If it wasn't for the courage of George Bush and Tony Blair, the world would be in a nasty way. None of us would be safe -
Read the following and then think about what the liberals, and some conservatives in this country, are saying about honor and duty. It will become very clear they have none.
Why should be trust them with our national security?
No caving from Tony Blair
Following Labour loses in Thursday local elections there are predictable calls from the party left wing for Tony Blair to hand over his prime ministerial post. Tony Blair centrism has been driving these people crazy for years now with the result that many among them hate him with a passion that is quite at odds with the rhetoric of love the Left so loves to espouse.
Not so long ago, Mr. Blair was dropping hints that he would resign well before the next general election in order to give his successor time to get a grip on the job and on the party. Now, however, it seems that he has changed his mind and is no great hurry to go away. At least part of the reason for that must be his concern about the direction of the country once Gordon Brown, his heir apparent and the Left favorite, gets the reins.
The latest evidence of Tony Blair determination to defy the hard Left is his sacking of Britain foreign secretary Jack Straw in Friday cabinet reshuffle. In the past several months, Mr. Straw's thinking swerved markedly leftward with statements such as that a military attack on Iran was inconceivable and that the idea of a tactical nuclear strike was nuts.
Tony Blair obviously does not share this misguided pacifism and yesterday he curtly removed the man who sought to incorporate it into BritainÂ’s foreign policy.
In the past Tony Blair showed remarkable courage in standing up to the left wing of his party. The dismissal of Jack Straw shows that he has lost none of it.
Good for Tony Blair and good for the world.
Vasko Kohlmayer 5 06 06
Sunday, May 07, 2006
More Thoughts - United 93
Another take on Flight 93
Jim Estrada on United 93
Our contributor James Estrada is featured in the Arizona Republic, with his thoughts on United 93. A sample:
I attended a showing of United 93 at a theater in Mesa. The movie, about the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, was shown in the largest theater available. However, the place wasn’t even half full. It seems that the comedy R.V. was the Number 1 box-office draw of the weekend.
That’s a shame. Every American was affected by the deadly terrorist acts of that day. Now, four years later, some are desperate to forget all about it. Feeling it would be too painful to relive the events, which signaled a new and dangerous world. Many stayed away.I call those people cowards.
Jim Estrada on United 93
Our contributor James Estrada is featured in the Arizona Republic, with his thoughts on United 93. A sample:
I attended a showing of United 93 at a theater in Mesa. The movie, about the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, was shown in the largest theater available. However, the place wasn’t even half full. It seems that the comedy R.V. was the Number 1 box-office draw of the weekend.
That’s a shame. Every American was affected by the deadly terrorist acts of that day. Now, four years later, some are desperate to forget all about it. Feeling it would be too painful to relive the events, which signaled a new and dangerous world. Many stayed away.I call those people cowards.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Good Health Care Plan - Not!
This interesting in that the Massachusetts's plan for affordable health care was the best in the nation - it worked for everyone - - but wait - the devil is in the fine print - read this article from the Wall Street Journal - an eye-opener -
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\WSJ.com - Romneycare's Fine Print.htm
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\WSJ.com - Romneycare's Fine Print.htm
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Iran - A Festering Problem
I just love what Whittaker Chambers has to say on how our best politicians can be had so easily. True, it was in the fifties, but it's still valid today. The article below is just a clip but still, if you have the time, go for the whole thing.
Iran will become another problem that has to have a solution. Rest assured it will never come from a Marxist left liberal.
Always remember, a liberal is really just another socialist elite looking to suck the life blood out of a democracy.
In 1952, Whittaker Chambers wrote in his classic autobiography Witness this on the subject of espionage:
There was little about political espionage, it seemed to me, than an intelligent man, who the forces, factors and general direction of history in our time, could not arrive at by using political imagination, backed by a careful study of the available legitimate facts.
I find it rather interesting that something very similar was articulated by Herb Meyer the first CIA analyst to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union who said that he based his forecast almost exclusively on information from publicly available sources. In retrospect it seems almost unbelievable that no one else had come to the same conclusion, since totalitarian regimes are invariably unstable and their lifespan limited. When they are around, however, their bluster and belligerency tend to obscure their inherent fragility and sometimes it takes a prophet to note the obvious.
We should keep all this in mind when thinking about how to deal with Iran. Many of those who oppose taking action argue that we cannot be certain of Iran unwholesome intentions until we obtain some definite confirmation. But this objection holds no water. Aggressive by nature, totalitarian regimes spoil for confrontation and there is no reason to assume that Iran would be an exception. Even more importantly, we have numerous statements by Iran president which make his belligerent intentions all too obvious. What more do we need?
What intelligence could be more unequivocal?
As a totalitarian regime Iran is a troubled and unstable country. It is absurd that the world lone superpower should be afraid to deal with it in the way that is necessary to prevent a great tragedy. Iran is not strong and it can only become so if we allow it. History, experience and all the available facts tell us that a nuclear Iran would pose a tremendous danger.
By now we know more than enough to do what is needed.
Vasko Kohlmayer 5 04 06
Iran will become another problem that has to have a solution. Rest assured it will never come from a Marxist left liberal.
Always remember, a liberal is really just another socialist elite looking to suck the life blood out of a democracy.
In 1952, Whittaker Chambers wrote in his classic autobiography Witness this on the subject of espionage:
There was little about political espionage, it seemed to me, than an intelligent man, who the forces, factors and general direction of history in our time, could not arrive at by using political imagination, backed by a careful study of the available legitimate facts.
I find it rather interesting that something very similar was articulated by Herb Meyer the first CIA analyst to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union who said that he based his forecast almost exclusively on information from publicly available sources. In retrospect it seems almost unbelievable that no one else had come to the same conclusion, since totalitarian regimes are invariably unstable and their lifespan limited. When they are around, however, their bluster and belligerency tend to obscure their inherent fragility and sometimes it takes a prophet to note the obvious.
We should keep all this in mind when thinking about how to deal with Iran. Many of those who oppose taking action argue that we cannot be certain of Iran unwholesome intentions until we obtain some definite confirmation. But this objection holds no water. Aggressive by nature, totalitarian regimes spoil for confrontation and there is no reason to assume that Iran would be an exception. Even more importantly, we have numerous statements by Iran president which make his belligerent intentions all too obvious. What more do we need?
What intelligence could be more unequivocal?
As a totalitarian regime Iran is a troubled and unstable country. It is absurd that the world lone superpower should be afraid to deal with it in the way that is necessary to prevent a great tragedy. Iran is not strong and it can only become so if we allow it. History, experience and all the available facts tell us that a nuclear Iran would pose a tremendous danger.
By now we know more than enough to do what is needed.
Vasko Kohlmayer 5 04 06
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Libby on the offensive
WOW Libby is back in the news - This just a clip of the total article but if you can, go to the site for the complete reading.
It is as I thought, it was a sham by the liberals to destroy anyone that they can using any tool at their disposal including disinformation and out right lies. But this is nothing new as that is all they have ever had. If it weren't for having someone to try and destroy, they wouldn't have a job -
Libby will now go on the offensive.
I wonder what will happen to the struggle between Tom Delay and Ronnie Earl - ?
Scooter Libby Meets the Press May 3rd, 2006
We have just been granted a window on the struggle between Lewis Scooter Libby and the elite media over his access to their internal documents. Libby is charged with federal crimes because his versions of conversations with reporters differ from the accounts of the media people. He seeks evidence from their files about what they knew and what they privately wrote at the time. In a he said/she said confrontation, access to supporting evidence becomes critical to the ability to mount a defense.
Late Monday night Libby filed a Motion in Response to the medias efforts to quash his subpoenas for documents in their possession. At last, after a three year one-sided smear campaign by the elite media and by an unsupervised and careless Special Counsel, Libby gets to show us the flimsiness of the case against him.
He also shows us the considerable embarrassment facing pillars of the media establishment and the utter un-tenability of any further claims for press privilege. Given what these pleadings reveal, a testimonial privilege for reporters would amount to a figurative license to kill those with whom they have political or other disagreements.
Should this go to trial, the press will suffer a crippling blow to whatever credibility they still have, and Libby will be proven to have been the victim of political opponents and an out-of-control prosecution.
The pleadings are reprinted in .pdf form here and here. Because the Motion is reproduced in two parts, to avoid confusion, any page citations will be to those in the original pleading, not to the pdf pagination.
It is as I thought, it was a sham by the liberals to destroy anyone that they can using any tool at their disposal including disinformation and out right lies. But this is nothing new as that is all they have ever had. If it weren't for having someone to try and destroy, they wouldn't have a job -
Libby will now go on the offensive.
I wonder what will happen to the struggle between Tom Delay and Ronnie Earl - ?
Scooter Libby Meets the Press May 3rd, 2006
We have just been granted a window on the struggle between Lewis Scooter Libby and the elite media over his access to their internal documents. Libby is charged with federal crimes because his versions of conversations with reporters differ from the accounts of the media people. He seeks evidence from their files about what they knew and what they privately wrote at the time. In a he said/she said confrontation, access to supporting evidence becomes critical to the ability to mount a defense.
Late Monday night Libby filed a Motion in Response to the medias efforts to quash his subpoenas for documents in their possession. At last, after a three year one-sided smear campaign by the elite media and by an unsupervised and careless Special Counsel, Libby gets to show us the flimsiness of the case against him.
He also shows us the considerable embarrassment facing pillars of the media establishment and the utter un-tenability of any further claims for press privilege. Given what these pleadings reveal, a testimonial privilege for reporters would amount to a figurative license to kill those with whom they have political or other disagreements.
Should this go to trial, the press will suffer a crippling blow to whatever credibility they still have, and Libby will be proven to have been the victim of political opponents and an out-of-control prosecution.
The pleadings are reprinted in .pdf form here and here. Because the Motion is reproduced in two parts, to avoid confusion, any page citations will be to those in the original pleading, not to the pdf pagination.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Mexicans in the Spotlight
This article will give you some idea how the marches have affected the entire country, if at all - it doesn't look like much has happened except the vocal few have turn the country against their cause.
One thing that the Mexican marches have done to me is see the whole Latino population in a completely different light.
In the past I have given them the benefit of the doubt even though I knew they were here illegally. I thought, for the most part, they were hard working, and they are, family oriented people that just what to get a better life.
Now all that has changed. Still, I believe the majority of Latinos that live here and want to become American citizens, are the people that we want and need in this country. I also believe it was always too easy to cross the boarder and go to work rather than having to do it the legal way which has brought us to this point in time.
But on the other hand, the other and more vocal portion of the 12 million illegal horde, and smaller as well, has by association turn many a Americans against the entire community of Mexicans.
In the past, I never gave them a second thought. That's over now.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5461
One thing that the Mexican marches have done to me is see the whole Latino population in a completely different light.
In the past I have given them the benefit of the doubt even though I knew they were here illegally. I thought, for the most part, they were hard working, and they are, family oriented people that just what to get a better life.
Now all that has changed. Still, I believe the majority of Latinos that live here and want to become American citizens, are the people that we want and need in this country. I also believe it was always too easy to cross the boarder and go to work rather than having to do it the legal way which has brought us to this point in time.
But on the other hand, the other and more vocal portion of the 12 million illegal horde, and smaller as well, has by association turn many a Americans against the entire community of Mexicans.
In the past, I never gave them a second thought. That's over now.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5461
Monday, May 01, 2006
Limbaugh Gets the Last Laugh
The liberals in the press are in free-fall. No matter what is written in the New York Times or the Washington Post, I have to believe it is a lie until some how it can be proven a fact.
When I read this last night I knew it was bull - it had to be - it came from New York and CNN.
Rush Limbaugh 'Arrest' Reports Were Bogus
Breaking From NewsMax.com
All weekend long news broadcasts were filled with reports that talk radio host Rush Limbaugh had been "arrested" on charges of doctor shopping as part of a plea bargain worked out with his lawyer.
But - as even the liberal newsmagazine, Newsweek, admitted - the "arrest" reports were bogus.
"LIMBAUGH ARRESTED was the immediate headline on the wires and on TV," the magazine said in Monday's edition. "But the word 'arrest' was misleading."
"In fact, Limbaugh had pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer had worked out a deal that would cause the single charge to be dropped after 18 months as long as Limbaugh stayed out of trouble and continued to see a doctor who has helped him with an addiction to painkillers."
Still, the rest of the press did its level best to portray Limbaugh's voluntary trip to the Palm Beach County jail for a mugshot as if John Dillinger had just been apprehended.
"RUSH LIMBAUGH ARRESTED ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG CHARGE," blared the CNN headline Friday night.
ABC's "World News Tonight" began its coverage of the Limbaugh case dismissal with Elizabeth Vargas announcing: "Rush Limbaugh, one of the most popular and influential radio talk show hosts in America, was arrested in West Palm Beach today. The charges involve allegations of prescription drug fraud."
The actual mugshot belied the "arrest," reports, showing a beaming Limbaugh clearly delighted over finally winning his case.
Other reporters went out of their way to paint the talk host as a common street drug user, noting a 1995 statement where Limbaugh said he favored jail for illegal drug users.
Newsweek was one of the few to note that the top talker's addiction had nothing to do with recreational drug use - but was instead prompted by intense back pain.
"Limbaugh's drug problems began after he made a medical choice to try to preserve his radio voice . . . . The doctors wanted to go in through the back of his mouth, but Limbaugh was worried about his vocal cords. A different procedure was performed, and Limbaugh's suffering did not go away. He began to take pain pills in ever-larger numbers."
The prosecutor's office leaked claims to the press that Limbaugh took thousands of pills -- suggesting not only a severe addiction but that Rush was manipulating his doctors -- "doctor shopping" -- to abuse his medications.
But Rush's medical records, ones turned over to state prosecutors, showed that the doctor shopping claim was a sham.
In July of 2005, Black detailed Rush's use of prescription drugs as detailed in his medical records:
"The prescription records that are in the search warrant affidavits should be put in perspective. Of the 2,130 pills prescribed, only 1,863 were painkillers, and of those only 1,733 were for hydrocodone. These were to be taken over a period of 217 days, from the date of the first prescription until 30 days from the date of the last prescription. The dose averages out to a little over eight pills a day, which is not excessive and is in fact a lawful dose.
"Ninety-two percent of the pain medication was prescribed by two doctors who were treating Mr. Limbaugh for back pain. They work in the same office from the same medical file, and there could be no doctor shopping between them. One of these doctors also prescribed 117 pills of a drug used to treat high blood pressure or to help wean patients off of painkillers.
"The other two doctors are the California surgeon who implanted the cochlear implant to restore Mr. Limbaugh's hearing and a Florida doctor he was seeing for follow up on the surgery. Of the 180 pills prescribed by the surgeon, 100 were vitamin pills. Of the 110 pills prescribed by the fourth doctor, 50 were non-painkillers prescribed for tinnitus, ringing in the ears.
"The bottom line is that these prescription records might tell a story, but it is not a story of doctor shopping. We continue to believe that Mr. Limbaugh is being pursued by overzealous prosecutors and that he should not be charged with any crime."
In fact, when news of the conservative talker's pain pill addiction first hit the National Enquirer in Oct. 2003, Palm Beach County prosecutor James Martz said going after low-level prescription drug users like Limbaugh was a waste of time.
Still, his office pursued the case as if they were prosecuting the Cali cartel.
Friday's dismissal showed that Martz had it right the first time.
When I read this last night I knew it was bull - it had to be - it came from New York and CNN.
Rush Limbaugh 'Arrest' Reports Were Bogus
Breaking From NewsMax.com
All weekend long news broadcasts were filled with reports that talk radio host Rush Limbaugh had been "arrested" on charges of doctor shopping as part of a plea bargain worked out with his lawyer.
But - as even the liberal newsmagazine, Newsweek, admitted - the "arrest" reports were bogus.
"LIMBAUGH ARRESTED was the immediate headline on the wires and on TV," the magazine said in Monday's edition. "But the word 'arrest' was misleading."
"In fact, Limbaugh had pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer had worked out a deal that would cause the single charge to be dropped after 18 months as long as Limbaugh stayed out of trouble and continued to see a doctor who has helped him with an addiction to painkillers."
Still, the rest of the press did its level best to portray Limbaugh's voluntary trip to the Palm Beach County jail for a mugshot as if John Dillinger had just been apprehended.
"RUSH LIMBAUGH ARRESTED ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG CHARGE," blared the CNN headline Friday night.
ABC's "World News Tonight" began its coverage of the Limbaugh case dismissal with Elizabeth Vargas announcing: "Rush Limbaugh, one of the most popular and influential radio talk show hosts in America, was arrested in West Palm Beach today. The charges involve allegations of prescription drug fraud."
The actual mugshot belied the "arrest," reports, showing a beaming Limbaugh clearly delighted over finally winning his case.
Other reporters went out of their way to paint the talk host as a common street drug user, noting a 1995 statement where Limbaugh said he favored jail for illegal drug users.
Newsweek was one of the few to note that the top talker's addiction had nothing to do with recreational drug use - but was instead prompted by intense back pain.
"Limbaugh's drug problems began after he made a medical choice to try to preserve his radio voice . . . . The doctors wanted to go in through the back of his mouth, but Limbaugh was worried about his vocal cords. A different procedure was performed, and Limbaugh's suffering did not go away. He began to take pain pills in ever-larger numbers."
The prosecutor's office leaked claims to the press that Limbaugh took thousands of pills -- suggesting not only a severe addiction but that Rush was manipulating his doctors -- "doctor shopping" -- to abuse his medications.
But Rush's medical records, ones turned over to state prosecutors, showed that the doctor shopping claim was a sham.
In July of 2005, Black detailed Rush's use of prescription drugs as detailed in his medical records:
"The prescription records that are in the search warrant affidavits should be put in perspective. Of the 2,130 pills prescribed, only 1,863 were painkillers, and of those only 1,733 were for hydrocodone. These were to be taken over a period of 217 days, from the date of the first prescription until 30 days from the date of the last prescription. The dose averages out to a little over eight pills a day, which is not excessive and is in fact a lawful dose.
"Ninety-two percent of the pain medication was prescribed by two doctors who were treating Mr. Limbaugh for back pain. They work in the same office from the same medical file, and there could be no doctor shopping between them. One of these doctors also prescribed 117 pills of a drug used to treat high blood pressure or to help wean patients off of painkillers.
"The other two doctors are the California surgeon who implanted the cochlear implant to restore Mr. Limbaugh's hearing and a Florida doctor he was seeing for follow up on the surgery. Of the 180 pills prescribed by the surgeon, 100 were vitamin pills. Of the 110 pills prescribed by the fourth doctor, 50 were non-painkillers prescribed for tinnitus, ringing in the ears.
"The bottom line is that these prescription records might tell a story, but it is not a story of doctor shopping. We continue to believe that Mr. Limbaugh is being pursued by overzealous prosecutors and that he should not be charged with any crime."
In fact, when news of the conservative talker's pain pill addiction first hit the National Enquirer in Oct. 2003, Palm Beach County prosecutor James Martz said going after low-level prescription drug users like Limbaugh was a waste of time.
Still, his office pursued the case as if they were prosecuting the Cali cartel.
Friday's dismissal showed that Martz had it right the first time.
The UN In Twilight Zone - John Bolton
This is a good read - the United Nations is travesty of the first magnitude. I believe the UN is dedicated to the proposition that the world would be better served if it were totally socialistic.
The UN and it totally corrupted leader, Kofi Annan, is dedicated to destroying any and all democracies in the world including the United States.
UN is like the Twilight Zone, says Bolton
(Filed: 01/05/2006)
In his first interview with a British newspaper, America's ambassador to the United Nations tells Alec Russell why it is in dire need of reform
John Bolton was in his element. America's famously blunt UN ambassador and hundreds of other senior diplomats had just spent almost two hours twiddling their thumbs in a deadlocked meeting awaiting a letter from the secretary general.
John Bolton says he is not combative. ‘I am assertive’
Then moments after the document arrived, the session was adjourned as the representatives of the developing world retired to plot - successfully as it transpired - how to stymie a series of radical reforms.
South Africa's ambassador pledged that it would be for only a quarter of an hour.
"I know those 15 minutes," said a deadpan Mr Bolton. "We have a bit longer than that, I think."
If ever a scene epitomised the notorious UN inefficiency, which Mr Bolton has spent so much of his life railing against, this was it.
"You had nearly 150 permanent representatives waiting around for an hour and a half," he said in one of many breaks in the key meeting on budget and reform at UN headquarters in New York. "With their aides, that is roughly 400 people waiting for one document and now we are waiting again.
"There is an inherent amount of slippage in a process like this, but this really is business as usual."
America's bantam cock of an ambassador is something of a cult figure at the UN.
When meetings end he is followed by a crowd of cameramen keen to capture that famous walrus moustache and his colourful asides. Rival ambassadors salute his skill as a communicator and his diligence.
He keeps Washington rather than New York hours, starting work before dawn and often going to bed by nine.
While he speaks off the cuff, he assiduously takes notes of others' speeches, the opposite of the usual UN style.
He is far less haughty than many of his predecessors.
But it is exasperation as much as envy that defines reactions to him in the UN. His undiplomatic ways have infuriated even America's allies and UN officials pushing for reform.
Eight months after President George W Bush made his highly contentious appointment, no one could suggest he has "gone native".
A long-term conservative hawk, in 1994 he said the UN could easily do without the top 10 of its 39 floors. He also said there was no such thing as the UN, just an international community that can be led by the US.
His language is a little more circumspect now but only a little. Has his opinion changed? "It's exactly what I expected ... an organisation that needs substantial reform," he replied
"This atmosphere is like a bubble. It is like a twilight zone. Things that happen here don't reflect the reality in the rest of the world.
"There are practices, attitudes and approaches here that were abandoned 30 years ago in much of the rest of the world. It's like a time warp. I think that's not useful for the organisation."
UN officials mutter that far from helping to push through much-needed reforms to ensure embarrassments such as the oil-for-food scandal are never repeated, his methods have impeded the chances of agreement.
In December, he forced a six-month limit on the UN budget, infuriating the developing world, by making further funding dependent on the passage of key reforms.
America's EU allies, especially Britain, had to negotiate a compromise - "they pulled his chest hairs from the fire" said a veteran UN observer.
Mr Bolton rolls his eyes when asked if he is combative because he is not really interested in reform. "That criticism is a complete non sequitur," he retorts. "My stance is not combative. I would describe it as assertive.
"We feel strongly that we need reform. Condoleezza Rice said last September we want a revolution of reform. It's not often an American secretary of state calls for revolutions."
The deadlocked meeting ended with the hopes of the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan - of streamlining its bureaucracy - left in tatters.
The UN split on its traditional fault-line with developing nations voting against the changes, arguing that they would give too much power to the wealthy nations. "It's a mess," said one EU ambassador.
The crisis could lead to Congress calling for a withholding of US dues. So has his experience confirmed him as a unilateralist?
"I never thought of myself as a unilateralist or multi-lateralist one way or another. For most Americans it is a very pragmatic question to say what is the most effective tool to accomplish the goals of American foreign policy. They say, what is the way to advance our interest?"
When he leaves the post, he will have plenty more anecdotes to delight the Republican heartland - and all too few signs of change in his Twilight Zone.
The UN and it totally corrupted leader, Kofi Annan, is dedicated to destroying any and all democracies in the world including the United States.
UN is like the Twilight Zone, says Bolton
(Filed: 01/05/2006)
In his first interview with a British newspaper, America's ambassador to the United Nations tells Alec Russell why it is in dire need of reform
John Bolton was in his element. America's famously blunt UN ambassador and hundreds of other senior diplomats had just spent almost two hours twiddling their thumbs in a deadlocked meeting awaiting a letter from the secretary general.
John Bolton says he is not combative. ‘I am assertive’
Then moments after the document arrived, the session was adjourned as the representatives of the developing world retired to plot - successfully as it transpired - how to stymie a series of radical reforms.
South Africa's ambassador pledged that it would be for only a quarter of an hour.
"I know those 15 minutes," said a deadpan Mr Bolton. "We have a bit longer than that, I think."
If ever a scene epitomised the notorious UN inefficiency, which Mr Bolton has spent so much of his life railing against, this was it.
"You had nearly 150 permanent representatives waiting around for an hour and a half," he said in one of many breaks in the key meeting on budget and reform at UN headquarters in New York. "With their aides, that is roughly 400 people waiting for one document and now we are waiting again.
"There is an inherent amount of slippage in a process like this, but this really is business as usual."
America's bantam cock of an ambassador is something of a cult figure at the UN.
When meetings end he is followed by a crowd of cameramen keen to capture that famous walrus moustache and his colourful asides. Rival ambassadors salute his skill as a communicator and his diligence.
He keeps Washington rather than New York hours, starting work before dawn and often going to bed by nine.
While he speaks off the cuff, he assiduously takes notes of others' speeches, the opposite of the usual UN style.
He is far less haughty than many of his predecessors.
But it is exasperation as much as envy that defines reactions to him in the UN. His undiplomatic ways have infuriated even America's allies and UN officials pushing for reform.
Eight months after President George W Bush made his highly contentious appointment, no one could suggest he has "gone native".
A long-term conservative hawk, in 1994 he said the UN could easily do without the top 10 of its 39 floors. He also said there was no such thing as the UN, just an international community that can be led by the US.
His language is a little more circumspect now but only a little. Has his opinion changed? "It's exactly what I expected ... an organisation that needs substantial reform," he replied
"This atmosphere is like a bubble. It is like a twilight zone. Things that happen here don't reflect the reality in the rest of the world.
"There are practices, attitudes and approaches here that were abandoned 30 years ago in much of the rest of the world. It's like a time warp. I think that's not useful for the organisation."
UN officials mutter that far from helping to push through much-needed reforms to ensure embarrassments such as the oil-for-food scandal are never repeated, his methods have impeded the chances of agreement.
In December, he forced a six-month limit on the UN budget, infuriating the developing world, by making further funding dependent on the passage of key reforms.
America's EU allies, especially Britain, had to negotiate a compromise - "they pulled his chest hairs from the fire" said a veteran UN observer.
Mr Bolton rolls his eyes when asked if he is combative because he is not really interested in reform. "That criticism is a complete non sequitur," he retorts. "My stance is not combative. I would describe it as assertive.
"We feel strongly that we need reform. Condoleezza Rice said last September we want a revolution of reform. It's not often an American secretary of state calls for revolutions."
The deadlocked meeting ended with the hopes of the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan - of streamlining its bureaucracy - left in tatters.
The UN split on its traditional fault-line with developing nations voting against the changes, arguing that they would give too much power to the wealthy nations. "It's a mess," said one EU ambassador.
The crisis could lead to Congress calling for a withholding of US dues. So has his experience confirmed him as a unilateralist?
"I never thought of myself as a unilateralist or multi-lateralist one way or another. For most Americans it is a very pragmatic question to say what is the most effective tool to accomplish the goals of American foreign policy. They say, what is the way to advance our interest?"
When he leaves the post, he will have plenty more anecdotes to delight the Republican heartland - and all too few signs of change in his Twilight Zone.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Arab Islamists Butcher Black Christians
Darfur is a target of Islam due to the fact that thousands of black Christians live their. Islam must destroy these inferior people for two reasons; the first is they are black and the second is they are Christians. Islam must kill all unbelievers.
It's called genocide for those that don't believe Islam wants to kill us all.
The Islamic killers are encouraged and supported by the Sudanese government. Isn't it fitting that members of this same government that allows Islamic religious fanatics to literally butcher members of another religions also sit on the United Nations Human Right Council.
The liberals in this country find no problem with this -
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5456
It's called genocide for those that don't believe Islam wants to kill us all.
The Islamic killers are encouraged and supported by the Sudanese government. Isn't it fitting that members of this same government that allows Islamic religious fanatics to literally butcher members of another religions also sit on the United Nations Human Right Council.
The liberals in this country find no problem with this -
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5456
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Senator McCain Decries Free Speech
I have never liked McCain and this article only cements that dislike - Also, the fact that he is in partnership with Feingold only makes it worse.
April 29, 2006
McCain: Trade The First Amendment For Clean Government
Mark Tapscott has a clip of John McCain's appearance on the Don Imus Show that demonstrates the truly frightening prospect of having the Senator from Arizona occupy the White House. McCain told Imus that he would trade the First Amendment for "clean government":
"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government."
Senator McCain apparently has no love for the First Amendment, nor any understanding of why it occupies the primary position in the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech recognizes the inherent and natural right to speak one's mind and to argue for one's political beliefs. Free speech costs nothing and it requires nothing other than a lack of government interference.
The right to speak out informs all of the other natural rights recognized in the Constitution; without it, none of the others make sense, including the right to religious expression, property rights, the right to bear arms. None of these make sense if the government can control your political speech and determine about what its citizens can protest and when they can do it.
Furthermore, the entire reason the founders saw fit to recognize this natural right in the primary position was to guard against corruption and totalitarianism in the federal government. They had just broken free of a particularly ill-tempered monarch who actively sought to oppress dissent regarding British policies in the colonies. The crafters of the Constitution understood that the only barrier to its new government's potential for creating another tyranny would be the free and unfettered poltical speech that would point out such corruption and abuse of power.
The founders would have laughed at McCain's notion that one could trade free political speech for 'clean' government. They knew that the only manner in which to keep the government clean was to enable its citizens to speak out against abuses. Trading free speech for any kind of government only enables the villains of power to accumulate and abuse it all the more.
Senator John McCain has many fine qualities, but an understanding of free speech is not among them. He would trade our primary birthright for a mess of bureaucracy and trust it to operate in our interests while limiting our ability to criticize it. That path leads to autocracy, corruption, and ruin.
Posted by Captain Ed at April 29, 2006 09:28 AM
April 29, 2006
McCain: Trade The First Amendment For Clean Government
Mark Tapscott has a clip of John McCain's appearance on the Don Imus Show that demonstrates the truly frightening prospect of having the Senator from Arizona occupy the White House. McCain told Imus that he would trade the First Amendment for "clean government":
"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government."
Senator McCain apparently has no love for the First Amendment, nor any understanding of why it occupies the primary position in the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech recognizes the inherent and natural right to speak one's mind and to argue for one's political beliefs. Free speech costs nothing and it requires nothing other than a lack of government interference.
The right to speak out informs all of the other natural rights recognized in the Constitution; without it, none of the others make sense, including the right to religious expression, property rights, the right to bear arms. None of these make sense if the government can control your political speech and determine about what its citizens can protest and when they can do it.
Furthermore, the entire reason the founders saw fit to recognize this natural right in the primary position was to guard against corruption and totalitarianism in the federal government. They had just broken free of a particularly ill-tempered monarch who actively sought to oppress dissent regarding British policies in the colonies. The crafters of the Constitution understood that the only barrier to its new government's potential for creating another tyranny would be the free and unfettered poltical speech that would point out such corruption and abuse of power.
The founders would have laughed at McCain's notion that one could trade free political speech for 'clean' government. They knew that the only manner in which to keep the government clean was to enable its citizens to speak out against abuses. Trading free speech for any kind of government only enables the villains of power to accumulate and abuse it all the more.
Senator John McCain has many fine qualities, but an understanding of free speech is not among them. He would trade our primary birthright for a mess of bureaucracy and trust it to operate in our interests while limiting our ability to criticize it. That path leads to autocracy, corruption, and ruin.
Posted by Captain Ed at April 29, 2006 09:28 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
