Right Wing Nut House

According to the Sunday Times of London, a senior Israeli intelligence official has recently briefed Washington on the possibility that Iran is much farther along in developing nuclear weapons than previously believed:

The attack on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, came as it emerged that the head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, secretly discussed the nuclear programme with officials in Washington last week.

Meir Dagan, the Mossad chief, is believed to have passed on the latest Israeli intelligence on covert Iranian plans for enriching uranium, with a warning that Tehran may be nearer to acquiring nuclear weapons than widely believed.

[...]

Dagan, a stocky former commando who was injured in the 1967 six-day war, was sent to Washington by Olmert, the victor of last month’s Israeli elections, to prepare the way for his own visit to the White House on May 23. The Mossad boss is thought to have held meetings with counterparts at the CIA, the Pentagon and national security council. “Dagan is not given to small talk and niceties,” said an Israeli intelligence source, who believes he told the Americans: “This is what we know and this is what we’ll do if you continue to do nothing.”

The Washington Times reports on the meeting with Dagan and quotes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who appears to be the only world leader willing to stand up and tell the truth about the fanatical Iranian leader President Ahmadinejad:

Mr. Olmert, in a weekend interview with the German newspaper Bild, denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in some of the strongest language yet heard from an Israeli leader.

“Ahmadinejad talks today like Hitler spoke before seizing power,” Mr. Olmert was quoted as saying. “We are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind, with an anti-Semite. God forbid this man from ever getting his hands on nuclear weapons.”

Olmert misspoke. Hitler spoke about Czechoslovakia exactly the same way that Ahmadinejad talks about Israel after he seized power. In fact, not since Der Fuhrer was giving his impassioned orations dripping with venom against his faux enemies before his henchmen in the Reichstag has a leader of a major power talked about wiping a country “off the map.” Clearly, the Israelis are worried.

But how significant is it that the head of the Mossad would come to Washington to brief the CIA about an accelerated Iranian nuke program?

The fact that we haven’t had any leaks about this meeting prior to this weekend probably means that it strengthens the President’s case and weakens the case of his detractors. I’m sorry for sounding so cynical but the culture of leaking at the CIA would almost by definition mean that if Mossad was telling the CIA something at odds with what the White House had been saying, it would have been in print at either the New York Times or the Washington Post within a couple of days. The fact that this leak appeared in the Sunday Times and was apparently from the Mossad and not the CIA is also significant.

As far as its significance to our Iran policy, it should add more urgency to an already urgent cause. We are far from running out of diplomatic options, but before any peaceful solution can be found, the revelations by the Israelis (which dovetail with other reports leaked from the IAEA regarding Iraqi centrifuge upgrades) should require us to at the very least insist upon full disclosure by the Iranians of their entire nuclear program, including any military parts that we believe are active. This “two track” nuclear program was almost dismissed in the leaked portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear capability that came to light last summer. Perhaps its time for our clueless spooks to take another long, hard look at that aspect of the Iranian program.

We need a little more urgency in our negotiations with the Europeans as well as trying to shake the Russians and the Chinese to stop their obstructionist policies and get on the sanctions bandwagon. It may be time to name a special emissary of some kind who could work full time on these issues.

Too bad we’re sending James Baker to Iraq…

I disagree with those on the right who are skewering Stephen Colbert for his performance at the White House Correspondents dinner on Saturday night. Much of it was actually pretty funny. It’s just a pity that Colbert, in his ignorance, never realized that people were laughing at him rather than at what he was saying.

Full Fledged Moonbattery is the only way to describe Colbert’s performance. All the canards were there; Iraq, WMD, the press as White House lap dogs(??), Bush the stupid, Bush the incompetent, Bush as Machiavelli (the stupidity of trying to show Bush as both dumb and evil genius lost on the clueless Colbert), as well as the usual jokes that liberals find funny about 9/11, religion, and ordinary Americans.

The left, of course, is in rapture over Colbert’s “speaking truth to power.” I always have to scratch my head in wonderment over this little prevarication by the liberals. Does anyone seriously believe that the “power” to shape debate, set the national agenda, color the personalities, and make or break the politicians resides with conservatives? Who are they trying to kid?

If, in fact, their little fantasy about being the underdog in our national life was true, Bush’s popularity would be soaring, no one would be questioning the rationale for going to war in Iraq, government’s response to Hurricane Katrina would be seen as a success, and Bush would have won an historical landslide in 2004.

The fact that none of the above is true gives the lie to the left’s crocodile tears about the White House and Washington press corps being lap dogs of the Administration. But it is best not to disturb the liberals when they’re on a roll. Mounting the battlements of democracy and waving the bloody shirt is so much a part of their self-image that to burst their fantasy about not possessing the levers of power that allows them to pretty much have their way may cause serious damage to their delicate, albeit inflated psyches.

What the left - especially the netnuts - are complaining about is that the press refuses to “investigate” their wacky conspiracy theories. Who did Jeff Gannon sleep with in the White House? Which of Diebold’s executives are going to be charged with rigging the election of 2004? How many anti-war activists have been put in concentration camps? What is Bush’s timetable for establishing a theocratic dictatorship? Probably the same timetable for establishing a military draft.

This is why the left was swooning over Colbert’s performance. Here’s a sample of reactions:

The few glimpses that we have of the audience shows that the tension was extremely high - I don’t think any of them were expecting such a pointed, hard-hitting attack on Bush camouflaged as humor.
Colbert deserves the highest possible praise.
Finally someone with big enough balls to tell it as it is - it made me ashamed of our cringing Dems in Congress.
The MSM, which was mightily indicted by Colbert, is trying to sweep the whole thing under the carpet and is at present in hiding.

That last criticism about the MSM “trying to sweep the whole thing under the carpet” has to do with stories about the dinner that highlighted the President’s performance rather than Colbert’s tirade.

That’s right. They actually believe that the performance of a comedian (and not a very good one at that) was more significant than what the President of the United States did. “Reality Based Community” indeed.

Peter Dauo writing at Huffpo:

It appears Mash’s misgivings about press coverage are well-placed. The AP’s first stab at it and pieces from Reuters and the Chicago Tribune tell us everything we need to know: Colbert’s performance is sidestepped and marginalized while Bush is treated as light-hearted, humble, and funny.

Imagine that! How dare they cover what the President did at the expense of the man who was “speaking truth to power!”

Colbert,heed my warning. Do not fly in any small planes like JFK Jr.,Paul Wellstone,or the ex governor of Missouri who was running against Ashcroft for the senate,and whose name I am blocking.

More moonbattery from people who just aren’t happy unless the whole world is against them. And, of course, risking your life to SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!”

Oh. My. F**king. God. I would love to see some reaction photos of bush and his bitch-wife, Laura from that dinner…

On that subject, here is what “speaking truth to power” means when addressing the First Lady of the United States:

And I just like the guy. He’s a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She’s a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma’am.

I’m sorry, but this reading initiative. I’m sorry, I’ve never been a fan of books. I don’t trust them. They’re all fact, no heart. I mean, they’re elitist, telling us what is or isn’t true, or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that’s my right as an American! I’m with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.

Unfunny, tasteless, and even though I’m being a little old fashioned here…impolite.

Much more can be found at the Democratic Underground, a site I refuse to link after they published personal information of their political opponents.

It’s really a shame that the people who are admiring Colbert’s performance don’t have a clue as to what real political satire is all about. For that, you would first of all need sense of humor, something most liberals do not possess (except in a deranged sort of way like finding it funny when a child pulls the wings off of grasshoppers). Real satire can be found in the performances of comedians like Mort Sahl, the Smothers Brothers, Billy Crystal, and the great Jonathan Winters who know where the boundaries of taste are located. None of those gentlemen would have made a joke including 9/11 and the victims of Katrina:

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound — with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

A good satirist would never include the victims of tragedy - especially such soul searing events like 9/11 and Katrina - as props for an attempt at humor. Pretty sickening.

All in all, Colbert’s scattershot performance (some of his jokes were indeed, quite funny) fell flat as satire because he couldn’t get past his obvious hatred of the President. He came off mean rather than funny.

And no one likes a meany. Even one who “speaks truth to power.”

UPDATE

Goldstein:

My thoughts: the fawning reaction coming from many on the anti-Bush bandwagon is, unfortunately, par for the course these days—as is the celebration of Colbert’s “bravery,” especially when there are no real consequences for engaging in meanspirited political humor other than, say, being thought a dick.

Ends justify the means, man. Ends justify the means…