The News That Was Not Fit to Print

Demonstrators protesting outside the UN headquarters in New York on Wednesday, calling for the release of abducted IDF soldiers. (AP)

Between 35,000 (according to police estimates) and 40,000 (according to bloggers who were there) were at the solidarity rally for Israel outside the U.N. on Wednesday.  The event was covered admirably by the blogosphere:  LGF and Atlas and Elder of Zion have great pictures, and One Jerusalem has remarkable videos of the speakers. 

The posts by Anne Lieberman, California Yankee, Jerry Gordon, Peg Kaplan, Ed Morrisey, Scott Johnson and Meryl Yourish were particularly impressive, and the New York Sun again demonstrated it is the most essential newspaper in New York. 

The bloggers all criticized the MSM for the anti-Israel animus underlying its virtually total failure to cover the event.  But there is actually a more important point:

When there is a demonstration involving tens of thousands of people, on the steps of the United Nations, when the attendees include the Governor of New York, a Foreign Minister from a nation in the Middle East, three Ambassadors, prominent individuals such as Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz, and when -- in addition -- one of the speakers is . . . the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, you might (if you’re the MSM) check in and see if he says anything significant, since he is appearing at an important moment in a highly visible public forum.

I think John Bolton did say something that fits that description, something historians may have occasion to revisit.  Thanks to One Jerusalem, we have the video of his speech.  The following is a JCI transcript, worth reading in its entirety (even better with the video), but the most important part is bolded at the end:

It’s really heartening to see this crowd here today -- very heartening for me to have a chance to leave the United Nations building, walk across the street and come out here in the sunshine. 

I want to say that the President yesterday gave I think the clearest statement of American views of liberty and democracy in the Middle East that any president has ever given.  He spoke directly to the peoples of Middle Eastern countries who suffer under tyrannies and authoritarian rule.  He spoke of the hopes of people in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that seek democracy.  He talked about of the importance of spreading democracy in countries like Lebanon and Syria. This is critical to the long-term resolution of the conflict in the Middle East.

But we have a long way to go, sadly, until we get to that point.  The first thing we can do is what Security Council Resolution 1701 calls for.  We want the unconditional release of the captured Israeli soldiers.  [Crowd calls “Free Them Now!  Free Them Now!”]  That’s exactly right.  That’s exactly right.  But we want a lot more too.  We want a lot more too.  We want Iran and Syria to give up their sponsorship of international terrorism.  Iran alone contributes over a hundred million dollars a year in support to Hezbollah.  It supplies Hamas, as does the government of Syria.  These practices have to end if they want to be accepted into the community of civilized nations.  So we want that too.

But we want more than that too.  We want Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  And I can tell you that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological or chemical -- in the Middle East is a profound threat, not only to Israel, to the United States, to our friends in the region, but to the world as a whole.

And let me just say this is not simply a problem of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.  It’s a worldwide problem.  We speak of the “axis of evil.”  We mean, for example, North Korea’s proliferation of ballistic missile technology into the Middle East.  North Korea is the world’s largest proliferator of that technology, selling and dealing to regimes like Iran.  So it’s not just Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.  It’s Iran pursuing longer range and more accurate ballistic missiles as well.

We have laid down a foundation.  We have said to the Iranians “we the United States are prepared to talk to you, even though you continue to support terrorism, because of our concern about nuclear weapons.”  This is an extraordinarily generous offer by the United States.  We ask only one thing of Iran:  that they stop their pursuit of uranium enrichment activities.  And to date the Iranian government has refused to do that.  We have made it clear until they do that, unequivocally and verifiably, we will move for sanctions -- not just in the UN Security Council, but against financial institutions.  We will pursue the President’s Proliferation Security Initiative to stop the flow of weapons and materials and technology of mass destruction.

President Bush has been very clear on this point to Iran.  He has been very clear.  He has said over and over again it is “unacceptable” for Iran to have nuclear weapons.  And what he means when he says “unacceptable” is, that it is unacceptable.  [Emphasis on last word by Bolton].

So there is a lot we want out of the region because we want peace, we want stability, we want freedom.  I thank you all for coming here today.  I appreciate the honor of being here.  And good luck to all of you. 

When the Head of State (directly or through his authorized representatives) says to another nation that its possession of nuclear weapons is “unacceptable,” the use of that word is (as I’ve noted here and here) significant in itself. 

But more than that:  you don’t say that word repeatedly; you don’t explain that its meaning is self-explanatory; you don’t present it without qualifiers or adjectives or modifiers; you don’t have it said officially (on the same day) by your Secretary of State, UN Ambassador and White House spokesperson; you don’t have it repeated later by your Vice President; and finally, you don’t re-emphasize it on the steps of the United Nations, to a crowd of tens of thousands, with the head of state of Iran in the building behind you -- you don’t do all that and then accept an Iranian nuclear weapon. 

There may be various tactics in pursuit of your strategy, pursued in successive stages.  But having said that word repeatedly, one thing you cannot possibly do -- not simply because of your regard for your reputation, or your place in history, or even simply because of your concern for the credibility of American diplomacy in the future, but rather because you know that, in fact, the problem is a threat to the whole world -- is leave office with it unhandled. 

If it is unacceptable, you don’t go home and accept it.  And one thing we have learned in the last six years is that George W. Bush means what he says.

The message Wednesday was undoubtedly meant not only for the crowd, but -- since it was delivered in a highly visible public forum by an important official of the United States -- for Iran.  By choosing not to cover it, the MSM not only violated basic principles of journalism (and the NYT its own credo), but missed the most important story of the day. 

Comments

[Bruce Abbott]

It is time for all of us to stop funding the legacy media. I still look at it if I can do so for free, but I don't spend one cent on TV, Radio, or print commercial news, or Public broadcasting either. De-fund them...

[DaMav]

This is particularly disgraceful when you consider that the MSM will send a full news team to cover Cindy Sheehan talking to a crowd of 20 or so.

[J. Lichty]

Hate to be wet blanket guy, but Bush has a history of saying things that he does not follow through upon.

June 24 turns into the road map. Leaders not compromised by terror turns into the man behind Muhich, Abu Mazen.

Bush was also very harsh on Israel in his speech -- "daily humiliation of occupation" blah.

I voted for Bush twice and generally support him, but I have little faith that he will not be forced by inaction to "accept" a nuclear Iran.

The only way to stop Iran is by force and Bush has used up all political capital on the Powell doctrine in Iraq and appears to have used up all will to egage in an expansion of military operations in the ME due to the democratic party's love affair with the global test.

I still hold out a glimmer of hope for Bush, and realize that if anyone would do something, George Bush is about the only modern president (or even putative candidate) who would do anything.

Unfortunately, the problem with preemption is not that it is not justified, it is that the hand-wringers in the democratic party (and many in the republican party - Lugar, Hagal etc will cry holy hell if we attack another country without being attacked first. They will say - Iran never attacked us or Israel with nuclear weapons, we could have used diplomacy.

Of course that is the problem with preemption. You have to get the guy BEFORE he gets you, and democrats (at least while they are out of power) will never countenance such an opportunity to use it as a way to return to power.

Unfortunately, the only country whose populace would truly understand the necessity for preemption is Israel, and without the US support that will take one of the most courageous moves ever by an Israreli PM. Olmert is not that man and BiBi is likely not that man unless he has truly put country before his own political career (which could either be cemented or placed in cement shoes by such an action).

Sorry for the rambling post, but to circle back, John Bolton's words are not terribly reassuring, and I have resigned myself to the fact that we will see a nuclear Iran before my oldest kid starts kindergarten.

[Tom W.]

Bush will act against Iran. There's no doubt in my mind. Recall his speech of Sept 5:

"Imagine a world in which [extremists] were able to control governments, a world awash with oil and they would use oil resources to punish industrialized nations. And they would use those resources to fuel their radical agenda, and pursue and purchase weapons of mass murder. And armed with nuclear weapons, they would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act.

"I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either. America did not seek this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence and a clear strategy."

Also, Bolton was just on Rush, telling us that this crisis is a test for the U.N. Security Council. Reading between the lines, he was clearly signalling that the Council will not act, but we will.

[S Silverstein]

At this point, I believe it's necessary to ask the question: is the MSM's ignoring such an event of their own volition, or are they being paid to ignore it and events like it?

[S Silverstein]

Regarding the MSM's near-boycott of the rally at the UN as proven by the Internet news aggregation search engines, I believe this is a more serious issue than one would like to admit. This is especially true considering the notable figures who spoke at the rally, as recorded by Rick Richman.

Is the MSM boycott of the rally unprecedented? It might be. I believe the MSM pundits are still not exactly aware of how powerful a tool something as conceptually simple as google news is for revealing bias (e.g., see my comment at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006672.php regarding Nick Berg).

Such a boycott suggests two possibilities:

1. The MSM -- or some central body they are de facto controlled by -- acted out of their own ideology;
2. The MSM -- or some central body they are de facto controlled by -- was pressured by someone (or seduced by someone) into ignoring the story.

The implications of either are rather profound.

I believe the MSM should be called to the mat to find out exactly why and how this story was essentially boycotted.

[Tom Grey - Liberty Dad]

The MSM boycott is terrible.

I'm sure Bush won't "accept" an Iran getting nukes -- but fear that a pre-emptive, unilateral oil- export/import sanctions will be a big political problem, and perhaps the most Bush can do, politically.

I wish the Reps would come out and accuse the Dems of accepting Iran having nukes -- and having Dems deny it or not. It should be a real issue. It's not yet.

[eneri]

MSM don't really care about anything except $$$ and viewers. Riots and controversy get $$$ and viewers.

Also, like the rest of the world, they are scared of the riots and murders, perpetrated by the "peaceful religion" when their actions are held up to the world.

Plus they will be barred from getting interviews if they upset the poor little terrorists.

[RR]

Two more straws in the wind:

1. John Bolton was interviewed on September 22, 2006 by Rush Limbaugh. The interview included the following exchange:

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: . . . This week was a charm offensive by Ahmadinejad. He's now gone back to Iran, canceling actually a few appearances here, but look, the Iranian government, even before him for the last three years has been throwing sand in the eyes of the people who are concerned about their nuclear weapons program. That's their tactic to avoid real scrutiny, to avoid the pressure they need to be put under to give up that program. Right now, they're in a stalling mode trying to avoid what has gotta be the inevitable consequence here that they give up their uranium enrichment program. We're giving our European friends a little bit more time to work on that, but if the Iranians don't come through on that point we're prepared to move for sanctions here on the Security Council.

RUSH: Why would they give it up? I mean, this is something, just in a commonsensical way, I don't understand. Why would any kind of pressure force people like that who definitely want to join the nuclear club to give it up? What sanctions are going to harm him? I know war is the last option anybody wants to take, and these are stages that we must go through, but is there some acknowledgement of the threat this man and if he actually leads this country and makes decisions for it, poses?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, I think President Bush has been all over this for the past couple years, and he said many, many times in public, and I've heard him say it in private, that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. . . .

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092206/content/interviewjohnbolton.guest.html

2. Lawrence F. Kaplan, in The September 21, 2006 New Republic Online:

"But the most powerful argument for eventual action rests with President Bush. "The Iranians may be feeling their oats, and they may think the administration is back on its heels," says Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "but they're misreading American policy, the amount of strike power we have, and, most of all, President Bush himself." While Rice, with one eye to the Europeans, has convinced the president to give diplomacy a chance, Bush has also vowed privately not to leave office with Iran's nuclear program intact. An adviser who has discussed the subject with the president says, "[Bush's] response is visceral; he's adamant: 'They won't have nukes.'" Says an official familiar with Bush's thinking on Iran: "If Rice and Burns don't get results, at some point--it could be a year from now--the president's going to tell the Europeans, 'You've had your chance.'"

"One way or another, they insist, the matter will be settled before Bush leaves office. But perhaps not that long before."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061002&s=kaplan100206