Bush warns Iran that US would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel
US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel.
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace," the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq.
"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel....
the sad thing about this whole mid-east situation is that christians believe that this is bible prophecy coming to pass according to dispensationalism when in fact it is not. christians of this persuasion, in light of all that is happening, will just resign themselves to non-action according to their "why polish a brass knob on a sinking ship" paradigm afforded by their dispensationist eschatology. what people need to do is assemble themselves and press for action against run-away government control of the american populace.
I hope it doesn't come to a conflict with Iran - don't forget that there are many very fine and genuine Christians in that country that are already suffering. If only some sense could prevail within Iran to defuse the situation.
Here's more info on Kay Griggs. Kay Griggs is the wife of a high ranking military officer who is locked in a psych ward now because of what the military requires of its officers for promotion now.
This is disturbing because it involves mind control, Nazi sadistic initiations, and participation in homosexuality.
Video: Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/movies/Griggs.wmv 16MB
PART 2 http://www.apfn.org/movies/Griggs2.wmv 18.6MB
Mike from New York: quote: "Where did you get this information?"
Capital Hill Blue/DOUG THOMPSON | December 9 2005
"Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives.
“I don’t give a god___,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a god__ed piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a god__ed piece of paper.”
These people would not be risking their jobs and reputations to say these things if they weren't sure of what they said and sure that many people agree with them. And check out hte credentials of the people running this site. http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911
Here's one on the Pentagon strike by the invisible plane on 9/11:
It would, if anyone cared. But there simply is no general concern for these issues, since law (both civil & Biblical) has evidently lost its objective basis in the popular mind. "What's lawful is what suits me."
After all, we're not under Law, but under Grace, right? Theology has consequences. Everyone apparently has a pipeline to God, who can say contradictory things.
Thanks for the link. It helps this foreigner to begin to understand the politicking behind the reluctance to follow the constitution. (It makes it all the more amazing that Bush was so well advised to permit Blair to follow our constitution. He must have really needed a friend I guess.)
"Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly."
It seems odd to seek to declare war NOW. It would legitimise Saddam's claim in Court that he still remains President of Iraq, and probably wouldn't go down too well with our friends in the puppet government.
Would it not be more appropriate to impeach the Executive for what they did, and take action against the House for what they failed to do?
Rep. Ron Paul re declaring war: www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm
I'm not sure I agree w/ him, though, that most Americans do not believe the Constitution is an anachronism, when they do not even know, or care to know, its contents.
If Bush military force in Iran, its because Iran is becoming a threat. Don't get me wrong here. I don't believe that everything that Bush does is right. In fact, a lot of his religious views are wrong. But he vowed to protect this country and eliminate all terrorist threats, and that's what he's going to do.
Agreed. Always better to judge the actions rather than judge the disputable hearsay ...... especially given that none of the three alleged witnesses have come forward publically.
"Always better to judge the actions rather than judge the disputable hearsay ...... especially given that none of the three alleged witnesses have come forward publically."
Good, we're agreed then? Whether he said it or not his actions are indicative of one who pays no credence to the Constitution as being the law of the land, as he doesn't, in application and action, consider the Constitution to be much more than a piece of paper.
Further, if this is the case, he's a liar as he vowed to preserve, protect and defend this piece of paper. If his vows are of no effect and there is no truth in him, then his father is not our father and it would appear that his father is the father of lies.
Always better to judge the actions rather than judge the disputable hearsay ...... especially given that none of the three alleged witnesses have come forward publically.
"It's on the internet and has been repeated so often it gets 320,000 search results on google, so it must be true"
Some people believe it is true as it would not be surprising words to come from our "Patriot Act" president. If he thought the constitution was more than a piece of paper he would stop stepping on it.
I think you missed my point. Obviously, yes, the US Constitution should be followed by Americans as the law of the land.
I think the US constitution is pretty good actually, but the notion that it is automatically the best in the world, "probably inspired by God", USConlyism, rather tickles me. Reminds me of the Carlsberg lager adverts.
Of course Bush did follow the real King James Version of the Constitution getting approval from the British Parliament before committing British troops to action in Iraq.
Mike,
I think Cheryl is referring to the report first circulated by a Doug Thompson. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml It's on the internet and has been repeated so often it gets 320,000 search results on google, so it must be true....but you knew that already, right?
Did you know there are 33,000 protestant denominations btw?
Iran has always known that the USA does not favor it's government. We have not favored it's government since the Shah was deposed and they took our embassy hostage. That's why we supported Sadaam in Iraq's war with Iran. Whoops-did I say that? Same reason we supported the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians. Whoops-did I say that? Same reason we supported Noriega in Panama. Whoops-did I say that? Marcos in the Phillipines-whoops-oh shucks forget it. Foreign policy makes my head hurt.
23
There are a total of 42 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
