Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

Rosie’s Blog’s Damning Evidence.

May 27, 2007

Much of the furore surrounding the Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck verbal entanglement centred on the notion that O’Donnell had described the US troops as terrorists. A charge that O’Donnell denies and one on which she forced Hasselbeck to defend her (eventually) during the now infamous row.

It is ironic that O’Donnell’s own blogsite contains the following quotation – a transcript of a discussion in which the ‘terrorist’ description pops up…

 “Dated: 2007-05-23
Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

The [sic] is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?  
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.”

Notice, O’Donnell refuses to answer Hasselbeck’s questions regarding clarifying her position on the identity of the terrorists in her opinion. It is clear from her initial statement (my bold) that she is implying that US troops are the terrorists. She is clever enough not to actually put those words in the same sentence but her implication is crystal clear. Hasselbeck gave her ample opportunity to clarify her postion – O’Donnell refused.

It is typical of O’Donnell that she tosses in the 650,000 figure for the amount of Iraqis killed and she even has a section for this stat on her blogsite. I say typical, because of course the number 650,000 is not based on any facts. It is fictitious. There is no proof. This does not deter O’Donnell from using it as if it were true to back up her argument.

It is equally bizarre that she would state that the US was acting against the UN while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hussein/Iraq had been acting in violation of the UN for over a decade. I hardly think the current massacres occuring in Iraq as a result of the fighting between rival Muslim groups is in accordance with the UN charter either – although the lack of action from the UN regarding Darfur might suggest otherwise.

The fact that O’Donnell’s own blog contained the incriminating evidence – and yet, O’Donnell’s people viewing the transcript through Rosie-tinted spectacles do not see it. This might explain why they don’t ‘get’ 9/11 or the War on Terror.

Rosie O’Donnell Spits Out Pacifier

May 24, 2007

On The View, Rosie O’Donnell took up her usual position in the gutter and proceeded to attack Elisabeth Hasselbeck in a manner reminiscent of the schoolyard bully. The similarity with those dastardly, yet cowardly, bullies continued when she whined and seemed on the verge of tears when Hasselbeck initially refused to state that she believed O’Donnell did not think US troops were terrorists.

It was only after constant badgering and shouting that Hasselbeck eventually agreed that O’Donnell did not equate the actions of the US troops with those of the Islamic extremists. It was less a case of Hasselbeck saying what she believed, and more one of her repeating what O’Donnell the bully wanted to hear in order to get her to pipe down.

Despite caving in, Hasselbeck put up a good show and hopefully will get stronger as O’Donnell’s time draws to a close.

O’Donnell has labelled President Bush as a war criminal, has made outrageous claims that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and has consistently attacked the Coalition forces in Iraq (while, at the same time, claiming to support the troops). It is little wonder many view her as anti-American, anti-democratic and consequently in favour of a US defeat in the War on Terror.

As Hasselbeck suggested, if O’Donnell does not want to be seen in this light, she needs to stop spouting her unpatriotic, anti-freedom diatribes on an almost daily basis.

Equating Bush’s actions in bringing freedom from oppression to Afghanistan and Iraq, in defending the values of freedom “here and over there”, and in supporting the efforts of peoples like the Kurds in Iraq to strive for democracy, to the actions of the extremists and dictators like Hussein is unforgivable. O’Donnell criticizes Bush for going to war in Iraq against the wishes of the UN but says nothing about the fact that Hussein had blatently ignored not only the UN resolutions over a period of more than ten years but also had flouted basic human rights for many in his country (and Kuwait during the invasion).

O’Donnell deserves no sympathy. It is because the US has a President like Bush who is prepared to fight for liberty and to protect what America stands for that O’Donnell can freely express her bigoted and misleading opinions and lead the lifestyle she chooses. The extremists, that she feels we should not be fighting, would not allow her a fraction of the freedom she enjoys in the West nor would they allow her to live for long.

How miopic of O’Donnell not to see the long-term cosequences of failure! Oh well, at least there are only three weeks to go before she loses her current outlet for her tirades. One can only hope the shouting subsides and the pacifer remains firmly in her mouth over that time. Somehow, I doubt it.

See also Rosie’s War Against America

McCain’s Presidential Speech

May 3, 2007

“The vision of a new era of enduring peace based on freedom is not a Republican vision. It is not a Democratic vision. It is an American vision,” said John McCain at Stanford University, California, on Tuesday. This sums up his potential appeal to Americans, if and when the Republican party makes the right choice and selects him as their candidate for President.

McCain is in a unique position of appealing to Republicans on certain key issues, Democrats on others, and Americans, regardless of their political persuasions, on numerous social and political matters.

What is more, he is sticking to his guns on the major issue – the war on terror, aka protecting America’s (and the rest of the democratic world’s) freedom. “…We must recognize the dangers posed by the forces of terrorism and tyranny that look backward into a world of darkness and violence,” states McCain in the same speech. Is McCain really one of the few people in the media spotlight who read the situation in this way?

McCain continues, “International terrorists capable of inflicting mass destruction are a new phenomenon. But what they seek and what they stand for are as old as time. They comprise part of worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism. Upon the outcome of that struggle depends our security, our prosperity, and our democratic way of life.

Are most of the other potential Presidential candidates (Giuliani being an exception) avoiding such rhetoric purely for their own self-interest? In other words, they are unwilling to state the truth to the American people – the truth that war on terror and for freedom around the globe is not only just but is necessary to ensure the American way of life continues – out of fear that such an utterance would scupper their own political ambitions.

 McCain demonstrates he is not afraid to ruffle a few diplomatic feathers, when he chides China and Russia for their respective failures to advance the causes of democracy and freedom, while, at the same time, offering the idea that the US should make more efforts to be a good ally to countries such as France and Germany. While this last notion may not go down too well with many, it is realistic – lasting success in the war on terror, or the war for enduring freedom, will require more widespread support around the world.

 McCain mentions his idea for a “League of Democracies” as something that would “complement” the United Nations – While this seems to be more in the realms of fantasy, any group of nations that could come together and act when situations occured rather than simply politick, would be a vast improvement on the current sloth that is the United Nations. That last comparison is somewhat unfair – the sloth is a rather nice creature that hangs around on a branch all day long barely moving, and yet, in doing just that, adds so much more to the world that the UN does in a year through its own inaction.

McCain’s speech demonstrates that he is going from strength to strength and putting Rudy under real pressure for the first time in 2007.

McCain – Man of the Hour

April 15, 2007

Throughout history, there have been innumerable examples of people excelling at crucial moments, more through simply being the right person at the right time than having earned the honour. It is a simple truism to say that without the intervention of these folk, the history of countries, continents, and, indeed, the world would have been significantly different.

When one considers the impact of people like Churchill, Gorbachev, and Gandhi, to name but three, it is clear that the world would undoubtedly be a less pleasant place.

Today, we stand at another crossroad in mankind’s journey. The free, democratic countries around the world are under attack from Islamic extremists. People of every faith (including Islam) are being persecuted by these terrorists. The will to fight for freedom and justice is weak among many countries. Why? For many, the threat is not crystal clear. Hence, the vitriol aimed at Bush and Blair et al.

Many sought peace with Hitler, too, but were, fortunately, ignored.

John McCain stands alone with regard to his resolute defence of the war – not how it was handled but why. He is prepared to sacrifice his Presidential campaign, if necessary. He will not shy away from reality. Following his visit to Iraq, McCain wrote an excellent piece in the Washington Post, where he stated…

“There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but we must try. As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States [and the world! – Libertas01], that to refuse to give Petraeus’s plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve.”

The Democrats fail to see the catastrophic consequences of capitulating to the extremists (or, at least, they seem to – maybe for political reasons at home).

Bush was the man of the hour for the start of the war on terror campaign following the events of 2001 and Hussein’s refusal to adhere to UN resolutions.

McCain is shaping up to be the ideal candidate to continue the fight. A man of principle and vast experience whose passion for America and what it stands for knows no bounds. 

See also Michigan for McCain – Has McCain’s Moment Arrived?

Iran 1 United Kingdom 0

April 5, 2007

“I’d like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I’d like to thank yourself and the Iranian people… Thank you very much, sir.”

These are the words of an unidentified British sailor. Hardly the language one expects from a member of Britannia’s wave-ruling navy. Alas, the kowtowing to Iran is becoming infectious.

The treatment of the sailors has been unforgivable. How one of the sailors can thank Ahmadinejad when the female sailor was forced to wear a hijab is beyond belief. The media, of course, have made very little criticism of the parading of the sailors on television, or the forced confessions, or, indeed, the hijab.

It is not hard to imagine the uproar there would be if the US or the UK forced its prisoners to appear on television, let alone if they coerced female Muslim terrorist suspects to wear western-style clothing.

Iran wins this battle but the incident counts as useful evidence in building a case against the volatile and unpredictable Ahmadinejad. Some will be fooled by this Easter ‘gift.’ It certainly will not distract President Bush, who knows that Ahmadinejad would like to present another ‘gift’ to the world in the form of a nuclear weapon.

Publicly, the UK came out of this incident rather embarrassed. One must hope that, privately, the UK plans to help the US (ideally UN as well, but that’s pure fantasy) to ensure future incidents with Iran do not involve nuclear weapons.

Iran’s Act of War

March 28, 2007

Not too long ago, the unjust capture of 15 British sailors by Iran (a hostile nation) would have been seen as an act of war. In today’s wishy-washy world of anti-America (and its allies) hysteria, where apologists for terrorism are crawling out of every nook and cranny to be feted on television, this aggressive deed has been relegated to a minor issue in the mainstream media. The UK is already being blamed for provoking the incident and for lying about the true geographical location of its forces. It is a sad day when the left sides with an Iranian leadership that has called for the destruction of Israel, denied the holocaust took place and has as one of its goals the demise of the USA. Sad, but not surprising, when one considers that many of these same people on the left blamed the western world for the 9/11 attacks.

Where the capture has received coverage, the tone and content of the reporting have suggested that the US and the UK have somehow concocted the whole episode in order to have a reason for launching military action against Iran (conveniently forgetting the fact that there are already numerous reasons to justify military action against this hostile nation).

The anti-Bush/America/UK crowd, including numerous Hollywood celebrities, are quick to attack the benevolent forces of the Coalition, and yet not one word is uttered condemning the illegal actions of the Iranians, in this incident or many others (such as the intrusions into Iraq to attack US forces).

It is somewhat ironic that Bush’s foreign policy of spreading freedom and safeguarding our democracy defends the rights of individuals to choose their lifestyles, religions, opinions and political allegiances, while the regimes and extremist groups that the anti-Bush Hollywood herd seems to prefer (over the leaders of the West) outlaw individuality and choice.

The UK’s response to the crisis has been uncharacteristically weak so far. One can only hope that there will be serious consequences for Iran if the 15 sailors are not released in the next day or two. Even if they are freed, Iran’s leadership needs to be given a very clear message about its unacceptable behaviour. The way things are going, Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon – suddenly, it will throw its weight around even more if it knows the rest of the world will sit back and do nothing.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world, in the shape of the UN, will probably do nothing if past form is a guide. Once again, the responsibility for dealing with Iran will fall upon nations like the US and the UK – nations who have the courage and foresight to act with prudence in the best interests of the free world.