Field
Reports

Video: Rep. Bachmann claims Iranian President threatened future nuclear attack against Israel and the U.S.

October 20, 2011 San Francisco

Speaking at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, U.S. Presidential Candidate Representative Michelle Bachmann accused the President of Iran of having threatened both Israel and United States with future nuclear attacks. Minnesota’s Republican Congresswoman did not give a source or date for these alleged and potentially inflammatory statements, though she did mention her position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. As Iran’s President has repeatedly denied that Iran seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, it would be in direct contradiction to those claims for him to make extreme threats of this type.


text excerpt:
“I’m very concerned about the threat from Iran and the Iranian threat in my mind is the premier threat that is dominating the Middle East today. It is the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. I say that because of the statements that have been made by the President of Iran as recently as three weeks prior to entering the United States to speak to the U.N. National Assembly. The statement was simply this: He sought the eradication of Israel from the Earth. That is in parallel and in tandem to statements he gave prior to that saying that once Iran attains a nuclear weapon they would use that nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and use a nuclear weapon also against the United States of America. Those are highly destructive statements and ones that I believe should be taken seriously.”

Congresswoman Bachmann
“Our enemy is not the Iranian people. Our enemy is an Iranian leadership that has the stated intention of using a nuclear weapon against the United States and using a nuclear weapon against our ally Israel.” ~ Rep. Bachmann

“…We need to take the issue of the Iranian threat extremely seriously because of the benefit of time that Iran has had, they have been able to come closer to achieving their goal, and as was stated early, I am privileged to sit on the the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation’s classified secrets, we deal with the threats to the United States both within the interior of our borders and those that come to us externally. And I will say that while this election is about jobs and the economy, we cannot forget the fact that there are very real national security concerns that we also need to be part of this very important process in the 2012 selection process.”

Q: “How would you as President respond to that Iranian threat?”

“I would respond with absolutely everything that the United States can put on the line, because we cannot abide, we must not and we cannot abide an Iran with a nuclear weapon. Because of the stated intentions of Iran, we would be subjecting the American people to the deployment of a nuclear weapon against our own people, and also to the state of Israel. This is something that we need to consider. I believe when a madman speaks you listen. And the statements of the President of Iran have been those of a genocidal maniac.”

Congresswoman Bachmann
Congresswoman Bachmann

“…My statements are about the President of Iran, my statements are not about the Iranian people, I want to make that very clear. Because we know in 2009 there was a yearning for freedom from the Iranian people, and I believe at that point it would have been prudent for the United States to do everything that we could to foster that desire for the Iranian people to be free of oppression. Unfortunately that did not occur.”

“Our enemy is not the Iranian people. Our enemy is an Iranian leadership that has the stated intention of using a nuclear weapon against the United States and using a nuclear weapon against our ally Israel.”

Ironically, Iran could interpret Bachmann’s statement itself as a veiled threat of nuclear attack against Iran, because “absolutely everything that the United States can put on the line” might be taken to include the use of nuclear weapons by the United States. Bachmann has previously criticized Obama’s rules of nuclear engagement and has advocated a policy of nuclear retaliation in the event of a chemical or biological attack against the United States.

Report by James George