From last night’s Fox News All-Stars.
On criticism of President Obama’s speech at West Point:
The carping is because he is not clear what he meant and what he intends. It was a very strange speech. It was supposed to be a clarion call to battle … But it was so hedged and cramped and ambivalent. There was a huge reluctance you could hear in his tone.
On one hand, he sends in the troops, and on the other hand, he says we are leaving in 18 months. … You can say it’s a sop to the left, but we heard his national security adviser today in testimony say the date is fixed one. The withdrawals will start. The only question is [that] conditions will determine the pace of withdrawal.
So James Jones was saying it is a real date. That’s the reason why I think people are unsure about this. There are a lot of people on the right who think this was OK. They won the policy, and the left won the speech — [meaning] all the caveats are in a speech, but the president is committed to the surge and his commanders have at least partial victory in what they want.
But the issue is this — Is his heart in it? He spoke about unwavering resolve, and yet he talks about exit. He talks about how the security of the world hangs on this, and yet he had a whole riff in the speech about how we have to look after our economy and how expensive war is and how we have to balance the needs of our country.
That is not a clarion call.
On the recent developments in the East Anglia climate-change e-mails scandal:
[White House Science adviser] Dr. [John P.] Holdren speaks about the models. The models are based on two items — on assumptions and on data. The assumptions are quite speculative about how the globe actually regulates its own temperature, so that is an element of uncertainty.
We used to assume that at least the data was hard and good, but you cannot assume that anymore. When you see how these scientists in East Anglia who had the data of the last 150 years of temperatures and manipulated it, obviously suppressing the views of others … you have to wonder. As we know, in the 1980s the original data was destroyed. What they have now is adjusted, adapted [data]. Well, how was it adjusted? How was it adopted? We don’t know.
So all of the models are sort of in doubt. And unless the science is reestablished as legitimate — this attempt in Copenhagen to restrict the western economies and … also to shift billion of dollars overseas to create green industries in the Third World — all of that is insane if it is based on science which is now speculative.
Instead of spending all our money on Copenhagen and on [restrictive] economic actions, it ought to be spent on redoing and looking again at that research.