Saturday, December 09, 2006

Nutjob two-fer

Rep. Cynthia McKinney Introduces Bush Impeachment Bill
In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney announced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.

The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.


Germany Condemns Iranian Plan to Host Holocaust Conference
Germany condemned a planned Iranian conference on the Holocaust and summoned Iran's charge d'affaires to the Foreign Ministry, saying that attempts to question the Nazis' murder of Jews were "shocking and unacceptable."

The conference, scheduled for Sunday and Monday, was organized by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called the systematic killing of some 6 million Jews a "myth" and "exaggerated." Some 67 foreign researchers from 30 countries are scheduled to attend the two-day meeting.

The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and the Tehran conference appeared to be part of Ahmadinejad's public campaign against the Jewish state.

Hey Iraq Study Group: you have suggested that we work hand in hand with the new Hitler. You have emboldened him, encouraged him and now you want to give him a massage. Future generations are going to look back at you in disgust knowing that you allowed whatever future atrocities that the new Hitler is going to bring to the world.

I guess "never again" doesn't mean anything to the pompous, self-righteous, self-serving, worthless politicians that we send to Washington.


Anonymous said...

You forgot "cowardly".

Bryan Saxton said...

"Hey Iraq Study Group: you have suggested that we work hand in hand with the new Hitler. You have emboldened him, encouraged him and now you want to give him a massage. Future generations are going to look back at you in disgust knowing that you allowed whatever future atrocities that the new Hitler is going to bring to the world."

I do have to admit, Causitry is an effective way of conveying opposing ideas as immoral. No matter what, you guys are going to look at any form of negotiation with Iran and Syria as "negotiating with terrorist," which you guys view as an immoral sin.

Why are you guys so opposed to the implementation of soft power? The cold war is over. We simply cannot afford to keep doing things the way we've been doing them (in regards to the implementation of hard power).

If you're so "concerned" with genocide, why are you not crying out against the autrocities being committed in Darfur?

Tim said...

BS - You do have a point in a strange sort of way. Since the Communists and Terrorists got the outcome they desired in this last election, I’m sure the Democrats can open a dialogue with their extended base (the Terrorists) and make them play nice now and abandon all that crazy talk about convert to Islam or die, and wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Yep I can see it now, the newly elected communists in Congress sitting around the campfire with Amadinnersalad holding hands and singing camp songs. Yes everything will be wonderful if we only appease irrational terrorists.

Anonymous said...


Darfur has been embroiled in a deadly conflict for over three years. At least 400,000 people have been killed; more than 2 million innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes and now live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad; and more than 3.5 million men, women, and children are completely reliant on international aid for survival. Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter.

Since early 2003, Sudanese armed forces and Sudanese government-backed militia known as “Janjaweed” have been fighting two rebel groups in Darfur, the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The stated political aim of the rebels has been to compel the government of Sudan to address underdevelopment and the political marginalization of the region. In response, the Sudanese government’s regular armed forces and the Janjaweed – largely composed of fighters of Arab nomadic background – have targeted civilian populations and ethnic group from which the rebels primarily draw their support – the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

The Bush Administration has recognized these atrocities – carried out against civilians primarily by the government of Sudan and its allied Janjaweed militias – as genocide. António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has described the situation in Sudan and Chad as “the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe.” The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias are responsible for the burning and destruction of hundreds of rural villages, the killing of tens of thousands of people and rape and assault of thousands of women and girls.

With much international pressure, the Darfur Peace Agreement was brokered in May 2006 between the government of Sudan and one faction of Darfur rebels. However, deadlines have been ignored and the violence has escalated, with in-fighting among the various rebel groups and factions dramatically increasing and adding a new layer of complexity to the conflict. This violence has made it dangerous, if not impossible, for most of the millions of displaced persons to return to their homes. Humanitarian aid agencies face growing obstacles to bringing widespread relief. In August 2006, the UN's top humanitarian official Jan Egeland stated that the situation in Darfur is "going from real bad to catastrophic." Indeed, the violence in Darfur rages on with government-backed militias still attacking civilian populations with impunity.

On July 30, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1556 demanding that the government of Sudan disarm the Janjaweed. This same demand is also an important part of the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in May of 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Security Council took the further step of authorizing a strong UN peacekeeping force for Darfur by passing resolution 1706. Despite these actions, the Janjaweed are still active and free to commit the same genocidal crimes against civilians in Darfur with the aid of the Sudanese government.

International experts agree that the United Nations Security Council must deploy a peacekeeping force with a mandate to protect civilians immediately. Until it arrives, the under-funded and overwhelmed African Union monitoring mission must be bolstered. And governments and international institutions must provide and ensure access to sufficient humanitarian aid for those in need.

Anonymous said...

from today's la times,1,1545614.story
U.N. chief sees little progress on rights
Annan also tells Sudan's leaders they could be held accountable for the violence in Darfur.
By Maggie Farley
Times Staff Writer

December 9, 2006

NEW YORK — U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave a sober assessment Friday of his own shortcomings as he prepared to leave office at the end of the year, and accused the United States of violating human rights in its war on terror.

He also warned Sudan's leaders that they would be held accountable if they didn't halt the violence in Darfur, and urged countries with commercial interests in Sudan to pressure the government in Khartoum.

In an address to mark Human Rights Day, which is Sunday, Annan talked about whether the United Nations had become an effective defender of human rights during his decade as secretary-general.

"I'm not sure how far I have succeeded," he said. "To judge by what is happening in Darfur, our performance has not improved much since the disasters of Bosnia and Rwanda," Annan said.

"Sixty years after the liberation of the Nazi death camps, and 30 years after the Cambodian killing fields, the promise of 'never again' is ringing hollow," he said to an audience of about 500 people invited by Human Rights Watch.

He suggested several ways to improve, starting with living up to an agreement signed by world leaders last year that the world had the "responsibility to protect" people from crimes against humanity, even those perpetrated by their own government.

Darfur, the western region of Sudan, where about 2.5 million people have been displaced and more than 200,000 have died in three years of conflict, is a test case. But countries have not showed enough will to give up commercial interests in the oil-rich country or to overrule its obstinate government, he said.

"There is more than enough blame to go around," he said, referring to China's and Russia's reluctance to impose sanctions, his own impotence and Khartoum's intransigence.

Annan recently pushed Sudan's President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force to protect civilians in Darfur, but Bashir would accept only a U.N.-funded African Union force. Sudan's leaders say that U.N. soldiers are a spearhead for imperialist powers that want to shatter Sudan and arrest its leaders.

Annan warned that if the Sudanese government did not protect its own people or allow international peacekeepers to do it, "then the government will have to be held accountable, both collectively and individually." The International Criminal Court is expected to announce arrest warrants this month for leaders of systematic killings of civilians.

Annan also sharply criticized the United States, without explicitly naming it, for detaining terrorism suspects in secret prisons and thus undermining its moral authority.

Nations cannot protect people from terrorism by "themselves violating human rights in the process."

"To do so means abandoning the moral high ground and playing into the hands of terrorists," he said. "That is why secret prisons have no place in our struggle against terrorism."

During his leadership of the U.N., Annan has rarely clashed publicly with the United States. But he drew Washington's wrath by calling the Iraq invasion illegal, urging the U.S. to try to co-opt insurgents rather than alienate them, and refusing to significantly commit U.N. agencies to help rebuild Iraq because of security concerns.

On Friday, he said that it was time for a new strategy on Iraq, and that the U.N. could organize a reconstruction conference for Iraq as it did after the Balkan wars and the invasion of Afghanistan.

The Iraq Study Group interviewed him for the report it released Wednesday, and Annan revealed that the panelists had asked him whether he would lead such a conference.

He said he would leave that question up to Ban Ki-moon, who replaces him Jan. 1 as secretary-general.

Bryan Saxton said...


Congrats. You played right into what I argued against.


If you want us to read news articles, link to them. Please don't repost.

Bobkat said...

Let's see how quick the Dems bail out on their promise to investigate the corruption that is Congress. They are part of the problem. I'm sorry to say that I voted for Bush twice. Now I welcome any attempt to get to the bottom of his desire to give away or sell this country out. He has shown that he will not defend this country from invasion, and has even signed agreements with Canada and Mexico that indicated his complete devotion to the proposed North American Union. These are grounds for treason.
This is not a red or blue problem. This is a corruption problem that controls the entire political process from lack of concern for the voting public. unverifiable voting records are not acceptable. Open borders are not acceptable. Imprisioning our border guards for doing their job is not acceptable. Selling the ports to foreign countries and having a Mexican port in Kansas City is not acceptable. These items must be discussed and voted on by the American people. This is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption and deceit perpetrated by both parties. The system is rotten from the top down. Light is the best disinfectant, bring it on.

Anonymous said...

BS...what the hell are you talking about? As if you laid some sort of trap for Tim? And because he simply showed your flawed logic. Keep on drinking koolaid.

big mike said...

Cynthia McKinney is the biggest nuisance on our society. How she ever was elected into office is beyond me. She is only mad because she won't be getting paid to argue anymore and beat up people without prosecution.

There is a big reason she didn't get re-elected and it's in her mirror.

Bryan Saxton said...

"And because he simply showed your flawed logic."

Perhaps you're referring to:

"Yes everything will be wonderful if we only appease irrational terrorists."

Ray Takeyh would strongly disagree with you. However, since I'm sure you will not bother looking up "Iran's Nuclear Calculations" (published in the Summer edition of World Policy Journal 2003), I'll give you a general overview of his argument.

The Iranian quest for a nuclear weapon is not a product of irrational ideology. Rather, it reflects a careful attempt to craft a viable deterrent capability against a variety of threats (I should mention I nearly quoted word-for-word a recent edition of "American Foreign Policy").

Anon, you would be hard pressed to find any sort of contemporary political scholar who would classify the Iranian government as irrational.

As far as Tim being guilty of what I argued against, look up causuistry (which I so horribly mispelled in my first post) and you'll see what I mean.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

The "World Policy Journal" is the journal of the "World Policy Institute", a bunch of leftist cretins at NYU. It's about as objective as "World Net Daily." As much as I try to avoid cliches about holding hands around the campfire and singing, it sums up their view of the solution to world political problems nicely. Anyone who does not view the government of Iran as a serious threat to peace and stability or thinks they want nuclear weapons for any reason other than making war please join me for poker night at my house. I promise if you show me your cards I will not take my knowledge of your hand into account when I bet.

nek said...

I see that our Senator Smith would be one of the many Republican Senators that would vote to impeach Bush and I am sure Cheney at the same time. America has just fought her last war until our soil is invaded. Americans as a whole are unwilling to make the sacrific it takes to fight and win any war except the one on our shores. Senator Smith is right there with them, for 'em.

R Huse said...

Bryan - You might want to double check on the Darfur issue. No one would know jack about Darfur if it wasnt for Evangelicals, who tend to be conservative. They have been on about it for years. It was an embarresment to Jesse though because of the slavery thing. But hey, it is nice to finally have the left on board.

Anyway, Ill miss the humour Cynthia provided, she was such an idiot. Wont miss the anti semitism though. Her and her father were one ugly pair in that regard.

Kaelri said...

"No one would know jack about Darfur if it wasnt for Evangelicals, who tend to be conservative."

That doesn't make Bryan's point any less valid unless Daniel's leading a double-life as a humanitarian evangelical.

Anonymous said...

Why are you guys so opposed to the implementation of soft power? The cold war is over. We simply cannot afford to keep doing things the way we've been doing them. SO SAYTH THE PRINCE OF LEGAL SUPPORT FOR ALL OPPRESSED, AND BLINDNESS OF THOSE THAT WANT US DEAD...Bryan.

Hey Jerk, You remember the Brit "rep" that sat down with Hitler of the `1930's?

He was sure the guy was just "misunderstood!"

Anonymous said...


God Bless America

A Message from the Ghost of General Patton....

To those whining, panty-waisted, pathetic Maggots, it's time for a little refresher course on exactly why we Americans occasionally have to fight wars.

See if you can tear yourself away from your "reality" TV and Starbucks for a minute, pull your head out of your flabby ass -- and LISTEN UP!!

Abu Ghraib is not "torture" or an "atrocity".
This is the kind of thing frat boys, sorority girls, and academy cadets
do to newcomers.

A little fun at someone else's expense.
Certainly no reason to wring your hands or get your panties in a wad.

Got that? < /DIV>

THIS IS an atrocity!


So Was This!!! 9II PHOTO


Islam a peaceful religion???
Millions of these sons-of-bitches are plotting as we speak to destroy our country and our way of life any way they can.
Some of them are here among us now.
They don't want to convert you and don't want to rule you. You are a vile infestation of Allah's paradise. They don't give a shit how "progressive" you are, how peace-loving you are, or how much you sympathize with their cause.

They want you dead, and think it is God's will for them to do it. And you think Bush and Cheney are your worst enemies?

Some think if we give them a hug or listen to them, then they'll like us... and if you agree? Then you are a dumb ass!

If they manage to get their hands on a nuke, chemical agents, or even some anthrax -- you will wish to God we had hunted them down and killed THEM while we had the chance.

Stop bitchin' about your damn Health Care, Social Security, Gas prices, and your measly 3.25% unemployment rate...and start worrying about you, your family's, and your friends' asses.

How many more Americans must be beheaded before you stop blaming Bush for all your troubles --
You've fallen asleep AGAIN, maggots!
And you may not get another chance!
and pass this on to any and every person you give-a-damn about..
if you ever gave a damn about anything

See if you have enough balls to forward this email.. The truth shall set you free!!

Robert said...

I whole heartedly agree with Cynthia when she stated that Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation's laws. Although I don't know if we are in agreement about which laws he has violated. Let me just suggest that he be impeached and then charged with treason for not defending this nation as Bush is bound and determined to destroy our way of life, to hell with him.

Anonymous said...


Bryan Saxton said...

Anon 9:44,

Ironically enough, it's people like you who are going to create more terrorist attacks on our home front than people like me will.

Robert said...

Anon 11:14,

I'm not for either. I did not agree with the need to go into Iraq, but the worst thing we could do is leave. As far as I'm concerned we should take the gloves off and get serious about winning in Iraq and that means more troops and less pc. But if we are at war then should'nt we enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders? It is on the charge of not doing so that I would accuse Mr. Bush of treason. I am so tired of our laws not being enforced and nobody being held accountable.