intelligence report about a "suspicious, well-hidden facility in the eastern desert of Syria," and then telephoned then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to discuss what action to take.

Reports at the time suggested that Israel was behind the bombing that eventually destroyed the facility,

(visit the link for the full news article)

I used to be on the side of defending Israel.. ONLY because I feel that Israel is blamed for everything including Magic Johnson contracting Aids.

I have had a few members (rational members) School me on all things "evil Israel".. Thank you Ben.

I have recently joined the Israel is evil camp. BUT.... I also am smart enough to see the spin put on anything Israel.

This story really bothers me.

Why in the world would they ask the US to destroy the nuke facility. Apparently they assesed the situation and decided that they could pull this mission off on their own, because they did!

Did they ask for "Big brother"- USA to bomb it before they decided they could have a go at it alone? If they knew they could do it... Why would they ask us?

Or did we tell them NO, then they assesed it and decided they could do it alone.

Why should american tax payers dollars be used to do a mission that they can do themselves?


After reading this, please understand, even though I see Israel as the aggressor in most of these events. I still will not buy into all of the lies that people try and put on Israel. Not including the Flotilla.. they were not innocent protesters...They got exactly what they asked for .. Period!

This is the problem with the Anti-Zionist / Anti Israel group.
The line between these 2 is getting smaller and less distinct.

There are certain posters here on ATS that have the same lines over and over again. Anytime a post like this comes up.. The 2 little posters appear and start their little pre scripted sticking points.

I am not looking to discuss everything Israel on this thread.. Only the headline and the following article.

www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well kudos to Bush on this one.
I am glad he actually used his brain for once. Let other countries handle their war bids.
I am no fan of Israel.

Did they ask for "Big brother"- USA to bomb it before they decided they could have a go at it alone? If they knew they could do it... Why would they ask us?

Or did we tell them NO, then they assesed it and decided they could do it alone.

The article pretty much said they did. If people are believing the release that he [Bush] personally ordered the water-boarding then why are they questioning this? Neither put the Bush administration in a good light.

Originally posted by Resurrectio

Former US President George W. Bush has revealed that he considered ordering the US military to strike a suspected Syrian nuclear facility at Israel's request in 2007, however in the end he opted against it.

Was this pre-Operation Orchard?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by SLAYER69


How does this report not but bush in a good light?

This seems like the right call to make... At least in my estimation.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I'm not saying it wasn't a good call but what it shows is the US willing to consider striking a sovereign country at the behest of Israel.

This alone can and will play nicely into the [US is about to attack Iran crowds] nonstop war rhetoric.

Unfortunately the majority of U.S. Policy in the Middle-East is based upon the whims of Israel. Personally I have never understood why this is the case, but ever since the bombing in Lebanon in 1967 this ill-conceived policy is what has directly contributed to hostilities and instability in the Middle-East. The day we stop doing things at the behest of Israel in the Middle-East will be the day that we will begin to see peace truly come to the Middle-East.

It is no secret that Syria was a target of the post-911 U.S. military agenda. Although Syria may have some serious issues (like being under Emergency Law for 47 years and counting, and having an atrocious track-record on Human Rights), this would have been a *HUGE* mistake of *EPIC* proportions had we actually made a strike against Syria.

It is understandable as to why Israel considers Syria a potential threat. Despite the Armistice Agreement over the Golan Heights, this zone is still a hotly disputed region between Syria and Israel that continues to strain diplomatic relations even 33 years later.

However, it is not understandable why the U.S. would consider Syria to be any kind of potential threat. If anything, Syria could be a far stronger ally in the region than Saudi Arabia is. The first lady of Syria, Asma al-Assad, is British. Her influence over her already liberal husband, Dr. Bashar al-Assad should not be underestimated. They both epitomize a benign monarchy and pursue diplomatic relations rather than military aggression. Turning them into enemies by launching a strike against their country would have been a grievous error in Middle-East strategy.

Duh....because Israel knows that if they strike another mid-eastern country it "could" lead to an all out war. It always asks the US to do something first because and the US will "usually" offer to because it knows it can get away with it.

Bush said No... but Israel did it anyways.

Remember?..

Originally posted by fraterormus
However, it is not understandable why the U.S. would consider Syria to be any kind of potential threat. If anything, Syria could be a far stronger ally in the region than Saudi Arabia is. The first lady of Syria, Asma al-Assad, is British. Her influence over her already liberal husband, Dr. Bashar al-Assad should not be underestimated. They both epitomize a benign monarchy and pursue diplomatic relations rather than military aggression. Turning them into enemies by launching a strike against their country would have been a grievous error in Middle-East strategy.

Great points.

But in the opening months of the Iraqi invasion Syria was heavily involved in supporting the Iraq resistance which by the way he feels he got burned by Iran and Turkey because of it. War makes strange bed fellows.

Assad :’The road to Syria passes through the resistance

These statements appear to indicate a shift in Assad’s perception of his status vis-à-vis Iran and Turkey: Whereas previously he regarded Syria as equal in status to its two allies, today he feels that Iran and Turkey used Syria to legitimize their involvement in Arab affairs – especially their involvement in Lebanon and Iraq – and are now marginalizing Syria.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Slayer.. My question was about the chain of events.

Had Israel already assesed the attack and decided that they could go at it alone... Still asking for America to do their dirty work.

Or,

Did they only ask because they didn't think they could do it. Because of either actual hardware or the fallout if they did. Then and only then, decided to go at it alone because we had said NO.

If they had determined that they could go at it alone, then still asked the US to do it... Puts them in a very manipulative light.

If this is the case.... I hope a nuke lands on their Govt. building effective Immediatly!

Bush might have said “No” to a strike in Syria, but I am sure he signed over billions in military aid and weapons to Israel which enabled them to conduct the strike themselves. So, even though Bush directly said “No” to the operation, his actions indirectly said, “You can blow the facility up yourselves, we won’t stop yall.”

Question. If Israel's strike in Syria had created a greater firestorm of backlash in the Middle East, would we have still had their back even though we disagreed on the strike in the first place?

reply to post by tooo many pills


Unfortunatly, I think that we are stuck protecting them NO MATTER WHAT.

I used to defend every single thing Israel did. I can not with a clear conscience continue to stick up for them.

For some reason, America will continue to follow Israel right into the pits of the preverbial bowels of hell!

I wonder why Obama did an "about face" on Israel. He came out abrasive toward Israel... Then fell right into line.

As an ex-Israel supporter, I must point out what fueled my defence of Israel... Allot of the Anti-Israel folks are lunatics... They believe anything anti Israel, and venemenously deney anything pro Israel... There is no logic or reason when it comes to finding facts about anything Israel.

It cant ALWAYS a lie! Every now and then.. there will be a truth and an honest self defence... The fact that a select few find Israel at fault no matter what the facts say....Push people to the other camp. When I got to ATS I was neither pro/anti... watching the Anti's work caused me to side with Pro.

To touch on the Anti Israel folks one more time.... The level of proof is not balanced when attempting to find answers with anything Israel.

There has to be logic and proof to these claims.. Lack of either will cause people to stick up for israel.. at least that is what fueled my defence of Israel.

reply to post by Resurrectio


Israel had the means and experience taking out a Nuclear facility. Remember the Iraqi Nuclear facility that Israel did away with back in the 80s? If anything, they were probably trying to get the US to do their dirty work for them. This also shows that the US at the supposed height of it's war mongering wasn't and IS not a puppet of the supposed Israel/Zionists conspiracy.

Thanks for that link SLAYER69. I had never read that interview before and it was very insightful.

I think that Assad's statements about the United States were definitely poignant:

“The source of the problem is that we do not say ‘yes’ to anyone, not even to the U.S., unless it coincides with our interests. Our position on Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and the resistance is clear, and it is anathema to most of the institutions in the U.S. [administration], if not to all of them…”

Assad added that the anarchy in many parts of the world, such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq, broke out in the wake of American intervention there.

The current leaders of countries such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have already been doing in the Middle-East for far longer than what the U.S. has been trying to do in the past nine. Our U.S. Officials don't understand that a "No!" coming from Iran or Syria is not an outright blanket rejection or act of defiance, let alone a sign of hostility, but just a simple rejection on a single point. These countries are not our enemies and want the same end-goal that the U.S. wants in the Middle-East. If the U.S. were to learn to accept that these leaders are not going to be "Yes Men" or "Puppet Dictators" for U.S. interests like Saddam Hussein once was, and learn to work with these nations cooperatively rather than dictate policy to them, we would find ourselves making far greater in-roads into Middle-East relations.

Assad was spot-on in his analysis that the unrest in many of these regions is entirely due to U.S. intervention. If inter-Arab diplomacy by the leaders of these nations is difficult and strained, why would the U.S. think that it could do better as an outsider? There are subtleties and nuances in dealing with these nations that are better off left to the experts in this field who have the credibility and experience dealing with other Arab nations, such as Syria and Iran have. Instead of rushing into the Middle-East like a bull in a china shop, we should have gone in asking Arab nations such as Syria and Iran how we could help. It would have prevented a lot of anti-American animosity and a lot of unrest in the Middle-East.

Assad makes mistakes, just like any leader. He now freely admits that he over-estimated Iraq's ability to resist military invasion, and made an error in judgment helping Iraqi resistance in defiance of the U.S. closing diplomatic channels and turning to military force instead. He's a big enough man to admit when he is wrong. Still, our State Department and DoD takes instances like this as an overall sign of anti-American resistance from Syria, not realizing that such involvement was not contrary to the U.S. objective on a whole, but rather an objection to the manner in which we attempt to shove our objective through by force if necessary. Assad has always been willing to work with the U.S. to bring peace and stability to the Middle-East, but is simply not willing to do so by use of force or by means that undermine the work and progress that he and other Arab leaders have done towards those ends.

Bush wasn't as big of an idiot as everyone assumed him to be. He had the wisdom to call up Assad and talk things through rather than just follow the advice of his Advisers and strike Syria. When a leader is so open to diplomatic resolutions that he will take your call and listen to your concerns that is a sign of a potentially good friend who is willing to work things out peacefully as long as you treat their nation as an equal and not as a nation to be conquered and made subservient...and that last part is the key...

Assad has shown time and time again that he is always available and open to discussing U.S. concerns in the Middle-East, showing a willingness to work hand-in-hand with the U.S. towards building peace and stability in the region but that willingness does not come with the blind acceptance or embracing of U.S. dictated policy, especially when it is contrary either to their sovereign interests or to their mutual goal of peace in the Middle-East.

Basically the U.S. needs to realize that a friend and ally is not someone who does whatever they are told to do. We need to stop regarding those who don't do everything we would like them to do as enemies. If we can decide that we want a friend and ally who is willing to hear us out yet is not afraid to tell us when our ideas on Middle-East policy are asinine and contrary to establishing Middle-East stability and peace, then Syria and Iran both could make quite the BFF.

Perhaps more importantly, the U.S. needs to realize that a friend and ally is not someone who continually asks us to further their personal agenda for them, especially when that personal agenda is contrary to the agenda of peace and diplomacy. That doesn't make that friend our enemy either, but to continue a relationship on those manipulative terms is co-dependent behavior. Our relationship with Israel is like that.

If we could walk away with but a single lesson learned from the Middle-East it should be that it's okay to tell friends "No!" and that drawing the line between what is acceptable and not-acceptable is permissible without it being an act of "aggression"...because some day, hopefully sooner rather than later, we need to start dealing with our friend Israel the same way our potential friend Syria has been been dealing with us.

reply to post by Resurrectio


If the United States did strike the facility its possible the reaction from Syria would be less than if Israel attacked it. Thought process would be only Syria would be pissed with the U.S., maybe a few other gulf states. If Israel did it they would run the gambit of having a war with Syria, and possibly Iran, maybe a few other mid east countries.

What I found intresting about that entire incident was Syria's reaction to it. It was like a 2 day news cycle then went away, which leads me to believe there might have been some truth to what the facility was. If Israel is asking us to bomb it, they would be showing us their intelligence. If it was something other than the intelligence stated, Syria would have thrown a fit, but they didn't.