The one standing in for his brain that is.
He writes a new book, scandalously titled "Palestine Peace not Apartheid," he says to spark debate, and then studiously refuses to debate it, with anyone, ever.
Alan Dershowitz covers the topic here, and my Dad adds:
Carter joins Andrew Johnson as the worst President the US ever had,
not only because virtually every policy he pushed, from international
to the economy, was a failure, but also because he was--and still
is--a hypocrite without a moral compass.
Some people say they are "ashamed" that Bush is our President, but not THIS GUY? I can hardly utter his name without feeling nauseated.
To say that I loathe Kofi Annan is the understatement of the decade. I think the man is the most vile, corrupt, hateful weasel-masquerading-as-a-human I've ever seen (or heard).
His "Ta ta" speech did nothing to assuage my disgust for him. As you can read for yourself, it is so chock full of the most unsubtle insults aimed at not just our President, but at our entire nation, our military included, it would qualify for the rantings of a dillusional if only Annan weren't (surprisingly) sane. In fact, it's his sanity that leads me to detest him so thoroughly. I could forgive a man whose grip on reality really had slipped, but in Kofi's case, it's intentional. He wants us to think he's living in some alternate realm so that he doesn't have to own up to his own ineptitude
Human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity," Annan's text said. When the U.S. "appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused," he said.Annan, who leaves the United Nations on Dec. 31 after 10 years as secretary-general, has become an increasingly vocal critic of the war in Iraq.
He said in the text that the U.S. has a special responsibility to the world because it continues to have extraordinary power.
Annan summed up five principles that he considers essential: collective responsibility, global solidarity, rule of law, mutual accountability and multilateralism.
He chose the Truman museum for his final major speech in part because it is dedicated to a president who was instrumental in the founding of the United Nations. His text repeatedly praised the Truman administration but never mentioned Bush by name.
"As President Truman said, 'The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world,'" Annan said.
"He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible. 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," Annan said.
"Against such threats as these, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others."
Annan also called for a reform of the Security Council, saying its membership "still reflects the reality of 1945." He suggested adding new members to represent parts of the world with less of a voice.
He said the permanent members, the world powers, "must accept the special responsibility that comes with their privilege.'
"The Security Council is not just another stage on which to act out national interests," he said in another jab at Bush.
In plain English, the dickwad's blaming us for his fuck-ups, and we're letting him!
Yessiree, we let him do it on the hallowed ground honoring my hero, Harry Truman--a man who was surely turning so fast in his grave today, he probably altered the Earth's gravitational pull. The very notion that a man so completely devoid of honor and decency would invoke the name of a man who was the very model of both, in order to not only criticize, but judge the nation Truman risked so much to defend is beyond galling, it is downright PUKE-WORTHY!
And we're saying nothing, officially that is. We have no comeback, no retort, nothing to say in response to this worm.
I can only hope that history will be most unkind to Mr. Annan, and that he will be remembered in infamy, as he so richly deserves.
Go to hell Mr. Annan, you're already on such good terms with the proprietor, I'm sure he'll make you feel right at home.
Remember the Enlighenment? Well, technically neither do I--I wasn't born yet--but I liked to think I lived in a time deeply rooted in its values of truth, logic and rational thought.
W-R-O-N-G! Emotion rules the day folks.
We are now probably a decade or two into the Age of Relativism, where "Plight makes right!"
If you are a victim, or can convince others that you are (remember, objective truth has no meaning in this new world), then you can get away with whatever crimes suit your needs or purposes. All that matters is the immediate amelioration of your PAIN (even if it means that others will suffer and, ironically, become victims of the "objective" variety).
For the past five years Masood has remained unyielding in his condemnation of Islamist extremism, so I was incredulous when I learned that he was recently arrested by federal immigration agents. Could this be the same man I knew?Local Muslim groups say no. They charge that the imam has been unfairly targeted because of his religion, and that he'll be absolved. They're likely right. After six days in jail, Masood was released on bail Nov. 21, after a hearing attended by hundreds of supporters, including many Jews and Christians familiar with his work.
But as I looked into the case, I realized that, even if they'd been wrong, I'm not so sure I'd mind. According to initial reports from immigration officials, Masood's arrest was connected to a visa scheme that provided "religious worker" visas for immigrants, mostly Pakistanis, who came here and then worked secular jobs. So this is, ironically, a story about Muslims who are guilty of being insufficiently religious.
In "The Best Defense," Alan Dershowitz writes of the revolving door of rabbis his synagogue saw in the late 1930s. One would be sent over from Europe, the congregants would declare they were unsatisfied with his services, let him go along his way, and send for another. This went on for nearly a decade. "Everybody in the neighborhood," he writes, "understood this charade for what it was: a small-scale rescue operation designed to save European rabbis who were endangered by Nazism."
Pakistan today is not Nazi Germany. It is, however, an impoverished military dictatorship where less than half the population is literate and sectarian violence is commonplace. Islamist movements remain a continual attraction to young men with few prospects, particularly on the northwest border with Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is still believed to be hiding and tribal law reigns supreme. As the Bush administration attempts to fight terrorism by occupying Iraq and propping up dictators , respected community leaders here go to jail on suspicion of moving young men out of a violent cesspool and into leafy Massachusetts suburbs -- where they've found full-time work and a supportive community. Which vision will succeed? The one that wages war on an entire generation, or the one that seeks an alternative for young men growing up under a cloud of poverty and extremism?
Masood was able to disprove any connection to visa fraud, but he remains under investigation for minor violations of immigration rules in the early 1990s; if found guilty, he and his entire family risk deportation to Pakistan.Americans routinely decry the lack of "moderate" Muslim voices. It's time we ask ourselves where they've gone, and why.
Yup, that's right. Let's beat out another rif in the "It's all America's Fault" refrain! This time? We're to blame for Muslim extremism! Yes! AND, what's more, the Holocaust (the same one so many Pakistani clerics DENY HAPPENED) is analagous to the rise of extremism in Pakistan!
Yes folks, those poor Pakistani men have just as little choice in their beliefs and behavior as those poor Jews who were marched into the gas chambers (you know, the ones that didn't really exist....). Hmmm....Let's see, become militant murderer with intolerant apocalyptic worldview, or go to America illegally? There are no other options of course. I am but a cog in the machine...
Hey, at least that constitutes a choice (if it bore any resemblance to reality that is). Jews faced certain DEATH if they remained in Germany. Pakistani men? Not so much. Last time I checked, they aren't "required" to become suicide bombers if they stay. Sure, there aren't many opportunities, but how about coming here legally? Is there some urgency I don't know about?
Either way, let me say fraud is "wrong," I just think it's a stretch to equate what was going on in WWII to what's going on in Boston, 2006. I'm pretty sure the US gov't knew perfectly well what was going on back then, and since none of these rabbis was suspected of being a Nazi SPY, I bet they just looked the other way and focused on bigger problems. Pakistan is a nation chock full of people who want to kill each and every one of us (not just our Jewish citizens), and their people may be fleeing poverty, but not certain persecution and death.
I find it pretty disgusting for this writer to be using the Holocaust and Alan Dershowitz to make her case. Disgusting, and yet predictable. Whenever possible, link those nasty Jooooooos to your victimization and you have a foolproof formula for eliciting a massive colletive "AAAWWWWWWWW, you POOOOOOOOR THING!"
And isn't that the weapon of choice for those working hard to put the last nail in the coffin of our civilization anyway?
In honor of Pearl Harbor Day (a few hours late, sorry), I had to post this brilliant piece by Victor Davis Hanson. [Hat tip to Michelle Malkin]
On Dec. 7, 1941 — 65 years ago this week — pilots from a Japanese carrier force bombed Pearl Harbor. They killed 2,403 Americans, most of them service personnel, while destroying much of the American fleet and air forces stationed in Hawaii.The next morning, an outraged United States declared war, which ended less than four years later with the destruction of most of the Japanese empire and its military.
Sixty years after Pearl Harbor came another surprise attack on U.S. soil, one that was, in some ways, even worse than the "Day of Infamy."
Nearly 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11 attacks — the vast majority of them civilians. Al-Qaida's target was not an American military base far distant from the mainland. Rather, they suicide-bombed the United States' financial and military centers.
It's been five years since Sept. 11. After such a terrible provocation, why can't we bring the ongoing "global war on terror"-- whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere-- to a close as our forefathers fighting World War II could?
Is our generation less competent?
Not really. The United States routed the Taliban from Afghanistan by early December 2001. America's first clear-cut victory against the Japanese, at Midway, came six months after Pearl Harbor.
Do we lack the unity of the past?
Perhaps. But we should at least remember that after Pearl Harbor, a national furor immediately arose over the intelligence failure that had allowed an enormous Japanese fleet to approach the Hawaiian Islands undetected. Extremists went further --clamoring that the Roosevelt administration had deliberately lowered our guard as part of a conspiracy to pave the way for America’s entrance into the war.
Are we in over our heads fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq?
Hardly. Within days after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. found itself in a three-front war against Germany, Italy and Japan--an Axis that had won a series of recent battles against the British, Chinese and Russians.
But there are significant differences between the "global war on terror" and World War II that do explain why victory is taking so much longer this time.
The most obvious is that, against Japan and Germany, we faced easily identifiable nation states with conventional militaries. Today'’s terrorists blend in with civilians, and it’s hard to tie them to their patron governments or enablers in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan, who all deny any culpability. We also tread carefully in an age of ubiquitous frightening weapons, when any war at any time might without much warning bring in a nuclear, non-democratic belligerent.
You will now go read the whole thing, and pray, to whatever version of God you prefer, that it doesn't take another WWII (Holocaust against the Jews included) to get our full attention.
So I sent my case for talking to Iran over to my buddy Brian (recent escapee from the only country that is an oxymoron, "Great" Britain--the only police state in the world that can't seem to manage to police the right people...But I digress....), and he sent back the following comment:
Why bother talking?Let them have the place (and the "fun" that comes with it) and watch
their tough talk come crashing down as they have the "insurgency" spread
inside their own borders. Meanwhile, let the Israelis have their way
with Hizbollah, and come back after five years when Tehran is begging
for detente. :)We get the hell out (we shouldn't have been in there in the first
place), the Iranians get their extended state without having to wait for
Saddam to die, the Israelis get their prime opponent diverted and
weakened, and we get to regroup and figure out how to wean ourselves off
the damn oil stuff in the first place like we should have done back in
the 1970s.
I gotta say, while Bri and I don't always agree (him being a dyed-in-the-cashmere liberal and me being a dyed-in-the-wool conservative), I have to concede, he's got a point.
But I still think talking to the mental deficients in Teheran would be a good face-saving move. At least then they can't write the narrative of our departure. At least then we'll have some editorial privilege when it comes to writing that script. I just never think it's wise to let your enemy do the 'splainin for you. Sure, whatever we say happened in those "talks" will be contradicted or rewritten, but at least if we did talk, there will always be doubt as to whether what they're saying is true. And those who don't doubt it, well, those people don't count anyway, so who gives a shit?
I don't care if all we do is go to Teheran, drink the tea and talk about the fucking weather (during a nuclear winter), or make small talk about the rising cost of healthcare (for those with radiation poisoning). Whatever! Who cares? But to not go, to snub them--despite the fact that they aren't fit to shine our cowboy boots--that leaves them free to talk and talk and talk all the want about why we're staying away, and later, about why we left Iraq.
We can't continue to let a guy who looks like a week-old hairball coughed up by a very sick cat do all the talking, now can we?
I thought about writing a reply to Ahmadinnerjacket's letter to the American people, but every time I tried to respond to it, I had to re-read sections of it--just to make sure I wasn't hallucinating you understand--and each time I had to do that, I ended up wanting to take a shower, I felt so ICKY.
So I gave up and started reading what other braver less easily grossed out people had to say instead.
That's when I came across what AskMom at Baldilocks had to say.
Let's just say her piece reminded me that I really need to do those Kegel exercises I've been blowing off for the past year since Lily was born, because I'll be damned if I didn't almost pee all over myself laughing!
Read it yourself and just try to keep a straight face! I dare ya!
This is a message from the Uppity Unburka'd Gun-Toting Grandmas of the Free World to Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so-called President of Iran and teller of poisonous, slithering lies:Bite Us.
You loser. Your pansy excuse for a religion requires you to offer us a chance to submit and convert before you try to kill and enslave us. Offer noted for the record. Tragically for you, we have guns and bad attitudes. Our sons and grandsons have bigger guns and worse attitudes. Our military has the biggest guns and the worst attitudes this earth has ever seen.
I've got news, Mahmoud my boy. We're pretty committed to this democracy thing we've got going here. And none of us is all that excited about giving up our job, education, voting rights, intimate body parts or ability to feel the sun on more than just our eyebrows.
We don't fancy our daughters and granddaughters as breeding stock for you and your genetically subnormal followers, either. The girls are uppity too and expect to choose for themselves who the daddies of their babies will be. "Smelly violent hate-crazed camel molester" doesn't seem to be a strong favorite, sorry to have to disillusion you about that.
And you will now go read the whole thing and laugh some more (and, if you are a good friend, you will share it with others who need a good laugh).