Three quick items and then I’m back to my Christmas hiatus.

1. The United Nations Security Council voted in favor of sanctions upon Iran re: the nation’s nuclear program. The Bush Administration “hopes the resolution will clear the way for tougher measures by individual countries, particularly Russia.” The measure seems to be aimed at forcing the hand of Tehran back to the negotiation table, something Tehran doesn’t seem at all interested in.

Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif denounced the council for imposing sanctions on Iran, which opposes nuclear weapons and has its facilities under U.N. safeguards, while doing nothing about Israel, whose prime minister recently appeared to confirm long suspicions that it is a nuclear power.

“A nation is being punished for exercising its inalienable rights” to develop nuclear energy, primarily at the behest of the United States, Zarif said.

But there was always an easy way around that for Iran if the nation wanted to actually comply with the IAEA. Just open the doors and quit either hiding things or giving the impression Iran is hiding things.

2. In a moment of great sadness, it is my solemn duty to report the United States killed Taliban commander Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani in his car while driving in the southern Afghan province of Helmand. Osmani, the Associated Press reports, was involved in the demolition of Buddha statues, the trial of Christan aid workers in 2001 and “played a ‘central role in facilitating terrorist operations’ including roadside bombings, suicide attacks and ambushes against Afghan and international forces.” Osmani is believed to be in Mullah Omar’s top three aides.

3. A Democratic Party activist compares the imprisonment of illegal aliens to the acts of the Holocaust, showing once again how silly the entire debate has become. As Jason at Texas Rainmaker writes questioningly, “arresting people who’ve illegally snuck into our country is exactly the same as rounding up people for being Jews and chunking them in gas chambers.” It makes me want to grab a Guiness.

Mensa Barbie Welcomes You linked with Hezbollah Crimes: A Legal Record...
Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Security Council approves sanctions on Iran over nuclear program...

Kofi Annan used to reside over the high-profile and presumably well paid role of UN Secretary General, his brother is known to have accepted bribes and he is married to one of the wealthiest families in Sweeden. Why then was he living in subsidized housing in New York?

As Secretary-General Annan prepares to leave his post at the United Nations, a mystery is surfacing surrounding his apartment on Roosevelt Island, subsidized by New York taxpayers, which is still in use by the family of his brother, Kobina Annan.

The apartment was where Mr. Annan and his wife lived before 1997, when he became secretary-general. The Roosevelt Island home is part of an estate of low-rent state-regulated housing. For years, the Annans saved considerable sums by occupying an apartment meant to help financially strapped low- to moderate-income New York families.

One question Mr. Annan has never addressed is why he and his wife felt comfortable availing themselves of this generous arrangement. Another is how it is that, since Mr. Annan and his wife left that Roosevelt Island apartment 10 years ago to move into the rent-free residence on Sutton Place supplied to the secretary-general, their former low-rent apartment was handed over to be occupied by the family of Mr. Annan’s brother.

This kind of apartment, part of a state-regulated housing development program called Mitchell-Lama, is subject to strict eligibility requirements, involving family size and financial ceilings on combined family income. There is also a requirement that the leaseholder make continuous use of the apartment as a primary residence.

A rather interesting query, no? To clarify:

No one is saying that any of the Annans have broken the law; the regulations for Mitchell-Lama housing allow a certain amount of flexibility once applicants have obtained a lease. But the issue is pertinent because Kofi Annan, whose wife comes from one of Sweden’s wealthier families, has spent years lecturing Americans on how the well-heeled have obligations to those less fortunate. Those low- to moderate-income New York families for whom such accommodation was built face a four-year waiting list.

Isn’t that, well, typical?  It’s a bit humorous the man who has railed against the GWOT and sat over the UN when radical Islamic terrorist groups increased both in number and influence rents/rented low-income housing, thus living off the dime of the American taxpayer.  It’s well know that within the Al Qaida strategy book, jihadis are encouraged to live off the dime of the nation they reside in, making Annan a bit like one of those jihadis or something, only with less Koran and less passion to kill (he just allows genocide to be).

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the situation in Iraq is “much worse” than civil war, something I didn’t think was really possible, and that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein.

“If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison - that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, ‘Am I going to see my child again?” Annan told the BBC in an interview broadcast today. “And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control.”.

Annan forgets to mention the above rules only mattered if you weren’t a Kurd or a Shia.

Mensa Barbie Welcomes You linked with Shiite Cleric Asks Bush for Tougher Acts...

Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate claim they will block a vote for current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. This is utter insanity and goes beyond the political cheap shot name calling saying the Democratic Party is the party of obstruction. Sure, they have obstructed and look like they will again, but to not confirm Bolton proves those Democrats in power are part of a party of the spineless.

Let us sit back just a bit and take a look at the last year on a country-by-country basis and see how things transpired within the United Nations. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, North Korea claims they have them and Africans are being slaughtered at the hands of Muslim militias in Darfur.

DARFUR - Islamic militias aided by the Sudanese government are involved in ethnic clensing against Africans (blacks) in the Darfur region of Sudan. No matter how many calls, internationally, have been made to end the crisis, the UN has done nothing to move in that direction. Nothing. As a few countries ban together outside of the UN to try to put some sort of peace keeping force in Darfur, the Sudanese government raises its head from its slumber and cries there is no reason for an international force. Meanwhile more people are being killed because they are black, not arabs and not of the specific ideological Islamic faith the Muslim militias are a part of.

John Bolton has been trying to put together an international coalition to circumvent the feckless UN to put some sort of peacekeeping unit on the ground in Darfur.  He has not been successful, but there is far more talk of intervening in Darfur today than there was even one year ago.

NORTH KOREA - To properly analyze North Korea, we must look at history longer than just one year ago and remember the failed diplomatic courses of previous years and previous administrations. This is not to pick on the Clinton Administration or the ridiculously stupid Jimmy Carter, picking on the latter is for another time, but we must learn from mistakes made in the past and adapt current situations to those lessons.

One decade ago, the United States negotiatiated one-on-one with North Korea to end NK’s military nuclear program. The U.S. gave NK a lightwater reactor, drafted rules in which NK could not use certain nuclear techniques thought to be the only known way to build nuclear weapons and gave the nation millions upon millions in aid to be spent on the NK populace.

The result? North Korea diverts the funds intended to feed a country rife with famine and puts it to its military, thus increasing the threat the nation poses to all nations in the reason and their arch-enemy, the United States. All funds were used to upgrade the NK army. The NK’s used the lightwater reactor and circumvented all rules drafted to build an unknown number of nuclear weapons. The exact number is unknown because NK has claimed it has nukes more times than Iran claims it isn’t building nuclear weapons; both likely are small truths behind much bigger lies.

(more…)

The New York Sun is reporting several UN diplomats are saying Russia is trying to intentionally delay a tribunal into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rufik Hariri in which all signs point to Syrian involvement.  What is Russia up to and why?

Diplomats at the United Nations said yesterday that they suspected Russia, which considers Damascus an ally, of waiting for the pro-Syrian forces to gain political power. Those forces could reject the tribunal, which could prosecute major Syrian figures, including members of President Assad’s family and his inner circle of advisers who have been implicated by the U.N. investigation.

[snip]

Several diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity told the Sun that Russia objected to several points in the proposal and demanded that the Security Council, rather than the secretary-general, name the international judges. Such a change could delay the process significantly, as council members could struggle to agree on a list of judges.

There’s no question Russia benefits from arms contracts with Syria and Syria’s defense ally Iran, and Russia does have a recent history of using their UNSC position to benefit the nation economically rather than doing what is right, but the murder of Hariri was an incredible injustice that pushed Lebanon to the brink of civil war.  It is in no nation’s best interest for civil war to erupt anywhere, yet Russia apparently moves on delaying the inevitable trial of top Syrian officials.

The attack upon an Israeli outpost and the hostage taking of IDF Gilad Shalit started a mini-war between Israel and Hamas.  For months Israel has been trying to negotiate Shalit’s release, and two months ago an agreement was almost completed.  The agreement called for Shalit to be released in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

The deal, brokered through Egypt with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal who is in Damascus, suddenly fell through.  Israel was wondering what happened.  Now the nation claims it knows.

“The Iranians paid him £30 million in order to avert and sabotage an imminent release,” the ambassador said in New York.

“I informed the Security Council of news that we received, that we have every reason to believe that the Iranian regime has bribed Khaled Meshaal. I believe that the Security Council is worried about this and I hope that these worries will be translated into action very swiftly.”

This raises a couple of serious issues.  First, Hamas denied all involvement in the attack or in the taking of Shalit.  Why then would the leader of Hamas in Damascus work on brokering a deal?  If Hamas did not take Shalit hostage, which the Hamas government claims, the Hamas government would be the middle man in the negotiations if the group who took Shalit hostage did not want to make theirselves known.  Meshaal is the leader of the militant wing of Hamas and has no official role in the Palestinian government.

Second, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume Iran benefits from increased instability in the region.  Iran greatly benefitted from the Israel-Hezbollah war and benefits from the war in Iraq currently.  Iran also has a long history of supporting both Hamas and Hezbollah, but they have just as long of a history of using the Palestinian people to their own ends.  Hamas is always all too willing to allow themselves to be used.  The £30 million payment to stop an agreement works in the best interest of Iran, as every single day Shalit is held by an enemy of Israel it weakens the nation of Israel.  Iran’s leadership has stated on numerous occasions it wants to rid the world of Israel, and a weakened Israeli nation would help them to that end.

If the allegation is true, tack this on with the countless other reasons why there should be serious sanctions against the government of Iran.  But what exactly does Israel think the United Nations will do?  Israel should have noticed the UN reaction to the war against Hezbollah and the UN-backed force in Lebanon who won’t enforce UN Resolution 1559 and realize the UN is not on their side.  It’s a spineless group with absolutely no authority over anything except accepting bribes from dictators and despots the world over.

Now Israel wants to complain to this bribe-taking bureaucracy that a nation gave a bribe?  The UN leadership will just want a piece of the pie.

From the Dry Bones Blog:

Omar at the Iraq the Model on Kofi’s statement:

Did the “invasion and its aftermath” destabilize the region from those leaders’ perspective?

Absolutely yes! The Syrian Baath regime lost its eastern twin, Iran lost its anti-American, anti-Semitic western neighbor and the family-state in Saudi Arabia suddenly found itslef with a northern neighbor where minorities and majorities both have shares in governance.

Moreover, the peoples of the region, since then, became more daring in demanding their rights and criticizing the policy of their governments.

If this is not instability, then what is it?

Annan is planning on visiting Cuba to partake in the conference of anti-American nations. I hope he gets the opinion of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and brother, Kim Jong-Il and of course Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I’m curious what that quartet thinks of the war in Iraq. Further, isn’t it nice the United Nations Secretary General is taking time to visit with the leaders of nations that oppress their populace while pretending to be a champion of free nations?

Movement in the United Nations Security Council on Darfur. The UNSC passed Resolution 1706 which calls for a peacekeeping mission in the Darfur region of Sudan. Those voting against were Russia, China and Qatar. The vote was pushed by John Bolton. Yes, that John Bolton.

Atlas asks:

Why is no one talking about this? Why is the left talking Bolton filibuster? Why isn’t the left pushing to save lives in Darfur? Why is the left so full of shit? And where is Kofi? No wonder the people of Africa despise him.

Silly, silly woman. That’s because the case of Darfur is only a pseudo-issue for the self-declared champions of human rights. That’s like asking why the same people don’t support regime change in Iran or why they (read: some, not all) support Hugo Chavez.

Sudan rejected the resolution saying the resolution “violates the state’s sovereignty.” Ok, I suppose the refugees in Dafur also violent Sudanese sovereignty. If not, why else would the government of Sudan sanction Islamist militias who are waging war with African Christian, Muslims, Jews, etc.?

It really is about damn time.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan saw first-hand how Hezbollah stages events, and a Counterterrorism Blog special correspondent was there to record exactly what happened.  It’s not an image we normally see from our media either.

What Hezbollah protest is complete without the obligatory reference to the United States?  This time though the crowd chanted “down with the US” as opposed to “death to America.”  Hey, even terrorists and their enablers have to switch some things up on the fly.  It gets rather stale if they don’t.

But both of these calls should make one ponder why there were any Americans who attended rallies for Hezbollah within the U.S. during the war in Lebanon, and there were your regular “moderate” Muslims, neo-Nazis and of course your left-wing anti-war types supporting a terrorist organization at least in spirit.  Is it safe to question their patriotism if they openly support a terrorist group who wants to take down the United States?

According to the Jerusalem Post, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is expected to recommend giving UNIFIL the ability to fire upon Hezbollah when deployed in Southern Lebanon.  This would seem like a no-brainer considering two resolutions have now called for the disarming of Hezbollah, but this is the United Nations we’re talking about.

Middle East Newsline reports Hezbollah has began to travel back to the Israel-Lebanon border mixed in with the populace.

Israeli military sources said Hizbullah fighters and operatives were seen returning with tens of thousands of Lebanese residents to the communities from which they had fled in July. The sources said some of the Hizbullah fighters were seen with weapons and communications equipment.

This will give greater reason for an increased mandate for UNIFIL, but it also this same reasoning for why UNIFIL should have had this ability in the initial cease-fire agreement.

Thus far there has not been one nation who has promised contributing to the UNIFIL and the Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said Australia will not be part of UNIFIL.

“On my reading of the Security Council resolution 1701, it won’ t be disarming Hezbollah and if that is the case I think it could be a difficult situation for UNIFIL,” Downer said.

“That’s not the reason that we won’t participate in it, but I think it’s unlikely we’ll be able to participate because we won’t have the right sort of capability to really give it additional strength,” he added.

Perhaps this is why Annan wishes to give, as the Jerusalem Post states, UNIFIL teeth.

Meanwhile England is investigating whether or not a 2003 British shipment of 250 night-vision goggles to Iran in hopes Iran would help stem the Afghan drug trade fell into the hands of Hezbollah.   Israeli soldiers have found these goggles in Hezbollah bunkers in Southern Lebanon tagged with “made in Britain.”