Tuesday, 25 September 2007

PRESIDENT BUSH REBUKES THE UN FOR ITS TREATMENT OF ISRAEL & BURMA (MYANMAR)

Ken Berwitz

Thank you President Bush!

Here is the article, courtesy of Israel National News:.

Bush to U.N.: Lay Off Israel

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 worship.

"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 change.

"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 elections."

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?

Barry Sinrod 
 
 

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.


Department of 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 be "un-slipped."

Here are the facts and a link to the government source to prove these facts:

More Gulf War Veterans have died than Vietnam Veterans.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, May 2007, Gulf War Veterans Information System reports the following:

Total U.S. Military Gulf War Deaths: 73,846
Deaths amongst Deployed: 17,847
Deaths amongst Non-Deployed: 55,999

Total Undiagnosed Illness (UDX) claims: 14,874

Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906
- Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
- Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995

Percentage of 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 kill.

From a victors perspective, above any major war in history, The Gulf War has taken the severest toll on soldiers.

More than 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. Veterans.

Statistics and evidence published by the government and mainstream media in no way reflect the extreme gravity of the situation.

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 us.

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: http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf

This story is 100% accurate. 100% true. 100% verifiable.


See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Stats Lie This same report totals the deaths for both Gulf Wars to be 4,506. While no death is good, this is a far cry (pun not intended) from liberal Barry's 70,000 plus comments. (09/26/07)


THE NEW YORK TIMES & AHMADINEJAD

Ken Berwitz

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, Conciliatory"

September 25th, 2007

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 nuclear ambitions.

"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 nuclear program.

"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 treatment." ... 

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 courage.

To their credit, the folks at sweetness-light see right through bollinger and ahmadinejad.  I hope you do too.


POLITICS AS UNUSUAL

Ken Berwitz

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 mind. 

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: .

Examiner Exclusive: Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats

Washington, D.C. -

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 president.

In an interview for the new book "The Evangelical 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 period."

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 will tell.


MORE LUNACY FROM BARRY

Ken Berwitz

I apologize, again, for the lunacy that Barry manages to convince himself is truth.

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

Ken Berwitz

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 nonproliferation issues.

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?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!