LEBANESE Prime Minister Fouad Siniora thanked Hezbollah for its “sacrifices” in its war against Israel.
“We are in a strong position and I thank the Sayyed for his efforts,” Mr Siniora said when asked about a statement by Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah calling on the Government to take advantage of Hezbollah’s steadfastness against Israeli military might.
“I also thank all those who sacrifice their lives for the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon,” he said.
Mr Siniora, a member of Lebanon’s anti-Syrian coalition, has often been at odds with the Syrian-backed Hezbollah, but the 19-day-old conflict appears to have brought the two sides closer together.
Wild Thing’s comment…….
I watched this jerk on the Sunday morning political talk shows. He is totally PRO Hezbollah.
And also this quote from Meet The Press ( Sunday July 30th 2006)
MR. FUAD SINIORA: We scream out to our fellow Lebanese and to other Arab brothers and to the whole world to stand united in the face of the Israeli war criminals.
Image from the Hezbollah television station Al -Manar aired Saturday July 29, 2006 shows Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah who in his statement threatened to attack more Israeli cities in central Israel. He also claims Israel suffered ‘serious defeat’ in ground fighting around a border town. At least 448 Lebanese have been killed in the fighting that broke out after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others in a cross-border raid. Most casualties have been civilians, and some estimates range as high as 600 dead. Thirty-three Israeli soldiers have died in fighting, and Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel have killed 19 civilians, the Israeli army said. (AP Photo/ Aal-Manar)
Hezbollah Chief threatens rocket attacks
By ZEINA KARAM – Associated Press Writer
July 29, 2006
BEIRUT, Lebanon – Hezbollah’s leader on Saturday threatened more attacks on central Israeli cities, a day after guerrillas for the first time fired a rocket powerful enough to reach the outskirts of Tel Aviv.
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, speaking on Hezbollah’s TV station, said he supported Lebanon’s efforts to negotiate a peace deal, but suggested tentative promises for the guerrillas to disarm would be off if conditions aren’t met.
Nasrallah also dismissed a new diplomatic effort by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to bring about cease-fire, saying the United States wants fighting to continue. His statement came as Rice arrived in the Mideast to visit Israel; a possible Lebanon stop has not been announced.
The bearded Shiite Muslim cleric, wearing his trademark black headdress, insisted Hezbollah fighters were winning the battle with Israel, now in its 18th day. Israel has not made a “single military accomplishment” in its offensive on Lebanon, he said, speaking on the group’s Al-Manar television.
He claimed Israel suffered a “serious defeat” in ground fighting around a Lebanese border town after Israeli troops pulled back Saturday afternoon. Israel said they left Bint Jbail because they accomplished their mission of wearing down Hezbollah fighters after a week of heavy battles.
On Friday, a Hezbollah rocket hit outside the Israeli town of Afula, the farthest strike yet. Hezbollah said it targeted an Israeli military base, but the rockets fell in an empty field.
“The bombardment of Afula and its military base is the beginning …, Nasrallah said. “Many cities in the center (of Israel) will be targeted in the ‘beyond Haifa’ stage if the savage aggression continues on our country, people and villages.”
He was referring to his earlier threat to attack deeper into Israel than Haifa, which has been hit repeatedly in the recent conflict.
Nasrallah said Hezbollah was willing to cooperate with the Lebanese government. He did not mention a Lebanese peace plan calling for guerrilla disarmament specifically, but suggested Hezbollah would not disarm if the government backs away from conditions outlined in its proposal.
Most notably, the proposals demand a prisoner swap with Israel and the resolution of Lebanese claims on border land that Israel controls. Israel has ruled out a prisoner swap but has not said whether it would be willing to reconsider its hold on the Chebaa farms area.
The speech was Nasrallah’s fourth taped TV appearance since fighting began, sparked by Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers July 12.
In Beirut, drivers stopped their cars and pedestrians stood in front of shops and cafes to watch the address. Fireworks erupted in the southern neighborhoods of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, after Nasrallah finished.
Wild Thing’s comment…….
Nasrallah: put me on TV I want to be famous, I am Nasrallah. I did not serve in Vietnam but I am still famous.
Wild Thing: No you are not famous you are infamous and there is a difference. When do you wash your smelly hair under that thing?
Nasrallah: Wash my hair? Praise Allah he tells me when to do such things Praise Allah. Did I tell you I did not serve in Vietnam but that I am still famous. Now where do I look to speak to the camera? Praise Allah
Wild Thing: Vietnam? You are a coward Nasrallah and wear skirts and smell bad. This was your 4th taped appearance Nasrallah since Israel began to fight back 18 days ago, don’t you think you are showing the world you are a glutten for attention? You know a glutten like a pig feeding in a pig pen!
Nasrallah: Allah Akbar never say PIG to me. Just because I did not serve in Vietnam you have no right to speak to me of such things as P-I-G-S!
Wild Thing: well Nasrallah our time has run out and the camera is ready for your close up. You need to do something about that green thing on your front teeth before the camera man calls “action”.
Nasrallah: Now you attack my teeth?! How dare you, I have the finest rotten teeth in all of Islamhood. And my breath is sweeter then a camels in the morning. Praise Allah! In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful!
I am ready for my close up, Praise Allah.
Call for “action, camera rolling…..”
Nasrallah:Praise Allah……. I tell you this I may not have served in Vietnam but I am the voice of the Hezbollah………….. Praise Allah…… In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful! I am ready for my close up, Praise Allah.
A dear friend of mine Beth …MVRWC….wrote this email. In the wonderful group I am honored to be a part of called the Cotillion we do a lot of sharing and conversation by email, and I want to share this email that Beth wrote with you.
I seriously need to snap the fuck out of this funk. I don’t wanna blog, I hate the blogosphere because of stupid moonbats and Hezbollah supporters (I know, same thing) and because of idiotic vlogging. I’d much rather be reading the good blogs and not bothering with my own right now. I’m incredibly frustrated with what seems like a pointless exercise, because there’s never any effect. You still have lying moonbats, America-haters, Israel/Jew haters, BDS loons, and all that shit. I’m bored and frustrated with all of it, and I’m starting to stress out about there being no real end in sight re: Israel OR the overall war on Islamofascism. I know it’s not supposed to be quick, but everyone else’s impatience, ignorance, and ideology is making me lose the last bit of optimism I have, and that’s tough to do. I usually think “this is America, we’ll survive and prevail anyway,” but dammit, I’m not so sure that’s even true. Not with Iranians going nuclear, at least. I can’t bear to think about Iran nuking Israel, but I almost see it as inevitable. That and them possibly nuking Iraq, or at least getting directly and openly involved there. And the news just keeps piling on, like with this shit in Somalia.
I really think liberalism has doomed us all. We aren’t supposed to be for our own interests, we aren’t supposed to make value/moral judgments, we aren’t supposed to have a strong military or fight for/defend our interests abroad. We’re supposed to let the “brown people” (fucking stupid moonbat phrase) do whatever they want because we’re “better” and benevolent, and when they fuck up because they’re evil or brutal or incompetent, we’re supposed to bail them out (see “palestinians,” Africa, etc.) and lead by example, whatever the hell that means on the world stage. Because they’re all human and therefore can’t be “evil,” just “different.”
Meanwhile, evil will continue to roll and we’ll send aid to the starving and/or dead.
If things had been like they are today during WWII, we’d have been doomed then. Instead, I’m afraid that we are now. It may not happen in MY lifetime, but I really do worry about what the world’s going to be like for my daughter. No place seems safe anymore. I think, we could live in Australia, but they’re no safer than we are–if anything, less so. I never thought I’d EVER think this, but maybe 50 years from now–wait for it–Russia? (!) You never know what the world’s going to be like in 50 years. Maybe at least they’ll have a strong country, even if it’s a dictatorship, even if it’s Communist again (!), it’s better than Islamist. I’m just sick about the future for my daughter.
I want to believe that America is stronger than Islamism, but if 9/11 didn’t wake these stupid fucking people up, I don’t know what will. How anyone can seriously look at the world today and NOT see the worldwide evil that is Islam, I don’t know. And the “liberals” (not) will hand the world to them on a silver platter. They think the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance is a police state? Shit, it’s going to take a lot more than THAT to eradicate the problem if they don’t wake the fuck up, and I’d welcome it. I never read In Defense of Internment, but damn, we can’t even “intern” un-uniformed combatants at Gitmo. I’d like to see a hell of a lot more Muslims interned than just those, but the blind moonbats think “fascism” is a reality, and anyone who wants to defeat Islamism is a “fascist.” (Nevermind the fact that we survived the same “fascism” of the WWII years in America.)
Gloom and doom
A STATEMENT BY THE ROYAL COURT
JEDDAH, JULY 25, SPA — FOLLOWING IS THE STATEMENT ISSUED TODAY BY THE ROYAL COURT:
” THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA HAS UNDERSTAKEN THE ROLE REQUIRED OF IT BY ITS RELIGIOUS AND NATIONAL DUTY WITH REGARD TO THE SITUATION IN THE REGION AND REPERCUSSIONS OF EVENTS IN LEBANON AND THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES.
IN THIS REGARD, IT HAS CAUTIONED, WARNED AND EXTENDED ADVICE. FURTHERMORE, IT HAS STRIVEN FROM THE FIRST MOMENT TO STOP THE AGRRESSION, MOVING ON MORE THAN ONE FRONT AND BY MORE THAN ONE MEANS, TO PERSUADE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO FORCE ISRAEL TO AGREE TO A CEASEFIRE.
MEANWHILE, THE KINGDOM HAS DISPATCHED HRH THE FOREIGN MINISTER AND HRH THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO MEET H.E. THE U.S. PRESIDENT IN WASHINGTON AND INFORM HIM OF ITS VIEWS ON THE GRAVE AND UNPREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE UNREMITTING ISRAELI AGGRESSION IF MATTERS WENT BEYOND CONTROL.
THE KINGDOM HAS ALSO ASKED PERSONAL ENVOYS TO VISIT THE CAPITALS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL’S PERMANENT MEMBER STATES TO CONVEY THE SAME MESSAGE.
THE ARABS HAVE PROCLAIMED PEACE AS A STRATEGIC OPTION FOR THE ARAB NATION. THEY PRESENTED A JUST AND DISTINCT PLAN FOR REGAINING THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES IN EXCHANGE FOR PEACE. THEY REFUSED TO RESPOND TO PROVOCATIONS AND IGNORED ANTI-PEACE EXTREMIST CALLS. IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT PATIENCE COULD NOT LAST FOREVER. IF THE ISRAELI MILITARY BRUTALITY PERSISTED WITH KILLINGS AND DESTRUCTION NO ONE COULD PREDICT THE CONSEQUENCES AND THAN REGRETS WILL BE IN VAIN.
THEREFORE, THE KINGDOM ADDRESSES AN APPEAL AND A WARNING TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS REPRESENTED BY THE U.N. AND IN PARTICULAR THE U.S.
THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA CALLS ON ALL TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HONEST, CONSCIOUS AND INTERNATIONAL MORAL AND HUMANITARIAN LAWS. IT ALSO WARNS ALL THAT IF THE PEACE OPTION IS REJECTED DUE TO THE ISRAELI ARROGANCE THEN ONLY THE WAR OPTION REMAINS AND NO ONE KNOWS THE REPERCUSSIONS BEFALLING THE REGION, INCLUDING WARS AND CONFLICT THAT WILL SPARE NO ONE INCLUDING THOSE WHOSE MILITARY POWER IS NOW TEMPTING THEM TO PLAY WITH FIRE.
–MORE 1625 Local Time 1325 GMT Wild Thing’s comment…….
I apologize for all the caps, that is how the announcement is stated at the site the Saudi Press Agency…HERE.
OK so maybe the Saudi’s are just doing the…. we need to say something thang’, you know for the people to hear. Or maybe they are serious, but I just can’t see them wanting to be at the receiving end of the power of the IDF.
I am not sure if they want to risk themselves over the Palestinians, who they’ve never given a damn about except as props. The Saudis pay others to do their work.
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan cancels Vermont visit
Published: Friday, July 28, 2006
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan has canceled her visit to Vermont because she plans a trip to Jordan for peace talks there, organizers announced today.
Sheehan was to have attended a rally Sunday at Montpelier’s Unitarian Church.
The rally will still be held, with Vermont organizers planning to address renewed efforts to end the war in Iraq and pursue impeachment of the Bush administration.
The event is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. and is free and public. Wild Thing’s comment…….
Isn’t this against the law to do this during war time I mean????
Can we just not let her back in after she leave?
This is the entrie transcript of Kerry and Bolton………………..
Senator Kerry? KERRY: Thank you. I know all the comments have been made about the flood here, so I won’t make any more.
I apologize for being delayed. We had a mark-up in the Small Business Committee, and as ranking member, I had to be there.
I heard a few of the questions from my office, and obviously I don’t want to go over territory that’s been well-covered, Mr. Ambassador, so I want to just have a chance to be able to pursue a few things with you.
I did hear in answer to one question from somebody, I think it was from the chair, that your views about the U.N. itself have not changed.
And so I’d just be curious to sort of — what are those views at this point? I mean there was a lot of debate here, if you’ll recall, about what those views were, and I’d just be curious to know what conclusions you’ve drawn about the U.N. at this point in time. BOLTON: I think his question was what did I find at the U.N. that I had not expected. And I think my response was “very little,” because I have studied and worked in U.N. matters for 25 years.
And I’m sure there are things I don’t know, but I’ve worked in the area for a long time.
My views are, as I said in my opening statement in April of last year, that we are committed to a strong and effective United Nations. To do that, it requires substantial reform. That it can be an effective adjunct of American foreign policy; I think it’s been demonstrated in a variety of areas that we’ve discussed here today in the context of Lebanon, North Korea and Iran. And that that’s why we’re exerting the efforts that we are within the Security Council on a variety of substantive policy matters and on the question of U.N. reform. KERRY: You say that to be effective it requires reform. What is the principal reform that is required for the U.N. itself to be effective with respect to Iran or with respect to North Korea or Resolution 1559 in Lebanon? What reform would make a difference to that effectiveness? BOLTON: I’m not sure that reform as such would have a difference there. That is more a question in the Security Council of reaching policy agreement among the 15 members of the council and particularly the PERM 5. KERRY: And isn’t it fair to say that we’re sort of the odd person out on most of those policies? BOLTON: I wouldn’t say that, no. KERRY: Well, with respect to North Korea, let’s look at that for a minute. Russia and the South Koreans were unwilling to join us, isn’t that correct, with respect to the sanction effort? BOLTON: That’s clearly not correct, because they did. And in fact, we worked very closely with the Russians in the negotiation, 11 days of very intense negotiation to get Resolution 1695, and worked very closely with the Republic of Korea’s mission to the U.N. to get their agreement to the resolution, as well. KERRY: I beg to differ with you, Mr. Ambassador.
They didn’t get on board a tough Chapter 7 resolution, did they? That was our position. BOLTON: They got on board a resolution which is binding, as our judgment is binding under Chapter 7, that’s correct. KERRY: They didn’t get on a tough resolution 7, did they — Chapter 7? BOLTON: Yes, they did. KERRY: They did? BOLTON: We believe this resolution is binding under Chapter 7. It does not contain the words “Chapter 7,” but our conclusion is based on the entire wording of the resolution that it imposes binding constraints on North Korea. Other member governments — that’s the interpretation of Britain, France and Japan and the other four cosponsors as well. KERRY: Prior to the adoption, speaking to reporters on July 6th, you said, quote, “I think it’s important that the Security Council speak under Chapter 7 to make a binding resolution.” Is that correct? BOLTON: That’s correct. KERRY: Then on July 14th, just a day before they acted, you said you continued to insist on a resolution under Chapter 7 which would make any sanctions mandatory. KERRY: You stressed the importance of a, quote, “clear, binding Chapter 7 resolution. That remains our view and the view of Japan.” You went so far as to warn that if there’s to be a veto, there comes a time when countries have to go into that chamber and raise their hand.
That’s not what happened, is it? BOLTON: As I said before, it’s our judgment this is a mandatory resolution. KERRY: But the judgment — but it’s not the way it’s viewed by the other parties. BOLTON: It’s viewed that way by Japan, England and France. KERRY: Well, the Russians certainly aren’t prepared to join in it, nor are the… BOLTON: They voted for it. KERRY: But not in its clarity.
I mean, Assistant Secretary Hill’s testimony before this committee last week said that the administration’s strategy on North Korea is shifting from failed negotiations to sanctions.
And since you don’t have Russia, you don’t have China and you don’t have South Korea on the binding resolution, how are you going to do that? BOLTON: I think we do.
You know, what the resolution says, Senator, is the Security Council demands — that includes Russia and China — the Security Council demands that the DPRK suspend all activity related to its ballistic missile programs — demands.
And you know what North Korea did? You know what they thought of that resolution? They sat there in the council chamber and, after we voted to adopt it, they rejected it and got up and walked out of the council chamber.
I think that resolution had a clear effect on North Korea. KERRY: What was the effect? BOLTON: That they understand how isolated they are. And you’ll note that, as reported in the papers the other day, the government of China has begun to take steps with respect to North Korean banking, which is consistent with operative paragraphs 3 and 4 of the resolution that require — “require” is the word we use — the Security Council requires that all U.N. member-governments cease their procurement from or supply to any of North Korea’s programs relating to ballistic missiles or weapons of mass destruction. KERRY: Well, let’s come back to be precise, because this is a precise world we live in. It is accurate — I have the resolution right in front of me. It says, “demands that the DPRK suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program,” but it doesn’t impose Chapter 7 sanctions. BOLTON: We didn’t seek to impose Chapter 7 sanctions. KERRY: Well, how are you going to achieve this if you’re not going to have sanctions if you don’t have the other countries prepared to have the sanctions? The reason you don’t have sanctions… BOLTON: Because the first… KERRY: … is they weren’t prepared to do it; isn’t that correct? BOLTON: No, because that was not part of our original resolution. The first step here was to pass this resolution which says… KERRY: You’re telling me they would be prepared to impose sanctions? BOLTON: You know, Senator, we had consultations with Japan and the United Kingdom and France about how to approach this resolution. And as I mentioned earlier today, there were a variety of different steps that we could have taken. It was our judgment that the best way to proceed was along the lines that are now embodied in Resolution 1695.
That is certainly not to say that the council might not take other steps in the future. But the steps we sought to take we have now taken, unanimously. KERRY: Well, you’re losing me a little bit because, I mean, North Korea defied the world’s request not to test an intercontinental missile. If ever there was a moment — you are the ones who said you wanted sanctions but were unable to get Russia and others to sign onto that concept. BOLTON: Senator, we said we wanted what we got. KERRY: Well, the most that you seem to want is to go back to a six-party talk that isn’t in existence. BOLTON: No, no, quite the contrary. We said expressly… KERRY: Are you prepared to go to bilateral talks? BOLTON: Quite the contrary. We said expressly that what we wanted from North Korea was not simply a return to the six-party talks, but an implementation of the September 2005 joint statement from the six-party talks which would mean their dismantlement of their nuclear weapons program. KERRY: But this has been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador. BOLTON: It’s the nature of multilateral negotiations, Senator. KERRY: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done? That’s what the Clinton administration did. BOLTON: Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed. And I would also say, Senator, that we do have the opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks, if North Korea would come back to them. KERRY: Mr. Ambassador, at the time — Secretary Perry has testified before this committee, as well as others — they knew that there would be the probability they would try to do something outside of the specificity of the agreement.
But the specificity of the agreement was with respect to the rods and the inspections and the television cameras and the reactor itself. BOLTON: Senator, the agreed framework requires North Korea and South Korea to comply with the joint North-South denuclearization agreement, which in turn provides no nuclear weapons programs on the Korean Peninsula.
So it was not limited only to the plutonium reprocessing program. KERRY: Mr. Ambassador, the bottom line is that no plutonium was reprocessed under that agreement. No plutonium was reprocessed until the cameras were kicked out, the inspectors were kicked out, the rods were taken out, and now they have four times the nuclear weapons they had when you came on watch. BOLTON: Because the North Koreans… KERRY: The question here is — I mean, a whole host of people have testified before this committee and others.
I mean, my objection is that if you look at the policies across the board, and we’re not going to resolve it here now, obviously, I understand that.
(CROSSTALK) KERRY: But here’s another good reason to think about this.
It’s hard to pick up the newspaper today, it’s hard to talk to any leader anywhere in the world, it’s hard to travel abroad as a senator and not run headlong into the isolation of the United States and the divisions that exist between us and our allies on any number of different issues.
Now, it is very hard to sit here and say that the six-party talks have been a success. BOLTON: I don’t believe I’ve said that. KERRY: I know. I didn’t suggest you have. But what I’m trying to get at is the policy foundation itself — why insist on a six-party talk process which, it seems to me, never joins the fundamental issues between the United States and North Korea, which go back a long, long time, over Republican and Democratic administrations? BOLTON: I think the reason for that is that the disagreement is not fundamentally a bilateral disagreement between North Korea and the United States. It’s a disagreement between North Korea and everybody else about their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.
And the aspect of the six-party talks that we think was most important was not negotiating over the head of South Korea, which was the consequence of the agreed framework, but bringing in all of the regional partners, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China, to address this question collectively, since it was in all of our interests to do so. KERRY: Most of the people that I’ve talked to spent a lot of time in various thoughtful institutions thinking about these issues — a career — believe that what North Korea wants more than anything is an assurance that the United States of America wasn’t going to have a strategy similar to Iraq directed at them.
And I think the assurance most people have suggested that if there were to be some kind of bilateral discussion to get at the issues between the two of us, you’d have far more opportunity to get at the nuclear issue than you do through these stand-off, nonexistent six-party talks that have produced nothing over five and a half years. BOLTON: I… KERRY: Why is the administration so unwilling to talk to Syria, talk to even pursue these issues? It doesn’t seem as though this nontalk approach is getting you very far. BOLTON: First, the six-party talks have not been going on for five and a half years.
Second, one of the principal… KERRY: No, because no talks were going on for the first couple of years, and then the six-party talks were a cover for not dealing with bilateral talks. I understand. BOLTON: The principal reason that we haven’t had six-party talks in 10 months is because North Korea won’t accept China’s invitation to come to the talks. But we have made it clear to them repeatedly that they could have and they have had bilateral conversations with the United States in the context of the six-party talks. BOLTON: So the question as to why the six-party talks have not proceeded here, I think lies squarely in Pyongyang. KERRY: Well, the world and North Korea are getting more dangerous, as you resist the notion of engaging in any kind of bilateral effort as an administration — not you, personally, I guess, but… BOLTON: Senator, really, it’s hard to understand how you can’t look at the notion of conducting the bilateral conversations in the six-party talks and not say that North Korea has an opportunity to make its case to us. KERRY: Sir, with all due respect, I mean, you know — what I’ve seen work and not work over the course of the years I’ve been here depends on what kind of deal you’re willing to make or not make and what your fundamental policies are.
If you’re a leader in North Korea, looking at the United States, and you’ve seen the United States attack Iraq on presumptions of weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist, if you announce a preemptive strategy of regime change, if you are pursuing your own new nuclear weapons, bunker busting nuclear weapons, and you’re sitting in another country, you would have a perception of threat that makes you make a certain set of decisions.
And historically throughout the Cold War, that drove the United States and the then-Soviet Union to escalate and escalate. And first one did and then the other.
In fact — in fact — in every single case, we were the first, with the exception of two particular weapons systems to develop a nuclear breakthrough first. They followed — until ultimately, President Reagan, a conservative president, and President Gorbachev said we’re going to come down in Reykjavik to no weapons.
So we reversed 50 years of spending money and chasing this thing.
I would respectfully suggest to you that North Korea is sitting there making a set of presumptions. And unless you begin to alter some of the underlying foundation of those presumptions, you’re stuck.
The problem is, we’re stuck too, as a consequence. And a lot of us feel very, very deeply that the six-party talks have never been real and never been a way of achieving this goal. And as long as we’re on this course, we’re stuck.
COLEMAN: The chair would note that it’s been extremely generous.
Senator…
KERRY: Maybe you can respond to that, Mr. Ambassador? BOLTON: Well, I think that the effort that has been made is to give North Korea the opportunity to make the choice, to come out of its isolation, to give up its nuclear weapons programs and to enjoy the kind of life that the people in South Korea enjoy. BOLTON: There’s a great map, Senator — I’m sure you’ve seen a copy of it — of the Korean Peninsula at night. And South Korea is filled with light; North Korea is black. It looks like South Korea is an island. That’s what that regime has done to its people.
We could… KERRY: Sir, I know what a terrible regime it is. I understand that. BOLTON: We have tried to give them the chance, through the six- party talks, to end that isolation. And as I say, for 10 months, they haven’t even been willing to go back to Beijing. KERRY: I have to tell you something. About three years ago or four years ago, I can’t remember precisely when, the North Koreans were casting about here in Washington, asking people who do we talk to? They were looking for a deal. And the administration just blanked them. There was no willingness to do this.
This is pre going to the six-party talks. Then we get to the six-party talks, and we’ve gone through a series of evolutions since then.
So with all due respect, a lot of folks think there’s a different course. You don’t. The administration doesn’t. But I think it’s important to talk about it, and I think it’s important to lay it out there.
And we have, similarly, on 1559, which called for the disarmament of Hezbollah. That was not a priority for the last year, and we are where we are. BOLTON: I would disagree it was not a priority, but I’m not sure… KERRY: Can you tell me what you did at the U.N. that has put it on the front-burner agenda? BOLTON: I think really at this point I’d just refer you to my earlier testimony where I talked about a number of resolutions and presidential statements that we had adopted to put more pressure on Syria, both with respect to 1559 and 1595, which I think is another quite important resolution pursuing the Hariri assassination.
And I think that in fact, the issue of Lebanon generally is probably the best example of U.S. cooperation with France in a matter in the Security Council that we’ve had in recent years. KERRY: Well, again, we can debate, and we’re not going to here, so I’ll let that go.
Thanks.
COLEMAN: Thank you, Senator Kerry. The Senate does have a tradition of unlimited debate. We will bring this hearing to a close.
Ambassador, diplomats have to operate in all sorts of environments, all sorts of conditions. You’ve done that through your career and obviously demonstrated the capacity to do it today.
We will keep the record open until the close of business Friday the 28th.
With that, this hearing is now adjourned.
END
Please see the UPDATE
further down in this post –
thank you
You will see in this Video a UN Ambulance assisting and picking up terrorists to get them out of harms way in the Gaza Strip. Also they are not taking the UN Ambulance hostage, they are being aided by the UN Ambulance driver. The video was shot by Reuters on May 11, 2004.
And note the two flags togerther. The UN Flag and the Hezbollah Flag. Annan Charges Israel Deliberately Killed 4 at U.N. Post
05:16 Jul 26, ’06 / 1 Av 5766
(IsraelNN.com) United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan charged early Wednesday morning that Israel deliberately targeted a United Nations post in Lebanon late Tuesday night, killing four UNIFIL members.
They were part of the international body’s peace keeping force in Lebanon that was created in 1978 after the beginning of the Peace for Galilee Campaign, Dan Gillerman, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations said he was “shocked” by Annan’s accusations and demanded an apology.
* Thank you Linda for the video……Something…….and Half of Something.
* Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler….has a great graphic for just this about the UN and Kofi Annan
In response to the many inquiries I’ve had concerning this video, following is a clarification of the event caught on film. This was stored on my old hard drive (what a pain to hook it up but worth it). I don’t know who wrote most of this, the links were not there in my notes, I just touched it up a bit and posted it. There is no plagiarism intended, I just don’t know who to credit:
As I indicated above, the video shot by a Reuters cameraman on May 11, 2004. The film documents two ambulances with flashing lights entering a street in Southern Gaza. Shots ring out accompanied by shouts in arabic, including the ever popular allah akbar. The terrorists make their escape in the ambulances, which are clearly marked with the UN logo and which are flying the UN flag.
What the video does not show is the result of the terrorist raid. The terrorists you see in the film murdered six Israeli soldiers that night, aided and abetted by paid employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). That’s your tax dollars at work!
Rueters declined to show the footage to American viewers and it was AccessMiddleEast.org, a nonprofit global news monitoring service, who originally posted the video on its Web approximately one month after it was filmed. Not a single U.S. television news station has ever expressed interest in showing the footage to American viewers.
UNRWA denies the incident and denies other similar documented incidents as well. UNRWA claims that their drivers were forced to cooperate in terrorist attacks despite the fact that one of its senior employees, Nahed Rashid Ahmed Attalah, has confessed to using his official U.N. vehicle to bypass security and smuggle arms, explosives, and terrorists to and from attacks, while he was supposed to be distributing food supplies to Palestinian refugees. Hamas terrorist Nidal ‘Abd al-Fataah ‘Abdallah Nizal worked as an UNRWA ambulance driver and freely admits he has used an emergency vehicle to transport munitions to terrorists.
But the UN isn’t the only humanitarian organization to assist terrorists in Israel. An intensive care ambulance carrying the acronym of the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) was used to deliver an explosive belt found underneath a stretcher on which a sick child was lying in spring 2002. Female suicide bomber Wafa Idris, who blew herself up in a 2002 attack in Jerusalem, was a medical secretary for the PRCS.
UNRWA has long been suspected of providing aid and comfort to terrorists. Rep. Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, documented how “buildings and warehouses under UNRWA supervision are allegedly being used as storage areas for Palestinian ammunition and counterfeit currency factories.”
Cantor’s 2002 report also noted that UNRWA hosts summer camps in martyrdom for young terrorists-in-training. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ.) has also lobbied for increased scrutiny of UNRWA funding, which has been used to publish anti-Semitic textbooks and posters in schools that “glorify homicide bombers and the slaughter of innocents.”
Moreover, according to Smith, a UNRWA school hosted a Hamas rally by a key Hamas leader in 2001 and another UNRWA employee praised homicide bombers, proclaiming: “The road to Palestine passes through the blood of the fallen, and these fallen have written history with parts of their flesh and their bodies.”
While jihadists gain shelter in its emergency vehicles, the U.N. continues to lambaste the U.S. for assorted wartime “atrocities.” Not one more American dime should go to fund the bloody self-righteousness of the world’s most generous terrorist relief organization.
Wild Thing’s comment…….
Recent Comments