From WashingtonPost.com Convention Update: (my responses are not from WashintonPost.com)

Advance Excerpts: Obama's Speech
The Obama campaign has released advance excerpts of his remarks, "The Promise of America," set for delivery later tonight. He is expected to say:

"Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

<Of course, if they believed in America, you might expect they would raise him in America, not Indonesia>

"It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

<Nothing here about government handouts.  Interesting.  Check out Michael Medved>

"It is why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

<Again, the American Dream is about the American people, their hard work and courage, not the government giving you what you want.>

"We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war,

<We've been at war for quite a while.  Whether you start counting from 9-11, the USS Cole, the African Embassies, the Lebanese Embassy bombing, the first bombing of the twin towers or even back to Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, we've been at war for quite a while.  The only difference is that now, we have been fighting back.  Finally.>

 our economy is in turmoil,

<Two reasons for our economic problems.  Energy, caused by our inability to drill at home and to build refineries and not to mention nuclear power plants, and Housing, caused by our well intentioned efforts to make sure everyone can afford to buy their own home.  Well, not everyone can afford to buy a home and what happens when you buy a home you can't afford?  You lose your house.  The effect of this is overstated.  The rate of foreclosures is not that much higher than before.  The rest is panic and misguided consumer sentiment.  Who kept us from drilling, building refineries, building nuclear power plants and getting people buying homes they can't afford?  This is when the American Dream took a left turn.  Well, the republicans may have cooperated, but that is republicans acting like democrats.  The answer to that is NOT more democrats.>


and the American promise has been threatened once more.

<The American promise is being threatened by an appealing radical many people think can be president>

"Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less.

<I like the quantification here.  More out of work from when?  From the unsustainable technobubble of the 90's?  From the depression?  Whatever Obama wants to say, he can't refute the fact that we are still at an enviable 5% unemployment.  The Dems are talking about our economic mess, but no one is giving any numbers other than comparing where we are now to the technobubble.>

More of you have lost your homes and more are watching your home values plummet.

<How many people have lost their homes when they bought homes they could actually afford?  If you buy a home you can't afford, you are going to lose it.  The rest is panic.>

More of you have cars you can't afford to drive,

<Well, I could never understand the infatuation with huge SUVs, the rest is fuel prices.  See above.>

credit card bills you can't afford to pay

<Well who is holding a gun to your head?  If you can't afford it, don't buy it. And don't EVER keep a balance on your credit cards.>

and tuition that is beyond your reach.

<I went to a state school.  Where did Obama go to school?  It didn't seem that skyrocketing tuition was beyond his reach.  But of course, he is better that the average man.>

"These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed presidency of George W. Bush.

<The response is more damaging that the challenges.  The "failure to respond" may be noted by history as some of Bush's greatest actions.>

"America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this."

<True.  But we are also a better country than the socialist country Obama dreams of.>

***

"This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive.

<And we will, as long as the government doesn't muck with it.>

Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third.

<Better a Bush third than a Carter second>

And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

<High flying rhetoric comes down crashing and burning with a reference to an old sitcom.  Obama and I are remarkably alike in age, and I also used to watch "Eight is Enough."  But not even Dick van Patten ever actually said, "Eight is enough.">

"Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect.

<We are going to be hearing this until next November.  There is as much sincerity in this as in the Clintons' declarations that Obama is qualified to be President.>

And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

<This has never endeared McCain to republicans.  But at least he HAS been bipartisan.  The only claims that Obama has to bipartisanism is his work on the Ethics bill.  But, a) that assumes that ethics is not something democrats want (they finally admit it) and b) this bipartisanship ended when Obama was taken aside by party leaders and told not to cooperate.  After that, he didn't.  How disingenuous is it to claim to have gone against your party when you worked on something but then you quit when you were told to by your party>

"But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time.

<Well, this is a good thing, except that some issues in that missing ten percent were biggies.>

Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush was right more than ninety percent of the time?

<What does it say about judgment when whenever you say something substantial, you need to clarify your statement the next day.  Whose judgment would you prefer to emulate, Bush or Resko, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers?>

I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change."

<I'm not even sure what this means.  But let me say something about change.  There is a scene in Stand and Deliver where Escalante is driving Pancho's car.  Pancho has decided to leave the calculus class so that he can work in his uncle's auto shop making real money.  Escalante asks Pancho where he should turn.  Excited and agitated, Pancho finally tells him turn right here.  They end up at a dead end.  Escalante tells him that that is his problem.  Always concerned about the next turn, never on the destination.  Change for change's sake is bad.  Movies and TV shows agree with common sense.  People who want a change because "Things couldn't get any worse," find out to their misery that they always can.>
***

"You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

<Yes and no.  When you measure progress by what people who work hard can achieve, as when they talk about the personal histories of Mr. and Mrs. Obama and Biden and the Clintons, then that is exactly the measures republicans would use.  When they talk about what the government should do for people, then, yes, they do have a different measure.  Trouble is, why are they applying the republican measure to themselves and a different measure for everyone else?>

"We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put away a little extra money at the end of each month so that you can someday watch your child receive her diploma.

<Well, this sounds pretty good.>

We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

<One word.  Technobubble.  What use is creating 23 million jobs if they are bound to disappear BEFORE the end of your term?  Obama may find it very hard to replicate the 23 million new jobs unless he can invent a new internet.  Hey, if Bill and Al can do it, why not Obama?  And the millions of new jobs created under George Bush will be around for a long time.  Longer if Obama doesn't get his hands on them.>

"We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

<You don't honor the dignity of work by paying people a living wage not to work.  You don't honor the dignity of work by giving people almost as much money for not working as for working.  You don't honor the dignity of work by taking money away from those who are working to pay for someone in the company half of their salary because they choose not to work so they can bond with their new baby.   You don't honor the dignity of work by taking a bigger tax bite so people will have less take home pay for the same work.>

"The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight."

<Well he is standing there because of a superb speech he gave at the convention four years ago, but never mind.>
***

"That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

<That would be nice (if you excuse the expression) for a change.>

"Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

<Lobbying is not strictly a republican sin.  And, although many people would like to change this, Don Quixote would look at this windmill and give up.  Certainly the freshman senator from Illinois won't be able to do this.>

"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

<So the companies will give up taking jobs overseas and move there altogether to avoid the increased tax burden that Obama is promising.  Net result:  fewer jobs in America>

"I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

<Of course during the primaries, after being told that increasing capital gains taxes does not result in an increase in revenue, Obama said that he would increase capital gains taxes anyway, not out of a need for revenue, but as a matter of fairness.  I should be pleased that he wants to eliminate certain capital gains taxes for some companies, but a) this is probably one of those promises (preceded by flowers and chocolates) that are promises you don't intend to keep.  In any case by the time small businesses and start-ups actually have capital gains, they probably would no longer be considered small businesses or start-ups>

"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

<First of all, for all of the spending he is promising and all of the tax cuts he wants us to believe he will propose, he will need additional revenue.  What he would discover (as all democrats need to discover) is the problem with taxing the top 5%.  Taxing the top 5% (beside the lack of fairness) doesn't get that much revenue because the tax base has so few people.  You can't expect the top 5% to provide all of the revenue that they will need for all that they want to provide for the remaining 95%,  95% is a lot.  5% is very little.  In addition to the fact that most middle class Americans are amazed to find out how low the income threshold for 5% really is.  Ultimately, the only way you can finance all that the democrats promise is to raise taxes on the middle class.  Which will Obama (and his democratic congress) give up first:  the promise not to tax the middle class, or their pet projects?>

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

<If he really meant this, he would allow drilling and he would allow us to build more nuclear power plants.  You can't do this with everything else alone.>

"Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

<The last thirty years (1978-2008) includes the aftermath of the Arab Oil embargo, two years of a Carter presidency, the entire presidency of Bill Clinton and many years of democratic controlled congresses.  Of course it is McCain's fault.  In referring to the amount of oil we import, we also have to consider how much more oil we are producing and how much more oil we are consuming.  Our economy has grown tremendously.  Our production and consumption of oil has skyrocketed.  The problem is that our consumption has grown faster than our production.  But allowing drilling and nuclear power plants would have had a much greater effect in reducing our oil imports than the increased fuel efficiency standards and increased government investments in renewable energy.>

"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

<This is a big statement from someone who was telling us not too long ago to check the pressure on our tires.  "Stop-gap" and "not a long-term solution" are strange things to say when the democratic argument against drilling used to be that we wouldn't get a return for ten years.  But in the near future, (say twenty to twenty-five years) drilling and nuclear power will provide much more power than non-nuclear renewables.  But of course we should do both.  The choice is not one-or-the-other.  The choice is, for each alternative, whether or not we do it.  Let's say yes to all.>

"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology,

<"Invest."  Good word.  It points out the lie in the democrats' energy programs.  Private industry will invest private money in anything viable.  If we need government money, it is because it is not viable.  Energy companies are investing in clean coal.  We don't need additional government investment.>

 and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.

<In splitting this up, I hope you didn't lose the subject here.  The subject (look back to verify if you don't believe me) was "I".  As in, "I will find ways to safely harness nuclear power."  On the one hand, I do not think working as a community organizer qualified someone as Nuclear Engineer.  At least Carter really was a nuclear engineer.  I suppose this is related in some way to the new internet he will invent (see above about the 23 million new jobs).  What this probably means however, is that unless we can find ways to harness nuclear power safely, he won't allow it.  This means he won't allow it.  It already is safe.  It is safer now that 30 years ago. Chernobyl was a Soviet design run by Soviet workers.  Three Mile Island, catastrophic as it may have been, killed not one person, gave no one cancer, and released very little radiation.  It already is safe.  If he is going to wait until it is safer, he is telegraphing that he will not allow nuclear power.  He just doesn't want to admit that he will not allow nuclear power.>

I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America.

<Market forces are taking care of this.  They are doing this out of self-preservation.  Did you notice that the typical hybrid is $5000 more than the comparable all-gas car? And yet there are waitinglists for many of these cars.  We do need the batteries to be built here, but, in time, any help that Obama provides will be referred to as corporate welfare.  In any case, he doesn't seem to talk about which fuel-efficient cars he talks about.  Hybrids really only provide marginally greater fuel efficiency.  Electric cars do not help if we are using fossil fuels to generate the electricity we will need to charge them.  Fuel cell cars sound great, but they are leashed to their hydrogen generating stations. And, also, we use fossil fuels to generate the electricity we need to produce the hydrogen.  As I said, if there were viable solutions on the horizon, we would not need government help.  In the meantime, I do not trust Obama or congress (or McCain or Mitt, for that matter) to decide which technologies will bear fruit and which won't.>

I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.

<More government giveaways.  More middle class tax increase.  People's hard work will achieve the American dream, but Obama wants to tell them which cars to buy.>

 And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade

<In other words, a middle class tax increase>

in affordable, renewable sources of energy

<If it was affordable, private industry would be aboard quicker that Obama can say "change">

- wind power and solar power

<both of which require more power now than we get by running them--but, of course, Obama has the engineering expertise to know which to promote and which to abandon>

and the next generation of biofuels;

<I hope, "the next generation."  What happened to the last generation?  We needed more energy to produce and to bring these fuels to market than what we saved by using these biofuels--not to mention the problems caused by taking food out of the food markets to use them as fuel.>

an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced."

<I keep repeating myself.  If it is viable, it will happen without Obama's help and it will lead to new industries and five million new jobs.  If it needs his help the industry will be tiny with few reliable jobs.>

***

"We are the party of Roosevelt.

<Like we need a New Deal giveaway>

 We are the party of Kennedy.

<Except Kennedy said we would pay any price and bear any burden in defense of freedom.  Kennedy knew that tax cuts increased revenues.  Kennedy was a democrat.  Obama is a democrat.  But Obama is no Kennedy>

So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country.

<Democrat won't defend this country.  The legacy of FDR and Kennedy is dead>

 Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe.

<Democrats won't keep us safe.  Does anyone remember the senate majority leader telling us that we had lost the war?  Does anyone remember "Willing suspension of disbelief," or "general betray-us"?>

The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans

<We removed a vicious dictator was defying UN resolutions, corrupting UN sanctions, firing at American fighters and threatening Americans.  We also killed his sons whose greatest accomplishments were the efficiency with which they raped and tortured.  We also have not had another terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11.>

 -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are to restore that legacy.

<By talking to thugs?  That doesn't work.  That never works.  It didn't work with Hitler and Chamberlain.  It didn't work with Hitler and Stalin.  It didn't work with Arafat and Camp David.  It didn't work with Arafat and Oslo.  It didn't work with George 41 and Hussein ending the first Gulf War.  It didn't work with Clinton and North Korea.  It won't work with the recent agreements  between the current administration and North Korea.  We are always talking, if indirectly.  It never works.  They will agree to what they need to agree to to get the carrot while planning ways to avoid the stick.  There is, indeed, only one word for the Obama legacy.  Appeasement.  We will get burned while we give away all our carrots.>

"As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation,

<"Unless there is a country run by a madman dictator where all of the intelligence tells us he is building weapons of mass instruction.  Because, you see I know more than everyone else, so you can trust my judgment."  He forgot to add that.>

but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

<This is Obama speak for "I will never send our troops into harm's way."  In other words, the only response to terrorists we can expect (and terrorist can expect--they know this) is long range ineffective cruise missles attacks and abandoning our military commitments to our allies and protectorates.>

"I will end this war in Iraq responsibly,

<Easy to say NOW. The surge has worked and the extra troops have been removed.  If Obama had had his say, we would have left Iraq before 2007--in a way that could never be called responsible.>

 and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

<The fight is much further along now.  Al Qaeda is emmaciated.  That was Bush.  Thank you, George.  And he would finish the fight as long as he doesn't have to send American troops into harms way.  Of course, not only would he fight in Afghanistan, but follow them into Pakistan--bombing our ally.  All they while he is having a party with our enemies in Iran.>

I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts.

<Sure.  I mean Bill Clinton was a REAL friend of the military.>

But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

<The personal force of Barack Obama's charisma will cause the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons.  Please.>

 I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism

<losing in Iraq, as Obama wanted to do a year and a half ago, would have really gone a long way toward this.>

and nuclear proliferation;

<with only the sheer power of his charisma>

 poverty and genocide; climate change and disease.

<don't forget migraines and reality television.>

 And I will restore our moral standing so that America is once more the last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."

How many of us realized, when we said that any timidity in Iraq would be seen by our enemies as reluctance to respond to aggression, that the enemy we were talking about was Russia?

In many of our minds Obama’s relationship with Pastor Wright and his handling of the Wright problem disqualify him for the job of President of the United States.  Even for mainstream Democrats, the whole situation has cast a pall over the exuberant campaign of Barak Obama.

One question that needs to be answered is whether his relationship with his Pastor itself was a deal breaker for his election.  I hope and believe that it was not.

I hope it was not because that would tell every parishioner of Pastor Wright’s church and, if we believe Pastor Wright that he is the rule rather than the exception with black churches, every member of those churches that they could never be president.  Forget hard work.  Forget whatever package of integrity, experience and ideas you plan to put together, you will never be president, and probably never even hold statewide office--once your religious affiliation is revealed.  It has disqualified you.  That would be sad.  That would indicate that this country is a little less great than I believe it is.

I believe that Obama’s campaign was not doomed from the start because I can imagine a statement he might have given at the beginning of this thing that would have told the truth, and preserved the excitement that was his campaign.  I will present an example of that statement at the end of this message.

That he did not give that message is the poison that doomed his campaign.  That he, at first denied that the statements were representative of Pastor Wright’s views, and then, after it was shown that they were, denied that he had heard them, and finally, denounced his Pastor (whom he could no more disown than he could disown his own grandmother--has anyone checked with Granny lately?) shows that he is a politician.  No more, no less.  Not trusting us with the truth or, perhaps not trusting the truth, he lies.  He is an opportunist, doing what he needs to do to get elected.  He lacks the integrity of who he is, and he lacks the confidence that that is someone whom we would want to elect.  He knows who he is, but he keeps that from us because he thinks he is not someone people would want to vote for.  He is no change.

This, by the way, explains to me Michelle Obama.  They both sat in those pews for 20 years absorbing the views of the pastor.  Barak, being a good politician, would know to keep those views out of his public life, whether he agreed to them or not. Michelle may be a brilliant woman, but she is no politician.  She absorbed and has come to agree with the pastor’s politics, but is not politician enough to hide it.  As a member of his family, Michelle should not be attacked.  but when she gives speeches on his behalf, she becomes a campaign operative and, as such, needs to be responded to.

The statement that he should have given would admit what we know from his books.  That he was captivated by the charismatic pastor from the beginning.  That the pastor was a mentor to Barak and very important to his family. But also that he was aware of the pastor’s politics.  It would explain why he stayed there for 20 years.

I do not know how much truth there is in the statement I present.  I suspect that only Barak would know that.  It may true, however, that with the tangle of lies he was woven over the past several months he might no longer know.  I am sure there is truth in it, and I believe that it is close to the truth.  I think it could have saved his campaign.  I think it is too late now, because we learned too much about him in his mishandling of the whole situation.  But this is what he should have said:

“Much has been made about my relationship with Pastor Wright, and about Pastor Wright’s political views.  I have written in my book, The Audacity of Hope, that form the first sermon I heard him give, I was captivated by his charisma and his power and his ideas.  He inspired me and guided me in my work as a community organizer.  I was very young at that time, and my political views were in flux.  Since that time, we have become close.  He has always given me spiritual guidance.  He presided over our wedding.  He baptized our children.  He has been an asset to the church and the community and for that I admire him.  In that work, I have tried to emulate him.

“As my political views have developed, my views have grown apart from Pastor Wright’s.  We have discussed politics in private.  I have never told him that he was wrong, partly because of the respect I have for him, and partly because, as you all know, it is almost impossible to try to change someone’s politics.  But he is wrong.  I know he is wrong.

“The question becomes, then, why not leave the church?  Why sit in those pews for 20 years, if I disagreed with the pastor’s politics.  The truth is, we don’t attend church for the politics.  We don’t choose which church to go to because of the politics.  The truth is, we have developed deep ties to the pastor, the church and the community. And those ties are the reasons we belong to a church.  We belong just as much for what happens the other six days as for what happens on Sunday morning.  If we could never attend a Sunday Worship service again, we would want to remain in that church.  We would want to remain members of that community.

“There is also a larger truth here.  I do attend Sunday Worship services.  I do hear Pastor Wright’s sermons.  I value what teaches me each Sunday.  Not as history, because there, he is plain wrong.  Not as political doctrine, because his doctrine is repugnant in many ways.  But what he teaches is parable.  When he compares our soldiers in Iraq to the Roman soldiers that occupied the Holy Land, I know he is wrong.  I know our soldiers are carrying out a noble mission nobly.  We may disagree about the motivation of the politicians that sent them there.  We know the handling of the war was dreadful from the start. But we know our kids are the best.  We need to decide when they can stop the noble mission and come back home to the families that miss them and need them.

“What I learn form the pastor is that  power corrupts.  Not that our power has corrupted us.  But that there is always the danger that we could be corrupted.  This is a valuable lesson for me should I become president and commander-in-chief of the most powerful country in the world.  I will always have my conscience in the form of Pastor Wright’s sermons whispering in my ear the parable of the Roman soldier, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

“When he deplores the handling of the native Americans in our history, I know that it was wrong to mistreat them.  I also know that, should we have the power to undo all of that, this country would not be a great country.  We can mourn for what happened to the American Indian. We can be thankful to be living in the greatest country on Earth, and we can learn that we need to tread lightly when in the presence of another culture, another civilization. We need to beware of how we treat the people of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of Darfur, of the Balkans, of Columbia and everywhere else where we put boots on the ground.  We can not, and, perhaps we should not undo what was done to the first citizens of this continent, but we can certainly make sure that history does not repeat itself.

“The government did not develop AIDS to kill African Americans, but from that I learn that the United States has an imperative to do what it can to try to cure AIDS in Africa.  The Israelis did not develop a nuclear weapon that only kills blacks and arabs.  But I learned that the specter of nuclear war knows no boundaries, not national, not racial, and not religious.  We cannot be blamed for the attack on our country on 9-11.  But our actions have consequences--a lesson that all leaders need to learn.

“I could go on.  I sit in that pew and I hear the extreme politics, the separatist politics, some might even say the dangerous politics of my pastor.  Some people might say they are rants.  I might agree with those people.  But there is wisdom in those rants and great men learn from people with whom they disagree.  I aspire to greatness.  I want to be President of the United States.  A great country needs a great president.  I hope to be a great president.  I believe I will be a better president because I have absorbed the wisdom, the spirituality, if not the politics, of my mentor and friend, Pastor Wright.”

According to the AP, he head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei is upset about the Israeli bombing of the Syrian Nuclear Reactor.  You would think he would be.  You would think he would be upset about the North Koreans specifically violating the  nuclear non-proliferation regime.  You would think he would be upset about the Syrians actively seeking nuclear weapons.  You would think that all of this took place without the IAEA ever finding out any of this.  The purpose of his agency is to prevent this, after all.

But nooooo.  Not a word of reproach was heard about North Korea or Syria.

He is upset that the US didn't notify him until seven months after the reactor was restored.  He should be upset at me.  He should be upset at any listener of the Hugh Hewitt Show.  We knew about this a few weeks after it happened.  ElBaradei could have found out about it if he had just googled it.

He is also upset that the Israelis destroyed it before they got a chance to verify that it was a reactor that was to be used to build weapons.

Here is a hint. Neither Syria nor North Korea followed the protocols for transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.  That alone goes to show that it was not peaceful.  Of course, the Syrians finished the job and destroyed the remains of the facility.  Nothing like a half destroyed nuclear facility to demonstrate your attempt to gain nuclear weapons.  Peaceful agents would not try to hide their efforts.  Then there is the total silence from Syria after the Israeli attacks.  If the Syrians were not doing anything nefarious, they would be complaining to the UN that they were attacked by the great Little Satan.

Instead of being livid about Syria and North Korea's violation of international protocols that ElBaradei is supposed to be policing, he gets upset at Israel for doing his job and at the US for not letting him and is agency in on it.  He is a petty bureaucrat defending his turf and caring nothing about his assigned mission.

This is just one example of the lack of credibility of so many international organizations.

At about the same time, another Syrian facility self-destructed.  Apparently, a chemical/biological weapons facility experienced an accident killing many of the Syrian and Iranian engineers in the process.  Of course, there were no WMDs in Iraq.  Not after they were smuggled out to Syria or to Iran.  In any case, it seems that we are seeing the first of these WMDs surfacing in Syria.  The liberals will continue to say there were no WMDs in Iraq.  They are now in Syria.  Or in Iran.  Or buried somewhere in Iraq.  Or . . .

Now, this has been a bad 12 months in Syria.  First, Israel bombs their nuclear reactor.  Then their WMD facility self-destructs. Then they get a visit from Jimmy Carter.