Kofi Had To Get That last Dig At The US..Good Riddence!
A good example of toxic trash:
In a farewell speech on U.S. soil today, retiring United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to deliver a tough critique of President Bush’s policies. He will accuse the administration of trying to secure the United States from terrorism in part by dominating other nations through force, committing what he termed human rights abuses and taking military action without broad international support.
Though Annan has long been a critic of the war in Iraq and other Bush foreign policies, the planned speech is among his toughest and is unusual for a U.N. secretary-general concluding his tenure.
Annan’s remarks, provided to USA TODAY by his office, list principles for international relations, among them “respect for human rights and the rule of law.”
These ideas can be advanced only “if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism,” the speech says. “When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.”
In the 61-year history of the U.N., no secretary-general has ended his tenure by criticizing U.S. policies so sharply, said Stanley Meisler, a historian of the United Nations and author of a new biography of Annan.
Lorie Byrd adds: I almost forgot about this recent example of U.N. incompetence/corruption. Glenn Reynolds calls it a fitting capstone on Annan’s career.
Michelle Malkin: Like Kofi Annan knows anything about remaining true to principles? He leaves behind a feckless, corrupted, global bureaucracy incapable of policing the predators in its ranks, unwilling to stand up to evil, and useless in the struggle against terrorism–or any other global threat. And it’s all President Bush’s and America’s fault. Good riddance to you and your wagging finger, Kofi Annan. You will not be missed.
Betsy Newmark: “I wonder if he’ll mention the whole oil for food scandal that occurred under his leadership in which UN officials were raking in kickbacks from Saddam Hussein. Or will he talk about abuses of human rights in Rwanda and Darfur? Or mention the terrorists who kill civilians or hide behind civilians every single day?”
Come on, WaPo — level with us. Claudia Rosett wrote this as a spoof, right?
There’s plenty more laughs in Annan’s goodbye screed. He tries to use Hillary Clinton’s outline for It Takes A Village by telling readers that we are all responsible for each other’s security, and that we are all responsible for each other’s welfare. I’m sure that the people dying in Darfur will take great comfort in those words, in which the outgoing UN chief invokes them alongside the word “genocide” but manages to avoid applying it directly to them. Rwanda’s victims also would second Annan’s words, if any of them remained alive.He then goes on to mention the rule of law and the need for states to play by the rules. However, in his quest for accountability, he fails to mention what consequences should come from failures to do so. We wanted to hold Saddam accountable for twelve years of intransigence in relation to 16 UN Security Council resolutions — and Annan opposed the effort. We want to hold Iran accountable for its defiance of the non-proliferation treaty — and Annan has little to say about that as well.
Accountability. Annan. Not exactly two terms one would tie together in UN history. This laughable attempt by Annan to do so will not succeed in anything except providing a much-needed laugh to Post readers.
Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur, Oil for Food, child-sex scandals, twelve years of unenforced resolutions against Saddam, paralysis in the face of an accelerating Iranian nuclear program, a North Korean bomb test this summer, and an antagonism towards Israel so relentless as to border on the persecutional. That’s the global test. We’ve failed it.
When he’s right, he’s right. Arab self-rule doesn’t accord with broadly accepted norms.
He’ll deliver the speech at the Truman presidential library in Missouri, just to make things overtly partisan. He knows who his audience is; why not play to them? I do like the irony of having the head of the UN criticize America from the porch of the president who first recognized Israel, though. It lends a nice vaudeville atmosphere to the occasion.
Kofi’s got an op-ed out in WaPo today too in which he shares the lessons he’s learned from standing idly by while genocide occurs in various places around the globe.
Loading ...
December 11, 2006 - 09:21 AM on December 11th, 2006
Why should we have anything more to do with this rotten UN we should just tell them to GET LOST:mad:
December 11, 2006 - 09:46 AM on December 11th, 2006
I’ve already posted this link/quotes more than once on this site but it clearly proves that Kofi Annan is right (but what he didn’t need to say as the whole world knows it anyway):
“American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.”
and from the statement of priniciples (signed by the heads of the neocons):
“We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.”
source
December 11, 2006 - 09:53 AM on December 11th, 2006
Right about what Matthias? Is he right to accept bribes? Or is he right to turn a blind eye as his employees rape those they are charged with protecting? Or is he right about failing to acknowledge that NK is a cesspool for human rights violations? What is it that he is right about?
December 11, 2006 - 10:01 AM on December 11th, 2006
Michelle Malkin has it right. Kofi Annon has no basis to point fingers. If he wants to criticize, there is plenty to do criticizing his own performance and that of the corrupt, degenerate, almost useless U.N.
1. Move the U.N. out of the U.S.
Reduce the U.S. “dues” to $1M MAX; no more U.S. military support or participation in this.
I’d say get out of the U.N. entirely, but the Libs will never allow that.
December 11, 2006 - 10:05 AM on December 11th, 2006
Robert I just did an update to add this: He’ll deliver the speech at the Truman presidential library in Missouri, just to make things overtly partisan. He knows who his audience is; why not play to them? I do like the irony of having the head of the UN criticize America from the porch of the president who first recognized Israel, though. It lends a nice vaudeville atmosphere to the occasion.
December 11, 2006 - 10:12 AM on December 11th, 2006
The absurdity of the incompetent, corrupt fool (who has been about a successful U.N. leader as Peanut Brain Carter was as President) wagging his finger and lecturing the U.S. is only matched by the degeneracy of his clearly partisan orientation.
He’s another pos, imo. Flush him…
December 11, 2006 - 11:40 AM on December 11th, 2006
it’s all about money:roll: and arab-self rule is a joke, what this is about is money and control, but isn’s that what this monkey government want’s over you? hell boys you don’t need to go to the UN To find total corruption just look at our congress and the old american oligarhies selling you down the river into the third world. come on people! Kofi Is just one more monkey who is just a show, look behind him. the real agenda is your life and your world.:mad:
December 11, 2006 - 02:45 PM on December 11th, 2006
imo this whole Mid East problem with OPEC and oil is the work of Kissinger. Why that f’ing traitor is even allowed in the country (let alone free White House access) is a question I’d like answered.
December 11, 2006 - 03:12 PM on December 11th, 2006
8- You and a looooooot of other Robert. Can you expand on your position? I never realized how hated he is.
December 11, 2006 - 03:14 PM on December 11th, 2006
HK was the architect of OPEC. When he was Secretary of State, he spent more time flying around setting up future consulting deals for his company than doing anything good for the interests of the U.S.
If I can find a famous quote of his that gives me chills, I’ll post it.
December 11, 2006 - 03:21 PM on December 11th, 2006
Fair enough..I’ll come up with a post on him…
December 11, 2006 - 03:27 PM on December 11th, 2006
Here’s the famous Kissinger quote:
“Today Americans would be outraged if U. N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
~ Henry Kissinger
This gives me chills whenever I see or hear it.
Here’s a clearly anti-HK website where I copied the quote, but I have heard the quote for years. It is genuine.
December 11, 2006 - 03:46 PM on December 11th, 2006
“Today Americans would be outraged if U. N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.â€
~ Henry Kissinger
I hate that f***ing war criminal….
By the way, Kissinger’s words provide a lovely condensation of one aspect of the neo-con position as elaborated by their intellectual father Leo Strauss (see his theory of the “Noble Lie” in The City and Man).
December 11, 2006 - 03:54 PM on December 11th, 2006
In case my remark about Strauss, neo-cons, and the “noble lie” seemed like a total non-sequitur, here’s a link:
The similarities to Kissinger’s words are eerie.
edited by Peejz..I have warned about doing the links correctly..follow the rules..Â
December 12, 2006 - 04:10 AM on December 12th, 2006
As expected nobody objects to the implicit world domination intention from the PNAC-statutes (in 2.)… And you folks wonder, why nobody except you likes your government…
December 12, 2006 - 09:48 PM on December 12th, 2006
Excuse me but, I am a conservative and my philosophy hasn’t got a thing to do with the commentary from Kissinger. In fact it fights strongly against it as does that of most conservatives. You obviously haven’t looked at what conservatives advocate. Self reliance, and self determination, not governmental control of every aspect of live. THAT’S THE LIBERAL STAND!!!! One of our founding fathers (I think it was Ben Franklin) stated that anyone who would give up the real benefit of a liberty in exchange for an apparent benefit of security will have neither. It’s the liberals who want the government to control everything. Conservatives aren’t advocating raising taxes on productive individuals to pay the living expenses of those who aren’t. It isn’t conservatives who are demanding that everyone be pressed into military service, that’s the liberal Dems. It’s not the conservatives who say that lesser qualified people should receive special consideration in order to promote the ubiquitous “diversity” in our educational institutions. It’s not the conservatives who are saying that all businesses have to provide expensive services to customers who make up a miniscule percentage of their customer base without being able to recoup the costs. It’s not the Conservatives who are telling business owners that whether their clientele want the business to be smoke free or not, they have to stop their customers from smoking on the grounds. All of these wonderful intrusions into everyday life are the brainchildren of the LIBERALS.
Everytime liberalism/ socialism/ communism has been tried, it has failed MISERABLY. WHY? Because it flies fully in the face of the basic motivational force of the human spirit. It suppresses the individual’s instinctive desire to self actualize, the desire to be all that one can be.
Hell, the Pilgrims first tried it when they got to Massachusetts and they quickly discovered that those who could produce the most work had no desire to do so if they weren’t going to receive any benefit from their own labor. People complain that they aren’t receiving what they’re worth now. Imagine what it would be like if you could NEVER earn more than you are earning right now because if you tried, the government would simply take the excess to give to someone who wasn’t working at all. Exactly how motivated would that leave you? That folks is the fallacy of liberalism/ socialism/ communism. The fallacy that people will work harder to provide for those who won’t work at all.
There is an interesting book about a supposed utopian society written by Edward Bellamy called “Looking Backward”. In it, every job paid exactly the same. Every job is controlled by the government and everyone works for 2 -4 years after high school in a menial labor job until they decide what career they want to go into. The way that the various jobs were filled wasn’t based on pay, but on the hours worked. For those jobs that were particularly undesirable, the hours would be reduced to the point where the positions would be filled. Hence while a doctor and a miner might earn the same, the desirability of being a doctor would cause the doctor to work substantially greater hours a week than the miner. While a doctor or lawyer might have to work 50 hours per week to earn their salary, a miner might only have to work 10 because of the hazardous nature of the job. By doing this it allowed people to determine what things in their life were most important. Someone who might want to spend as much time as possible pursuing a hobby might choose a less desirable job in order to be able to have more free time for their hobbies.
December 12, 2006 - 10:36 PM on December 12th, 2006
FAO you are correct as usual. The scenarios you descroibe are fundamental human nature, which has not changed at all since the first human. The Liberals try to pretend that doesn’t apply, like somehow everyone will just suddenly act the way they should.
It never has worked that way and never will. The Liberal resfusal to acknowledge this fundamental truth is one of the elements of their collective mental illness.