Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack

[juleswin]

By Dan Collins CBS August 18, 2002, 2: 47 PM

Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

This is a story from pre Iraq war showing that the Israeli govt was pushing for an attack on Iraq. This is for the revisionist historians that go around saying that the Israeli government was against the attack on Iraq but instead just wanted a strike on Iran to stop their nuclear program. The truth is they wanted both and this is a small evidence proving that

 

[enhanced_deficit]

By Dan Collins CBS August 18, 2002, 2: 47 PM

Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

This is a story pre Iraq war showing that the Israeli govt was pushing for an attack. This is revisionist historians that go around saying that Israeli government was against the attack on Iraq but instead just wanted a strike on Iran to stop their nuclear program. The truth is they wanted both and this is a small evidence proving that

Chuck Shummer, JFKerry, Bill Maher, Hillary Clinton etc and all other "pro Israel" champions and "liberals" supported Iraq invasion. But it is not clear whose idea it was to make it look like it is for "Freedom of Iraqi arabs" and not a revenge attack for 9/11, profiteering/oil politics etc. While Israel may have wanted US to hurry up and be done with Iraq invasikon, I have yet to see a confirmed proof in MSM that Israel encouraged or knew in adavance of 9/11 and did not inform US.

BTW, did Israel send any troops to frontlines in Iraq as our closest ally?

Iraq/Afghanistan wars disabled 624,000 US troops , Divorces up 42%, Foreclosures up 217%

 

[compromise]

11 years old

 

[Zippyjuan]

I thought the US government took their orders from Israel? (so some have claimed).

 

[Lucille]

That's not the point, Jeffry.

This is a story pre Iraq war showing that the Israeli govt was pushing for an attack. This is revisionist historians that go around saying that Israeli government was against the attack on Iraq but instead just wanted a strike on Iran to stop their nuclear program. The truth is they wanted both and this is a small evidence proving that

 

[juleswin]

That's not the point, Jeffry.

Exactly, I was talking to a friend about this and he said Israel never wanted an attack on Iraq because they believed it would take focus off attacking Iran which they saw as the real enemy. I said he got his history wrong and had to search and search on Google before coming up with this proof. So yes, it is an 11 yr old article but it is one evidence that can be used to convince people that this new version of history is wrong.

It's tagged and archived for anyone who needs to dig it up in the future.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Old news remains very important. It's how we maintain logical time lines and are able to place things into perspective. It greatly annoys me when people come along with the old "meh...old news" gag. It equates to starting a new thread on an existing issue as if the new thread indicates a new issue.

The Bill of Rights is old too. As is the Constitution. Should we forget about those?

 

[asurfaholic]

We need to build the internet's most awesome timeline project.

Think hours long video flowing through thousands of hotlinks and related graphics, to the beat of some music.

I wish I knew how to make video editing dreams come to life.

 

[Marky]

I thought the US government took their orders from Israel? (so some have claimed).

How does the linked article disprove that claim?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

11 years old

Very good observation, it is old news.

Now is time to look forward.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Very good observation, it is old news.

Now is time to look forward.

Speraking of non-old news:

[h=1]Questioning Obama’s nerve, Oren imagines ‘massive’ bombing campaign to ‘flatten all of Iran’[/h] Philip Weiss on January 4, 2014


Former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren

Earlier this week, Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com picked up a tweet from Al-Monitor’s Laura Rozen.

Contempt expressed for US in this interview by interviewer & interviewee striking http://t.co/5i2VYvaYFt
— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) December 30, 2013
​

Rozen linked to a Times of Israel interview by David Horovitz of former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, in which the men dismissed the Iranian deal out of hand and Oren repeatedly questioned President Obama’s resolve to take action against Iran because of the war-weariness of the US public. Obama needs to pose a “credible military threat” of pinpoint bombing to neutralize the nuclear program, Oren said. Because if that fails to stop Iran, the US might have to go in later and “flatten” the country. And though Oren said such bombing was not a “real option,” he also refused to rule it out.
Read some of this dialogue to see how other-worldly it is. First, Oren on the peculiarities of the US public:

So one of the differences [between the US and Israel] is of structure. There are differences of public opinion, where in the United States you have a lot of war-weariness, and actually support for the interim agreement [with Iran]. You have to acknowledge that there is an American public out there, whose opinion is not always heard here because all you see are American leaders. You don’t often see the American public. We learned from the Syrian episode last summer (when Obama pulled back from a threatened punitive strike after the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons) that that public can be pivotal in decision-making.
​

Implication being: we’re not war-weary in Israel.
And here’s Oren saying that Obama isn’t doing what needs to be done, a real threat of attack, now, which would obviate the need for a massive attack later, in which “you’re going to flatten all of Iran.” As you read this, note that he doesn’t rule out that massive attack. When Horovitz says it’s unthinkable to carry out such an attack, Oren deflects him. “Much more difficult.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/questioning-imagines-campaign.html

 

[Zippyjuan]

How does the linked article disprove that claim?

Well it was at least six more months until the actual invasion. That is not exactly "hurry up". And it was no secret at that time that the US wanted to get Sadam.