Around the Dial

Katie Couric interviews Kofi Annan

I happened to be flipping through the dial on the tv and came across this gem. Earth to Katie. Stop doing interviews when your questions are so clearly partisan that the earth gets knocked off its axis because of the bias.

Sample question (paraphrased):
Katie: Do you agree with President' Bush's choice for Ambassador to the UN?
Annan: To his credit, Annan answered this question with class and accurately - he stated that it was the US ambassador to the UN and the US choice.

Katie, dear, please don't interview people if you don't have a clue as to how stuff works. You should have known better than to even ask the question. The United States chooses who it wants to represent the US at the UN. Not the other way around. Our ambassadors work for us, not for someone else. Does it matter what Kofi thinks of our choices? Absolutely not. Kofi is going to look out for his own interests, not ours.

Tom Friedman on Imus
Where have you gone, Tommy F, our nation turns its lonely eyes towards you...

Tom Friedman used to have tremendous insight into Middle East affairs. However, he's picked up some of the worst traits of his fellow op-ed contributors at the NY Times editorial page. He sees the world through the prism of the Times, not how the world really works.

He was opining that the US didn't have enough troops at the outset of the Iraq war. He says that the US may have set things in motion that are good. He's amazed that Iraqis continue to line up for security/military/police jobs despite their continually being targeted by terrorists.

He believes that terrorists are too concerned with defeating the US in Iraq, in the heart of the Islamic world, to deal the US a blow on US soil. He believes that we're winning the war, although he can't come out and directly state this.

How do I know that he, in his heart of hearts knows the US has won this war? Because Friedman knows that Iraqis are lining up for those jobs despite the terrorists continuing their deadly games. Iraqis - and indeed many in the Middle East are tired of the status quo and want something better for their kids. This situation would not have occurred had the US not acted decisively with respect to Iraq.

Friedman thinks that the terrorists are only concerned with defeating the US in the Middle East and that they'll stop there. He couldn't be more wrong. The Islamists seek to dominate the entire world, not just the Middle East. Their timeline for victory is measured in decades and centuries, not the 24-hour media cycle. However, the terrorists are going to try and secure a media victory even though they lost the tactical and strategic war in Iraq - so they continue their deadly bombings. But don't think for one moment that they haven't stopped plans for attacking the US at some point in the future. The terrorists know the power of the media, and the media is sympathetic to their cause because they can't stand US hegemony and power, especially when it is used by someone who is of a political affiliation other than their own. So, the terrorists continue to stage major terrorist strikes in Iraq, killing dozens of Iraqis at a time, hoping that the media will characterize things as a quagmire - to make the Vietnam comparison - knowing that the Vietnam conflict was lost by the media, not by the military.

Friedman thinks that the US made numerous mistakes in the conduct of the war, yet he has to find ways to slam the Administration over their conduct of the war. It is silly, except that he knows that the people who read the Times as their bible would revolt. So, he has to play his games.

And we play ours.

UPDATE 12:00PM EDT:
MSNBC has the interview. The critical section of the Couric/Annan interview is reprinted for your review and scorn:

Couric: John Bolton, as we know, is the President's choice for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He has still not been confirmed and some have questioned if he's the right man for the job. In 1994 he said if the U.N. building lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Does John Bolton have your support?

Annan: Well, it is the responsibility of the President of the United States to designate his representative to this organization. I will wait to see what happens.

Couric: You're wiggling out of this, Mr. Secretary General.

Annan: No, no I’m not.

Couric: Does John Bolton have your support?

Annan: Let me say I have worked extremely well with all of the previous U.S. ambassadors. I expect if he is selected I will be able to work effectively and cooperate with him as I have done with the previous ambassadors.

Couric: Do you wish it were someone else who had been nominated?

Annan: I don't want to step on the president's turf.

Couric: You're being very diplomatic. The U.N. has a 50-member team in Baghdad. Could the U.N. be doing more than it is now?

Again, Couric doesn't have a clue, can't buy a clue, and doesn't want to buy a clue on how ambassadors for the US operate. They do not need the approval or consent of those nations or organizations to which they will be stationed. They serve the US first, foremost, and solely. Couric doesn't understand this basic fact, and was trying to press for a statement from Kofi about this. Why? To show that Kofi doesn't like Bolton? What does that achieve? To get Bush to change his nominee? That isn't going to happen. If anything that would strengthen Bush's resolve to get Bolton approved - just to stick it to Annan and the UN.