Tuesday, 25 September 2007
PRESIDENT BUSH REBUKES THE UN FOR ITS TREATMENT OF ISRAEL & BURMA (MYANMAR)
Thank you President Bush!
Here is the article, courtesy of Israel National News:.
Bush to U.N.: Lay Off
by Gil Ronen
(IsraelNN.com) United States President George W. Bush
urged the United Nations to reform its Human Rights Council Tuesday, criticizing
the body for ignoring abuses in places like Iran "while focusing its criticism
excessively on Israel.
"The American people are disappointed by the
failures of the Human Rights Council," Bush said. "The United Nations must
reform its own Human Rights Council."
In the course of his speech, Bush pointed out
several regimes which he termed "brutal" and "cruel." He announced new sanctions
against the military dictatorship in Myanmar (Burma), accusing it of imposing "a
19-year reign of fear" that denies the basic freedoms of speech, assembly and
"Americans are outraged by the
situation in Burma," the president said in an address to the U.N. General
Assembly. He purposely used the country's old name, Burma: the military junta
renamed the Asian country Myanmar but the U.S. refuses to recognize the
"Basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship
are severely restricted," he said. "Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced
child labor, human trafficking and rape are common. The regime is holding more
than a thousand political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was
elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.
"The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the
people's desire for freedom is unmistakable," Bush said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat in the
chamber and checked his watch during Bush's remarks. First Lady Laura Bush, also
present for the president's speech, walked by the seated Iranian president
without making contact, and Israeli Ambassador Danny Gillerman, too, made a
point of avoiding Ahmadinejad.
Bush urged the world's nations to support
countries that are struggling for democracy. Israeli Ambassador Danny Gillerman
made a point of avoiding Ahmadinejad.
"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq
have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to
stand with them," he said. "Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to
stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," he added. "In Belarus,
North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental
rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.
"In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is
nearing its end," Bush said. "The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And
as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on
free speech, free assembly and, ultimately, free and competitive
The Cuban delegation walked out of the chamber in
reaction to the statement. .
You may like President Bush or you may not. But he
is to be congratulated for his blunt admonition to the UN, with its sorry,
pathetic hypocritical record regarding Israel and its determination to look the other way as the dictators in Burma (they
renamed it Myanmar, I don't accept their name) brutally, murderously crush people
who petition for democracy.
Thank you again, Mr. President.
73,000 US troops dead. Can this be true?
Updated 24 September
2007 at 2030 HRS EDT
73,846 U.S. TROOPS DEAD;
1,620,906 PERMANENTLY DISABLED
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
ISSUES OFFICIAL REPORT CONFIRMING 73,000 U.S. TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ
SAME GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPORT
CONFIRMS 1.6 MILLION "DISABLED" BY THE WAR!
George Walker Bush has presided over the worst defeat of the United
States Military since Vietnam and has deliberately skewed reporting of the
deaths and injuries to conceal the facts.
Veteran's Affairs, in conjunction with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has
released the truth because they need the American People to know our
military is literally, destroyed.
They cannot release these
horrific numbers via the chain of command because they are under orders to
conceal the truth at all costs, so they let slip a report which now cannot
Here are the facts and a link to the government
source to prove these facts:
More Gulf War Veterans have died than Vietnam Veterans.
Department of Veterans Affairs, May 2007, Gulf War Veterans Information
System reports the following:
Total U.S. Military Gulf War
Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847
amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999
Total Undiagnosed Illness (UDX)
Total number of disability claims filed:
- Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995
combat troops that filed Disability Claims 36%
Soldiers, by nature,
typically dont complain. In other words, the real impact of those who are
disabled from the US invasions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Nations, is
not fully reflected in the official Veterans Affairs numbers. When
soldiers are sent to murder women and children they tend to never be able
to live normal lives there after.
How come the government numbers
of 3,777 as of 9/7/7 are so low? The answer is simple, the government does
not want the 73,000 dead to be compared to the 55,000 U.S. soldiers killed
in Vietnam Iraq = Vietnam. What the government is doing is only counting
the soldiers that die in action before they can get them into a helicopter
or ambulance. Any soldier who is shot but they get into a helicopter
before he dies is not counted.
73,000 dead amongst the U.S.
soldiers for this scale operation using weapons of mass destruction is not
high - we expect the great majority of U.S. soldiers who took part in the
invasion of Iraq to die of uranium poisoning, which can take decades to
From a victors perspective, above any major war in history,
The Gulf War has taken the severest toll on soldiers.
1,820 tons of radio active nuclear waste uranium were exploded into Iraq
alone in the form of armor piercing rounds and bunker busters,
representing the worlds worst man made ecological disaster ever. 64 kg of
uranium were used in the Hiroshima bomb. The U.S. Iraq Nuclear Holocaust
represents far more than fourteen thousand Hiroshimas. The nuclear waste
the U.S. has exploded into the Middle East will continue killing for
billions of years and can wipe out more than a third of life on earth.
Gulf War Veterans who have ingested the uranium will continue to die off
over a number of years.
So far more than one million people have
been slaughtered in the illegal invasion of Iraqi by the U.S. Birth
defects are up 600% in Iraq the same will apply to U.S.
Statistics and evidence published by the government and
mainstream media in no way reflect the extreme gravity of the
Those working for the government and media must wake up
and take responsibility for immediately reversing this U.S. Holocaust.
Understanding who is manipulating all of us is critical for all of
For those of you who doubt the veracity of this story, who
naively believe it can't be true because if it were true, you would have
heard it from the government or from the main stream media, can see the
proof yourselves directly from the United States Department of Veteran's
Affairs web site -Source:
This story is
100% accurate. 100% true. 100%
THE NEW YORK TIMES & AHMADINEJAD
Here is the reaction of an understandably incensed www.sweetness-light.com to the New
York Times' report on ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University. This
time the bold print is theirs, not mine:.
NYT Calls Ahmadinejad "Puzzling,
From his understanding fans at the New York Times:
By HELENE COOPER
September 25, 2007
He said that there were no homosexuals in
Iran - not one - and that the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews should not be
treated as fact, but theory, and therefore open to debate and more research.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran,
aired those and other bewildering thoughts in a two-hour
verbal contest at Columbia University yesterday, providing some ammunition to
people who said there was no point in inviting him to speak. Yet his
appearance also offered evidence of why he is widely admired in the developing
world for his defiance toward Western, especially American, power.
In repeated clashes with his hosts, Mr.
Ahmadinejad accused the United States of supporting terrorist groups, and
characterized as hypocritical American and European efforts to rein in Irans
"If you have created the fifth generation
of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question
other people who just want nuclear power," Mr. Ahmadinejad said, adding,
pointedly: "I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, politically,
they're backwards. Retarded." ...
[H]e said Iran could not recognize
Israel "because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation
and it consistently threatens its neighbors" - and conciliatory -
he said he wanted to visit ground zero to "show my respect" for what he called
"a tragic event."
And he said that even if the Holocaust did
occur, the Palestinians should not pay the price for it...
The Iranian president, who was seated 10 feet
away from him on the stage, wore a frozen smile. The anti-Ahmadinejad
portion of the audience, which looked to be about 70 percent of it,
cheered and chortled.
Mr. Bollinger praised himself and
Columbia for showing they believed in freedom of speech by inviting the
Iranian president, then continued his attack. He said it was "well
documented" that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, accused Iran of
fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and questioned why Iran
has refused "to adhere to the international standards" of disclosure for its
"I doubt," Mr. Bollinger concluded, "that you
will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."
Mr. Ahmadinejad did not directly answer the
questions, but he did address them. Before doing so though,
he said pointedly:
"In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a
person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them
to make their own judgment, and don't think it's necessary before the speech
is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to
the students and faculty."
He added, to some cheers,
"Nonetheless, I shall not begin by being affected by this unfriendly
Inside the auditorium, the Columbia
students laughed appreciatively when Mr. Ahmadinejad pushed back
against the attempts by Dean John H. Coatsworth, the events moderator, to get
him to stop rambling and answer questions directly.
"Do you or your government seek the destruction
of the state of Israel?" Mr. Coatsworth asked.
"We love all people," Mr. Ahmadinejad dodged.
"We are friends of the Jews. There are many Jews living peacefully in Iran."
He went on to say that the Palestinian "nation" should be allowed a referendum
to decide its own future.
Mr. Coatsworth persisted: "I think you can
answer that question with a simple yes or no."
Mr. Ahmadinejad was having none of it. "You ask
the question and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it," he
shot back. "I ask you, is the Palestinian issue not a question of
international importance? Please tell me yes or no."
For that, he got a round of
applause from the students, who had lined up four hours before the
speech to get into the auditorium...
What a travesty.
Despite the preposterous claims of the New York
Times, there is nothing "puzzling" or "bewildering" or least of all
"conciliatory" about Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks.
And there is nothing even slightly nuanced about
his positions. He has made them abundantly clear for years now.
It is a joke that the New York Times and the
buffoons running Columbia would pretend that hearing Mr. Ahmadinejad speak would
somehow shed new light on his views.
Hopefully the New York Times will offer him a
half-priced full-page ad, so that he can further clarify his thoughts.
We also hope that all the students who applauded
and cheered this murderous maniac can enjoy the experience of living under his
enlightened dictatorship some day. .
Yes, these are sick
fools. Especially the ridiculous fraud lee bollinger. If I hear this
empty suit tell me one more time how brave and courageous he and Columbia are to
invite ahmadinejad because it shows they value freedom of speech I'm going to
puke. Maybe bollinger can tell us about the freedom of speech accorded Jim
Gilchrist of the Mintemen or any conservative who dares
try and speak at this bastion of bravery and
To their credit, the folks at sweetness-light see right through
bollinger and ahmadinejad. I hope you do
POLITICS AS UNUSUAL
As you listen to senators Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the other presidential
wannabes rail against the incumbent, you might want to keep this story in
Here, courtesy of the following excerpts from a story in yesterday's San
Francisco Examiner, is a backstage look at reality versus political
rhetoric. As usual, the bold print is mine: .
Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats
President Bush is quietly providing
back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her
rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected
In an interview for the new book
President ," White
House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has "been urging candidates: 'Don't
get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where
I sit, things could change dramatically.'"
Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his
Iraq policy that "even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain
a legitimate presence there."
"Especially if it's a Democrat," the chief of
staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. "He wants to create the
conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to
see it out."
To that end, the president has been sending
advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq
in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008.
"It's different being a candidate and
being the president," Bush said in an Oval Office interview. "No matter who the
president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and
seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East,
particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to
understand the need to continue to support the young democracy."
To that end, Bush is institutionalizing
controversial anti-terror programs so they can be used by the next president.
"Look, I'd like to make as many hard
decisions as I can make, and do a lot of the heavy lifting prior to whoever my
successor is," Bush said. "And then that person is going to have to come and
look at the same data I've been looking at, and come to their own conclusion."
As an example, Bush cited his detainee program,
which allows him to keep enemy combatants imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay while
they await adjudication. Bush is unmoved by endless criticism of the program
because he says his successor will need it.
"I specifically talked about it so that a
candidate and/or president wouldn't have to deal with the issue," he said. "The
next person has got the opportunity to analyze the utility of the program and
make his or her decision about whether or not it is necessary to protect the
homeland. I suspect they'll find that it is necessary. But my only point to you
is that it was important for me to lay it out there, so that the politics
wouldn't enter into whether or not the program ought to survive beyond my
The Examiner asked Bush why Democratic candidates
such as Clinton and Barack Obama, who routinely lambaste his handling of Iraq,
should take his advice.
"First of all, I expect them to criticize
me. That's one way you get elected in the Democratic primary, is to criticize
the president," Bush replied. "I don't expect them to necessarily take advice
from me. I would expect their insiders to at least get a perspective about how
we see things."
He added: "We have an obligation to make
sure that whoever is interested, they get our point of view, because you want
somebody running for president to at least understand all perspectives, apart
from the politics."
So far, Bush has been encouraged by the fact that
Democratic candidates are preserving enough wiggle room in their anti-war
rhetoric to enable them to keep at least some troops in Iraq.
"If you listen carefully, there are Democrats that
say, Well, there needs to be some kind of presence," Bush said.
Asked by The Examiner whether the Democrats were
reluctant to have private contacts with the administration, the White House
official replied: "No, I think they sort of welcome conversation."
"If I were a Democrat, I would not want to be in a
place where I was forcing us to withdraw in '08," he said. "It's an election
year and any bad consequences would immediately be on their head.
"One of two things will happen if
a Democrat gets elected president," he said. "They will either have to
withdraw U.S. troops in order to remain true to the rhetoric - in which case, any
consequences in the aftermath fall on their heads. Or they have to break their
word, in which case they encourage fratricide on the left of their party. Now
that's a thorny issue to work through." .
If this is accurate - and I have a pretty good feeling that it is - what
we're seeing is:
-A President with information and advice that leads him to conclusions his
opposition are condemning, at least in part, to make political hay among
their leftwing base, and
-An opposition that knows the situation is not nearly as simple as their
condemnations might make it seem, and who want to be serious presidents if one
of them wins rather than droning ideologues who pretend their compaign
rhetoric is for real.
It's called responsibility. And stories like this give me at least a
modicum of hope that it exists among Democratic contenders.
One thing I do not expect is any of the
Democratic candidates to admit they are listening to and considering President
Bush's advice. But that is politics as usual, not as unusual.
If a Democrat wins, will he/she utilize President Bush's advice? Time
MORE LUNACY FROM BARRY
I apologize, again, for the lunacy that Barry manages to convince himself is
Let's start with the obvious: The TOTAL NUMBER of service men and
women sent to Iraq since the start of the gulf war is under the
number Barry claims was injured and died. By plenty.
Then there is the fact that, to believe this hideously
ridiculous BS, you would have to believe that 69,000 military deaths in the past four years have been concealed. You'd have to believe that 69,000 sets
of family and friends somehow were complicit in hiding it from everyone else.
You would have to believe that the mainstream media, the vast majority of
which is against the war, has somehow overlooked these data.
I could go on, but how much more do you need?
Barry is a good guy with a hatred of President Bush that
is so great that he buys into obvious nonsense like this. If it looks like it could be
bad news about Iraq it must be true -- even if it can't possibly be
-- and it finds its way onto this blog.
And that's too bad. Because it means that Bush Derangement Syndrome is turning an otherwise
intelligent man into a tool of the lunatic left.
CONGRESS TEACHES COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY A LESSON
Good for them.
Congress has taught the lee bollinger crowd at Columbia
University a valuable lesson --- it denounced the Iranian madman, mahmoud ahmadinejad. The
house vote was 397-16 (I don't yet know who voted against this, but when I do
I'll put it up).\
Read all about this in the Associates Press article below:.
WASHINGTON (AP) -
Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with
a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to
designate his army a terrorist group.
The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan
cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It
reflected lawmakers' long-standing nervousness about Tehran's intentions in the
region, particularly toward Israela sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby
whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress.
"Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and
a very sharp stick," said Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. "It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are
putting the stick in place."
The House passed, by a 397-16 vote, a proposal by
Lantos, D-Calif., aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular
its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from
waiving U.S. sanctions.
Current law imposes sanctions against any foreign
company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy industry, although the
U.S. has waived or ignored sanction laws in exchange for European support on
In the Senate, Joseph Lieberman,
I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., proposed a nonbinding resolution urging the
State Department to
label Iran's militarythe Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corpsa terrorist organization.
The Bush administration
had already been planning to blacklist a unit within the Revolutionary Guard,
subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.
The legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad
defended Holocaust revisionists, questioned who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks
and declared homosexuals didn't exist in Iran in a tense question-and- answer
session at Columbia University.
The Iranian president
planned to speak Tuesday at the U.N. General Assembly.
Lantos' bill was expected to draw criticism from
U.S. allies in Europe. During a visit to Washington last week, French Foreign
Minister Bernard Kouchner told lawmakers that France opposes any U.S.
legislation that would target European countries operating in Iran. He argued
that such sanctions could undermine cooperation on dealing with Iran.
Aside from the fact that 16 members of congress voted against this, the only
thing that bothers me is the idea that "U. S. allies in Europe" might be
critical. How can anyone say it would "undermine cooperation on dealing
with Iran" with a straight face? What cooperation has Europe, or anyone
else, had until now?