Bush warns of World War III?

Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:13 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: White House

In his new conference yesterday, the Washington Post writes, “Bush forecast doomsday if Tehran builds nuclear weapons. ‘We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel,’ he said. ‘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 [having] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.’”

The New York Daily News on Bush’s WWIII comment: “White House sources confirmed it was the first time Bush has floated that apocalyptic scenario for the Islamic republic. His language seemed even starker as he admitted relations with Russia have grown frostier. Russian President Vladimir Putin met Iranian leaders in Tehran Wednesday. The tougher talk seems to move Bush rhetorically closer to Vice President Cheney in an intensifying internal White House debate over the gravity of the threat posed by Iran.

Does anyone think this makes Iraq potentially more chaotic? The New York Times: “Turkey’s Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to authorize sending troops into northern Iraq to confront Kurdish rebels in hide-outs there, sending an angry message to the Baghdad government and its Washington sponsor. But Turkey, a member of NATO, made it clear that it would not immediately carry out the resolution.”

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Warren Davis, let's look at the North Korean situation. The Clinton administration worked out a deal for NK to give up its reactors that produce weapons-grade byproducts in return for food assistance and light water reactors that are not a weapons threat. The Republican Congress screamed about giving NK nuclear reactors and refused to approve that part of the deal. The Koreans agreed to leave their weapons program dormant and under IAEA supervision as long as the food aid continued. It remained that way until Bush shut off the food to make political points. The IAEA was kicked out, the reactors that would have been gone if the Clinton deal had been followed through were used for reprocessing, and the nuclear weapons program restarted. So the Bush administration turned to diplomacy because it was the only thing they could do. Now the reactors are once again dormant thanks to a large application of heating oil, but they're still in place. We're right back where we started except years later, with nuclear weapons experience under the North Koreans belt, and no current prospects of removing the reactors. Which part of this is Bill Clinton's fault?

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:56 AM)

An open message to George W. Bush:

Take a lead from former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and leave office early. Please! Walking away and acknowledging your failed Administration is the only act of political courage left for you.

P.S. Take Cheney with you. jerry/corpus christi texas has treats ready for you back home!

Gary, Franklin, WI (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:56 AM)

This is about power. Bush wants the Republicans to keep it, and he has proven that he is willing to sacrifice anything (lives, money, etc.) to get it. Right now, the Republicans stand no chance of winning in 2008. But if he can pull this off before November 2008, the Republicans' chances of keeping the White House increase dramatically.

It's really just a race against time. Bush already won the first battle when the Senate passed the Iran resolution. He still needs more, and he will try, but the Democrats must not let him have it, or we will be embroiled in a Middle-East war until the end of time, which probably wouldn't be far off.

If we stall him until the election is over, we may still be able to salvage some sort of diplomacy there.

The Alfred Hitchcock music is playing....

CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:59 AM)

NotALemming

You make a good point about failing to hold Iran and its Russian and Chinese allies accountable, but
if we don't try diplomatic negotiations with these countries, do we go in and just bomb them all into oblivion? If we get them they will probably get us--so who will be left?
Dot, Illinis (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:22 AM)

Merely pointing out the possibilities doesn’t mean there is no diplomacy. I believe Bush’s whole point was that if others didn’t hold Iran, or its allies, accountable that failed diplomacy could result in a WWIII. Bush is currently using diplomacy and just warning others of the consequences if they don’t force Iran to accept the diplomatic road to peace. Rather than MSNBC touting “Bush evokes WWIII” they should have been covering the importance of our allies sticking together to ensure WWIII doesn’t happen.

NotALemming (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:03 PM)

jerry, thanks for once again giving me an opportunity to point out that the Clinton administration attacked the Afghan training camps of al Qaeda with cruise missiles and went on TV to warn that they were the biggest threat to our safety and security. In return for trying to defuse an impending threat Republicans in Congress and the entire conservative smear machine went into hyperdrive to impress upon us that Monica Lewinsky was the real threat to our nation. How'd that work out?

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:06 PM)

I thought 9/11 was due more to the 8/01 memo to Condi & GWB [that neither will comment on or admit to reading, tho there are witnesses]: "Osama determined to strike inside US"..."using airplanes"

cg,ny (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:10 PM)

Indeed, Iran is another red herring...for all of their bombast, they've got nothing - the likelihood of their becoming a nuclear threat is just about zero.

But again, the danger of Iran is being falsely trumpeted and blown vastly out of proportion in exactly the same fashion as Iraq.....another zero sum non-threat that is currently crippling our capacity as a nation in any number of ways.

These are small minds with very large egos and an outsized sense of self-importance that continue to operate outside the law of the land - in time of war. Keep the war in perpetual motion, and keep living above the law. Now is that a simple equation for success or what??

And yes, this is the Bush administration and all of it's corporate masters calling the shots - meanwhile, there are plenty of covert (nuclear) threats around the world these days in the form of globalized and widely dispersed terrorist factions, without focusing on a virtual non-threat like Iran.

But of course, they make a very big target...there they are in plain sight, gesticulating & making lots of noise - clearly an imminent danger, no??

Well no, the real danger is right here at home - you know, the guy doing all the talking about WWIII???

justthefacts (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:16 PM)

war is profit, profit is war ,'Dad's gonna kill me,where is

Osama bin Laden (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:22 PM)

Hey, the Devil has been planning to start the third world war ever since he was appointed leader of the third world.

Angel, CA (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:23 PM)

War without end if you want it -- vote Republican

nuanced (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:23 PM)

What is scarier is that 30% of the population still support this deranged little man ;with a smirk on his face; that could not construct a syntax w/o a script correctly if his life depended on it.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:24 PM)

How many more stupid things this president could do to his country before his time is running out in the oval office?

As a foreigner, I admired you people for many things that Americans have contributed to the world. But face up, you had sent a really incompetent person to occupy the office. Not only the americans had suffered in the last few years, but also millions around the world.

Tony, Canada (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:38 PM)

I think it is time to take a hard look to see if bush really is stable enouph to continue on as president. He may really be delusional. He could have been on the scotch when he made that speech. He acted funny and his face was red. If world war 3 is started it will be bush that starts it.

Blue state baby (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:39 PM)

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR / I agree with your post robert, the problem I have with the democratic party is the fact they seem to be trying to shove hillary clinton down my throat when it is a fact she is going to continue the very same negative things mentioned in your post, look at the circles she runs in, the people she surrounds herself with, and the same corrupt lobbyists bankrolling her are bankrolling the repubs, wonder why? hillary is the business as usual candidate and always has been, if you want a change for the better ignore the media and vote for edwards

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:43 PM)

Bush's ideal job is to be a host of Jerry Springer show. He acts and talks like trash. Americans...please wake up and smell the coffee. All this education..what a waste!!

Sunil, Mumbai, India (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:45 PM)

Iran may be dangerous but they would become ten times more dangerous if we attacked them and galvanized their public to support the their government.
Robert Catalano, Salem, OR

I just want to echo this sentiment. If we attack Iran, we will again be perceived as the aggressors, invading a sovereign nation to suit our own purposes - whatever those purposes may be. Our status in the world has diminished with the conflict in Iraq; we may still be the only superpower, but our credibility is not the same as it used to be.

To me, Iran has every right to try to get nuclear power. That's what I would do in it's position. Bush made a huge mistake, in my opinion, with his whole Axis of Evil declaration. If my country had been on that list, you better believe the first thing I would do is to build up nuclear capabilities. Bush put those countries on notice that we would be coming after them; is it any wonder they are trying to nuke up? Can we really blame them?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:53 PM)

Bush may start WW111 becouse of ISRAEL. Look how dangerous is jews in the world.

Then, Iran president may be right. Just relocate all ISRAEL to US its only few millions any way US spend over 50 Billions of tax payers money every year.

This move will save all the trouble in the world and no need WW111.

Please everone write a letter to your own congressman ans ask all your jews friend to support it.

Mustafa Celtik
Bursa, Turkey

Mustafa Celtik (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:55 PM)

HEY BUSH! WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN YOU FRICKIN IDIOT!? DID YOU FORGET ABOUT WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING, YOU FRICKEN IDIOT! WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN, YOU BRAINDEAD MORON! WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN ?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

Tom, Brookings, South Dakota (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:59 PM)

Both current ideas may have fatal flaws:

1. We nuke Iran. Pisses off the people and rallies them around their insane government. The people beccome America's enemies, which they are currenlty not. Iranians at the moment despise their government.

2. We talk until we can't breathe with the clerics and nothing happens. Iran gets the bomb. The USA is at greater risk.

How about a third scenario? We encourage the Iranians to throw out the government and get a Western friendly democracy instead? The President could use his influence to let them know we would support them in any way we can. War would then be avoided. USA and Israel are more secure. And the Iranian people get welcomed back in the world community.

Any flaws with that?

Howard, Chicago (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:17 PM)

Bush is counting on the rapture to rescue him. And, no Jerry, you're not coming along.

Bob, Denver (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:18 PM)

To Mustapha:

Would you please enlighten the rest of us why you think Jews are dangerous in the world? Isn't it really a matter of anything other than Islam in the Middle East by the Arabs?

Jay, Chicago (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:21 PM)

To Jerry : The difference between Clinto and Bush. Clinton ran his first term with a Dem backed congress ,2nd term full repub. backed house and senate.In other words hands tied ,so he worked bipartisan. Bush has been in a solid repub run house and senate the whole of his terms. I know you say but now its a dem controlled house and senate ,but that is superficial due to the fact they only control by 1 vote ,and not enough to gain a majority.
9/11 due to Clinton Ha ,What more could he do in his last few months ,but gather intel and pass it on .He did and look what happened all directors were replace and the intel dismissed as fantasy .( months later ,that is 9, a bouncing twin baby boom was born.

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:24 PM)

MK in MO, I agree with you completely on Hillary Clinton. She is just another one of the corporate lackeys who are helping to rob the country blind.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:32 PM)

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

The War Prayer - Mark Twain

nuanced (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:42 PM)

"I have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us". At least, the enemy is among us and in charge of the White House.

Jael, downstate IL (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:55 PM)

I love it Nuanced ! Perfect turn !

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:05 PM)

it is interesting to me that the republicans while completely disregarding diplomacy in favor of 'in your face' military action simultaneously have dismantled the infrastructure in the u.s. required to be the 'big kid on the block', every conceivable part in our military arsenal is manufactured over seas by potentially a future adversary, and the technology to produce weaponry of like kind is in the hands of who knows who. the unjust wealth obtained by the greedy few could well become the end for all

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:07 PM)

As far a GWB, I said it before and I'll say it again. He is his mother’s son. In his family lineage on his mothers side was a man named Franklin pierce. In 1858 (I believe) he was the president of the U.S. He is known as one of Americas most confrontational presidents in history and one of the most disliked in the history of the U.S. He was a drunk and died of cirrhosis of the liver. He had the lowest grades in his entire law school class. He was known to back very unpopular ideologies, and based his administration on the growth of further expansion to quell those who opposed his ideas.

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:13 PM)

I think its absurd that there is even the threat of attack against Iran. concider who has put the most money and influence into Iran. The U.S. funded them for years in their fight with Iraq ,and at the same time we were working on the other side in hope they would anhialate each other. Our troops have been cut down for year as far as military spending starting with the republicans .It was the first Bush who in his inaugeral speach said he was going to cut our troops by 30% across the board and called it a peace dividend.It was then speaker of the house Dick that backed that play ,and furthered it by saying it would already have been done if it weren't for the damn dems. blocking it. In this admin. Bush declares WAR and at the same time starts a systematic closier of bases all across the country. Clinton had cuts to the military ,but he had an excuse in the solid repub. house and senate of his second term when the said cuts occured. In saying that it is obvious who wants loyal subject with no one to oppose them. We spend billions overseas every day and not only in Iraq , but everyday I hear of a family in our own country that has no home ,insurance ,or a job. What say we "clean our own mess up before we tend to the world". A spend as we go economy sounds sweet .I Mean we had a buget surplus of 56 trillion ,and now we are in the hole 64 trillion. It does not take a rocket scientist to see 120 trillion dollars have been spent under this admin. and growing with new requests of 80 mil. here and there every week.So who is at fault?

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:35 PM)

By the way think of the date that Franklin Pierce was prez. He was the major reason the civil war broke out.

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:42 PM)

Howard - Maybe the Iranians don't want a western friendly government. Not being from Iran myself, I would not presume to know what it is that they want. However, what I do know is that one of the chief complaints from the Muslim world about America (and to some extent the other western nations) is that we want to impose our way of life on them, without regard to their culture. Whether this belief is true or not, it exists. We monkeyed around in Iranian politics before and it didn't work out very well for us, and is largely responsible for why the Iranians don't care too much for our meddlesome ways.

Iran is a sovereign nation. It's not our business to say who should or should not be in charge. Unless, of course, you are willing to let the world tell us who our president should be.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:48 PM)

Nuanced, great post. Mark Twain had religion and politics down pat.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:49 PM)

You know Bin Laden's probably laying back in Pakistan laughing his butt of at the idiotic american cowboys destroying their country for no good purpose whatsoever. He doesn't have to lift a finger to destroy america. We're doing a fine job on our own. After all, we have no more money, no more army and no more civil rights. What could he possibly do that is worse?

cg,ny (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:05 PM)

Repugnicant foreign policy: "We have to destroy the world in order to save it."

Bob, Denver (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:21 PM)

La Chatte calls Bush a "Christian Megalomaniac"...what is the Pres of Iran? "the tooth fairy"?. Bush has not called for the destruction of any country, but Iran's Ahmadim-a-job has called for "destroying Israel". So why don't you vounteer and go to Iran and solve the problems of the world???
Big Mouth to criticize,but no solutions and obiviously NO BRAINS LA CHATTE.

THETRUTHbooth (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:32 PM)

And, like Iraq, we're going to see nukes fall on California before long. Does anyone still believe these lies?!? And I suppose when we invade Iran, we'll be greeted with flowers and kisses, as great liberators, too, and there'll be no insurgency, and...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

Class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:38 PM)

cg, you said a mouthful at 3:05pm my friend. I don't know how I could have said it better and more succinctly.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:52 PM)

Robert in Salem, great post! Echoing what Carrie in IA says, how would we feel if another country booted out our elected president and installed their puppet leader? (like we did in Iran about 50 years ago). I know Americans don't want other powers dictating to us, so why do we think it is our right to dictate to them? Bullies only last so long, then the other kids on the block will join up to get rid of the bully.

If we didn't have "the bomb" and a country that had massive WMD indicated we were a big world threat, don't you think we would try to arm ourselves in the same way?

Escalation of these situations creates more violence...which begets more people hating us and becoming terrorists...can't we think of any solutions besides blowing them all away?

Lisa, Fort Worth TX (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:55 PM)

the past is your present and the present is

your past (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:01 PM)

Like fish in a barrel - you neocons stand up like bowling pins:

"La Chatte calls Bush a "Christian Megalomaniac"...what is the Pres of Iran?"

The same thing, genius. Now what?

"Bush has not called for the destruction of any country,"

He's doing it, brown shirt.

"but Iran's Ahmadim-a-job has called for "destroying Israel".

While BushCO calls for WWIII. Yah, that's cool.

"So why don't you vounteer and go to Iran and solve the problems of the world???"

Ehhem: bawkbawkbawkCHICKEN HAWK! Why don't YOU? Too busy sucking on your Chicken dicks chicken stick?

"Big Mouth to criticize,but no solutions and obiviously"

Amen, you beak-flapping coward.

"NO BRAINS LA CHATTE."

No brains or balls, girly.

Must be a Republican kissing booth - no peeking! (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:01 PM)

After all of this screaming about Bush,the central point remains.

What is there that will prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear ICBM?

In the wake of its desire to ''wipe Israel off the map'',what assurance is there that Iran will act responsibly with a weapon that all too many seem to want to wish upon Tehran.[stupidly believing that Bush will be President for Life while a nuclear-tipped ICBM will only last for a little while rather than the other way around].

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:17 PM)

Robert: You will be reminded that the federal deficit is shrinking.[General Accounting Office www.gao.gov].Thus the ''treasury''is not ''depleted''. You will also be reminded that the number one giveaway machine of federal dollars to ''enriching political supporters''is the Democrats,who have ammassed a record 30,000 earmarks just since January alone. The King of the Hill? Jack Murtha[D-Pa].Your ''freedoms''are in less danger than they were under FDR.[and about the same as they were under Clinton or Reagan].[Your confusion is evident anyway. At one hand Bush is ''gutting''the Document and then the Document ''is the only thing''that stands in Bushs'way]. You forget that Iran had no problem engaging in a decade-long war with over a million casualties.[and with no Bomb].What is there to prevent it from blackmailing the world if not going to war against it? How many jobs,Robert,will there be left when you are paying eight bucks a gallon for gas?

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:27 PM)

Lee Holmes: What assurance is there that the US under Bush will act responsibly with our treasure trove of bombs and missiles and assorted other goodies?

Oh, that's right...there is none. The rest of the world has to just trust a man who lied to his own people to invade a sovereign nation that posed no legitimate threat to the US. Good plan.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:14 PM)

What if superman died? What if what if what if! I wish I had dollar for all the what ifs. What if the shrub had acted on the intel he was provided?

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:15 PM)

Lee Holmes, Ahmedinijad never said he would "wipe Isreal off the map" that's a mistranslation which has been beaten into a sword by the neocons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
The statement that are freedoms are in less danger than they were under FDR are only opinion your opinion, but it's a hard case to make with warrantless searches, the legal black hole of "enemy combatant", the extensive classification of things that should be public, waiving Habeas Corpus, etc. In any case anything that FDR did was understood to last no longer than the defeat of Germany and Japan. The Bushies talk openly of maintaining our current state of diminished liberty for the next 40-50 years!

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:18 PM)

Game theory rules international relations.

In the last 7 years, America lost. Got fleeced.

Unless we get some brains in the WH, we're toast.

Mark Thieme (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:35 PM)

Lee , Check zfacts.com for a real look at GWB's weak argument that the national deficit is shrinking .He is not adding in the social security factor and then flipping the numbers .Check it you will find I am right.

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 6:05 PM)

Carrie:Your argument is irrelevant. The EU did not ''lie'',regarding Iraq [you have no proof whatever that Bush did anyway,so this is specious reasoning on its face],in order to yet appease Iran. What damned success did they have? Or the UN? Or the IAEA? You people continue to forget that Iran has sought this capability for well over a decade,and because the democracies did nothing in the 1990s,it is now close to it's goal,''liar''or no ''liar''. You also forget that even Hillary Clinton has publically admitted that there ARE grounds to attack Iran. These ''grounds'',bear upon one thing. Oil. I ask again.

WHAT will we do when Iran gains a nuclear ICBM?

What effect will this have on the region and the greater world?

In doing nothing[except fruitless talk],what does Iran gain by this?

You had better find a vehicle that burns bacon grease,and fast.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:05 PM)

If ya'll are all complaining about Bush, why not remember a basic fact. You elected him....Think who you elect next time?

Emile,Grapevine,TX (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:14 PM)

Shame on you bush for even thinking of starting world war 3. Shame on you. You do not represent us, the people.

Shayne (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:46 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=417347