Redstate

Posted at 8:12am on Jul. 8, 2008 So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen?

Bill O’Reilly doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good story line

By blackhedd

Years ago, a large young man from Flint, Michigan with nothing better to do started stalking Roger Smith, who was then the CEO of General Motors Corporation. The young man, with a small film crew in tow, would stick a microphone under Smith’s nose and ask him all kinds of strange questions. Later, he assembled the pieces into what looked like a documentary but in fact was tendentious propaganda.

General Motors learned then that truth is no barrier to being smeared effectively. And young Michael Moore learned that craftily-packaged lies can change the world.

I was reminded of that when I heard that Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, showed up last week at the National Governor’s Association meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. And he appears to have gotten in front of attendee Jeffrey Immelt, who is the CEO of the General Electric Company of Fairfield, Connecticut.

What O’Reilly wanted to know from Immelt more or less boiled down to: Why are you still killing Americans in Iraq?

It turns out that this has been a hobbyhorse for O’Reilly for quite some time now. He’s generated several flaps about General Electric this year.

So this is my way of trying to cut off another one.

Keep reading…

Posted in Bill O'Reilly | Foreign Affairs | General Electric | Iran | nuclear weapons — Comments (30)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:52am on Jun. 22, 2008 When you make foreign policy in Hyde Park salons

By Soren Dayton

When you make foreign policy in Hyde Park salons you make it in a vacuum of ignorance. Take, for example, Barack Obama's Iran policy. Today, European leaders savage it Obama's Iran policy in the Washington Post. The problem is simple: Obama's promises to meet with Iran's leaders are at odds with a well-coordinated strategy with our European allies and the United Nations. And, yet again, our allies object. Read on after the jump.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Europe | Iran | United Nations — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:49am on Jun. 5, 2008 Obama is not sure what he believes on Iran

By Erick

My preacher from back home in Louisiana once wrote a book entitled Be Sure What You Believe. Many people believe many things, but there is really only one truth.

In the case of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, there is only one truth. The organization is a terrorist organization. Objectively, they are a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guard functions as much to defend Iran through normal military means as it does to surreptitiously terrorize Israel, the United States, and other enemies of the Islamic Republic.

In October 2007, the United States Senate considered the Kyl-Lieberman legislation that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The senior senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, saw no way that the law could be used as "a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran." The junior senator, Barack Obama, thought otherwise, saying "[The] Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq." (H/t to Jim Geraghty)

Senator Joseph Lieberman, to alleviate all the concerns about a pretense for attack, removed language some senators objected to.

The legislation passed with 76 of 100 Senators supporting it. Barack Obama voted against it.

Yesterday, Barack Obama told AIPAC that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be a designated terrorist organization. This comes on the heels of polls showing Obama has a problem with Jewish voters. And it is no wonder. Less than a month ago, Obama said he did not think Iran was a threat. He only ran in the opposite direction after right-wing bloggers called him out.

And now again, once the McCain camp and righ-wing bloggers dinged Obama for his views on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Obama ran in the opposite direction to ingratiate himself to a group.

To quote Senator Obama himself, "Just words?"

It is apparent Senator Obama is not sure what he believes. If he is willing to cave so fast when the right-wing hits him, how much faster is he going to cave to Iran, China, and our other enemies?

Posted in 2008 | AIPAC | Barack Obama | Iran | Obamafiles — Comments (18)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:45am on May 30, 2008 Obama in full retreat: 4 issues in 48 hours

By Soren Dayton

Barack Obama is in full retreat. In the last 48 hours, he has retreated in the following areas:

• Iran. Barack Obama, who used to call for unconditional meetings with Ahmedinejad, now wants "preparations"
• Iraq. Before, he wasn't going to go. Now he is.
• Pfleger. Before there was one offensive pastor. Now there are two.
• Auschwitz and the uncle. Except that there was no Auschwitz and no uncle.

This has got to be hugely embarassing for the Obama campaign. And good for the McCain campaign and the RNC for driving the message on all of Obama's ridiculous policies, gaffes and embarrassing connections.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | gaffes | Iran | Iraq | Pflegler — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:22pm on May 28, 2008 Barack Obama: He'll Meet With Ahmadinejad, But Not With the Troops in Iraq

By Erick

Barack Obama has not been to Iraq since 2006, when he took a *two day* tour. In fact, for all of Obama's alleged globe trotting, he has pretty much decided to form his foreign policy by reading the editorial page of the New York Times and listening to leftists in Hyde Park, instead of taking field trips to check out the scene for himself.

John McCain has invited Barack Obama to go to Iraq together. But no, Obama will not go. He'll gladly participate in a Townhall meeting with John McCain, but actually going to meet with the commanders in the field is too much.

As Jim Geraghty notes, Obama has rejected the offer calling it a "political stunt." Let's back up to the last paragraph: he'll join McCain in townhall meetings on the campaign trail, but doing so with the troops in Iraq is a political stunt.

The man who has said he would meet unconditionally with Ahmadinejad will not go meet with our soldiers in Iraq. And, as Jim says, that's fine if he thinks it's a political stunt and he does not want to go together. But Obama, thus far, *has chosen to not go at all.*

Even the media's narrative on Iraq has changed more than Obama's. The surge has had a positive impact. The media has acknowledged as much. Not only will Obama not acknowledge that, he'd rather close his eyes and not see the success.

And it's not just the troops in Iraq and General Petraeus that Obama is refusing to meet with. He won't even meet with soldiers from Illinois.

A lot of the left claims to support our soldiers, but not the war. Obama apparently cannot even muster support for our soldiers and sailors.

He's too busy planning his unconditional meetings with American enemies.

Posted in 2008 | Ahmadinejad | Barack Obama | Iran | Iraq | John McCain | Political Stunts — Comments (56)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:40am on May 27, 2008 Cohen attributes Obama Iran statements to inexperience and naivete

By Soren Dayton

The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, writing about Barack Obama's problems with his numerous and contradictory statements on Iran says:

I attribute Obama's predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would personally negotiate with Iran (if he were president), he might not have realized exactly what he was saying.

That about nails it.

And if he doesn't know what he is saying now, what is he going to do as President?

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Iran — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:00pm on May 23, 2008 International allies question Obama's Iran policy

By Soren Dayton

Barack Obama's Iran policy is getting questioned ... by our center-left European allies. From the London Times:

David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years. ...

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.

Let's be clear. Our policy on Iran was developed with our European allies, especially the UK, France, and Germany. In abandoning it, Obama is advocating abandoning commitments we have made to our allies.

This is not the first time that our allies have expressed alarm at Obama's ignorant, inexperienced proposals that break commitments we have made to our allies. Read on.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | European Union | Iran — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:59am on May 21, 2008 Richardson: Talk to Castro, Chavez, but not Ahmadinejad

By Soren Dayton

Another Democratic foreign policy leader rejects Barack Obama's foreign policy:

Well, you know throughout my career, I've talked to a lot of bad guys. You know, I have talked to Castro. I think you don't talk to Ahmadinejad. You talk to some of the moderate clerics.

So far Joe Biden, Harold Ford and others have rejected Obama too. If the Democratic foreign policy establishment rejects Obama, the American people will too.

Posted in 2008 | Ahmadinejad | Barack Obama | Bill Richardson | Iran — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:45pm on May 19, 2008 It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

By Erick

So yesterday, Obama could not classify Iran as a serious threat.

If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Today, however, Iran is a grave threat.

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said.

Just to clear things up from the New American Dictionary:

grave |grɑv| |greɪv| |greɪv|
adjective
giving cause for alarm; serious : a matter of grave concern.

serious |ˈsi(ə)rēəs|
adjective
significant or worrying because of possible danger or risk; not slight or negligible.

Ah, I see. Us working class, Jesus loving, gun toters in middle America aren't used to such flourishing nuance from a Presidential candidate.

The Soviet Union was a serious threat (glad the left finally acknowledges that). It was "significant or worrying."

Iran is a grave threat or "gives cause for alarm."

Now, it may be just be me, but it seems based on those definitions and word usages that a grave threat is actually more serious than a serious threat.

And I would have to agree here. The Soviet Union certainly could have wiped us out, but we could have wiped it out too. The players were rather rational and neither wanted to be destroyed.

Iran could wipe us out through proxies with dirty bombs, but President Obama would never wipe Iran out. The players are not rational*. Both Iran and Obama supporters are wrapped up in messianic zeal for their respective sides.

*Of course, Iran probably knows President Obama would turn the other cheek, so perhaps only one of the players is irrational and it's not the one you'd think.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Iran — Comments (83)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:44pm on May 19, 2008 "If Iran Ever Tried to Pose A Serious Threat To Us . . ."

By Erick

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Iran — Comments (0)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:50am on May 19, 2008 Barack Obama is Either Stupid or Willfully Ignorant

By Erick

There is no other way to look at this statement:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

That picture is from the Beirut Airport. It's smoke rising from the Marine barracks. 241 American servicemen were killed. Sixty Americans were injured. 58 French paratroopers were killed with 15 injured.

The attack was carried out by Hezbollah, with Iranian backing.

And Iran survives.

Barack Obama is stupid or willfully ignorant. Iran will never attack us directly. They cannot. But they will attack us with a thousand cuts through many shadowy surrogates hoping we bleed to death.

And if Obama is our President, we probably will.

Be sure to read Jenn Rubin too.

UPDATE: You're going to want to read Jim Geraghty too.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hezbollah | Iran — Comments (101)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:29am on May 19, 2008 Obama: Iran not a threat

By Soren Dayton

Watch it:

I guess that he doesn't get that whole nexus of nuclear weapons and terrorism thing. Even John Kerry thought that the greatest threat to the United States was nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. And in Iran we have a country that is funding the collapse of Lebanon and putting troops on the Israeli border. We have a country that has called for the eradication of Israel. And we have a country that is engaged in nuclear activity and has the terrorist distribution networks to really do damage when they get them.

How is that "not a threat"? No wonder Democratic leaders reject his foreign policy. He is just inexperienced and doesn't know what he is talking about.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Iran — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:42am on May 4, 2008 Iran, Sri Lanka, terrorism, and international organizations

How the international system sometime works

By Soren Dayton

Here are two facts for you about a recent change in the relationship between Sri Lanka and Iran. First, Iran makes some offers to Sri Lanka:

President Mahmud Ahmadinejad of Iran is to visit Sri Lanka for two days from April 28,2008. ... His engagements will include the inauguration of the construction of the Iranian-funded ( US $ 450 million) Uma Oya hydroelectricity project at Wellawaya in the Monaragala district. ... The visit is also expected to result in the finalisation of an agreement for Iranian financial and technical assistance for enabling the Sapugaskanda oil refinery to handle Iran’s light crude. This project is expected to result in a further Iranian investment of US $ one billion.

And:

Iran has also agreed to train the Sri Lankan Army and Intelligence officers in Iran. A team of about 10 officers has already proceeded to Iran for training. Sri Lanka has already shared with Iranian Intelligence the manuals of Israeli equipment purchased by it in the past.

In exchange, the Chinese News Agency reports the following with the headline, "Sri Lanka supports Iran's peaceful use of nuclear energy":

Sri Lanka said Tuesday that it supports the peaceful use of nuclear energy by Iran within the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The lesson? The best indicator of Iranian (and Chinese) influence is investment. Gee. I wonder how Iranian influence grows at the UN.

Posted in 2008 | IAEA | Iran | Sri Lanka | Terorrism — Comments (0)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:19pm on Apr. 21, 2008 Obama With Iran

"Realistic Idealism" Vs. "Aggressive Personal Diplomacy."

By California Yankee

I have a slightly different take on the Iranians preference for Obama than does my esteemed colleague Dan McLaughlin.

Time magazine's Scott MacLeod reports that Sergei Barseghian, a columnist for the Iranian reformist newspaper Etemad Meli (National Confidence), notes that in Farsi, the words Oo ba ma would translate as "He's with us."

Iranians are following the American presidential race. In part, because they wish to be rid of President Bush, who branded Iran part of an "Axis of Evil," and because they are taken in by Obama's false hope. According to MacLeod, Iranians favor Obama's hope rhetoric and see a President Obama repairing the U.S.-Iranian relationship:

It's not only the policy expectations that account for Obama's popularity: his Third World ethnic background and the Muslim faith of his father's Kenyan family — even his middle name, Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and a revered figure in the Shi'ite Islam practiced in Iran — offer points of affinity that some analysts believe could give Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the political cover to make a gesture of reconciliation to the country long decried in Tehran as "the Great Satan."

But it's Obama's declared willingness to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with the Iranian leadership that has generated the most interest among senior officials in Tehran, since this would mark a sea-change in Washington's approach. "Obama is a man of engagement, a man of negotiations," one Iranian official told TIME. Amir Mohebbian, an analyst close to Iranian conservative politicians, argues that "the mentality of Iranian decision makers is ready for that." He adds: "I think that the coming of Obama — maybe, maybe — helps to solve this problem, but it needs bravery, from both sides."

MacLeod, fails to mention that the U.S./Iran "30-year Cold War" is the result of Iran's seizure of the U.S. embassy and the subsequent holding of 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days -- the remainder of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Like Carter's failure to free the hostages, Obama's proposed "aggressive personal diplomacy" will also be seen as a sign of weakness that will only encourage this state sponsor of terrorism.

Read on there is more.

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Iran | McCain | Obama — Comments (20)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:39pm on Apr. 21, 2008 McCain Dares To Speak The Truth In The Battle of Ideas

Wonder Why Hamas and Iran Prefer Obama?

By Dan McLaughlin

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), "the nation's largest association of Muslim organizations," joined by one of its increasingly natural allies, the left-wing blog ThinkProgress, is pressing John McCain to stop using the term "radical Islamic extremism" to describe terrorist and terror-sympathizing groups that are undeniably radical and extremist and justify that radical extremism with appeals to a radical and extreme reading of Islam.

Or, at least, a reading that I assume is radical and extreme; one would like to believe that groups like ISNA think so. Naturally, the United States wants and needs to convince the Muslim world that this is the case, and that the terrorists aren't right when they invoke Islam to justify violence against non-Muslims and even, very regularly, against fellow Muslims. But it's hard to make that argument if you don't even acknowledge the fact that the enemy is making such use of an ideology that purports to be grounded in Islamic theology. How would you have gone about combatting the KKK without describing them as a racist group, or international Communism without arguing against Communism? ISNA's leader apparently wants to shut down precisely that sort of dialogue:

Read On...

Posted in Hamas | Iran | John McCain | Obamafiles | War — Comments (29)/ Email this page » / Read More »