Israel Ambassador Calls Carter a "Bigot"

NEW YORK -- Israel's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday called former President Jimmy Carter "a bigot" for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, "went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas," Ambassador Dan Gillerman told a luncheon briefing for reporters.

...The ambassador's harsh words for Carter came days after the ex-president met with Mashaal for seven hours in Damascus to negotiate a cease-fire with Gaza's Hamas rulers. Carter then called Mashaal on Monday to try to get him to agree to a one-month truce without conditions, but the Hamas leader rejected the idea.

The ambassador called last weekend's encounter "a very sad episode in American history."

He said it was "a shame" to see Carter, who had done "good things" as a former president, "turn into what I believe to be a bigot."

Good call.

International Human Rights Day

Did you know that today is Human Rights Day?

The promotion and protection of human rights has been a major preoccupation for the United Nations since 1945, when the Organization's founding nations resolved that the horrors of The Second World War should never be allowed to recur.

Respect for human rights and human dignity "is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world", the General Assembly declared three years later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1950, all States and interested organizations were invited by the General Assembly to observe 10 December as Human Rights Day (resolution 423(V)).

The Day marks the anniversary of the Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Over the years, a whole network of human rights instruments and mechanisms has been developed to ensure the primacy of human rights and to confront human rights violations wherever they occur.

I have a problem with the United Nations taking a holier-than-thou stance on Human Rights.

I think it's fair to call it hypocritical.

Read about the corrupt, impotent, terrorist-appeasing, genocide-denying, anti-Semitic organization here and here and here and here.

Here's what the U.S. Department of State has to say about Human Rights Day:

Today marks the 59th Anniversary of the adoption of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that affirms the inherent rights of people everywhere and enshrines basic freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and belief.

As we join men and women around the globe in observing International Human Rights Day and Week, we recognize the noble work of human rights defenders who risk harassment, beatings, arrest and even death for seeking to secure the rights of their fellow citizens. While we applaud the hard-won gains for human rights and democratic government that have been made in recent decades, we are sobered by the fact that there remain governments that respond to growing demands for personal and democratic rights by oppressing non-governmental organizations and others who peacefully advocate for them.

The United States stands in solidarity with the brave men and women across the globe who work to defend human dignity and advance the cause of freedom.

I think it's appropriate to honor our military men and women, past and present, for their service in advancing the cause of freedom.

The American military has done more to bring human rights to the oppressed than any other body in the history of the world.

Wouldn't it be nice if the United Nations and the world would pause today to recognize that fact?

Ahmadinejad: The Evil has Landed

NEW: Columbia University president Lee Bollinger rips Ahmadinejad.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the stage at Columbia University to a blistering welcome from the president of the school, who said the hard-line leader behaved like "a petty and cruel dictator."

Ahmadinejad smiled as Columbia President Lee Bollinger took him to task over Iran's human-rights record and foreign policy, and Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger's opening was: "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."

"There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully," Ahmadinejad said, accusing Bollinger of offering "unfriendly treatment" under the influence of the U.S. press and politicians.

Yeah, right.

The suggestion that Bollinger said what he did because he was pressured by the libs that rule the press is laughable.

If there's any pressure on him, it's coming from some alumni and people who write checks to the university. Federal, state, and local officials threatening to "defund" the university got Bollinger's attention. Money talks.

Ahmadinejad is nuts.

Much of what's said in the U.S. press and by U.S. politicians is indistinguishable from many of Ahmadinejad's lines.

Shameful, but true.

If by chance libs were genuinely disturbed by Ahmadinejad and what he had to say, perhaps they need to do a little soul searching. Make that a lot of soul searching.
_________________



He's here.

Not everyone is happy about it.

Some defend him. I won't.

The Iranian president, in his own words:

"The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan."

"With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future."

"Israel is destined for destruction and it will disappear soon."

"Today, it has been proven that the Zionists are not opposed only to Islam and the Muslims. They are opposed to humanity as a whole. They want to dominate the entire world. They would even sacrifice the Western regimes for their own sake. I have said in Tehran, and I say it again here - I say to the leaders of some Western countries: Stop supporting these corrupt people."

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

"Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"Some 60 years have passed since the end of World War II. Why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved?"

"We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot not logically continue to live," he said.

"Despite the barbaric and criminal nature of the occupiers of Jerusalem, the regime and its Western supporters do not even have the power to give Iran a nasty look."


"Behold, the rage of the Muslim peoples is accumulating. The rage of the Muslim peoples may soon reach the point of explosion. If that day comes, they must know that the waves of this explosion will not be restricted to the boundaries of our region. They will definitely reach the corrupt forces that support this fake regime."

What a guy!

Ahmadinejad's propaganda arm, the Islamic Republic News Agency, reports on his New York visit:

The Iranian nation favors peace and sustainable security based on justice and spirituality, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday after his arrival in New York.

Speaking to IRNA at the hotel of his residence, the president said Iran had a clear message for the world and effective solutions for the present international problems.

"We believe that sustainable peace does not mean to impose tranquility. We believe that the world can be run much more better than the present situation. We can avoid wars, threats, bloodshed and hostilities," said the president who is here to attend the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

Criticizing the present "inhuman acts" at the international scene and the existing "unfair relations" imposed by certain countries on other world states, the president said, "All nations like to have friendly ties with each other."
Referring to the mounting pressures against Iran, President Ahmadinejad said, "They (certain powers) cannot damage the ties between Iranian nation and other countries because nobody believes them for their wrong behavior and impolite approach towards other nations.

"They have no friend in the world," noted the president.

Stressing that Tehran "is not concerned," President Ahmadinejad added, "Our strategy is very clear. We say that justice should be for everyone and everybody should be equal before the law. No one is priveleged to others and no one has the right to impose his ideas on others.

"No one has the right to use force in international relations, occupy others' lands or resort to terrorism. These are the clear stands of the people of Iran and this course will continue," stressed the president.

Liar.

AP reports:

Before leaving Iran, Ahmadinejad said the American people have been denied "correct information," and his visit will give them a chance to hear a different voice, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Ahmadinejad has appealed to the American people before, distinguishing between the population and their government. Recently, he told a television show that Iran wants peace and friendship with America.

That's not consistent with this:

"Today, it is the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime which are doomed to disappear as they have moved far away from the teachings of God. It is a divine promise."

I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think Ahmadinejad shares our definition of "peace and friendship."

UN Wants US in Iraq

Many Dems act as if the United States can't make a move without getting approval from the United Nations first.

They elevate the UN to a lofty moral position.

The UN knows best.

I wonder if the Dems still belive that the UN knows best.

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council agreed Wednesday to an Iraqi request to extend the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force after the country's foreign minister said the troops were "vitally necessary."

The council also strongly condemned the bombing of Samarra's revered Shiite shrine and urged all countries, especially those in the region, to support Iraq in its pursuit of peace.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the council members that despite the senseless violence "the government has made tremendous strides toward the day when security will be provided by a self-sufficient, Iraqi national security force."

"While Iraqis will always be grateful for their liberation from an absolute despot, no Iraqi government official — indeed, no Iraqi citizen — wants the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil one day longer than is vitally necessary," he said.

"But today, and for the foreseeable months at least, the presence of (multinational) troops is vitally necessary not only for Iraq but also to safeguard regional security and stability," Zebari said.

Iraq is requesting that the U.S.-led coalition forces remain in Iraq.

The government doesn't want American troops to leave.

That flies in the face of the anti-war crowd's claims that Iraqis object to the occupation of their country by imperialist Americans.

The United Nations disagrees with Dems and their radical lib base over their demand to get American troops out of Iraq now.

It's hard to call it an occupation when the occupied are requesting that the supposed occupiers stay right where they are.

Good Riddance, Kofi

Finally, the Kofi Annan era has come to an end.

GOOD RIDDANCE.

While Annan was Secretary General of the United Nations, the organization was steeped in scandal.

The astounding corruption, the human rights abuses, and the shocking incompetence of the UN during Annan's tenure is jaw-dropping.

Read just a little about the human rights abuses, the corruption, and the incompetence of the United Nations and its peacekeepers.

UN Peacekeepers Gun Down Congo Civilians

UN Sexual Predators

Oil-for-Food

Food-for-Sex

Annan, an anti-Semitic, terrorist-appeasing, crook, is in no position to be lecturing anyone; but he does, and he miraculously manages to be respected.

It's nuts.

The New York Times adoringly covers Annan's last address as Secretary General.

Annan bashed Bush and America.

The Times loved it.

Kofi Annan, the departing secretary general of the United Nations, challenged the Bush administration yesterday to shun go-it-alone diplomacy and remain committed to observing human rights as it acts to forestall terrorism.

Human rights???

The United Nations should be challenged to practice what it preaches.

Annan is such a hypocrite.

In a speech delivered at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library in Independence, Mo., billed as his last address to an American audience as secretary general, Mr. Annan said, “You Americans did so much, in the last century, to build an effective multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart. Do you need it less today, and does it need you less than 60 years ago?”

Mr. Annan did not directly cite the Bush administration, with which he has had a fraught relationship, but he made his rebuke of current American foreign policy clear by urging a return to “far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition.”

...Mr. Annan noted that the United States was “in the vanguard of the global human rights movement,” but said “that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism.”

“When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives,” he added, “its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.”

This makes me sick.

Oil-for-Food, Food-for-Sex, UN peacekeepers gunning down civilians, etc. -- Annan bashing America for human rights abuses is absurd, given the despicable record of the UN.

...Mr. Annan has often been at odds with the Bush administration, particularly since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 without obtaining a go-ahead from the United Nations.

Having infuriated the Bush administration two years ago by labeling the Iraq war “illegal,” he said that while observing international law could be “inconvenient,” it was essential.

In a clear reference to the lack of international support for the American action in Iraq, he said: “No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose — for broadly shared aims — in accordance with broadly accepted norms.”

First, the U.S. doesn't need the UN's blessing to do anything that its officials consider necessary for the good of the country.

Second, why didn't the U.S. get the "go-ahead" from the UN to invade Iraq?

Why did France, Germany, and China hesitate?

They were making billions from the Oil-for-Food program.

The Times fails to mention that. I'm sure that was just an honest mistake.

...He reminded his audience that Mr. Truman had once said, “We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.”

Mr. Annan also cited President Truman’s statement that “the responsibility of great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world,” and noted approvingly how Mr. Truman had used American power to face down a threat to international order during his administration.

“He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible,” Mr. Annan said. “That was why, for instance, that he insisted, when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations and placing U.S. troops under the U.N. flag, at the head of a multinational force.”

Suddenly, Truman is a hero, a great diplomat, a wise peacemaker.

What does Annan think of other decisions made by Truman.

For instance, did Truman consult with other countries before dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

That was a unilateral decision. I think he basically did as he pleased, didn't he?

...Mr. Annan paid his final visit to Washington as secretary general last Tuesday when President Bush gave a dinner in his honor at the White House. One of the guests was John R. Bolton, the American ambassador who had frequently criticized the secretary general and who had announced the day before that he was resigning.

Asked the next morning at the United Nations whether he and Mr. Annan had made peace at the farewell event, Mr. Bolton said, “Nobody sang ‘Kumbaya.’ ” The reference was to a song celebrating fellowship.

Told of Mr. Bolton’s comment, Mr. Annan said, “But does he know how to sing it?”

In its Ode to Annan, The Times just had to take a swipe at Bolton. Bashing Bush wasn't enough I guess.

Bottom line:

Annan was an absolute disaster as Secretary General. He's morally bankrupt, corrupt and anti-Semitic.

The United States does not need the UN's permission to act. We don't need to pass any global tests.

John Bolton is a gifted diplomat and was a tremendous ambassador.

The Dems should be ashamed for forcing him from his position.

John Bolton Resigns

This reminds me of It's a Wonderful Life.

I'm thinking of the part of the movie where George Bailey saw what life was like for his friends and loved ones if he had never been born.

Bedford Falls was a dark place and the people were bitter, angry, sad, or all of the above.

As we all know, George, just one person, learned that he had a dramatic and positive influence on so many people.

The resignation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the UN makes me think of that.

We're getting a glimpse of what life is like without a Republican majority in Congress.

We're not in Bedford Falls anymore. We're in Pottersville.



We have a stellar ambassador in John Bolton. He's EXACTLY the type of individual we need speaking for the U.S. at the corrupt, terrorist-appeasing, anti-Israel UN.

But the Democrats have decided to flex their atrophied muscles and block his nomination.

From the Associated Press:

Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective public servant who could help bring reform to the U.N.

President Bush, in a statement, said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate."

"They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time," Bush said. "This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation."

...The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination last month. But with Democrats capturing control of the next Congress, his chances of winning confirmation appeared slight. The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said he saw "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again."

What a mistake!

What a horrible mistake!

I completely agree with President Bush. The Dems are obstructing for obstruction's sake.

Before they took the majority, the scenario was SO different.

Remember the Bolton nomination hearing this past summer?

Read about how John Kerry and Russ Feingold made complete fools of themselves.

At that time, Bolton's confirmation seemed certain.

All was right with the world.

Now that's changed.

The Dems are tossing out a qualified and effective ambassador.

Why?

Because they can.

This is just the beginning of the nightmare.



George Bailey was never born. We're not in Bedford Falls anymore.

We're living in Pottersville and it's no movie.

HUGO CHAVEZ GO HOME

President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez addresses the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, September 20, 2006. REUTERS/Mike Segar (UNITED STATES)

Note: Read about the reaction of Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and Tom Harkin here.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be angry.

He's being upstaged at the United Nations by the nut from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

Chavez's speech to the General Assembly is definitely a Nikita Khrushchev moment.

It's not as if we haven't heard this sort of thing from him before.


And let's not forget that Chavez's circle of friends includes:

Jesse Jackson



Harry Belafonte



Cindy Sheehan



Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

And let's not forget that Chavez's past statements include:

--"You are a donkey, Mr. Bush. You're an alcoholic Mr. Danger, or rather, you're a drunkard."

--"The U.S. empire is defeated in Iraq, they just don't want to admit it. Mr. Donkey thought they were going to be received as heroes."

--"The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush."

--"If you are going to compare me to the worst criminal in humanity - the president of the US; He is an assassin. He is a criminal responsible for genocide, completely immoral.

"I believe that he should be put in jail. He has invaded a country. Are we bombing cities?"

--"The North American empire is becoming a paper tiger."

--"If it's true that the empire is taking sanctions against us, firstly it's a confirmation of imperial abuse, of imperial desperation (and) secondly we will take no notice. It is an impotent empire."

--"Israel often criticizes Hitler ... but they have done the same thing [in Lebanon], perhaps even worse. What has happened was a genocide. They must be brought in front of an international tribunal."

True to form, Chavez has delivered a blistering anti-Bush, ANTI-AMERICAN speech.

He called President Bush "the devil."

He called Americans "imperialists."

He complained about Bush leaving "the smell of sulfur" behind after addressing the UN General Assembly yesterday.

He said Bush's behavior is like that found in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He even gave it a title -- The Devil's Recipe.

He plugged Noam Chomsky's book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.

UNITED NATIONS -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush "the devil." "The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."

The leftist leader, who joined Iran last week in an alliance against U.S. influence, accused Washington of "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world."

"We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head," he said.

He also said the U.N. in its current system "doesn't work" and is "antidemocratic."

Chavez called for reform, saying the U.S. government's "immoral veto" had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month.

Just like Ahmadinejad, Chavez is echoing what we here from the Left on a daily basis. We should be used to such anti-Bush, anti-American rants.

It's no different than what fringe Leftist Dems like John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha say.

If anything can be gleaned from this week at the UN, it's that the Democrats and their mouthpieces in the lib media share a great deal in common with enemies of America.

It's clear that we have enemies at home and abroad.
______________________________

Look at how much pleasure the Cuban delegation takes from Chavez's rant.

There were probably similar scenes at DNC headquarters, and wherever else libs gather. Lots of smiles.


Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, foreground left, and members of the delegation listen to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez address the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2006. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
________________________________

Read about the reaction of Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and Tom Harkin here.

Kofi Annan's Farewell

It won't be long now and there will be a new secretary-general of the United Nations.

The world should respond to Annan's "emotional farewell" with tears of joy.

The astounding corruption, the human rights abuses, and the shocking incompetence of the UN during Annan's tenure is jaw-dropping.

UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed for nations to unite against human rights abuses, religious divisions, brutal conflicts and an unjust world economy in an emotional farewell on Tuesday. But his remarks were overshadowed by a military coup in Thailand and the Iranian president's fiery defense of his country's nuclear program.

Annan's opening address to the 61st annual U.N. General Assembly hit many issues on the ambitious agenda that leaders of the 192 member nations confront — reviving a stalled Mideast peace process, curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, getting U.N. peacekeepers into conflict-wracked Darfur and promoting democracy.

...Annan, whose second five-year term ends on Dec. 31, said the past decade had seen progress in development, security and the rule of law — the three great challenges he said humanity faced in his first address to the General Assembly in 1997.

But the secretary-general said too many people are still exposed to "brutal conflict" and the fear of terrorism has increased the risk of a clash of civilizations and religions. Terrorism is being used as a pretext to limit or abolish human rights, and globalization risks driving richer and poorer peoples apart, he said.

"As a result, we face a world whose divisions threaten the very notion of an international community, upon which this institution stands," Annan said. "The only answer to this divided world must be a truly United Nations."

That's hard to achieve when the secretary-general of the UN is an anti-Semitic, terrorist-appeasing, crook.

He also decried the continuing conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region, less than two weeks before the mandate for the African Union peacekeeping force there expires.

"The continued spectacle of men, women and children driven from their homes by murder, rape and the burning of their villages makes a mockery of our claim, as an international community, to shield people from the worst abuses," Annan said.

It takes a lot of nerve for Annan to be lecturing about human rights abuses, given the fact that under his watch the UN engaged in the very behaviors that he decries.

Read just a little about the human rights abuses, the corruption, and the incompetence of the United Nations and its peacekeepers.

UN Peacekeepers Gun Down Congo Civilians

UN Sexual Predators

Oil-for-Food

Food-for-Sex

...Annan's voice rose with emotion as he described his "difficult and challenging but at times also thrillingly rewarding" job.

"Together we have pushed some big rocks to the top of the mountain, even if others have slipped from our grasp and rolled back," the secretary-general said. "I yield my place to others with an obstinate feeling — a real obstinate feeling — of hope for our common future."

The presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, ambassadors and other diplomats in the General Assembly chamber burst into loud applause and rose to give their departing leader a sustained standing ovation.

They should be cheering, jumping for joy, over the fact that in three months Annan will be history.

Annan was less interested in bringing the world together than in advancing his personal agenda.

Ahmadinejad Plays Khrushchev

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. (AFP/Timothy A. Clary)


Addressing the United Nations General Assembly isn't as glamorous as doing a sit-down on 60 Minutes, but it's still a world stage. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seized his moment. (Does the guy own a tie?)

The little man from Iran decided to bash the Unites States, guns blazing.

He didn't take off his shoe and bang it on the desk. He didn't yell, "We will bury you." It wasn't as dramatic as Nikita Khrushchev's UN performance, but Ahmadinejad did go on offense.

I'm sure he savored that -- attacking the U.S. on U.S. soil.

I'm sure the Middle Eastern delegations loved it.

I'm sure the fringe Leftist Americans, the MoveOn-types, were thrilled by it, too.

UNITED NATIONS -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took aim at U.S. policies in Iraq and Lebanon Tuesday in an address to world leaders, and accused Washington of unfairly attacking Tehran's nuclear program, which he insisted was peaceful.

Taking the stage at the U.N. General Assembly hours after President Bush, he also accused the United States of having double standards by criticizing his country's nuclear program while maintaining its own nuclear weapons arsenal.

Ahmadinejad insisted Iran's nuclear activities are "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye" of United Nations inspectors and reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as it faces accusations that it is seeking to develop atomic weapons.

He's a liar.

Enough said.

...Ahmadinejad accused some permanent members of the Security Council who wield veto power — an obvious reference to the United States — of using the decision-making body as a tool of "threat and coercion."

"The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the U.N. organs can take them into account?," he asked.

"If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council," and take the roles of "prosecutor, judge and executioner," he said. "Is this a just order?"

I think it's odd that Ahmadinejad is whining about the U.S. controlling the UN.

In fact, many in the U.S. government (Dems) want to subjugate the U.S. to the whims of the UN. We can't make a move without getting the UN's approval. As John Kerry put it back in 2004, everything we do must pass that "global test" to be legitimate.

Moreover, what about the other permanent members of the Security Council?

Which of the "UN organs" holds France accountable, or China, or Russia?

He pointed to Lebanese suffering during the recent Israel-Hezbollah war as an example.

"We witnessed the Security Council ... was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a cease-fire," he said, referring to the fact that the conflict lasted 34 days despite calls for an immediate truce.

It's a two-way street, Mahmoud.

The Israelis suffered during its clash with Hezbollah. They are routinely threatened with annihilation, being wiped off the map.

Also, it's completely unfair to accuse the U.S. and Britain with holding the UN hostage.

France, China, and Russia regularly "incapacitate" the Security Council when they cater to radical regimes.

The Iranian leader also had harsh words about U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying "the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq" and every day hundreds of people get killed "in cold blood."

Where have I heard that before?

I remember! John Murtha!

He said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent [Iraqi] civilians in cold blood."

John Kerry also talks that way, saying that American soldiers go into the "homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

Except for Joe Lieberman, virtually every Dem U.S. Senator echoes Ahmadinejad's words on Iraq.

Libs are on the same page as the Iranian president. That's nothing a good thing.


Protesters cheer at a demonstration against US President George W. Bush and the Iraq War at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza near United Nations Headquarters in New York. Around 400 anti-Iraq war demonstrators marched through New York at a protest timed to coincide with President George W. Bush's address to the United Nations.(AFP/Nicholas Roberts)

Ahmadinejad claimed that numerous terrorists apprehended by the Iraqi government were "let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers."

"It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq," he said.

What a nutjob!

(I suspect UW-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett will embrace Ahmadinejad's conspiracy theory and discuss it in his class on Islam.)

Why would the Bush administration try to keep the cycle of violence going in Iraq?

We don't want to be there. We want out as soon as possible, as soon as it makes sense.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledges applause during the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. (AFP/Timothy A. Clary)

Bush spoke directly to the people of Iran saying America respects Islam, the Iranian nation's rich history and culture and that he looks to a day when the two peoples "can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."

That's very different from 2002 when Bush said Iran was part of an "axis of evil."

That's an extremely misleading thing to say.

BUSH HAS ALWAYS DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN A COUNTRY'S LEADERSHIP AND THE COUNTRY'S PEOPLE.

The people of Iran, as a whole, are not our enemies. Bush never said that they were evil.

When we went into Afghanistan, we didn't go in to wage war against the people. We fought the Taliban. Similarly, the people in "axis of evil" nations are not our enemies. They are oppressed, victimized by their leaders.

It's false for the Associated Press to claim that there has been some sort of fundamental change in how the Bush administration views Iran's people.

The problem is Ahmadinejad and the militant Muslim clerics of Iran, not Iran's people.

Clearly, Ahmadinejad showed that the "axis of evil" is as evil as ever.

Bush's UN Speech

President Bush speaks at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, September 19, 2006. (Ray Stubblebine/Reuters)


Quick analysis: President Bush's address to the UN General Assembly was great.

He said exactly what needed to be said.

Speaking directly to the people of Middle Eastern countries was genius.

Transcript

From The New York Times:

President Bush appealed today to the people of Iran to take control of their future and said their leaders were squandering resources in a quest for nuclear weapons, but he hastened to add that the United States was pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran.

In a 21-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Bush directly addressed the people of a number of Middle Eastern countries, saying the United States wanted to support democratic reforms, defeat extremism and convince them it was not acting against Islam.

Bush spoke the truth.

“To the people of Iran,” Mr. Bush said. “The United States respects you. We respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture and your many contributions to civilization.”

“You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential,” Mr. Bush said. “The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation’s resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons.”

Again, all true.

...“Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,” Mr. Bush said. “Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran’s pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.”

This statement has a lot of wiggle room.

It's the U.S. position that Iran is NOT pursuing a nuclear power program. It's pursing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. isn't against a peaceful Iran. It's against an Iran led by a nutjob who vows to destroy Israel.

As he spoke, members of the Iranian delegation in the hall watched and listened without expression, at least in the scenes that were broadcast on live television.

It wasn't just the Iranian delegation that sat stone-faced as Bush spoke.

Every Middle Eastern delegation that was shown on TV looked expressionless, to me. I suppose nodding in agreement with Bush could mean being beheaded is in one's future.

“We’re working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis,” Mr. Bush said. “And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.”

The president’s vision of a close partnership with Iran was an optimistic one, given the anti-American sentiment that has smoldered among the people of Iran since Washington embraced the dictatorial Shah Reza Pahlavi during the cold war. Mr. Bush spoke, as he often has, of his belief in the power of freedom to transform lives and regions, and to heal old wounds between nations.

“As liberty flourishes, nations grow in tolerance and hope and peace,” he said.

As usual, liberals in America aren't optimistic.

The Dems don't believe in the power of freedom in the Middle East.

...He urged Middle Eastern countries to develop democratic measures, and he highlighted recent elections, although limited, in several countries including the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain.

“We must stand with democratic leaders and moderate reformers across the broader Middle East,” Mr. Bush said. Acknowledging that political freedom is limited in some Middle Eastern countries, including allies of the United States, he said, “Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions.”

The Dems aren't able to grasp this truth either.

He also revisited the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, saying that Lebanese civilians had been caught in a “crossfire” of a war started by Hezbollah.

In remarks that reaffirmed his administration’s policies, Mr. Bush applauded the elections and new government in Iraq and the “purple-ink-stained fingers” of the voters who installed it, while promising to defend Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban. The president’s reaffirmation of his Iraq strategy came shortly after the top United States commander in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, said that sectarian violence makes it unlikely that American troop strength in Iraq can be trimmed before mid-2007.

Mr. Bush also chided the government of Syria, which he said has turned a proud country into “a crossroad for terrorism” and “a tool of Iran,” thus deepening Syria’s isolation from the world.

With respect to Darfur, Mr. Bush urged Sudanese leaders to approve a peacekeeping force there to end what his administration has called genocide.

Mr. Bush announced that Andrew S. Natsios, a former United States Agency for International Development administrator, would serve as a new envoy for the Darfur region.

Hear that, George Clooney?

Hear that, Russ Feingold?

The Left heaps praise on them for being advocates for action in Darfur. What great humanitarians!

When Colin Powell was Bush's Secretary of State, he called it genocide and appealed to the UN to act. The Bush administration has long been concerned about the situation. Does the President get credit?

Of course not. The Leftists criticize the President for not taking action to quell the genocide in Darfur.

Do they condemn the United Nations with the same vitriol that they direct at President Bush?

No.

The Leftists need to take notice. Today the President spoke to the United Nations, the organization that refuses to use the term "genocide" regarding Darfur.

Bush wasn't afraid to call the crisis what it is. He challenged the United Nations on its failure to address the human rights violations.

Bush, supposedly the worst terrorist in the world, is UNILATERALLY doing something to help.

The UN, on the other hand, is still arguing over the definition of "genocide." And in the meantime, people are being killed in Darfur.

In short, the UN is not the great hope that the Left and John Kerry and those of his ilk claim it to be, not even close.

This morning, before his speech, Mr. Bush met with President Jacques Chirac of France about Iran. “We believe time is of the essence,” Mr. Bush said, seated next to Mr. Chirac. “Now is the time for the Iranians to come to the table.” Mr. Bush looked a trifle stiff, but he made no mention of Mr. Chirac’s shift on position on Monday, in which the French leader said that talks with Iran might not have to wait for that country to cease uranium enrichment.

Did anyone really expect Chirac to be trustworthy?

Once again, France appeases hostile regimes.

...Iran, however, has said it will not suspend uranium enrichment. And Mr. Bush said flatly on Friday that he would not meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad at the United Nations — or anywhere else — if the Iranian leader did not first comply with his demands.

Aides to Mr. Bush bristled Monday at the notion that they were trying to avoid a chance run-in between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Bush in the United Nations hallways. Contending that they were giving no extra attention to the possible walking route of the Iranian delegation or the Iranian leader’s bathroom schedule, they said that to do so would only help to elevate the stature of a man they would rather diminish.

The only ones claiming that great pains are being taken to avoid a chance meeting between Ahmadinejad and Bush are goofs like those at The New York Times.

How silly! How typical of the lib media!

I can just imagine how The Times will report on the charming Ahmadinejad's upcoming speech.

Stay tuned...

We Need John Bolton

There's no question about it.

John Bolton is the right individual to represent the United States at the United Nations.

However, a battle is looming. John Bolton's recess appointment is set to expire in January 2007.

Flash back to a little over a year ago. During confirmation hearings for John Bolton, President Bush's choice to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the Democrats brutally attacked him. They threw everything they had at him. And, they did manage to temporarily derail his nomination. President Bush, of course, responded by doing the right thing by appointing the right man to represent the U.S. at the UN.

Naturally, the Dems were horrified. What arrogance! Certain disaster awaited.

Poor Republican George Voinovich was in tears.

What a difference a year makes!

George Voinovich has managed to dry his tears and actually commend Bolton for a job well done at the UN.

It's clear that Bolton is a stellar ambassador. At this critical time in history, with turmoil in the Middle East, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran defying the international community, and Kim Jong Il conducting missile tests, Bolton has represented the interests of the United States with skill and integrity.

In short, we need him at the UN.

Dems, of course, think otherwise.

At a hearing on July 27, 2006, Dems showed their intentions to obstruct Bolton's nomination again.

While Kerry was questioning Bolton on North Korea, this exchange took place:

KERRY: Well, the most that you seem to want is to go back to a six-party talk that isn't in existence.

BOLTON: No, no, quite the contrary. We said expressly...

KERRY: Are you prepared to go to bilateral talks?

BOLTON: Quite the contrary. We said expressly that what we wanted from North Korea was not simply a return to the six-party talks, but an implementation of the September 2005 joint statement from the six-party talks which would mean their dismantlement of their nuclear weapons program.

KERRY: But this has been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador.

BOLTON: It's the nature of multilateral negotiations, Senator.

KERRY: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done? That's what the Clinton administration did.

BOLTON: Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed. And I would also say, Senator, that we do have the opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks, if North Korea would come back to them.

How perfect, and how true!

Kerry held the Clinton administration up as the model for successful diplomacy and Bolton completely destroyed him by pointing out what a dismal failure the Clinton administration proved to be on North Korea.

Russ Feingold was equally clueless at that hearing.

Dana Milbank writes:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) appeared to be particularly agitated about Bolton. As he prepared to question the nominee, Feingold furiously scratched out items on a 24-point list, which he had scribbled on wrinkled yellow legal paper in black, red and blue ink. The list, which the senator later discarded, was entirely illegible.

But Feingold, too, was in the strange position of scolding Bolton for being insufficiently tough on Iran, North Korea and the U.N. Human Rights Council.

How funny that Feingold's multi-colored 24-point list was utterly pointless!

Apparently, Feingold thinks that pretending to have deep thoughts is just as good as actually having deep thoughts.

What's not funny is that the Dems are serious about derailing Bolton's nomination.

We cannot let that happen.

Majority Leader Senator Bill Frist wants to enlist the power of the blogosphere to help in the effort to assure the confirmation of John Bolton and prevent the Dem obstructionists from engaging in more recklessness and irresponsible antics.

You can help by calling the offices of Democratic Senators to voice your support for John Bolton.

You can join the campaign by going to Blogging for Bolton.

Optimistic Mohamed ElBaradei

I think Mohamed ElBaradei needs to remove his rose-colored glasses.

From the Jerusalem Post:

Head of the UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei expressed optimism about his visit to Iran when he arrived in Tehran late Wednesday night to meet with officials about the country's controversial nuclear program.

"The time is right for a political solution and the way is negotiations," the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told journalists.

The time is always right for a political solution as opposed to a military solution if it's at all possible. Unfortunately, while the UN hemmed and hawed, Iran defied the international community.

Iran has shown it is not interested in cooperating. Instead, Iranian General Hassan Firouzabadi huffed, "When a people master nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, nothing can be done against them."

And he puffed, "The West can do nothing and is obliged to extend to us the hand of friendship."

Does this sound like a country interested in negotiating?

Iran seems to be looking to instigate trouble, not trying to avert it.

"I would like to see Iran come to terms with the requests of the international community," he said, explaining the purpose of his trip as being "to clarify remaining outstanding issues about Iran's nuclear program."

ElBaradei expressed hope that the visit would "bring Iran in line with the requests of the international community to take confidence-building measures regarding suspension of nuclear activities until outstanding issues are clarified."

What does ElBaradei think he is? A miracle worker?

Ahamdinejad and the Iranian government have made it clear that they have no intention of bowing down to any nation.

Iran isn't going to fall in line with any of the requests made by the international community regarding its nuclear program.

From the Associated Press:

Ahmadinejad repeated his call on foreign governments to "recognize and respect Iran's rights" -- presenting a fait accompli to Western powers which have been battling to prevent Iran from acquiring sensitive nuclear know-how.

The firebrand president has also called for a no-holds-barred acceleration of enrichment work.

Iran's nuclear milestone was achieved on Monday -- at a pilot plant of 164 centrifuges in Natanz -- with uranium enriched to 3.5 percent, or the purity required for civilian reactor fuel.

This, said Iranian vice president and atomic energy chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, "paves the way for enrichment on an industrial scale" using an enormous 110 tonnes of UF6 feedstock gas already produced.

He also said Iran was "determined" to complete work within three years on a heavy water reactor in Arak -- which critics say which could also produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon.

..."The nuclear fuel cycle is complete, the beginnings of a powerful Iran," the conservative Iranian daily Resalat trumpeted, calling for a week of "national celebration" and a new annual public holiday to mark the event.

Someone explain to me why ElBaradei is optimistic about his talks with Iran. I see no reason to be. None.

ElBaradei's optimism is ridiculous.

It's akin to Neville Chamberlain declaring that the Munich Pact assured "peace in our time."

Big, Bad Bolton Goes to Yale

The Yale Daily News reports on John Bolton's return to his alma mater to address students in a speech hosted by the Yale Political Union.

Before getting to the substance of his appearance, I must point out another error by a liberal bastion. This is getting to be a trend.

Yesterday, it was the DNC that couldn't spell "Miers" correctly. I attributed the Dems' carelessness to their state of euphoria induced by the Miers nomination, although ignorance is also a possible explanation.



Today, I found another mistake. This time, in the caption accompanying the story on Bolton's visit, those intellectual giants at Yale had some spelling problems of their own. "Jon" Bolton is the U.S. Ambassador to the UN according to the Yale Daily News.



United Nations Ambassador Jon Bolton ’70 LAW ’74 speaks with students after his speech hosted by the Yale Political Union. During his speech the ambassador discussed U.S. foreign policy and his post at the United Nations. The Ambassador drew hisses from the rowdy crowd which filled SSS to capacity. (HAN XU/CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER)

You'd think that the elite at Yale would be capable of spelling Bolton's name correctly. You'd think that would be the case, but I guess it's unfair to expect too much from the students at Yale. They grew up in the pre-"No Child Left Behind" era.

Am I being too nit-picky?

Of course, I am. People make mistakes.

However, when Dan Quayle adds an "e" to "potato," or when President Bush mangles a word, the Left goes berserk. I'm simply highlighting their ridiculousness.

On to substance--

Under the headline, "Bolton agitates audience," staff reporter Jessica Mardsen writes:

In his address, which defended the Bush administration's foreign policy, Bolton argued that voluntary contributions from states would allow major donors such as the United States to choose to fund the U.N. programs that they believe to be the most efficient. But while fielding questions from impassioned students packed into Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall, Bolton candidly discussed issues such as nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, the war in Iraq and his own confirmation battles.

...The audience interrupted Bolton throughout his speech with loud banging on desks and hissing, the typical YPU expressions for approval and disagreement. When asked about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bolton said the U.S. -- not other countries or international organizations ­-- should hold its own citizens accountable for possible abuse.

"We don't need anybody else to judge us," he said. "We judge our own."

The answer prompted loud hissing from the audience, but Bolton offered students a question of his own.

"I'm just curious, those of you who are hissing, who do you think will judge better than us?" he asked the audience.

...The lecture's organizers said they did not predict the degree to which Bolton's words would divide the audience.

"If we had known he was going to be this provocative, we would probably have tried to have a student debate to hash out the issues," YPU Speaker Goran Lynch '06 said.

Some students said they thought Bolton was too controversial and combative, reflecting U.S. Senate Democrats' concerns about his ability to be a successful diplomat.

..."He was extremely rude, extremely belligerent, everything the Democrats called him in confirmation hearings," Jed Glickstein '08 said. "He was all those things, but in the end he won the debate."

While an undergraduate, Bolton was a member of the YPU and served as floorleader of the Right in addition to serving at the helm of the Conservative Party. In an interview with the News after the speech, Bolton said he modeled his presentation and answers to questions on the best speakers he remembered from his days in the YPU, those who provoked discussion and offered controversial opinions.

"The best speakers at the YPU were the ones who debated with the students," he said.

First, that headline assigns the blame for the audience's outbursts on Bolton. He agitated them. It's as if they were victimized by big, bad Bolton.

How silly!

One student called Bolton "extremely rude, extremely belligerent."

I think that an audience hissing during a speech is somewhat rude and belligerent.

Am I being too judgmental or is there a double standard at work?

I think it's funny that the audience's reaction is explained away as the "typical YPU expressions for approval and disagreement."

Dems and RINOs opposed Bolton because of his fiery temperament; yet it's acceptable for the Yale audience to repeatedly disrupt Bolton during his speech.

There's definitely some inconsistency there.

Bolton apparently had no difficulty in meeting the challenge of dealing with their boorishness. Obviously, Bolton is tough. He can dish it out and he can take it.

It seems to me that he's the type of person that should be representing the U.S. at the corrupt UN. He won't accept the sorry status quo.

Given the current state of the UN, an unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous organization populated by profiteers, only good can come from Bolton's presence there.

I do want to give credit where credit is due. The group at Bolton's speech did not throw any food at the Ambassador. No pies were tossed, no spilled salad dressing.

Then again, I don't know if that was the result of the audience's decorum, or the fact that "entrances and exits to the space were guarded by members of the Secret Service and police officers."

PAINFUL FOR ALL OF US

Paul Volker, Chairman of the Independent Inquiry Into The United Nations Oil-For-Food program, presents his final report to the Security Council at United Nations headquarters yesterday.

NEW YORK -- U.N. incompetence and corruption enabled Saddam Hussein to siphon more than $1 billion from an oil-for-food program that was flawed from conception to conclusion, an independent commission said yesterday.

Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette and other close aides to Secretary-General Kofi Annan suffered harsh criticism in the five-volume report by the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC), headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which cited the complicity of U.N. member governments and Security Council diplomats.

The evidence was "not reasonably sufficient" to find Mr. Annan personally guilty of wrongdoing in a system that Saddam manipulated with bribes, political pressure and a refusal to cooperate in the humanitarian program, the committee said.

But it released new details of how Mr. Annan's son, Kojo, profited from his U.N. contacts, noting that he had phoned friends in the procurement department "at critical times" in 1998 while a company he was associated with was bidding on a lucrative oil-for-food contract.

"The main conclusions are unambiguous," said the panel. "The organization requires stronger executive leadership, thoroughgoing administrative reform, and more reliable controls and auditing."

Mr. Volcker told reporters that unless changes are made quickly, "the United Nations' credibility is at stake."

...Mr. Volcker also chastised the Security Council for politicized decision-making, tolerating large-scale oil smuggling and kickbacks, and failing to confront Saddam on obvious violations.

Beyond the $1 billion skimmed from the program, Saddam managed to smuggle some $10 billion to neighboring countries, the report said. Security Council members overlooked the smuggling to compensate Jordan, Syria, Iran and Turkey for the loss of legitimate trade with Iraq.

...Mr. Annan described the report as "painful for all of us" and immediately accepted responsibility for those shortcomings attributed to him. But he promised no firings or resignations in connection with the report's findings.

I think "painful for all of us" is an understatement.

The UN, with Annan at the helm, enabled a multi-billion dollar scheme which allowed Saddam Hussein and complicit UN member governments to profit at the expense of the Iraqi people.

That such "illicit, unethical and corrupt behavior within the United Nations" would take place under the guise of a "humanitarian" program is despicable.

While Volcker's report finds that the Oil-for-Food program did alleviate some of the suffering of the Iraqi people, offering minimal relief from malnutrition and inadequate healthcare, billions of dollars were steered away from those it was intended to aid and directed into the hands of Saddam Hussein, Kojo Annan, and corrupt officials and governments.

Security Council member nations, France and Russia, jumped on the gravy train and blocked efforts to make changes in the program to deal with the issue of corruption.

And what is Annan's response?

He called the findings "deeply embarrassing." Annan has called for no firings or resignations.

I think Annan's reaction to Volcker's report is deeply embarrassing.

Why is this guy allowed to remain as Secretary-General of the UN?

It is mind-boggling. Positively mind-boggling.

I also find it troubling that Oil-for-Food has not received the attention from the mainstream media that such a massive scandal deserves. Of course, Hurricane Katrina is the primary focus right now. Naturally, that is the big story. However, Oil-for-Food has never really been given the spotlight.

Compare the hours and hours and pages and pages of coverage devoted to John Bolton with the time and space given to exposing Oil-for-Food as one of the UN's most disgusting "achievements."

The liberal media have failed miserably. I consider them to be complicit in the corruption that permeates the UN. By failing to highlight the scandal, they have served to cover up the illicit actions of the UN.

From the Kuwait News Agency (KUNA):

US envoy John R. Bolton told the [Security] council John R. Bolton said that Saddam Hussein "exploited" the good will of the international community toward the people of Iraq.

"He exploited that good will in order to obtain billions of dollars for his personal use and for the use of his regime to strengthen his authoritarian grip on his own people," he said.

..."We have over the past several days been pushing for exactly that - only to meet resistance from dozens of countries who are in a state of denial - countries which contend that "business as usual" at the UN is fine.

He said this report unambiguously rejects the notion that "business as usual" at the UN is acceptable. "We need to reform the UN in a manner that will prevent another Oil for Food scandal. The credibility of the UN depends on it," he said.

British envoy Emyr Jones Parry told the council that "we need to remember above all that it is Saddam Hussein who remains the key culprit" in the oil-for food scandal, "seeking continuously to "corrupt the programme of personal benefit".

The corruption, criminality and mismanagement of the programme are to be condemned, but "let's not forget that the greater wrong done to the people of Iraq and to the region was done by Saddam".

Even when faced with Volcker's damning report, there is an effort to excuse the UN.

I completely agree with Bolton. This "business as usual" mindset is unacceptable.

Saddam is a murderous thug. It's no surprise that he would steal money meant to help his people.

The United Nations' actions are another matter altogether. Is the UN in the same league as Saddam? Shouldn't the world demand better of this organization? The global community should be aghast at the level of the UN's corruption.

To let the UN off the hook for its role in this scandal and to shift focus from the UN's failings at this point is unconscionable.

I reject Parry's notion that Saddam is the key culprit. Saddam and his UN partners are co-conspirators.

Iraqi envoy Samir Sumaida'i told the council that the Iraqi people have been "robbed" of their assets.

"That loss is permanent. The Iraqis paid the price for any shortcomings and the main beneficiary is the UN," he said.

"I hope this will be taken up by the council. That will at least recompense Iraq for some of the losses," he said.

...Annan stopped short of apologizing to the Iraqi people, telling reporters simply that "it was unfortunate that certainly Iraqi citizens suffered, and in fact, the whole idea of the oil-for-food scheme was to assist them".

Asked if he or any of his senior staff is resigning now that the report revealed mismanagement in the programme, Annan said "I don't anticipate anyone to resign. We are carrying on with our work".

UNFORTUNATE??? That's all?

According to Annan, it's "unfortunate" that the Iraqi people suffered, but don't expect any resignations at the UN. What an utter disgrace!

CARRYING ON WITH OUR WORK???

That's the problem. The world cannot allow the UN to carry on with their work.

The UN is a corrupt, incompetent, impotent organization. It disgusts me that liberals want the U.S. to be subservient to this international band of crooks.

Dramatic reform is needed immediately.

The first step should be to replace Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

IMMEDIATELY.

BOLTON!

Accompanied by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush announces his nomination of John Bolton, left, as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Monday, Aug. 1, 2005, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

What a great way to start the week!

As soon as members of Congress were on their way out of Washington for their August recess, Bush appointed John Bolton to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

The Senate's seats weren't cold yet and Bush made the appointment.

I LOVE IT!

PRESIDENT BUSH: Nearly five months ago, I nominated John Bolton to be America's Ambassador to the United Nations. I chose John because of his vast experience in foreign policy, his integrity and his willingness to confront difficult problems head-on. I told the nation that John Bolton would provide clear American leadership for reform at the United Nations. I told them that he would insist upon results.

The United States Senate held thorough confirmation hearings, and a majority of United States senators agree that he is the right man for the job. Yet, because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up or down vote that he deserves.

As a result, America has now gone more than six months without a permanent ambassador to the United Nations. This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform. So today I've used my constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton to serve as America's Ambassador to the United Nations. John Bolton will be an important member of my State Department team, led by Condoleezza Rice.

I'm sending Ambassador Bolton to New York with my complete confidence. Ambassador Bolton believes passionately in the goals of the United Nations Charter, to advance peace and liberty and human rights. His mission is now to help the U.N. reform itself to renew its founding promises for the 21st century. He will speak for me on critical issues facing the international community. And he'll make it clear that America values the potential of the United Nations to be a source of hope and dignity and peace.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I'm profoundly honored, indeed, humbled by the confidence that you have shown by appointing me to serve as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations. You have made your directions for U.S. policy at the United Nations clear, and I am prepared to work tirelessly to carry out the agenda and initiatives that you and Secretary Rice direct.

How did Kofi Annan and the UN react to Bolton's appointment?

From AFP:

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and diplomats said that they looked forward to working with John Bolton, the new US envoy appointed despite past anti-UN rhetoric, as the world body considers crucial reforms.

"We look forward to working with him," Annan told reporters. "We will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reforms."

"I think it is the president's prerogative and he has decided to appoint him through this process to come and represent him. And from where I stand, we will work with him as a representative of the president and government," Annan told reporters.

"We will work with him as we worked with other American permanent representatives," he added.

The UN is ready to welcome and work with Bolton.

Case closed, right? Hardly.

Look at how Dem and RINO Senators are reacting to Bolton's recess appointment.

The impotent and powerless Democrats are seething with anger today, and completely mischaracterizing Bolton's appointment.

A sampling of statements, from AP:

"At a time when we need to reassert our diplomatic power in the world, President Bush has decided to send a seriously flawed and weakened candidate to the United Nations. It's an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House. ... Bolton arrives at the United Nations with a cloud hanging over his head." — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The Senate MINORITY leader has gone off the deep end. Making a recess appointment is not an abuse of power. Clinton made 140 recess appointments. Kennedy and Eisenhower had their share as well.

Since George Washington, "presidents have made appointments during congressional recesses to fill positions in the executive and judicial branches. Under the Constitution, the president can make temporary appointments while the Senate is in recess, without Senate approval. The appointment lasts through the end of the following one-year session of Congress."

What is it that Reid doesn't understand? Does he have problems with the Constitution? Doesn't he know that this is no abuse of power?

I think Reid considers anything Bush does that the Dems don't agree with to be "abuse."

Read about other presidential recess appointments.

___

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N." — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

Did Teddy have a problem when his brother made a recess appointment? Was that devious and an abuse of power?

When I think of "devious," I think of something more along the lines of leaving the scene of an accident, and delaying a report for more than nine hours, knowing a young woman was dead in a car submerged underwater.

In my opinion, someone who has that sort of behavior in his past has a dark cloud over his credibility. It goes beyond devious. It's demonic.

___

"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations. That said, the president has made this decision, and I will do everything in my power to support Mr. Bolton as he takes this new position." — Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.

I wonder if he cried when he heard the news.

___

"John Bolton has placed his faith in a unilateral, go-it-alone foreign policy that has stretched our military thin, and I believe his inability to be an effective and constructive ambassador could produce dire consequences for American foreign policy." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Has Feinstein forgotten the dire consequences for American foreign policy that came while Carter was in office? Moreover, he nearly destroyed our military.

Clinton was also no fan of the military, cutting here, there, and everywhere.

___

"Making this recess appointment is certainly the president's right, but it is not right for America. Appointing John Bolton to the United Nations sends a terrible message to our intelligence professionals. It is the wrong signal for our intelligence reform efforts." — Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

Do you get the feeling "wrong signal" was at the top of the list of Dem talking points on Bolton's appointment?
___

"John Bolton is the wrong person for the job and the decision to appoint him today will not serve American foreign policy well at all. ... His history of inflammatory statements about the U.N. will also make it difficult for him to effectively advance U.S. security interests in New York and bring about necessary reforms to that institution." — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Obama should have a sit-down with Annan. The UN Secretary General believes Bolton is capable of working with the UN. Obama should get on board.
___

"The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it's the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs." — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

The way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs is for Senators to carry out their duties responsibly, without resorting to slimy political games.

The Dems and RINOs were bent on handing Bush a defeat, so they filibustered his nominee. In the process, they diminished THEIR validity.

___

"We filibustered the nomineee. We exercised our perogative under the law. He exercised his perogative under the law." - Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.

At least Chafee calls a filibuster a filibuster.
___

"He is exactly the wrong person to send to the United Nations at a time when we are trying to rebuild our credibility around the world. ... I now fear that we have lost an important opportunity to help re-establish the United States' global role as a moral and responsible leader." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

I disagree. Bolton is exactly the right person to send to the UN.

Rockefeller is implying that, at present, the U.S. is not a moral and responsible world leader. What's he talking about? What needs to be re-established?

He has a much different opinion of the status of the United States' global role than I have. Rockefeller sounds like he has a very negative view of America's position in the world.

I think the U.S. is a moral and responsible leader.
___

"It's sad that even while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress in appointing our representative to the United Nations." — Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Lautenberg is nuts. Totally nuts!

BUSH DIDN'T BEND ANY RULES.

BUSH DIDN'T ABUSE HIS POWER.

BUSH WASN'T DEVIOUS.

BOLTON IS NOT WEAKENED.

BOLTON DOES NOT LACK VALIDITY.

BOLTON WILL WORK TIRELESSLY TO CARRY OUT THE AGENDA AND INTIATIVES THAT PRESIDENT BUSH AND SECRETARY RICE DIRECT.

Still Butchering Bolton

The Dems are so busy these days.

They're juggling a number of different smear campaigns--Rove, Roberts, and Bolton.

Today, it was Biden's task to work on the sliming of John Bolton.

From FOX:

A State Department official said Wednesday that John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, does not need to change his response to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire despite questions about the answer's accuracy.

Sen. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that conducted confirmation hearings on Bolton, had inquired earlier in the day as to whether the undersecretary cooperated with a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Biden, who led the Democratic filibuster last month against Bolton, faxed a letter on Wednesday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking whether a media report last week was correct when it said Bolton was called to testify before the grand jury in the CIA leak case.

"I write to request that you or the nominee inform the committee whether Mr. Bolton did, in fact, appear before the grand jury, or whether he has been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the special prosecutor or his staff in connection with this matter, and if so, when that occurred," Biden wrote in the letter to Rice.

...Opponents suggest that Rove or someone else in the White House may have gotten Plame's name from the classified memo rather than from reporters, as Rove suggested. The cable news channel report that drew Biden's attention suggested that the grand jury sought Bolton's cooperation in connection with the memo, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who disclosed the existence of the letter during a conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer said Biden sought clarification because Bolton had responded in March to a "boilerplate" committee questionnaire that asked if the nominee had been "interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), congressional, or grand jury investigation within the past five years, except routine congressional testimony."

Bolton swore in an accompanying affidavit that the answers to the committee's questionnaire were all true. Boxer declined to state whether Bolton had responded "no" to that question, but said, "He indicated in his form that he had not [been interviewed or asked to supply information in such proceedings]."

Boxer said an attempt on Monday to clarify the matter between committee and State Department staffs had not cleared up the matter, and as a result Biden directly faxed a letter about the matter to Rice.

The State Department responded to the letter on Tuesday.

"The forms submitted by John Bolton were accurate and nothing has changed to require them to be updated," a State Department official told FOX News.

Boxer conceded it was possible that Bolton's answer was true when he gave it, and that any cooperation he might have provided to the special counsel in the CIA leak case could have come after he filled out the questionnaire in March. The Biden letter asked Rice if the State Department could confirm whether Bolton cooperated with the CIA leak probe, "and if so, when that occurred."

Boxer said she believes the special counsel had completed interviewing witnesses by March, and that even if Bolton's alleged cooperation came later, "ethics tells me you go and amend" the questionnaire.

Ethics?

Amend the questionnaire?

Boxer has got to be kidding!

The Dems really are desperate. I think they're spooked by the thought that Bush appears poised to bypass the Senate and give Bolton a recess appointment.

They are powerless. They know it. They've been rejected by the American people.

What have they been doing this summer? They've been faxing letters, insisting on having access to documents, and demanding explanations.

The Dems aren't doing their jobs as legislators. They're just being whiny obstructionists.

Then again, maybe that is what their liberal constituents and the special interest groups expect them to do--obstruct the President's agenda by whining and stomping around like spoiled, cranky toddlers.

I think the Dems should take a nice, long nap.

Recess Time for John Bolton

At yesterday's White House press briefing, on two occasions reporters asked Scott McClellan about the possibility of a recess appointment for John Bolton.

Q Last week you sort of indicated that there was no recess appointment for Bolton in the works. Now there seems to be a change in the atmosphere. Can you clear that up? Is he going to get a recess appointment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed in terms of our views about John Bolton.

Q That you want an up or down vote?

MR. McCLELLAN: We believe he ought to have an up or down vote. Nothing has changed in terms of that view.

Q So he's not going to get one?

MR. McCLELLAN: Nothing has changed at this point.

Minutes later:

Q Scott, following up on Helen's question, it appears that you are at least considering a recess appointment for John Bolton. Is there any concern at all that such a move might poison the waters over at the Senate just in time for the Roberts' confirmation process?

MR. McCLELLAN: So you're asking me a "what-if" question or a hypothetical question? I told you nothing has changed in terms of our view.

When McClellan says that "nothing has changed in terms of our views about John Bolton," I take that to mean the White House continues to believe that he should be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

Personally, I think the President should get John Bolton over to the corrupt, floundering UN as soon as possible. Since the Dems chose to obstruct and prevent an up or down vote on Bolton, Bush should counter their filibuster with a swift recess appointment.

The reporter who asked, "Is there any concern at all that such a move might poison the waters over at the Senate just in time for the Roberts' confirmation process?" seems to be making a thinly-veiled threat, warning the White House to make the appointment at its own risk.

There's no denying that the waters are already poisoned at the Senate. To suggest that the Dems would be likely to take vengeance on Roberts if Bush used a recess appointment to give Bolton the UN spot is to reveal the current sorry state of the Democrats and their liberal media mouthpieces.

A story from Reuters on the possibility of a recess appointment furthers that notion. Reuters promotes the Dems' anti-Bolton campaign by highlighting discredited rumors.

The nomination of the blunt-spoken conservative has been held up by accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views in his post as the top U.S. diplomat for arms control.

Some critics have also seized on reports he may have been involved in leaking the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, but a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bolton had neither testified nor been asked to do so before the grand jury investigating the leak.

By tossing the Plame story into the Bolton mix, Reuters tries to subliminally connect the demon Bolton to the demon Rove to the demon Bush.

It's all part of their efforts to undermine White House credibility.

There had been questions about whether Bolton would accept a recess appointment, which lawmakers said would send him to the United Nations in a weakened political position.

But Republicans say Bolton has signaled his willingness to accept a recess appointment if another vote by the Senate is unlikely to occur.

More rumors. Reuters seizes on the "weakened political position" idea.

That argument is lame.

First, Bolton's critics consider him to be too tough. The man would not be a wimp at the UN.

Second, the U.S. Ambassador, by definition, cannot be weak. The individual is a representative of the world's sole superpower.

The sliming of John Bolton by weak-kneed senators would be completely irrelevant when he'd assume his position at the UN.

McClellan declined to say whether Bolton would receive a recess appointment.

But when asked in general about possible recess appointments, McClellan said, "If the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees, then sometimes there comes a point where the president has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees."

...When asked earlier this month about the prospects of a recess appointment for Bolton, McClellan would only say that the White House was seeking an "up or down vote" in the Senate.

I can just hear David Gregory and Terry Moran attacking McClellan, charging him with standing at the podium and lying to the press.

There is nothing contradictory about saying the White House is seeking a vote AND saying recessing nominees is sometimes necessary.

Sorry, Bush enemies, there's no credibility gap on that.

I hope the President decides to send John Bolton to the UN.

If Bush does appoint him while the Senate is adjourned, do you think George Voinovich will start to cry?