Thursday, March 27, 2008

Collusion & Treason from the Democrat Party

What did they know, and When did they know it?

Saddam Paid for Lawmakers' Iraq Trip

WASHINGTON (AP) - Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
The three anti-war Democrats made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. While traveling, they called for a diplomatic solution.

Prosecutors say that trip was arranged by Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a Michigan charity official, who was charged Wednesday with setting up the junket at the behest of Saddam's regime. Iraqi intelligence officials allegedly paid for the trip through an intermediary and rewarded Al-Hanooti with 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil.

The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators "have no information whatsoever" any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.

"Obviously, we didn't know it at the time," McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. "The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That's the only reason we went."

Both McDermott and Thompson are popular among liberal voters in their reliably Democratic districts for their anti-war views. Bonior is no longer in Congress.

Thompson released a statement Wednesday saying the trip was approved by the State Department.

"Obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated," he said.

During the trip, the lawmakers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration's claims that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Though such weapons ultimately were never found, (except 7 Tons of Refined Uranium) the lawmakers drew criticism for their trip at the time.

Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, then the second-ranking Senate Republican, said the Democrats "sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government." Seattle-area conservatives dubbed McDermott "Baghdad Jim" for the Iraq trip.

Al-Hanooti was arrested Tuesday night while returning to the U.S. from the Middle East, where he was looking for a job, his attorney, James Thomas, said. Al-Hanooti pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges of conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, illegally purchasing Iraqi oil and lying to authorities. He was being held on $100,000 bail.

Between 1999 and 2006, he worked on and off as a public relations coordinator for Life for Relief and Development, a charity formed after the first Gulf War to fund humanitarian work in Iraq. FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents raided the charity's headquarters in 2006 but charged nobody and allowed the agency to continue operating.

McDermott identified that charity as the group financing the Iraq trip. In House disclosure forms, he put the cost at $5,510. Thompson also understood the charity to be financing the trip, spokeswoman Anne Warden said.

Prosecutors said Al-Hanooti was responsible for monitoring Congress for the Iraqi Intelligence Service. From 1999 to 2002, he allegedly provided Saddam's government with a list of U.S. lawmakers he believed favored lifting economic sanctions against Iraq.

Thomas said Al-Hanooti would "vigorously defend" himself against the charges but he could not discuss the specifics of the case since he had seen none of the evidence.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Iraqi Army Engages Mookies Army

Where are the News Headlines in the MSM? Shiites are fighting Iranian backed Shiites for control of Basra. Not a peep in the MSM over an event that they said would never take place.

Iraqi PM Gives Basra Gunmen Ultimatum

Mar 26, 6:54 AM (ET)

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's prime minister on Wednesday gave gunmen in the southern oil port of Basra a three-day deadline to surrender their weapons and renounce violence as clashes between Shiite militia fighters and Iraqi security forces erupted for a second day.

At least 55 people have been killed and 300 wounded in Basra and Baghdad after the fighting spread to the capital's main Shiite district of Sadr City, police and hospital officials said.

The ultimatum came as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in Basra to supervise a crackdown against the spiraling violence between militia factions vying for control of the center of the country's vast oil industry located near the Iranian border. The violence has raised fears that the cease-fire declared in August by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr could unravel, presenting the gravest challenge to the Iraqi government in months.

Monday, March 24, 2008

This could get Interesting

Truck Drivers are going broke and there are rumbles about strikes amongst the independents. How can that be? Don't they understand that the price of fuel is good for this country? Don't they understand the damage they are doing to the planet? Don't they know that they are being gouged by the Oil Companies?

I got a kick out of the following article. First of all I want to say I respect and understand the importance of the Trucking Industry. I want everyone before they go any further to look around the room where your sitting. All that STUFF and every piece of clothing on your body was transported on a truck and would never have reached you without this backbone industry.

Now with that being said boo hoo, boo hoo. As Reverend Wright has said "Americas Chickens have come home to roost." Brought home by the Democrat Party. The majority of truckers are Union people. They have for years supported NO ONE except the Democrat Party. Well it is the Democrat Party that has prevented the US from continued development of Domestic Oil. It is the Democrat Party that has prevented Oil Refineries from being built. It is the Democrat party who have adopted the policy of burning our food rather than use our own oil.

Now has this helped us in anyway, NO. Has it helped the environment No, in fact here is an
article on how Bio Fuels are MORE harmful to the environment. We are importing more and more oil into this country bought from nations that we are at war with because of the Democrat Party.

The Country is heading for an economic collapse it can be laid right at the feet of the Democrats. They have destroyed 3 crucial industries that are key to our economy. 1) The Steel Industry, 2) The Automobile Industry, 3) The Oil Industry. It is those 3 industries that made America #1. Over the past 50 years the Democrats have systematically dismantled all 3 industries. The result simple destruction of the US economy.

Think about it people they are telling us to burn our food. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Truckers ‘going broke’ and threatening to strike
By Barb Ickes Wednesday, March 19, 2008

What started as a small, online grassroots effort now appears to have the potential for something bigger.

Dan Little, the owner/operator of a livestock hauling company in Carrollton, Mo., estimated Tuesday that at least 1,000 other truckers from across the United States have committed so far to joining him in a strike on April 1.

Although none of the truckers interviewed Tuesday at the Iowa 80 Truck Stop, Walcott, which is just off Interstate 80 west of Davenport, has heard of the intended strike, some said they would shut down, too.

Weldon Kinnison, a Virginia trucker who was hauling soft drink from Indiana to Denver, heard about the plans for a strike for the first time Tuesday while stopping at Walcott.

“I’m an owner/operator with the American Truckers Association,” he said. “I’d park my truck for a week with the cattle haulers.

“The fuel is too high, and there’s no reason for it. I don’t listen to the CB (radio) that much, but I guess I’ll start now.”

At issue is the rising cost of diesel fuel, which has reached or exceeded $4 per gallon in at least 17 states. But Little does not expect his strike to bring down the per-gallon price of gas, nor does he expect to have any effect on the oil companies.

“What I would personally like to see is our federal and state governments, until our economy recovers, suspend federal and state fuel taxes,” the 49-year-old said. “The second thing I’d like to see is an oversight committee for truck insurance, which is part of what’s taking us down.

“The average owner/operator is paying $600 to $800 a month for truck insurance. It’s based on personal credit, which means the monthly cost is going up for a lot of truckers because their credit is going down.

“Everything in the world is going up (in price), except for what we do. I lose money if I start my truck, and that truck is paid for — free and clear.”

Mike Hills, a driver from Wyoming, Iowa, said he also would shut down to support Little and the others — if he could.

“I can’t strike with them because I’m company,” he said while at the Walcott truck stop. “If I owned the truck, I’d strike with them. As far as I’m concerned, the gas prices are driving the economy.

“It might be a good thing if the drivers strike. They can’t make payments. Maybe if the oil companies bought all the trucks, things would change. Everything in this country is trucked.”

Hills then removed his wristwatch, using it to explain his point of view: “Every piece of this watch was trucked from somewhere. If you can’t keep up with the trucks, we’re all screwed — not just this country, but the world.”

Keith Deblieck, the owner of a trucking company out of Geneseo, Ill., said that, for many drivers, the time for a strike has come.

“They ought to strike,” he said. “We all ought to. They lose money every day they go out.”

But officials from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association are encouraging truckers to find options to a strike. The trade group represents the interests of more than 160,000 small business trucking companies and drivers.

“If we told our operators to shut down, we’d be slapped with a lawsuit because of anti-trust,” said association spokeswoman Norita Taylor, adding that a poor economic outlook and rising fuel prices are creating “a lot of emotions” among truckers.

“It’s hurting these people who are living paycheck to paycheck,” she said. “People are upset. What can we do?”

One thing the association is trying to do is talk to lawmakers and truckers about making sure that surcharges being charged to shippers are getting back to the people who paid for the gas. Surcharges are supposed to compensate for high fuel charges, but they must be negotiated with each shipper, and the truckers who pay at the pump aren’t always first in line to receive the surcharges.

Even when the surcharges do make it back to the driver, they are not enough.

“I turn down loads every day,” Little said. “The loads aren’t the problem — never have been.

“It’s the only thing I know how to do, driving a truck. But I sold my trailer the other day, and I’m not buying another one until something gets done.

“In no way, shape or form do truckers want to hurt this country. My whole deal on this thing is that I’m shutting down on April 1. Call it a strike, a shutdown or just flat-ass going broke.”

Jim Johnston, president of Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, warned that a strike “is not the answer,” saying, “Calling for a strike without the support of the majority would show weakness rather than strength, and the result would be increased economic hardship to the small percentage of truckers who do participate in the shutdown with no gains to justify their sacrifice.”

Little said he has no other choice.

“Our federal government is subsidizing railroads, airlines, banks and farmers,” he said. “Meanwhile, we’re being taxed to death.”

Barb Ickes can be contacted at (563) 383-2316 or

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Things that make me smile :)

Obama Aide: Bill Clinton Like McCarthy

A retired Air Force general compared former President Clinton to Joseph McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator, on Friday after Clinton seemed to question Democrat Barack Obama's patriotism.

Merrill "Tony" McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force and currently a co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, said he was disappointed by comments Clinton made while campaigning for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech Friday in Charlotte, N.C.

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," Clinton said. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

McPeak learned of the remarks while at an Obama rally in Salem, Ore. Afterward, he called Clinton's statement horrible and compared it to McCarthy, the Republican senator from Wisconsin who held hearings on suspected Communist sympathizers in the 1950s.

"It sounds more like McCarthy," McPeak said. "I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it."

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer rejected the comparison.

"To liken these comments to McCarthyism is absurd," Singer said. He said McPeak was "clearly misinterpreting" the remarks and suggested that might be an intentional effort to divert attention from a recent controversy involving controversial statements by Obama's former pastor.

In a posting on Hillary Clinton's Web site Thursday, the campaign said the former president was simply talking about the need to keep the race focused on issues, "rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism."

McPeak, who served under Clinton and the first President Bush, was skeptical.

"It's a use of language as a disguised insult. We've seen this before, this little clever spin that's put on stuff," McPeak said. "I have no idea what his intentions are, but I'm disappointed in the statement. I think Bill Clinton is, or ought to be, better than that."

The former president has attracted criticism over earlier comments during the heated Democratic primary race. Following South Carolina's primary in January, he was accused of fanning racial tensions for appearing to cast Obama as little more than a black candidate popular in state with a heavily black electorate.

He also criticized the news media for making a race story out of his comments.

McPeak got one MAJOR thing WRONG. EVERYONE that McCarthy accused of being a communist was PROVEN to be one, It's still nice to watch them use one of the people in history that they've maligned to malign each other.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Where's the Outrage?

You know I sit here and consume news as most that will read this do, we consume it like food. I can go hours without a morsel to eat but I feel deprived if I don't check the headlines at least once an hour. It has occurred to me that something is missing at the moment. Right now my country is obsessed with a racist an what effect he will have on someone's chance as President. The Iraqi's big hang-up at the moment is whether or not to hold new elections in the areas where the Sunni boycotted the vote. There is an eggshell thickness of concern on both sides of the pond on bank runs and teetering economies. The Russians have started a massive shift into rebuilding it's militaries advanced systems. And the Pallies have declared that they are going to implement United Nations Resolution 194 regarding the refugees.
Article 11 of the resolution, which was passed in December 1948, says that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at "peace" with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." In other words nothing new, screw the Jews by demanding they let an army of self-exploders into their border while forcing them to "pay" those that don't come. LOL

All in all it's pretty much business as usual.

Except for one little thing. The Chicoms are slaughtering Monks by the 100s and no one is batting an eye. The worst anyone has suggested is a boycott of the Olympics.. Whoopdi do! Engaging the Chicoms in any manner other than a hostile one is do I dare say it Morally wrong.

My countries trade agreement with them is an abomination to the very fibre of humanity, so is every other nation that traffics economically with these people.

As we speak China has sealed off Tibet. Why? is there some plague that might get out and infect the rest of the world ? I don't think so. No they are massing troops and tanks and have already committed wholesale slaughter. AP and other foreign journalists were ordered out of the Tibetan parts of Gansu and Qinghai provinces by police who told them it was for their "safety." or You think maybe they don't want shots of self emoluating monks being run over by tanks sent out over youtube, which they have also shut down.

The Russians have gone Capitalist even though they are in its early growing pains like we were in the 20s. The Religious Fanatics are always an immediate threat that we will all have to deal with. It's the Chicoms however that we are ignoring as they prepare to wipe out a whole religious sect.

100s of Monks have already died and monasteries are being placed under siege. The Blood Bath will not be televised.

Hell why should that effect the Olympics mmmph

The Troll

Friday, March 14, 2008

Great Article

Friday, March 14, 2008

Cherry-picking Intelligence: Saddam's Iraq and Terrorism [Steve Schippert]

Permit me, please, to ask a very basic and fundamental question that must be answered:

Are we, the United States, fighting a War on Terror, or are we just fighting a War on Al-Qaeda Senior Leadership?

Answering this question would go a long way toward unspinning and unpacking what most Americans probably see as a dizzying contrast in reporting. Case in point: Consider the headlines that followed the disclosure of the latest Iraq Perspectives Project analyzing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi documents and other intelligence captured in Iraq.
ABC: Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda
CNN: Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says
New York Times: Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie
Washington Post: Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link
AFP: No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study
McClatchy: Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
The headlines and the narrative dictated by the bodies of the stories hover over a single sentence in the Executive Summary, which reads:

"This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

The journalists cherry-picked a single sentence out of a 94-page report and have written multitudes of stories on it. One can question whether some of the writers even read the report beyond that line, which appears in the second paragraph.

Now skip the news reports above and read for yourself the first few paragraphs of the new Iraq Perspectives Report's Executive Summary for proper context. You will find it interesting that the very first sentence in the report is wholly ignored. Then ask yourself the question once again: Are we fighting a War on Terror or just a War on Al-Qaeda Senior Leadership?

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following:

  • The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.

  • On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime's perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.

  • Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

  • State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000.

If the news agencies' reporters (and others touting the "no link" narrative) care to read the document, it is riddled with details of documented (in official Iraqi communications) cooperation, support and other links to international terrorist groups, including Saddam's Fedayeen Saddam, which ran training camps to deploy a cell of its top 10 graduating trained terrorists to London.

In discussion with Tom Joscelyn last night, I remarked about the "no 'smoking gun'" line: "I'm not so sure there is a greater smoldering muzzle than the lovefest between the IIS and Zawahiri's IJ in the early nineties delineated in this report." Today, as Andy pointed out earlier, Tom has a short perspective on the report and the accompanying misleading media coverage over at The Weekly Standard's blog.

The Iraqi Intelligence documents discussed in the report link Saddam’s regime to: the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (the “EIJ” is al Qaeda number-two Ayman al Zawahiri's group), the Islamic Group or “IG” (once headed by a key al Qaeda ideologue, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman), the Army of Mohammed (al Qaeda's affiliate in Bahrain), the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (a forerunner to Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq), and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (a long-time ally of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan), among other terrorist groups. Documents cited by the report, but not discussed at length in the publicly available version (they may be in a redacted portion of the report), also detail Saddam’s ties to a sixth al Qaeda affiliate: the Abu Sayyaf group, an al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines.

Both the EIJ and the IG were early and important core allies for Osama bin Laden as he forged the al Qaeda terror network, which comprises a number of affiliates around the world.
It requires some creative narration to conclude definitively that Hussein's Iraq had "no link" to al-Qaeda considering the above, regardless of what the finite (though massive) set of documents avails.

As Steve Hayes rightly questions:

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

Exactly. How does that work?

Think of the paragraphs from Tom and Steve above this way:

You are a Briton returning to England a few years after the American Revolution. You are queried about your time and linkages there. Your response is, "Your Majesty, I have had communications, cooperation and ties with the colonies of Virginia, Carolina, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland. But I have absolutely no links to America."

That's what "no link to al-Qaeda" requires. That's what one must believe regarding Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. A rather illogical stretch to be so definitive, no?

Furthermore, why is it that Hussein's state sponsorship of international terrorism is dismissed as irrelevant because it does not overtly or directly thus far carry the stamp of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri? Again, is it a War on Terror or just a War on AQSL?

It's as if we could all pack up and come home and relax if we could just kill those two individuals.

You know better than that.

03/14 02:18 PM

Islam the Religion of the ignorant.

Before they worry about suing others, they may want to think about stopping those that self explode killing woman and children in the name of their child molesting profit.

Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI, Associated Press Writer

DAKAR, Senegal - The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.

Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.

The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.

Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

Delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.

"Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group.

The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up.

"In our relation with the western world, we are going through a difficult time," Ihsanoglu told the summit's general assembly. "Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement."

The International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to misuse the U.N.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not "give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views."

Hemayet Uddin, the lead author of the OIC report and head of cultural affairs for the group said legal action is needed because "this Islamophobia that we see in the world has gone far beyond a phobia. It is now at the level of hatred, of xenophobia, and we need to act."

A new charter drafted by the OIC commits the Muslim body "to protect and defend the true image of Islam" and "to combat the defamation of Islam."

To protect the faith, Muslim nations have created an "observatory" that meets regularly to monitor Islamophobia. It examines lectures and workshops taking place around the world and prints a monthly record of offensive content.

But some of the summit's delegates said a legal approach would be over the top.

"My general view would be that the confrontational approach is one my country would avoid," said Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Iftekhar Chowdhruy. Bangladesh is 90 percent Muslim.

While the Muslim world worries about the image of Islam in the West, the U.S. envoy to the OIC attended the summit to try to tackle the thorny question of America's image among Muslim states.

Sada Cumber calls his campaign the "soft power" of the U.S. — an effort to find common ground with Muslim nations by championing universal values the U.S. holds dear like religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

"America has a deep respect for the religion of Islam," Cumber told The Associated Press. "The freedom of faith that we exercise, that we enjoy in America, that is also a very important aspect of the American core values. Anyone who wants to practice any faith is never stopped or discouraged."

Also during the summit, Chad and Sudan signed a peace agreement to stop incursions of rebels across each other's borders, and the summit delegates committed themselves to addressing the spiraling violence between Israelis and Palestinians.


Associated Press Writer Heidi Vogt contributed to this report

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Don't ya love the UN

You Gotta love the travesty and insanity of the world. Either that or become hoplessly paranoid.

The UN condemns the Jews what a shock.

U.N. chief condemns Israel after bloody day in Gaza
GAZA (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Israel for using "excessive" force in the Gaza Strip and demanded a halt to its offensive after troops killed 61 people on the bloodiest day for Palestinians since the 1980s.

Addressing an emergency session of the Security Council in New York after four days of fighting in which 96 Palestinians have been killed, many of them civilians, Ban also called on Gaza's Islamist militants to stop firing rockets.

"While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children ... I call on Israel to cease such attacks," said Ban.

"I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism," he said.

ONLY after the Jews respond can these asses reprimand the Pallies. I guess the Israelies should just fire random missils a couple of times a day into GAZA. It doesn't upset them when Hamass does it. It will be interesting to see what happens when Iran attacks Israel this summer from both Gaza and Lebenon in a coordinated attack.

and the Jews
press on