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.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
advertisement
About the broadcast | Biographies
RSS is an easy way to get the news you want as it is updated even if you are not on MSNBC.com. More information about MSNBC.com's RSS feeds.
Podcasting brings you audio and video from each weekday broadcast on your iPod or other portable MP3 player anytime, anywhere. More information about MSNBC.com's podcasts.
Sign-up for our daily e-mail newsletter. It offers a preview of the stories and special reports featured on each weekday broadcast.
In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush talked for the first time about the threat of Shia extremism, placing it and the leading Shia extremist group, Hezbollah, alongside Sunni extremism, and al-Qaida, as threats to the United States.
Speaking of al-Qaida, the President stated: "These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah, a group second only to al-Qaida in the American lives it has taken.
"The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale." (Click to read the full transcript of Bush's speech.)
What's going on here? Is the U.S. planning an attack on Hezbollah?
The ability of Hezbollah to resist the Israeli Army, leading to the resignation of the Israeli Army's chief of staff, has indeed given Hezbollah new status. Moreover, the administration believes that the Shia militias in Iraq are now as much a problem as the Sunni extremists and they have modeled themselves after Hezbollah. And of course, behind it all, the administration sees the hidden hand of Iran. (Iranian officials at least publicly admit to “influence” with Hezbollah, but not “control” over it.)
But there is division within the administration over how far to go in threatening Hezbollah. No one disputes the threat, with many administration officials believing Hezbollah is a more capable terrorist group than al-Qaida, IF it mobilized against the U.S. Many see even Hezbollah's military commander, Imad Mugniyah, as a bigger threat than Osama bin Laden, because of Bin Laden's isolation and Mugniyah's open power in Lebanon.
A key part of this dispute is whether to go after Mugniyah, who apparently has taken on the nom de guerre of Jawad Nouredine. There are those who would like the U.S. to be more aggressive in pursuit of him, before he comes after the U.S. Mugniyah is believed responsible for the Marine Barracks bombing in 1983, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 two years later, the kidnappings of western hostages, the torture and murder of CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley and the hanging of Marine Lt. Col. William R. Higgins. He even met with Osama Bin Laden in 1994, according to Bin Laden's then security chief. Mugniyah operates believing that the U.S. will not cross a "red line" and try to take him out, secure in the knowledge that the U.S. never "paid him back" for the Beirut Marine barracks, as one official put it.
Some in the U.S. government believe if the U.S. went after him, it would indeed be crossing that "red line" and inviting a Hezbollah attack against U.S. interests or more likely, the U.S. homeland. This side believes that there is no need to go after Mugniyah or Hezbollah, that they are well aware that if they attack the U.S. homeland, the consequences would ultimately be a second front in the War on Terror, something no one wants.
Read more from Robert Windrem
EMAIL THIS
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/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d834dd082a53ef
Early Nightly is up
A former State Department aide to Gen. Powell recently revealed that back in 2003, the Iranians approached the US government offering to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, assist us with the situation in Iraq, and give up their nuke program in exchange for a guarantee of security - in other words, they were willing to radically change their behavior for a simple promise that the US would not attack them! The offer was rebuffed by Vice President Cheney.
Even now there are Iranian officials who are chiding their own President to tone down his rhetoric and stop antagonizing the west. Those are people we could clearly deal with if our own leadership had similar wisdom.
Simple facts like this that prove the Iranians are human beings who can be negotiated with are ignored or disdained by those who prefer a cartoonish good-versus-evil version of reality. To paraphrase James Baker, we negotiated with the Soviets throughout the decades when they threatened us with nuclear annihilation. So why can't we negotiate with Iran?
Jack, Scottsdale, AZ (Sent Jan 25, 2007 3:35:40 PM)
Adil: Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army IS fighting American forces and has been for years.
Mr Windrem: You are an INVESTIGATIVE reporter? The administration doesn't see a HIDDEN hand of Iran. No sir, they see very clearly the facts that you seem to have missed, or are simply ignoring. Shia terrorists declared war on us many years ago. In 1979, maybe you will recall that Shiite extremists took hostage a handful of Americans and held them for 444 days in IRAN, with the full support of IRAN's goverment. They are now supplying weapons, funds, and fighters to kill American servicemen in Iraq. Maybe these facts don't fit well with what you wish to report about the current administration? Maybe the truth doesn't matter in investigative journalism if it clashes with your political leanings? While the left accuses George Bush of fear-mongering when it comes to terrorism, here is a perfect example of it. Your version attempts to scare Americans into believing Bush is the threat, attacking and planning attacks without provocation or reason. It is you and people like you who will share much of the blame when, not if, these fanatics strike us again, bigger and better than before. You are telling Americans there is ne need to worry about radical Islamic terrorists, but to worry about our wacky, war-mongering president who is causing them to hate us in the first place. You ,sir, are so, so wrong, and you know it.
Stan B. Counted, USA (Sent Jan 25, 2007 10:48:18 AM)
We should remove ourselves from this and any conflict in the world where the conflict is not governed by our "rules". We are not allowed to fight in a way that insures our victory so we should always use "diplomacy" as our battle plan. War is a nasty, horrible human activity that does not lend itself to being regulated. With that fact alone it should be apparent that armed conflict of any kind, with rules, is a contradiction of concepts. We should just pull our guys out and not worry at all about world or anyone elses opinion of us in doing so. In future it should also be announced that if the US has to engage in armed conflict it will be of a fierce, masculine, and barbaric nature that will either end in victory for us or annihilation for everybody. STOP PLAYING WAR. Either do it or just resolve to talk all conflicts out.
(Sent Jan 25, 2007 7:21:16 AM)
I have a crazy idea..Remove our troops from Bagdag and surrounding hotspots and redeploy them along borders with Iran and Syria. We can control the borders from outside influence. Our enemies can still fight us and die and go to heaven. And Iraq can figure out what we nad so many others learned long ago.
John...COls, GA (Sent Jan 24, 2007 11:33:07 PM)
I couldn't agree more than with Jack of scottsdale! Much like president Carter indicated in his new book, we the US and Israel are causing much of the negative reaction to us. Having believed we would Attack Iran "no matter what" since the axis of evil speach, it has been interesting to watch the slow and methodical manipulation of the public to get us to this point. You could see it coming, in other words, a mile away. Whether justified or not, no other superpower could permit having the US control so much of the middle east. China and russia would be forced to side with the iranians. One blogger said it best: "bush is a uniter alright... He's united our enemies!"
Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Jan 24, 2007 9:56:52 PM)
Iraq was a mistake in which we are now deeply and inextricably entrenched. Our goals in Afghanistan are failing. Are we now going to branch out to Iran and Lebanon? Secure Iraq's borders, do what you can to end the Iraqi conflict and get out. Then PLEASE explore alternative energy sources like you've been promising for the last 7 years. If you are successful, we won't have to deal with these crazies anymore.
F. Pinkham Richmond (Sent Jan 24, 2007 6:17:10 PM)
Hello Dear Robert,
The calamity is if Muqtada AL Sadr decides to fight the Iraqi and US forces. This mullah has thousands, if not millions, of supporters in Iraq. We have no idea about the level of fighting ability of his Mahdi Army. If the level has reached the level of Hezbollah’s fighting capability, then the condition in Baghdad and Iraq will be disastrous. Fighting will bring more fighters and battles, and no one will know the evolutionary outcome. It is safe to suggest, however, that the Iraqi Arab forces will leave the seen, and the Kurdish forces will be killed by the other Arabs. Our troops will be in the middle and will pay the ultimate price. If President Bush thinks that he can control Iraq by fighting radical Arabs, he is really making another historical mistake, because the Iraqi mullahs will not be divided for him. They will fight as a cohesive group. In fact, the surge may unite the Iraqi Arabs against the foreign occupiers
Adil Mouhammed, Springfield, Illinois (Sent Jan 24, 2007 5:35:56 PM)
In case you missed it, Robert Windrem, Iran has been threatening for quite some time now, and nearly on a daily basis - to bring about the end of Israel and the U.S. - should we sit idly by and allow them to do it?
One_American (Sent Jan 24, 2007 4:55:14 PM)
Israel and the neo cons want the US to attack Iran. The latest propaganda barrage about the threat from Hezbollah et al is part of an attempt to scare the public into supporting military action.
I noted last night Bush was claiming again that terrorists "hate freedom," and that's why they want to kill Americans. It's a curious explanation, since people in the Middle East have no idea what US style freedom is and therefore have little basis to hate it. Never does he mention the real reasons radical Muslims hate us: our unconditional support of Israel; our lack of concern over the plight of the Palestineans; our military bases on sacred Saudi soil; our sitting back and doing nothing last year while Israel bombed Lebanon, etc.
Of course if the American public knew the real causes of terrorism, there may be a public policy debate - and we can't have that. It's a lot easier to paint your adversaries as irrational madmen (the same way the Japanese were described in WWII) so the public will be docile and go along with the chosen policy.
Jack, Scottsdale, AZ (Sent Jan 24, 2007 2:57:00 PM)
If he wanted the Sunni to have the upper hand he should have left the place alone. Why he is injecting himself (by that I mean "us" - he can personally inject himself any time he wants) in this ceturies-old dispute is beyond imagination. If this is still Jesus handing down tha battle plans then we need to impeach.
J.D. Seattle (Sent Jan 24, 2007 1:50:29 PM)
W. is posturing for an Iranian intervention while confusing the current state of affairs in Iraq with Sunni and Shia sectarianism. Not quite stating that an ongoing civil war is taking place, the president did implied the strife of this quite accurate state of affairs. If I didn't know any better, I would say that he was attempting to obfuscate the general condition in Iraq and Iran last evening.
Provenance (Sent Jan 24, 2007 12:31:08 PM)
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.