The Daily Nightly from NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams

About this blog

The Daily Nightly began on May 31, 2005. As Brian wrote in his first post it aims to provide a narrative of the broadcast day and a window into the editorial process at NBC Nightly News. Brian weighs in every weekday and NBC News correspondents and producers post regularly.

Brian Williams became the seventh anchor and managing editor in the history of NBC Nightly News on December 2, 2004. Read his full biography.

Early Nightly is up

Earlynightly_73Brian anchors the broadcast tonight from home base in New York, but as he travels back to NBC News headquarters, Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory delivers the vlog from Washington. The "A" block tonight will focus mainly on reaction to last night's State of the Union address, as David explains.

Click here or on the image to watch.

MAIN PAGE NEXT POST The day after

Email this EMAIL THIS

COMMENTS

Jack from CA-

What do you think the Saudi's would be doing while this was developing? They would go nuclear and Jordan has expressed an interest in becoming a nuclear nation as well. If the Saudi's could not develop a bomb quickly enough, they would buy them. They have the money and "our friend" Kim will sell to anyone. There are others also, and there is always the wink and nod from Israel. The Sunni bloc will be OK--the Saudi's have the money and Egypt has the manpower to effectively stand up to the Shia. They will because the dispute between the two sects has gone on too long for the Sunnis to capitulate.

Also Pakistan will keep up its influence in Afghanistan because they want a buffer against a potentially nuclear Iran. Remember Pakistan has a nuclear neighbor to its east--India, who will also become restive should the scenario you describe play out.

We could use all this maneuvering for balance of power in the area to our advantage if we had the guts and knowledge of the area and cultures to engage in a high stakes game of diplomacy. Unfortunately the Bush administration hasn't a clue about the nature and process of diplomacy. For starters they would do well to take note of Ben Franklin's words: "Would you persuade, speak of interest, not of Reason."

But you do make a great case for a Manhattan Project on alternative forms of energy--something we should have started in the 70's after the oil embargo. It was a wake-up call--but we hit the snooze button.

A nonbinding resolution?? They running for President, or a job at the UN? With all of Bush's mistakes I'm not looking forward to what comes next.

Brian,
With this weekend's tragic event of insurgents using US military uniforms to get through check points to a military compound, I would like to suggest that you pursue a story that looks at what issues exist, or concerns expressed by military leaders over the upcoming process of turning over more weaponry to Iraqis. My concern is that this could be considerably more dangerous to our troops during this next phase with the potential for these weapons being used on us.
Thanks for everything you do to help people better understand the issues facing us.

After listening to the State of the Union speech and the onslaught of responses from talking heads, I'm convinced that what's needed regarding Iraq is a lesson in bonehead geography.

Since most everyone, myself excluded, has some sort of fetish about Afghanistan, start there. Facing north, look to the right and find Pakistan, teetering to Islamofacism and reportedly supporting the Taliban in moving back into Afghanistan. How can you blame them? We're getting cold feet and the survival instinct kicks in.

Still standing there in Kabul, look left, and there's Iraq in turmoil. Look north and there's Iran. Look further and there's Syria, firmly in lock step with Iran. And northwest? Lebanon where Hezbollah is now rioting and threatens to overthrow the government we support... sort of.

If we pull out of Iraq, it's like a house of cards. Iraq falls into the hands of Shiite extremists and they ally with Iran which supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and then the link up with Syria and finally the squeeze on Afghanistan and then Pakistan. Nuclear threats from both Iran and Pakistan defend the area and we lose influence over two-thirds of the area's oil reserves.

Will the Saudis be safe? No. Will Israel? No. How about Jordan and Egypt. No.

If the geographic scenario I sent happens, then the next stop is Mecca and Medina. The Islamo-fascists have made it very clear that they want control of the Holy Cities. And with that comes control of Saudi oil.

Will we do anything?

No. Perhaps nominally -- James Baker and friends may come out with another report but who would care?

What would result? Two things. First the new alliance would be in complete control of the oil in the Middle East. The West would be economically at bay, particularly Europe and Japan (Russia sees this coming and has been increasing ties with Iran; the Chinese are not far behind and they are gathering up oil in South America and in Sudan). Prices would go through the roof. And people would start looking for jobs close to home so that they could walk to work. Cars would be curbed or parked in garages.

Second, Iran and friends would be virtually in total control of Islam throughout the world. I needn't say more.

(Actually, I wish I could take credit for this but it's generally available if you read a few histories of... The Crusades...)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to this post, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d83512602169e2