Posts Tagged ‘interview’

Remember Hillary Clinton’s Anti-Obama ‘3 AM Phone Call’ Ad? OBAMA WASN’T In Situation Room on 9/11 When Ambassador Was Murdered

May 2, 2014

Remember how Hillary Clinton ran against Obama, pointing out that he was a national security flea weight who wouldn’t be there when we needed him?

Do you know what’s funny about that ad?  When Obama never bothers to pick up the damn phone, IT WAS HILLARY CLINTON ON THE OTHER END.

And we now know what a disgrace Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.  Because she’s sewer in this every bit as much as Obama.  Do you know who was the VERY FIRST person to falsely claim that the terrorist attack on Benghazi was a “spontaneous uprising” as the result of an “Internet video”?  Hillary Clinton was that shameless liar.

It is easily provable that one of the questions we have asked over and over and over again for going on two years now AND NEVER RECEIVED AN ANSWER ON was the question where was Obama on the night of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound???

There’s one reason we’ve never received an answer: because the answer makes Obama look really, really bad, really, really weak and really, really incompetent.  Oh, and really, really disgraceful.

Last night on Fox News Special Report, Bret Bair got it on the factual record.  For the FIRST TIME since the TERRORIST ATTACK on American soil in Benghazi in which a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered, we finally know for a fact that BARACK OBAMA WAS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN IN THE SITUATION ROOM AS THE DISASTER UNFOLDED.

We got this news from Barack Obama’s own NSC “Dude” boy, who not only admitted altering the CIA talking points – which the White House had for two years SWORN it had not done – but who admitted that he was in the situation room and Barack Obama never showed up:

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House.

BAIER: He wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: At what point in the evening?

BAIER: Any point in the evening.

VIETOR: It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region.

BAIER: So when Hillary Clinton talks to him at 10:00 p.m., he’s where?

VIETOR: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.

BAIER: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.

VIETOR: Yes, I was in the White House.

BAIER: And the president wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: Not in the room I was in. Let’s just be clear. You don’t have to be in the Situation Room to monitor an intelligence situation. The PDB is in the Oval Office.

For the record, “the Situation Room” is ONE ROOM.  It is not a suite.  There is no way Obama was in the Situation Room and Tommy Vietor – who was in the room throughout the evening on his testimony – would not have seen the president.

It is true that a president doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be in the Situation Room during a crisis.  He could be briefed from elsewhere.  But it is EQUALLY TRUE that it is in the Situation Room and NOWHERE ELSE that a president could receive live feeds immediately as they were coming in.

And it is the height of irresponsibility that we had a United States ambassador under fire and missing and a president of the United States AWOL while he was being murdered over a period of several hours.

I tell you what: I watched that interview with Bret Bair and Obama’s former NSC “dude” boy.  And one of the things that shocked me without the little turd saying a word was the fact that under Obama we’ve had Doogie Howser running our national security for us.

That explains a lot about the disaster and disgrace that is our Obama foreign policy and national security.  You can’t get a real man to work for Obama because no real man would ever work for Obama.

What we now know and know for a FACT is that the White House invented the Youtube video in order to fabricate a false national security scenario so that Obama wouldn’t have to answer for his outright LIE that he had al Qaeda on the run.  The email says it perfectly: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

We know that on the night of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi on 2011, the White House was in fact scrambling.  NOT to rescue the Americans who were under fire, but ONLY to cover-up and save Obama’s political weasel ass after his “al Qaeda is on the run” garbage.

Because it WAS a “broader failure of policy” and Obama had to lie and cover-up his cover-up to protect his lies and his cover-up.

Today Obama had a press conference with Angela Merkel and he said something about Ukraine that is frankly amazing in light of what we know happened in Benghazi:

He said the Russian account of events in eastern Ukraine that there was a spontaneous uprising by pro-Russian activists was belied by the use on Friday of surface-to-air missiles that brought down two of Ukraine’s military helicopters.

“It is obvious to the world that these Russian-backed groups are not peaceful protesters. They are heavily armed militants,” Obama said.

You know, much the way any decent human being would immediately understand that Benghazi was not a “spontaneous uprising” because of the use of incredibly well-trained mortar crews who precisely attacked the compound.  Five rounds were fired in less than one minute in the dark, with three accurately hitting their target – which all by itself was enough to immediately demonstrate that a well-trained crew was operating with pre-calculated coordinates.

Obama is a liar by his own rhetoric as he demonizes Putin for being the same sort of liar without shame that Obama proved himself to be YEARS ago.

Advertisements

Meet Thomas Schelling, Nobel Prize Winner and Global Warming Demagogue

July 25, 2009

We can go back and look at Al Gore, a documented fraud, a presenter of entirely false scientific claims, and the winner of a Nobel Prize for science.  A British High Court judge found nine “glaring” scientific errors in the Inconvenient Truth “documentary” that garnered Gore his scientific credibility.  But the only “inconvenient truth” was that the film was an example of “alarmism” and “exaggeration” and was not fit for viewing by British school children.

“Science” has officially and for the record made itself a propaganda tool to advance radical redistributionist social policies.

And now we have another Nobel prize winner doing the same thing to his own field of economics.

An Interview With Thomas Schelling, Part Two

CLARKE: I wanted to go back to the international climate-change negotiation process. So assuming we had a perfect U.S. bill — written by you or by 15 experts working on this full time — how would the international negotiation process work? It’s not obvious that averting global climate change is in the rational self-interest of anyone that is alive today. The serious consequences probably won’t occur until 2080 or 2100 or thereafter. That’s one problem. Another problem is that those consequences are going to be distributed in a radically uneven way. The northwest of the United States might actually benefit. So how does a negotiation process work? How does a generation today negotiate on behalf of future generations? And how do we negotiate when the costs are distributed so unevenly?

SCHELLING: Well I do think that one of the difficulties is that most of the beneficiaries aren’t yet born. More than that: Most of the beneficiaries will be born in what we now call the developing world. By 2080 or 2100 five-sixths of the population, at least, will be in places like China, India, Indonesia, Africa and so forth. And what I don’t know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

SCHELLING: It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious. I think there’s a significant likelihood of a kind of a runaway release of carbon and methane from permafrost, and from huge offshore deposits of methane all around the world. If you begin to get methane leaking on a large scale — even though methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long — it might warm things up fast enough that it will induce further methane release, which will warm things up more, which will release more. And that will create a huge multiplier effect, and it could become very serious.

CLARKE: And you mean serious for everyone, including the United States?

SCHELLING: Yes, for almost anybody.

CLARKE: And when you say, “exaggerate the costs” do you mean, American politicians should exaggerate the costs to the American public, to get American support for a bill that will overwhelmingly benefit the developing world?

SCHELLING: [Laughs] It’s very hard to get honest people.

SCHELLING: Well, part of me sympathizes with the case for disingenuousness! I mean, it seems to me that there is a strong moral case for helping unborn Bangladeshi citizens. But I don’t know how you sell that. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest, at least in the US, to legislate on that basis.

Well, let me at least agree with Thomas Schelling to this extent: yes, it is indeed hard to find honest people.  Especially from our “experts” whom we count upon to inform us of the facts, rather than leading us by the hand to conclusions based on false premises becauses they are arrogant elitists who think only they are smart enough to handle the truth.

The article goes on – read it here – with a seriously leftist-tilted back-and-forth about climate change and the degree to which America is morally obligated to commit economic hari kari in order to atone for its sins to the developing world.

Then we get to the moral nitty gritty to end the article:

CLARKE: I wanted to ask one more question, to go back to the moral issue here. It does seem to me that the strongest case for mitigating the effects of global climate change is a moral one. It is based not on our own interest but on the interests of people in the developing world who don’t yet exist. But it also seems to me that — while I don’t know much about game theory — collective bargaining theories generally assume the participants are rational and self-interested. So how does one go about making sense of an arrangement where we must set our self-interest aside? How does one make the moral case in a situation like this? Or is my description of collective bargaining just totally idiotic?

SCHELLING: Well, I think you have to realize that most people have very strong moral feelings. I think in a lot of cases they’re misdirected. I wish moral feelings about a two-month old fetus were attached to hungry children in Africa. But I think people have very strong moral feelings. In fact, I’m always amazed by the number of people who at least pretend they’re worried about the polar bears. […]

SCHELLING: And I think the churches don’t realize that they could have a potent effect in not letting so much of god’s legacy — in terms of flora and fauna — be destroyed by climate change.

SCHELLING: But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Now, Thomas Schelling one the one hand tells us that we should feel intensely morally obligated to “beneficiaries [who] not yet born” – as long as they’re not “a two month old fetus” who is presumably about to be aborted – in which case we apparently have absolutely no obligation at all.  But stop and think: the moral logic of abortion means the future generation doesn’t matter unless we subjectively want them to matter.  No one who advocates abortion has any right to lecture others that they should not only care about but sacrifice for “beneficiaries not yet born.” Then Schelling proceeds to presume from his own massive personal arrogance that the American people’s moral intuitions are faulty, but that his are functioning perfectly.  Which of course justifies him in lying to us to steer us toward the conclusion dictated by his own superior moral reasoning.

And then this man who presumes himself to be so morally superior to everyone “beneath” him, who is entitled to “exaggerate the threat” of global warming because Americans are not responsible to make sound moral decisions if they know the truth, says he hopes “horrid things” happen to we the poor, the huddling, the ignorant and unwashed masses.

This economist seems to live more by the law involving the telling of a lie often enough that it is believed far more than by the law of supply and demand.

It’s funny that Schelling mentions polar bears, as an admitted global warming exaggerator now proceeds to run into the pseudo-science of another global warming exaggerator.  And you have – unlike Al Gore or Thomas Schelling, who have credibility in the scientific community without having any ethical integrity – a genuine scientist being persecuted because he cares about the truth:

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are “extremely unhelpful,” according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week’s polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

And we have the same types of people as Thomas Schelling suppresing the conclusions of science that show the opposite of what they want science to show.  Consider the White House’s suppression of a scientific report by the EPA.

Or you can go back to the “hockey stick model” to see just how far “respected” scientists are willing to go in order to pass off a bogus theory for mass consumption — and just how willing other scientists are to unquestioningly accept whatever “evidence” supports their preconceived ideological notions.

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein apparently lacks Thomas Schelling’s godlike view, and thus doesn’t seem to think he possesses the divine right to distort the truth in order to lead Americans to the conclusions he ordains as “moral.”

Feldstein simply looks at the economics – which, who knows, may be a strange thing for an economist to do these days – and concludes:

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. […]

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

Aside from the fact that building scientific evidence indicates that global warming is a gigantic load of malarkey (just consider how the fact that the planet ISN’T warming has now led the alarmist movement to instead begin using the term “climate change”), global warming-turned climate change alarmists have an even bigger problem to worry about: the fact that the developing world has no interests in committing their own versions of hari kari for the sake of a theory.  China and India are poised to become “global warming polluters” on such a scale that any reductions in American and European greenhouse gasses would be utterly insignificant.  So why should we dramatically undermine our lives?

Chinese and Indians know what it’s like to live in a mud hut, which is the inevitable result of dramatically hamstringing our economic output to conform to the demands of the global warming alarmists.  The western radicals either don’t know what such deplorable conditions are like, or they believe that they – being the true arrogant elitists they are – will continue to live in their glass houses or ivory towers.

Finally, SOMEONE In Media Takes A Democrat To Task For Finance Meltdown

October 3, 2008

I couldn’t agree more with the words of Noel Sheppard:

Finally, someone in the media accurately accused and challenged a member of Congress over his involvement and complicity in the current financial crisis.

As press member after press member has allowed Democrats to shamefully and erroneously blame the current crisis on George W. Bush, virtually nobody other than folks at Fox News has been willing to examine the role elected officials on the left side of the aisle have been playing for more than a decade in blocking tighter regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

There is an unprecedented and frankly astonishing degree of spin and outright deception going on in the mainstream media today.  And in this climate we are about to hold the most important election most of us have faced in our lifetimes.

A blatantly biased media routinely allow their air time to be taken up by Democrat after Democrat blaming the disaster on “the failed policies of this [Bush] administration,” and “8 years of deregulation by Republicans”, without presenting any analysis questioning whether those claims are true.  The reality is that Democrats’ fingerprints are all over the financial meltdown.  And I have written a bunch of articles trying to put the truth to light:

How ‘Failed Policies’ Of Democrats Were Responsible For Financial Crisis

Why Barney Frank Can Stick His ‘Republicans With Hurt Feelings’ Remark

Supreme Court LIBERALS Blocked States From Regulating Financial System

Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami

Democrats’ Idea Of Bipartisanship Is HARD CORE Partisanship

Dems Blame Bush For Deregulation: Just Another Day Of Astounding Liberal Hypocrisy

Financial Crisis: Obama Democrats Have Red Ink All Over Them

Obama V.P. Pick Joe Biden Shares Direct Blame For Foreclosure Disaster

Obama’s National Finance Chair Pritzker At Epicenter of Sub Prime Crisis

Democrats, The Countrywide Scandal, and Self-Righteous Hypocrisy

Even when Bill Clinton blames Democrats for their refusal to regulate the finance industry against Republican attempts to do so, the media refuses to look at the role of Democrats:

Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

So when a Bill O’Reilly has a Barney Frank on his program, and even raises the questions about the Democrats’ role in the crisis, it deserves attention.

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: “Personal story” segment tonight, the financial chaos in this country is largely the fault of the citizens who cannot pay their obligations, banks who lent money to unqualified people, and the federal government which failed to provide oversight. Both political parties are to blame as I’ve stated.

Now “The Factor” has called on SEC Chairman Christopher Cox to resign, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd to quit, and House Finance Chief Barney Frank to step down from his position. That’s because for the past two years, Frank and his committee oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — two government sponsored lending agencies which pretty much are bankrupt.

Congressman Frank was asked about Freddie and Fannie on July 14, 2008:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we’re going to do some things that are going to improve them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Well, obviously, that statement turned out not to be true.

O’Reilly pointed out that – during the last two years of Barney Franks chairmanship over the House Financial Services Committee and Democratic control, “Look, bottom line is you’re there two years. Bottom line is stock drops 90 percent.”

Now, if you’ve heard a single Democrat blame bush and the Republicans for the finance meltdown, but you don’t know that Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s stock crashed 90% during the Democrats’ tenure, and that even three months ago the Democratic leadership was assuring us that everything was fine, you’ve been cheated by the media.  You have literally been lied to.

People were saying, ‘How far down can the stock go?  Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent?’  And Barney Frank said, “Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”  And so people kept buying stock, and kept business as usual, and the whole thing came crashing down.

People at Enron went to prison for doing precisely the same thing that Barney Frank did.

Barney Frank, in his feeble defense that initiated a shouting match, said:

FRANK: No. You’ve misrepresented this consistently. I became chairman of the committee on January 31st, 2007. Less than two months later, I did what the Republicans hadn’t been able to do in 12 years — get through the committee a very tough regulatory bill. And it passed the House in May.

I’ve always felt two things about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they had an important role to play, but that the regulations should be improved.

Now from 1995 to 2006, when the Republicans controlled Congress and we were in the minority, we couldn’t get that done. Although in 2005, Mike Oxley, of Sarbanes-Oxley fame, a pretty tough guy on regulation, did try to put a bill through to regulate Fannie Mae. I worked with him on it. As he told The Financial Times, he thought ideological rigidity in the Bush administration stopped that.

But the basic point is that the first time I had any real authority over this was January of 2007. And within two months, we had passed the bill that regulated.

Well, the facts are that Democrats DID succeed in passing a regulatory bill where the Republicans had failed.  But why did the Republicans fail?  They had failed in 2003, and then again in 2005, because Democrats were in lock step against it in the committees, and because the Democrats in the Senate threatened a filibuster that the Republicans wouldn’t be able to overcome.

It’s like children who refused to play with the other children until they got to make all the rules taking credit for the game, and conveniently forgetting that they hadn’t been willing to play before.

Barney Frank has been claiming that there was nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going back at least five years, as a September 11, 2003 New York Times article proves:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

So whey do the Democrats who utterly failed to see the disaster coming and who prevented the Republicans from regulating at least twice when such regulation would have prevented this crisis get to blame the Republicans for failing to realize that the disaster was coming and for refusing to regulate?  Because, by and large, the media won’t tell you the truth and consistenly lets Democrats get away with murder.

Save The Ridicule For Katie Couric, Not Sarah Palin

September 27, 2008

I have read the transcripts, and really can’t for the life of me understand why liberals gleefully proclaim that Sarah Palin embarassed herself.  I think we should be ridiculing Katie Couric rather than Sarah Palin.

Case in point: Couric’s “gotcha” question regarding Henry Kissinger:

Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can’t just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That’s beyond naïve. And it’s beyond bad judgment.

Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …

Palin: It’s dangerous.

Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?

Palin: I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, “Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.” Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren’t gonna go right. That’s part of diplomacy.

Okay, let’s do the fact check.  Was Couric right?

No.  The first “perky” anchor in major network history got it wrong.

Henry Kissinger has never called for direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions:

ABC News’ Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday’s presidential debate saying he “would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.”

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality,” Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

During the debate, Obama pointed to Kissinger to defend his position because the former secretary of state supports direct talks with high-level Iranians without preconditions. Kissinger does not, however, support the U.S. president personally engaging in those talks, a point which McCain sought to drive home during the debate.

If Couric wanted to ask Sarah Palin whether it would be appropriate to send a high level US official other than the President of the United States, it was her duty as the one asking the questions to make her question clear.  Given the obvious fact that it is a PRESIDENTIAL precondition-free negotiation with rogue regime leaders (thanks to Barack Obama’s idiotic position), Sarah Palin had every reason to assume that was what Couric was talking about.

So if anyone should be ridiculed, it should be Katie Couric – who was so eager to catch Palin in a “gotcha” question she botched her own trap – instead of Sarah Palin.

Is Sarah Palin A Right-Wing Warmonger On A Holy Task From God?

September 12, 2008

I was rather amazed at the headlines about Sarah Palin coming from the Associated Press following her ABC interview with Charles Gibson:

In addition to it’s “God and war” bit, another AP story had the title, “Palin leaves open option of war with Russia.”

Somehow, when I watched the interview, I didn’t hear her threatened to bomb Russia.  In fact, she took nearly the identical position that Barack Obama has embraced: that Georgia should become a member of NATO – which would mean that other NATO countries would be obligated to come to her aid should she be attacked. (more…)

Charles Schumer: All-Too-Typical Democrat Megalomaniac Jerk

August 28, 2008

This was truly amazing, although it really shouldn’t be.

Apparently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not the only “queen bee of the universe” wannabe.

Here’s the skinny: Bill O’Reilly had Karl Rove on to give a Republican response to the Democrat’s dog and pony show.  Knowing that Karl Rove is smarter than any two Democrats, O’Reilly, in the interest of fairness, decides to have Lanny Davis and Charles Schumer come on the program under the desperate hope that they might somehow come up with a brain between them.

Lanny Davis is in the makeup room when Charles Schumer – with his entourage in tow – comes into the makeup room (no surprise that Schumer wants to wear makeup after this display of unladylike behavior).  Schumer asks Davis – a fellow liberal Democrat in good standing – what he’s doing there.  And when Davis explains that they’re going to be on the program together, Charles Schumer erupts into a diva-like tantrum and storms out.  Schumer can be heard on the phone shouting at someone; one of Schumer’s “people” is yelling at someone else on his cell.

A little bit later an O’Reilly producer comes up to Lanny Davis.  Would he be okay with bowing out so the queen diva can go on the program alone? Absolutely not, says Davis.  Is that what Senator Schumer is asking for? Lanny Davis, you see, had been the original guest, and Schumer had just been a late invite (you know, for the brain-thing).

Continue reading for the meaty part of the Slate.com write up, in a minute-by-minute narrative: (more…)

NBC’s Deceptive Editing Reveals Why Bush Right and Obama Wrong

May 20, 2008

A May 19, 2008 post titled “We Help ‘The Hill’” provides illumination all too-often lacking in today’s distorted and biased media:

Matt Drudge links to a Hill story that badly needs supplementation:

The White House on Monday sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of “deceptively” editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran.

At issue were remarks Bush made in front of Israel’s parliament earlier this week.

Specifically, White House counselor Ed Gillespie laments that the network edited the interview in a way that “is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that [Bush] agreed with [correspondent Richard Engel’s] characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it.

“This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts,” said Gillespie in the letter to NBC News President Steve Capus.

That does not present much with which to opine on the merits of the dispute.

Here is a transcript of the interview in question via Newsbusters, the White House release of the full interview, and Bush’s Knesset speech. [Marc Ambinder reprints the White House letter.]

Gillespie objected to “both initial questions”; here is the first as presented by NBC:

RICHARD ENGEL: Good morning, Meredith. I started by asking the President about his controversial comments he made in Israel, which Democratic candidates interpreted as a political attack. 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.

Left on the cutting room floor was this:

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 Adolph 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 a vision of what’s possible in the Middle East.

So Bush did in fact dispute Engel’s characterization of the speech. Here is the next question as presented by NBC:

ENGEL: Negotiations with Iran. Is that appeasement? Is that like appeasing Adolf Hitler?

BUSH: No my, my, my position, Richard, all along, has been that if the Iranians verifiably suspend their enrichment, which will be a key, key measure to stop them from gaining the know-how to build a weapon, then they can come to the table and the United States will be at the table.

Omitted:

…then they can come to the table, and the United States will be at the table. That’s been a position of my administration for gosh, I can’t remember how many years, but it’s a clear position. We’ve stated it over and over again.

But I’ve also said that if they choose not to do that — verifiably suspend — we will continue to rally the world to isolate the Iranians. And it is having an effect inside their country. There’s a better way forward for the Iranian people than to be isolated. And their leaders just need to make better choices.

Like a body after an autopsy, it’s them parts that got cut out tend to matter most.

President Bush states that it’s not “talking” to dictators that qualifies as “appeasement,” but rather the failure to take the evil intentions repeatedly stated by evil regimes seriously. But that got cut from NBC as being an irrelevant point.

I posted an article titled Iraq War Justified. I begin with the fact that the “experts” in both the intelligence community and the media utterly failed to understand Saddam Hussein’s evil and therefore refused to comprehend his repeatedly stated intentions until after he invaded Kuwait.

In the 1930s, the world failed to take Hitler seriously. They simply refused to believe that he would push the world into war. In the 1990s, the world failed to take Saddam seriously. They simply refused to believe that he would push the world into war. And now we have Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly stating that they intend to annihilate Israel, and the world is failing to take them seriously. We are taking lightly an Iranian administration that buys into a cataclysmic Armageddon theology, whose president has said, “I Have a Connection With God, Since God Said That the Infidels Will Have No Way to Harm the Believers”; “We Have [Only] One Step Remaining Before We Attain the Summit of Nuclear Technology”; The West “Will Not Dare To Attack Us.”

And there’s that legitimate question that Obama has not been pressed to answer, namely: if you meet with these people, what do you intend to say to them? Just what is it you think you can accomplish with your words that a legitimate, longstanding American foreign policy position has failed to achieve?

Also omitted were two-thirds of his answer to the question, “Negotiations with Iran. Is that appeasement? Is that like appeasing Adolf Hitler?”

President Bush’s answer: “No my, my, my position, Richard, all along, has been that if the Iranians verifiably suspend their enrichment, which will be a key, key measure to stop them from gaining the know-how to build a weapon, then they can come to the table and the United States will be at the table.”

And combined with the part that got left out by NBC: “Then they can come to the table, and the United States will be at the table. That’s been a position of my administration for gosh, I can’t remember how many years, but it’s a clear position. We’ve stated it over and over again.

But I’ve also said that if they choose not to do that — verifiably suspend — we will continue to rally the world to isolate the Iranians. And it is having an effect inside their country. There’s a better way forward for the Iranian people than to be isolated. And their leaders just need to make better choices.

Clearly, the editorial intent was not to clarify the president’s position, but to leave it as murky – and thus as easy to mischaracterize and attack – as possible.

The question is, if we are NOT going to declare war and launch a massive invasion of Iran, just what ARE we going to do? And the position of the United States – along with most of the civilized world throughout the course of modern history – has been to attempt to isolate dangerous and offensive regimes as a course to force them into change.

That has obtained far superior results to “I’m going to give them a nice, long moral lecture.”

Some years back, liberals cheered and encouraged the use of the isolation policy to bring about the downfall of apartheid South Africa.

But we’re going to change course now, and – instead of trying to force a regime to come into line with a policy acceptable to the world – and – instead of trying to repudiate a despicable regime’s depraved record by refusing to dignify their policies – we are going to start reaching out and talking to them.

Barack, before you try to put your policy to work in Iran, why don’t you go to some of our state prisons and try to have a nice chat with a few of our most violent inmates? [“Guard, will you release this man from his shackles before you leave? I want to have a real conversation with him, without preconditions”]. Tell me how it works out for you.

There are plenty of countries that would love the prestige and influence of a dialog with the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. The privilege of such a visit – which brings status, legitimacy, and benefits – should now be accorded to the most vicious, murderous regimes bent on terrorism and quite possibly even Armageddon.

Neville Chamberlain talked with Adolf Hitler three times, and all it got him was the title of the worst APPEASER in human history. But you know what they say: records are meant to be broken.

Hey, maybe all those countries who have wanted a state visit with the President of the United States but haven’t gotten one should start massively supporting global terrorism and building their own nuclear weapon. Call it ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’ diplomacy.

More Americans would probably realize just how stupid Obama’s policy really is compared to the Bush policy he has been vilifying, but we have media like NBC to insure that they don’t get the full story.