Bush has recently made several statements which seem to imply that without a treaty (or Senate approval), he is committing the US to military defense of Israel.
"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defence if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well."
Asked if he meant the US would rise to Israel's defence militarily, Mr Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel. "
LINK
"I'm concerned when the country of Iran, their president, announces his desire to see that Israel gets destroyed. Israel is our ally. We're committed to the safety of Israel, and it's a commitment we will keep.
LINK
Bush has made general statements previously:
For more than 50 years, the United States and Israel have been steadfast allies.
LINK
But this recent stuff is actually different, imho. This is in the context of what Bush is trying to sell Iran as a threat to ?the US? the Mideast? the world? In this setting, Bush needs some excuse for his saber-rattling, since obviously Iran even with nuclear weapons some ten years hence is no threat to the US. Well, Israel seems to be his cutout. He is gonna try and boot-strap our "alliance" for the "defense" of Israel into "pre-emptive strike on iran".
It is one thing to be friends with another country, concerned about their safety, feeling kinship with its citizens, giving them foreign aid, etc etc. It is another to form an alliance, for the common defense. We have formed an actual treaty-based, Senate approved alliance, for example, with the NATO countries, for the common defense. An attack on any one of them is an attack on us.
We have traditionally avoided this kind of relationship vis a vis Israel, for a number of reasons, not the least of which are
a) Israel can defend itself; it has a massive state of the art military with nuclear weapons, (which we support financially), and
b) Israel's borders change on a monthly basis,
c) Israel engages in a foreign policy which cannot does not include stratigerizing with the US before it invades other countries.
Prior to the Bush administration, there was another reason, which was to maintain some illusion, at least, of neutrality in the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
I am sure that most people see nothing irregular at all in this. Some people may see it just as so many words, or as nothing more than recognition of reality.
But to me, it's a warmongering ploy, and another step in the Bush monarchy. And for both of these reasons, I, for one, object.
I mean, one can't just say stuff like this, imho, when one is the President of the United States. We don't do State Diplomacy by Royal Proclamation. It's irresponsible. Or it is declaring yet another part of the Constitution null and void. Why doesn't the congress just head off to Scotland and play golf for the duration; they really don't have any function any more, other than cover Bush's ass. Specially Jump-up Joe, the DINO man.
Or is it me that's over the top? what do you think?