Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search "Jewish Current Issues"

Israel News

  • Israel News Ticker

Boker tov, Boulder!

Blog powered by Typepad

« The Democratic Party and Jews | Main | Happy New Year -- 5767 »

September 22, 2006


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...


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.


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.


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. . . .


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."


The comments to this entry are closed.

Article Archive