Quote Of The Day: Slapping Mullahs Edition

“So today, Britain will urge Europe and Europe will agree to take further sanctions against Iran. First of all we will take action today that will freeze the overseas assets of the biggest bank in Iran, the bank Melli.”
— UK PM Gordon Brown

So Bush is a foreign policy dolt? Too stupid to do anything but alienate Europe and other far more sophisticated allies? Once again, has proved himself smarter than this critics, this time touring Europe as a lame duck and achieving all the policy goals set forth for the trip.

While the policy elite thought nothing much would come of this trip, Bush was able to convince Europe’s big three — England, France and Germany — to drop their happy faces and admit that they have nothing to show for years of diplomacy with Tehran. If they were ton continue on this course, all that would happen is that Tehran would be granted years to move forward with its nuke program.

The latest round of rumors of a US attack on Iran, surfacing in tandem with the trip, no doubt helped to convince the Europeans to tighten up sanctions. Reuters reports that sanctions on oil and gas will likely follow.

The wiley Bush has once again shown that diplomacy works best when there’s a big stick involved.

Mad Mullahs From Space!

The Tehraniacs are about to go in orbit, or at least the rarely reliable FARS news agency says they are:

TEHRAN (FNA)- The deputy head of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Broadcasting (IRIB) for parliamentary and provincial affairs said that his organization will launch a satellite in the near future.

“With the launch of this satellite, we will be able to send signals to everywhere in the country,” Musavi Moqaddam said in the western city of Sanandaj on Wednesday.

Stressing that radio and television networks should be developed in Iran, he said, We need 450bln to 500bln Tomans (approximately 450m- 500m dollars) of credit to expand our signal coverage across the country.

Looking at the photo that accompanied the article, I have just one question. If they’re using the satellite to broadcast television programs propaganda to Iran …

… why did they put it in orbit around the moon?

But seriously folks, if the Mad Mullahs succeed in getting a satellite into orbit, it’s a matter of grave concern to folks who would like to live with high levels of radiation everywhere.

Sunday Scan

Triple Crown

Jockey Kent Desormeaux summed up yesterday’s Belmont Stakes pretty well, saying of Triple Crown contender Big Brown, “I had no horse.” Big Brown finished a distant, distant last, and another year goes by without a Triple Crown winner.

I didn’t even watch the race because I’ve soured on all forms of gambling, but it reminded me of 1977 and Triple Crown winner Seattle Slew, who I saw very up-close at the Kentucky Derby.

The not so incredible ex-wife was a photographer at the Louisville Courier Journal and I was her Derby photo assistant. She buried an auto-drive Nikon so the lens was at dirt level under the rail about 10 yards past the finish line. She focused it on the finish line, and handed me a cable remote.

“Push it when they reach the last pole before the finish and hold it down until the last horse is past you,” she said. And that’s what I did.

As the pack tore past me, I heard the jockeys yelling and the leather creaking and the whips slapping, I felt a hot rush of air, and was spattered with horse sweat. It was one of the most intense experiences of my life. After they blew past, I let the shutter button go and remembered to start breathing again.

In the process, I took an image of Seattle Slew crossing the finish line, all four feet in the air. It became somewhat famous; in fact, when a commemorative plate company selected one image of Seattle Slew for a series of plates on Triple Crown winners, they selected my Derby picture. Here it is:

I can’t claim it as mine; it’s credited to my ex-wife. But it’s a heck of a lot better than the crummy one of the Belmont at the top of the post, isn’t it?

Those Racist Clintons

“Sometimes your opponent just runs a good campaign,” lamented Hillary’s campaign chief Mark Penn in an NYT op/ed today.

I thought you paid geniuses like Penn millions of dollars, as Hillary did, so that your candidate would run a better campaign.

Penn raises many excuses for Hillary’s failure, boiling it down mostly to money — another responsibility of the campaign chief — but the most interesting paragraph in the piece is this one:

The Clintons have spent their lives fighting as much as any leaders in their generation for greater equality across racial and gender lines. I believe nothing they said was ever intended to divide the country by race. Any suggestion to the contrary was perhaps the greatest injustice done to them in this campaign.

All in all, I have to agree with him, even though I can’t stand it, and even with the famous Bill-ism about the only reason why Obama is running a fairy-tale campaign is because he’s black, and the famously misinterpreted Hil-ism about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination.

Back in February, I wrote a post titled In A PC Nation, How Will The GOP Run? that raised the issue of hyper-sensitivity on race issues:

Even if there were a line fine enough to appease the keepers of political correctness in the black, feminist and media communities, and there’s not, the GOP will be charged with crossing it. There is no way the GOP can get to November without being called every “ist” in the book.

Still true, more true, today. As it turns out, even the Clintons couldn’t pass this test in the face of the Obamaniacs who are found in high positions in the media and the DNC. The challenge for that old white guy with his blond cutie-pie of a wife has not gotten any easier.

China, The Nation That Keeps On Giving

Toys with lead paint, tainted dog food, and of course who can forget bird flu? China is such a generous nation! So giving! And since bird flu was such a hit last time around, it’s now time for bird flu redux:

HONG KONG (WSJ) — Hong Kong authorities slaughtered 2,700 birds and banned live poultry imports from mainland China for up to 21 days, after a routine inspection Saturday found chickens in one of the city’s poultry markets infected with the dangerous H5N1 bird-flu virus.

While there’s little immediate threat to humans from the infected birds, the discovery revives fears that the disease could still be a problem with poultry flocks in southern China — although it isn’t yet clear whether the infected birds came from local or mainland Chinese farms.”

And what does the generous, giving People’s Republic have to say about all this? Ever the humble gift-giver, they deferred:

An official with the General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said the agency needed to consider questions about the matter before responding.

Can you say “chicken?”

Those Pesky Thermometers

Yesterday I wrote about NASA cooking the books on its US temperature data, a story Warmie cultists would no doubt reject as tales of denial by Warmie heretics. Well, if they had pipes and if they burned those little bowls of carbon-based plant material, I’d tell them to put this in their pipes and smoke it:

A perfect illustration is found when comparing the USHCN (U.S. Historical Climatology Network) temperature records from Central Park in New York City to those taken a mere 55 miles away at West Point. Readings in Central Park have been regularly measured since 1835 when the city’s population had just surpassed 200,000. Today, surrounded by a metropolis of eight million people filled with some of the world’s tallest buildings, a massive underground subway system, an extensive sewer system, power generation facilities, and millions of cars, buses, and taxis, the Central Park temperatures have been greatly altered by urbanization. And, as one might expect, the Central Park historical temperature plot illustrates an incredible warming increase of nearly 4øF.

The West Point readings have also been meticulously maintained since 1835, but the environment surrounding the thermometer shelter has experienced significantly less manmade interference then the one in Central Park. The West Point readings illustrate a significantly lower warming increase of only about 0.6øF over the same 170-year period. This is remarkable given that the year 1835 is considered to be the last gasp of the Little Ice Age — a significant period of global cooling that stretched back several hundred years.

Cries of out of control global warming become more dubious when one looks at the hottest decade in modern history, the 1930s. The summer of 1930 marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th Century. From June 1 to August 3, Washington, D.C. experienced twenty-one days of high temperatures of at least 100ø. During that record-shattering heat wave, there were maximum temperatures set on nine different days that remain unbroken more than three-quarters-of-a-century later. (emphasis added; source)

How long can the global warming myth stand up to the temperature facts? It’s an unanswerable question because global warming is the science of hysterics and hypnotism, and is therefore outside the realm of rational deduction.

hat-tip: Greenie Watch

Forever Reuters

No one can slip subjectivity into journalistic objectivity like Reuters. Here they are again, reporting on the meeting of G8 energy chiefs in Japan:

Japan, the United States, China, India and South Korea — who together guzzle nearly half the world’s oil — said that they had agreed on the need for greater transparency in energy markets and more investment by consumers and producers both, while stopping short of calling on OPEC to pump more crude today. (source)

“Guzzle” is defined as “to drink especially liquor greedily, continually, or habitually.” The U.S. and Japan should not be included with the guzzlers; we are more and more merely consumers. Greed simply isn’t a part of our oil consumption; efficient output is. We consume ever more efficiently, investing billions in ways to make our automotive fleet, our homes and our industrial operations more efficient.

An objective Reuters (oxymoron) would have used the word consume. If it wants to look for oil-guzzling whipping boys, it should have stopped the list at China and Inda, which have put economic growth far ahead of environmental protection, and have put the acquisition of oil ahead of the efficient consumption of oil. In fact, both countries still subsidize the price of fuel to their populations, and refused reasoned calls to stop the practice in the name of greater fuel conservation.

Excitable Electrons

Confession time: I never understood this Mohamed ElBardei guy, and could no see the top UN nuke monitoring guy as a Nobel Prize winner than … say … Al Gore.

His mini-interview in Spiegel (the full interview publishes on Tuesday) gives me no further insights.

On Iran:

“The readiness on Iran’s side to cooperate leaves a lot to be desired,” he said. “We have pressing questions.” Iran’s leadership, he said, is sending “a message to the entire world: We can build a bomb in relatively short time.”

On Syria:

But the general director of the International Atomic Energy Agency also said he expected “absolute transparency” from Syria.

On stopping proliferation by military action:

“With unilateral military actions, countries are undermining international agreements, and we are at a historic turning point.”

What’s difference between Iran and Syria might explain why ElBardei expects complete transparency from Syria, but not Iran? The only thing that comes to my mind is that there’s been military action against Syria’s nukes but not Iran’s.

Hyper-Hysteria

Fear is rising with a bullet on the list of global motivators. Plastic baby bottles, genetically engineered food, cell phones … all feed the hysteria machine, ultimately producing stories like this:

South Korean politics are on the brink of meltdown after spiralling public hysteria over “mad cow” disease in American beef unleashed a weekend of mass protests and pitched battles between demonstrators and riot police.

Police vehicles were today attacked by angry mobs armed with sticks and police lines were reportedly charged after the 40,000-strong crowd of peaceful protesters thinned-out to leave a smaller group of activists.

With the violence threatening to continue for another week, and the calls for his resignation being screamed by students on the streets of Seoul, President Lee Myung Bak now faces a series of potentially crippling departures from his immediate circle of allies. (Times of London)

How many recent cases of BSE have there been in the US? One.

How many recent cases of BSE in the US were discovered before the cow was slaughtered for beef? One.

How many humans have been infected from BSE in US beef? None.

Frankly, being in that crowd of angry Koreans looks far more dangerous to one’s health than eating U.S. beef.

Step On It Or Shoot It?

“Do I step on it or shoot it?” That was my first response to seeing a gargantuan Hawaiian cockroach. I had a similar response to day when reading the latest from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

“I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene.

“Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.” (source)

“Do I step on him or shoot him?” The thought crossed your mind, too, didn’t it? Or did you think, as Obama does, “Do I talk to him in Washington or do I talk to him in Tehran?”

What is there to say to someone like this, especially when he also used the occasion — the 19th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini’s welcome in Hell — to once again share his apocalyptic vision that tyranny in the world (that would be “us”) will be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi, the 12th imam. Maybe it would go something like this:

Obama: Would you promise, please, that your nuclear program will be peaceful, sir?

Mah- I’m in the –moud for Jew-icide Ahmadinejad (rhymes with “McCain got beat by this young rad?!”): The Mahdi is coming! The Mahdi is coming! Death to America! Death to Israel!

Obama: Well, that sounds just awful. Do you think you could put it off at least until I’m out of office?

Oh boy. McCain 2008, eh?

Sunday Scan

Thanks, Mates!

As expected, Australian PM Kevin Rudd, who won his seat following promises to bring Aussie troops home from Iraq, has ended combat operations so withdrawal can begin. The Aussies were stationed in the south, particularly around Nasiriyah, which has seen its share of violence.

Troops held a ceremony Sunday that included lowering the Australian flag from its position and raising the American flag instead over Camp Terendak in the southern Iraq city of Nasiriyah.

“We have to praise the role of the Australian troops in stabilizing the security situation in the province through their checkpoints on the outskirts of the city,” said Aziz Kadim Alway, the governor of the Dhi Qar province. (AP)

Like the dependable ally they are, the Aussies aren’t just pulling up and running home. Several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq in security and liaison roles, and Australia will leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf.

There were no Digger fatalities during their five-year deployment. Six were injured, one seriously.

One Man, One-Half Vote

Dumb Democrats. The party that railed so vociferously about citizens deprived of votes in 2000 and 2004 has decided voters in Michigan and Florida, who had nothing to do with when their primaries were held, are only half-human. And many Dems are PO’d, as this clip demonstrates:

The agreement, termed “politically astute” by Walter Shapiro in Salon, is anything but. It won’t end the acrimony, as the Clinton camp is talking lawsuits and supporters are threatening to sit out the election. Worse, it avoided the simpler, more politically astute solution: Seating all the delegates and punishing the state party leadership. All the delegates should have been seated (delegates of departed candidates could have been redistributed mathematically), and the to states’ parties’ leaders could have been dinged any number of ways: monetary fines, stripping of leadership roles, whatever.

The Dems punished the wrong people: The People. The Hacks should have been punished. But the Hacks are for Obama this year, so the party of the people threw the people overboard. The DNC and Obama deserve all the rancor and defections the agreement generates.

George Will Calls For Carbon Tax

I normally would rail against a conservative calling for a tax — especially a tax to stop global warming, which we know at the outset will fail to accomplish its goal. But in this case, Will’s got a point that’s worth making: Given a choice between a black hole into which money will be poured for no purpose (the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, which will be debated in the Senate this week) and a clear, visible and straightforward tax on carbon fuels, the latter is more preferable by far.

Could we have neither, please? Maybe, but given the great excuse global warming provides government to increase its power and tax its citizens, I thought I’d present the crux of Will’s argument:

With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself — an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans’ exercise of their traditional rights.

Businesses with unused emission allowances could sell their surpluses to businesses that exceed their allowances. The more expensive and constraining the allowances, the more money government would gain.

If carbon emissions are the planetary menace that the political class suddenly says they are, why not a straightforward tax on fossil fuels based on each fuel’s carbon content? This would have none of the enormous administrative costs of the baroque cap-and-trade regime. And a carbon tax would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade’s government allocation of emission permits sector by sector, industry by industry. So a carbon tax would be a clear and candid incentive to adopt energy-saving and carbon-minimizing technologies. That is the problem.

A carbon tax would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade — government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business — is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions.

Cap and trade is often presented as a free market solution. It is anything but. Citizens concerned about the fragile economy and the failure of government to reduce spending should regale their Senators with letters and calls opposing the bill. For me and other Californians, our useless Barbara Boxer has already come out in strong support of the bill. Natch.

Could The Iranians By Lying?

Lying Iranians?! Say it isn’t so! Those who oppose harsh action against Iran’s nuclear program stand ready to believe that Iran is pursuing nukes for purely peaceful energy-producing reasons. Then why this?

Iran Building 7 Refineries to Hike Capacity

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran is constructing seven refineries in an effort to boost its crude and gas refining capacity by more than 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd), a senior oil official said Saturday.

“The construction of seven refineries has started with the investment of 15 billion euros ($23.22 billion),” MNA quoted Aminollah Eskandari, a director of the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) as saying.

“About 1.56 million barrels will be added to the country’s capacity to refine crude oil and gas derivatives,” he added.

Investing $23 billion of an economically depressed nation’s revenues in power plants it wouldn’t need if it had a nuclear power grid seems even madder than what we’ve come to expect from the Tehraniacs.

Too Little, Too Late

Barack Obama has left Trinity United — one month after Rev. Wright accused the prez wannabe of distancing himself from his true beliefs for political reasons and a week after Michael Pflegar exhibited some of the most flagrant racism in recent time from the Trinity pulpit. Here’s his typically over-long and elegant statement:

In it, Obama blames the media for what’s happened:

But it’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every times something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me, even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles.

He accuses news organizations of harassing members, which is warranted because pack journalism is an ugly thing. It took them a long time to wake up to Rev. Wright, but now that they’re awake, there’s no moderating them.

Obama said he’s leaving the church in part to protect the parishioners from the media onslaught — “That’s just not how people should have to operate in their church.” — but he never says anything about protecting the American people from the crazy, racist, hate that is the stuff of sermons at Trinity.

He has “separated” himself from those teachings, but he has never sufficiently condemned Wright and his teachings for what they are: racist hatemongers.

Water, Water, Not All Around

The other CSM writes (via Environmental News) about water as the next oil, and they’ve got it half-right. We can survive without oil, but not without water — so a massive water shortage will bring suffering, war and death.

Cyprus will ferry water from Greece this summer. Australian cities are buying water from that nation’s farmers and building desalination plants. Thirsty China plans to divert Himalayan water. And 18 million southern Californians are bracing for their first water-rationing in years.

Water, Dow Chemical Chairman Andrew Liveris told the World Economic Forum in February, “is the oil of this century.” Developed nations have taken cheap, abundant fresh water largely for granted. Now global population growth, pollution, and climate change are shaping a new view of water as “blue gold.”

Socialists are taking note:

“We’re at a transition point where fundamental decisions need to be made by societies about how this basic human need — water — is going to be provided,” says Christopher Kilian, clean-water program director for the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. “The profit motive and basic human need [for water] are just inherently in conflict.”

Some readers might be surprised that I agree with the socialists on this one. In 1995 we helped preserve a local, public water district fight off a take-over attempt by a private water company. Our research on that case showed that private water companies charged more than public agencies and didn’t invest as much in infrastructure.

Plus, public agencies are better suited to fight off challenges from whacked-out environmentalists, who continue to attack new water infrastructure projects despite mounting evidence of the need to address global water shortages.

IAEA, NIE And The MMFNI

I‘m not sure if I’ve got that third acronym right — Mad Mullahs For Nuking Israel, right? — but the first one sure undercut the second one yesterday, much to the detriment of the third one.

The NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, gave the MMFNI a bunch of breathing room when it came out last December, claiming that to the best of the combined knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community, Iran was not currently pursuing a nuclear weapon. Or at least we were “moderately confident” that was the case.

Israel, for whom mere “moderate confidence” could spell death, was not so sure.

Now it turns out that the IAEA, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, isn’t so sure either. Its report, released yesterday goes way beyond “moderate confidence” to say Iran’s nuclear weapons program is “a matter of serious concern” because of:

• Willful lack of cooperation
• 18 documents that indicate the Iranians are working on explosives, uranium processing and warhead design — activities the NYT bravely reports “could be associated with constructing nuclear weapons.” Duh.
• Failure to report R&D activities on faster, more productive centrifuges
• Iranian denial of access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted

In short:

“The Iranians are certainly being confronted with some pretty strong evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and they are being petulant and defensive,” said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security. “The report lays out what the agency knows, and it is very damning. I’ve never seen it laid out quite like this.”

To which Baghdad Bob Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the atomic energy agency, responded

… that the report vindicated Iran’s nuclear activities. It “is another document that shows Iran’s entire nuclear activities are peaceful,” the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted him as saying.

Anyone who still believes the NIE presented an honest assessment of Iran’s nuke-quest has two choices when confronting the IAEA’s actions: They can admit they were wrong, and that at a minimum we can be “moderately confident” that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, or they can align themselves with the MMFNI.

White House Takes On The Obama Network

The general rule of thumb of not picking fights with guys who buy their ink (or electrons) by the barrel doesn’t really hold if you’re counselor to the most powerful man in the world, so Ed Gillespie has taken on NBC.

In his letter attacking NBC’s editing of a presidential interview, Gillespie’s request is straightforward:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and “appeasement,” rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

Should NBC fold? Let’s look at the evidence, the two questions and answers Gillespie said were unfair. I’ll present the edited interview in italics followed by the actual transcript:

RICHARD ENGEL: You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless and then you went further. You’re saying, you said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? He certainly thought you were.

GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently, the political calendar has. And when a leader of Iran says they want to destroy Israel, you’ve to take those words seriously.

Full transcript: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. But I also talked about what’s possible in the Middle East.”

NBC, in a manner typical of the media, cut out the part of the quote that challenges the media’s veracity. The mighty MSM has a glass jaw. The subsequent snipping resulted in considerable detail being left out, including remarks that made it clear Bush set no new policy in his Knesset speech, and gave context to his Hitler comments. But did it mischaracterize Bush? I’ll get back to that.

Gillespie then points out that the question immediately following illuminated the subject more, but was not included in the aired version of the interview. Here is that passage:

ENGEL: Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?

BUSH: “You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate – and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them.”

Says Gillespie:

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that “negotiating with Iran is pointless” and amounts to “appeasement.”

It’s true, this passage does define why Bush is not talking to Iran and what conditions he requires before he would talk to them. As such, it defines why he thinks talking to them without these conditions amounts to appeasement. NBC would have had time to air this bit if it hadn’t introduced the piece with the same moral equivalency we saw on AP’s story on the same subject.

Much is being made of this letter today — just check out the links to the two stories posted on memeorandum (here, here). My thoughts?

Gillespie picked the wrong target, for three reasons.

First, the editing is not that egregious. I don’t think Gillespie is right when he claims that the editing gave the impression Bush agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks, and I don’t think the follow-up question moved the ball very far down the field. If you’re going to take on a network, you should have a better case than the one Gillespie chose to argue, and Lord knows, there are plenty of better cases out there.

A White House edit of the interview would have been very different … but it would have been editing nonetheless. Egregious editing is defined as putting words into someone’s mouth that weren’t stated, not leaving out further illumination on points you’ve put into the interview. I would have preferred to not hear the chiding of Bush in the intro — the Arabs he was speaking to in Egypt deserved a lecture on democracy, and who cares if the minions of despots were cool to it? — but NBC’s editorial position is clearly anti-Bush, and within that context, the editing was more typical than outrageous.

Second, coverage of the Knesset remarks was going extremely well for the White House and the GOP. Obama was coming off as weak and naive; Bush, the GOP and McCain were coming off as more seasoned and more protective of America. There was no reason to give the opposition the opportunity to position Bush as a crybaby. As one leftyblogger responded to the matter:

Now it’s clear that the White House is so invested in this phony war, so convinced of its usefulness, that Ed Gillespie is desperately trying to keep it going far past its expiration date with this message to NBC.

When the opposition is rallying, it’s wise not to give them rallying points.

Finally, and most obviously, the nasty little NBC piece was weak and not terribly damaging to US policy, the war or the president, and it had already slipped off to the dustbin of history. Gillespie’s letter awoke the dog — not just the sleeping dog, but the very dead dog.

In the furor that is ensuing, those of us who are convinced the MSM has staked out a position damaging to the war effort and America will too easily jump on Gillespie’s bandwagon, not seeing that the whole exercise was a mistake. And those on the left will happily attack Gillespie and Bush and praise NBC for standing up to the administration’s arrogance and warmongering.

Gillespie did Bush, the GOP and McCain no favors. This was yet another mistake in the gargantuan chronicles of Bush administration media mistakes.

Obama Flunks Another Foreign Policy Exam

To understand foreign policy, Obama style, just view this clip — it’s less than two minutes long, but if you’re like me, it’ll stick with you longer than that.

First, it shows us (again) that Obama is nothing new; he’s just another deceitful, manipulative politician. Right off the bat, he implies that the Bush admin has not talked to Iran. He knows this isn’t true so he doesn’t come right out and say it, instead, he says:

Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries.

He then goes on to say that’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev, Nixon did with Mao and Reagan did with Gorbachev. Two sentences in and already Obama has made two errors deceitful manipulations of the truth — as if he were some South Chicago hack.

First, obviously, the Bush admin has talked to Iran, both directly and through intermediaries. Numerous such meetings have been held, so Obama’s endgame of …

“We should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listing … are there areas of potential common interest where we can reduce some of the tensions that have caused us so many problems around the world?”

… is a canard. Through our ambassadorial contacts and back channel communications, and through the failed, multi-year diplomatic efforts of Germany, England and France, we know there are no viable areas of potential common interest … other than our interest in seeing a nuke-free Iran and the mullahs’ interest in living to preach hatred another day.

(BTW, what’s this “caused us so many problems around the world?” He is, of course, talking about his idea that America’s reputation has been hurt by Bush, that blustering about Iran is not making us friends. Who is friends with Iran? Anyone we need to be overly concerned about? And he can’t go into what a punk nation Iran is, as he does in this clip, and not be doing the same tough talking Bush has done.)

Second, before Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan did anything with their Russian or Chinese counterparts, years of meetings were held by negotiators on both sides. By the time the leaders met, much was known, much was agreed to. These presidents didn’t just storm in for a summit with no prep. Obama is showing his Messianic naivity, his sheer and dangerous faith in his ability to find words no one has found before.

Since that’s his approach, and since his ego is so grand, the risks inherent in an unplanned summit are incalculable.

Obama then goes on to ridicule Bush (although he doesn’t name him, clean campaigner that he is) for not talking to Iran, which spends “1/100th of what we spend on the military,” while braver presidents talked to much more formidable nations.

I want my next president to understand the difference between “formidable” and “conventional.” Russia might have been formidable in its Soviet heyday, but it played by the rules, even the rules that governed national deceptions. The danger Iran poses is not one of formidableness; rather, it is its unconventional qualities that pose a threat.

It openly supports terror. Its leaders have a dangerous metaphysical point of view that does not make survival seem like their most important goal. And unlike Russia, which was forever looking for a warm water port, Iran sits on the Straits of Hormuz. Obama tells his audience that Iran is a weak little punk that would not stand up to us if it challenged us seriously.

Of course, Obama is wrong. Iran has challenged us seriously, killing our soldiers, attacking our alliances, and threatening to build a nuke that would become the ultimate terrorist WMD. Unlike Russia, they would have the will to use it. Yet every time Bush talks tough about Iran, he gets called a warmonger by the Dems, and is foiled by their fellow travelers at CIA who screwed up the last National Intelligence Estimate just to limit Bush’s options in Iran.

Is all this really going over Obama’s head, or is he just posturing to stupid Dem voters, blinded by their anti-Bush, anti-war beliefs?

I know I’m not alone in saying I believe it’s the former — and that’s really scary.

Hat-tip: memeorandum

GE’s Lame Excuses

Howard Kurtz has a thorough piece detailing the warfare between Fox News (Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly) and NBC (Jeff Zucker and Keith “Where are my viewers?” Olbermann). It’s nasty stuff, and a fine morning read if you’re interested in the intersection of news and egos.

There’s been a lot going on for a long time in this feud, but the element that’s elevated it to Kurtz-like levels is O’Reilly’s personal accusations against GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt — it’s the stuff of leads:

Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News star, is mounting an extraordinary televised assault on the chief executive of General Electric, calling him a “pinhead” and a “despicable human being” who bears responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.

O’Reilly’s point is that GE, owner of NBC, continues to sell goods to Iran through foreign subsidiaries, getting around US restrictions. Iran, for its part, is unequivocally involved in the killing of US military personnel in Iraq.

All good fodder, for sure, but PR guy that I am, I’m just focusing on GE’s statements to Kurtz. Do they exonerate GE, or are they just spin? Here’s their basic line, courtesy of Kurtz:

Under growing criticism from the public and its own shareholders, GE announced in 2005 that it would accept no new business in Iran and would wind down existing contracts, which mostly involved sales of oil, gas and energy and health-care equipment. The remaining work, valued at less than $50 million, amounts to less than .01 percent of GE’s income, and the company says the final four contracts will expire within weeks.

Timeline: For a period of time prior to 2005, GE stockholders were protesting the company’s trade with Iran. 2005: GE announces it will stop doing business with Iran. 2008: GE is still doing business with Iran, albeit at a lower level.

Here’s another timeline. Date this one 1987:

In an effort to further isolate Iran, the Reagan Administration is moving toward more severe restrictions on trade with that country, State Department officials said today.

The impending crackdown was described as a reflection of the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran over the Persian Gulf. (NYT)

This news item wasn’t really news, since Iran was already a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Here’s State’s position:

Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are five countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Iran was named a State Sponsor of Terrorism on January 19, 1984 — 21 years before GE shareholders pressured the American company to follow American laws, even in its European operations. GE was clearly aware that its sales to Iran would violate this law if they were made by American operations, so it purposefully did business with Iran through its European operations.

GE’s excuse flunks. We expect American global enterprises to be American first and global second — especially on issues like this.

Now let’s look at how GE deals with the charge that its business practices have led to the deaths of Americans. Here’s Kurtz again:

Last week, in an unrelated segment with CBS’s Kimberly Dozier about being injured in Iraq, O’Reilly used a graphic that combined GE’s logo with a photo of Ahmadinejad. The heading: “Business Partners.”

GE spokesman Gary Sheffer called O’Reilly’s remarks “offensive,” saying: “He has a right to his opinion, and we equally have a right to be appalled by it. We felt he crossed the line. . . . Nothing we supply, or any goods and services we have supplied to Iran, is in any way endangering U.S. troops.”

O’Reilly’s graphic was certainly over the top, as GE’s activities are certainly far below the attention of Mah- I’m in the -moud for peacock Ahmadinejad (rhymes with “I don’t think Jeff Immelt’s a cad”). But is O’Reilly’s message similarly over the top?

Sheffer’s denial is complete. Nothing now, nothing ever, supplied by GE has in any way endangered US troops. Additionally, Immelt had a statement issued last month that said sales of hospital equipment are allowed under a humanitarian program licensed by the U.S. government.

Earlier — in 2005 — Sheffer had this to say about GE sales to Iran:

“Senior management and the board decided in mid-December to discontinue taking new orders because of uncertain conditions relating to Iran.”

“Uncertain conditions” was disingenuous, since the reason for the cut-off was quite a certain condition: Shareholders were rebelling, casting a spotlight on sales GE would just as soon keep quiet.

And what of the non-medical sales? The energy and gas production equipment?

GE can hide behind humanitarianism in their hospital equipment sales (and I’m sure the equipment is sold at a strictly humanitarian price point), but no such cover is provided for energy production equipment. What were our primary targets in our air bombing campaign against Germany in WWII? Military installations, factories and oil refineries and storage facilities.

None of the weapons Iran manufactures for use against us in Iraq can be manufactured without energy. None can be transported to Iraq without energy. And for that reason, Sheffer’s blanket excuse is a moth-eaten heap of holes.

O’Reilly’s on a high horse and he’s using high octane rhetoric, but his position is more defensible than GE’s. Thomas Edison probably isn’t rolling over in is grave since he was a pretty unscrupulous businessman himself — and that just might be the problem with GE.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Sunday Scan

Reporting Grammar-Free

One of AP’s crack political reporters, Liz Sidoti, wrote this lead today:

Barack Obama scolded Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday for saying that the United States would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel, and likened her to President Bush. Clinton stood by her comment.

Of course, Hillary said no such thing. Here’s the Clinton quote:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

She said, “would be able,” not “would totally obliterate.” Words are important and reporters — especially reporters covering a national election — are expected to get them right.

Done With Him

Last week, I lined up three options for Obama to consider in dealing with the Wright meltdown, from continuing what he was doing (doom!) up to a hard and complete severance. He’s been following my third option, except for one thing I required for a believable clean break: “… and I assure the American people that anyone who holds beliefs like his will not be welcome in my administration.”

In the same Russert/Meet the Press interview quoted above, Obama comes close:

MR. RUSSERT: You’re done with him? If you’re elected president, you won’t seek his counsel?

SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely not.

But he follows that with babble:

Now, I think it’s important to keep in mind, Tim, that I never sought his counsel when it came to politics.

Stop with the “buts” if you want to leave this behind, Obama! The statement shows you still don’t get it. We never thought you were sitting down with Wright to talk health care policy options; we thought you might believe some or all of what he believed about America.

Obama will never recover all the votes he’s lost because of Wright, and statements like that, following a very good statement, are part of the reason why.

The Latest Import From China?

China, which previously brought us avian flu fear, is at it again:

A province in eastern China recorded 622 new cases of the intestinal virus known as enterovirus 71 on Saturday alone, the official Xinhua news agency said on Sunday.

The figure brought to 5,151 the number of people infected by the virus in Anhui province, Xinhua quoted the provincial health administration as saying. Anhui’s worst hit city was Fuyang with 362 cases.

EV71 can cause hand, foot, and mouth disease, which is characterised by fever, sores in the mouth and a rash with blisters — a common illness among infants and children but which is usually not fatal, according to the U.S. National Centre for Infectious Diseases.

There is no vaccine or antiviral agent available to treat or prevent EV71. Enteroviruses spread mostly through contact with infected blisters or faeces and can cause high fever, paralysis and swelling of the brain. (source)

But remember, they’ve got a state-sponsored universal health care system in China, so you know we’ve got nothing to worry about!

Superdelegate Watch

Here’s the latest update on Dem superdelegates, courtesy of Urgent Agenda:

Ray Nagin, the monumentally incompetent mayor of New Orleans, who botched almost everything during Hurricane Katrina, has been elected a superdelegate to the Democratic national convention. This proves America is a land of second chances, and Louisiana a land of second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth.

The “democratic” Democratic party puts unusual power in the hands of hacks and incompetents. Does America really need to have the likes of Ray Nagin having extraordinary power in selecting who might be our next prez?

The World In The Hands Of Babies

There’s a very interesting survey up on Stats that polls US climatologists and geophysicists on global warming. Among the findings, was this most interesting tidbit:

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science.

So let me see if I have this right. The Greenie movement, and all its calls for fundamental and costly transformations of our way of life and economy, is all based on a baby scicence that doesn’t even know if what it’s doing is right or not.

And the Goriac’s famous rant about the debate being over? Well the practitioner sof this baby science have this to say:

However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Two out of three say it’s a 50/50 chance. Is that what we call a debate that’s over?