Iran Hosts Conference For Holocaust Deniers — David Duke Shows Up To Add Credibility

At the end of November, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote an “open letter to the American people.” In the letter, which sounds as if it could have been penned by any left-wing American politician, Ahmadinejad makes it clear that he thinks the Jews are responsible for everything from the misery inflicted upon the Palestinian people to the cancellation of The West Wing.

Nowhere in the lengthy note, however, does Ahmadinejad go on to say that the Holocaust never happened. That’s where this week’s conference in Iran comes in:

Iran hosted Holocaust deniers from around the world Monday at a conference examining whether the Nazi genocide took place, a meeting Israel’s prime minister condemned as a “sick phenomenon.”

The 67 participants from 30 countries included former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and Holocaust skeptics who have been prosecuted in Europe for questioning whether 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis or whether gas chambers were ever used.

Tonight the group will hold two evening sessions. The first is “Sir Isaac Newton and the Zionist gravity conspiracy,” and the second will be an awards ceremony for the conference participant who said “Zionist” the most times during the conference (my money’s on Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour — he’s on my wingnut fantasy league team).

As for David Duke, I’m guessing that if he denies that the Nazi’s killed millions of Jews in the Holocaust, it’s only because he thinks the blacks did it. 

Duke is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan and Louisiana Representative. This is probably why, in comparison, nobody in that state seems to give a damn that William Jefferson stuffed bribe money in his freezer and explains not only his re-election, but also that of Ray Nagin. Louisiana seems to have become the home to a version of political anarchy, where anybody with power gets away with anything from idiocy to criminal behavior. It’s like Somalia with Cajun food.

Before the Holocaust denial conference closes, attendees will be shows the following sneak preview for Mel Gibson’s new movie Apocalypto:

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Holy Shiite, Nancy

Can we now finally dispense with the “Bush is dumb” stuff and move on to greener, more left-wing pastures?

The House Democrats will head the Intelligence Committee when they take control in January. Believe it or not, that’s not the entirely scary part.

The man tapped by Nancy Pelosi to head the committee failed a pop quiz:

Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam — Sunni or Shiite — Reyes answered “they are probably both,” then ventured “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.

Stein’s column about Reyes’ answers was published on CQ’s Web site Friday evening.

No word yet on whether or not Reyes thinks “euthenasia” are Chinese kids.

Farewell, Kofi Annan: U.N. Chief’s Legacy Smeared in Oil, Food, Hypocrisy, Greed and Bureaucratic Twittery

Today, outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered a “farewell” speech in Missouri, and he became one of the first Sec. Gen.’s in the U.N.’s long and bureaucratic history to be scathingly critical of a current president’s policies before leaving office.

Annan will no doubt go on to a lucrative career as a public speaker, and possibly Morgan Freeman’s stunt double, but should we heed Annan’s criticism, or laugh at it as empty rhetoric from an empty suit? Let’s first take a look at some of the “best of” the man who’s doing the sanctimonious finger-pointing.

Oil for Food

We all remember the “Oil-for-Food” scandal. The United Nations’ “Oil-for-Food” program, which began in 1996, permitted Saddam Hussein to sell oil, provided that the revenue went for food, medicine and other necessities. It was a deal between the world’s largest bureaucracy and one of the planet’s most crooked and ruthless dictators. What could possibly go wrong?

It wasn’t long before it was discovered that Hussein was skimming money off the top, and bottom for that matter. Skimming? More like building a dam. The General Accounting Office estimated that Hussein’s regime netted over $10 billion. The psychotic-yet-most-entrepreneurial mustachioed one who had a destiny with a spider hole was, with a lot of help, inflating prices on humanitarian imports, which allowed him to sell that much more oil and keep the extra for himself and whoever else was involved. High markups, high profits and skimming – Iraq had become a 172,000 square mile jewelry store run by Jimmy Hoffa.

(This is the part where Columbo walks toward the door, pauses, and turns around, and says:) “Oh yes, one more thing…Kofi Annan’s son was receiving money from a company monitoring the Oil-for-Food program.”

Iraq Invasion

In a move taken straight from the “Berkeley Guide To Politically Correct Dating,” the United Nations said, in essence, that it was okay for the United States to invade Iraq, provided the U.S. got Iraq’s permission first. “May I invade” is the chapter in the book just after “May I put my arm around you” and “May I unhook your bra?” 

Kofi Annan and the U.N. sat idly by as Saddam Hussein has rebuilt an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, committed countless atrocities, and used financial goodies and other perks to lure nuclear scientists into the country in efforts to develop atomic weapons, and the U.N. was cool with that because Saddam let them “inspect” (provided they didn’t look in the crawl space).

I’m willing to bet that there are still people meeting in out-of-the-way U.N. offices – like Japanese soldiers on remote South Pacific Islands in the 1950’s who didn’t know the war was over — who are still debating whether or not Saddam should be removed from power.

“Based in the U.S.” hypocrisy

Why would the United Nations and Annan even want the U.S. as a member state? They’re constantly whining about America owing them a ton of money (something I thought Ted Turner took care of with his billion-dollar donation, but from the sound of things, Turner changed his mind and instead decided to spend the money to have the world’s most expensive lobotomy).

Not only does the U.N. claim we owe them money, but they have the audacity to say how bad the U.S. is and then also be headquartered in this country? If I’m just a few days late on my gym membership dues, they don’t let me in the door, let alone move the entire operation into my house. Something doesn’t add up. But then, that’s the legacy of Kofi Annan’s United Nations.

When Hugo Chavez visited the United States a few weeks ago, he asked the U.N. to consider relocating their headquarters to Venezuela. It was one of those rare times when I agreed with Chavez: It’s time for the U.N. to move. This won’t happen at any time soon though, as the U.N. headquarters in New York recently received a $2 billion ”extreme home makeover: bureaucrat edition.” Like jurors sequestered in a Four Seasons, it could prove tough to get them out of there.

*****

Here are some other classic Kofi Annan conflicts of interest. If this is the same man who’s pointing a bony, crooked diplomatic finger at the United States for not doing things his way, we should take that as a compliment.

Oh, and if Kofi’s speech today should mention war crimes and other atrocities, let’s be sure to include those committed by U.N. “peacekeepers” in all parts of the world during the watch of Kofi Annan.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Farewell, Kofi Annan: U.N. Chief's Legacy Smeared in Oil, Food, Hypocrisy, Greed and Bureaucratic Twittery

Today, outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered a “farewell” speech in Missouri, and he became one of the first Sec. Gen.’s in the U.N.’s long and bureaucratic history to be scathingly critical of a current president’s policies before leaving office.

Annan will no doubt go on to a lucrative career as a public speaker, and possibly Morgan Freeman’s stunt double, but should we heed Annan’s criticism, or laugh at it as empty rhetoric from an empty suit? Let’s first take a look at some of the “best of” the man who’s doing the sanctimonious finger-pointing.

Oil for Food

We all remember the “Oil-for-Food” scandal. The United Nations’ “Oil-for-Food” program, which began in 1996, permitted Saddam Hussein to sell oil, provided that the revenue went for food, medicine and other necessities. It was a deal between the world’s largest bureaucracy and one of the planet’s most crooked and ruthless dictators. What could possibly go wrong?

It wasn’t long before it was discovered that Hussein was skimming money off the top, and bottom for that matter. Skimming? More like building a dam. The General Accounting Office estimated that Hussein’s regime netted over $10 billion. The psychotic-yet-most-entrepreneurial mustachioed one who had a destiny with a spider hole was, with a lot of help, inflating prices on humanitarian imports, which allowed him to sell that much more oil and keep the extra for himself and whoever else was involved. High markups, high profits and skimming – Iraq had become a 172,000 square mile jewelry store run by Jimmy Hoffa.

(This is the part where Columbo walks toward the door, pauses, and turns around, and says:) “Oh yes, one more thing…Kofi Annan’s son was receiving money from a company monitoring the Oil-for-Food program.”

Iraq Invasion

In a move taken straight from the “Berkeley Guide To Politically Correct Dating,” the United Nations said, in essence, that it was okay for the United States to invade Iraq, provided the U.S. got Iraq’s permission first. “May I invade” is the chapter in the book just after “May I put my arm around you” and “May I unhook your bra?” 

Kofi Annan and the U.N. sat idly by as Saddam Hussein has rebuilt an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, committed countless atrocities, and used financial goodies and other perks to lure nuclear scientists into the country in efforts to develop atomic weapons, and the U.N. was cool with that because Saddam let them “inspect” (provided they didn’t look in the crawl space).

I’m willing to bet that there are still people meeting in out-of-the-way U.N. offices – like Japanese soldiers on remote South Pacific Islands in the 1950’s who didn’t know the war was over — who are still debating whether or not Saddam should be removed from power.

“Based in the U.S.” hypocrisy

Why would the United Nations and Annan even want the U.S. as a member state? They’re constantly whining about America owing them a ton of money (something I thought Ted Turner took care of with his billion-dollar donation, but from the sound of things, Turner changed his mind and instead decided to spend the money to have the world’s most expensive lobotomy).

Not only does the U.N. claim we owe them money, but they have the audacity to say how bad the U.S. is and then also be headquartered in this country? If I’m just a few days late on my gym membership dues, they don’t let me in the door, let alone move the entire operation into my house. Something doesn’t add up. But then, that’s the legacy of Kofi Annan’s United Nations.

When Hugo Chavez visited the United States a few weeks ago, he asked the U.N. to consider relocating their headquarters to Venezuela. It was one of those rare times when I agreed with Chavez: It’s time for the U.N. to move. This won’t happen at any time soon though, as the U.N. headquarters in New York recently received a $2 billion ”extreme home makeover: bureaucrat edition.” Like jurors sequestered in a Four Seasons, it could prove tough to get them out of there.

*****

Here are some other classic Kofi Annan conflicts of interest. If this is the same man who’s pointing a bony, crooked diplomatic finger at the United States for not doing things his way, we should take that as a compliment.

Oh, and if Kofi’s speech today should mention war crimes and other atrocities, let’s be sure to include those committed by U.N. “peacekeepers” in all parts of the world during the watch of Kofi Annan.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Monday’s Column: The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again

Today’s column over at WorldNetDaily is on the coming (and current) appeasement of the Democrat majority by Republicans, and the Democrat forgiveness offered to any Republican who placates them. From the Iraq Study Group to soon to be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it’s getting comical in DC. In other words, “business as usual.”

Give a read to “The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again” for more.

Monday's Column: The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again

Today’s column over at WorldNetDaily is on the coming (and current) appeasement of the Democrat majority by Republicans, and the Democrat forgiveness offered to any Republican who placates them. From the Iraq Study Group to soon to be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it’s getting comical in DC. In other words, “business as usual.”

Give a read to “The Apple Dumpling Gang Chides Again” for more.

Bush’s Fast-Track Confirmation Plan Continues: May Nominate Muslim U.N. Ambassador

If President Bush hasn’t come up with this plan to get his nominees through a Senate that will soon be controlled by Democrats on purpose, it sure is one heck of an accident.

First, Bush nominated Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates’ answer to a single question from Carl Levin secured a landslide thumbs-up from the full Senate. When Gates was asked if the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq, he answered “no.” It was the two-lettered word heard ’round the partisan world.

As a result of the resounding success of this one instance of placating, either truthfully or cunningly, Senate Dems, I then recommended a similar approach for all future Bush nominees.

It could be that Bush is up to it again. Robert Novak believes that a Bush administration Muslim could be the front-runner to be nominated to replace the outgoing John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton’s combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

Another nominee on the fast-track! What high-profile Senate Democrat is going to have the brass donkeys to put the kibosh on a Muslim candidate for any post? I didn’t think so.

———-

Note: if you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Bush's Fast-Track Confirmation Plan Continues: May Nominate Muslim U.N. Ambassador

If President Bush hasn’t come up with this plan to get his nominees through a Senate that will soon be controlled by Democrats on purpose, it sure is one heck of an accident.

First, Bush nominated Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates’ answer to a single question from Carl Levin secured a landslide thumbs-up from the full Senate. When Gates was asked if the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq, he answered “no.” It was the two-lettered word heard ’round the partisan world.

As a result of the resounding success of this one instance of placating, either truthfully or cunningly, Senate Dems, I then recommended a similar approach for all future Bush nominees.

It could be that Bush is up to it again. Robert Novak believes that a Bush administration Muslim could be the front-runner to be nominated to replace the outgoing John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton’s combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

Another nominee on the fast-track! What high-profile Senate Democrat is going to have the brass donkeys to put the kibosh on a Muslim candidate for any post? I didn’t think so.

———-

Note: if you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Reid and Pelosi Courageously Vow to Block Senate Pay Raise —

From the A.P. via the Washington Post:

Members of Congress are in line for a $3,300 pay raise effective Jan. 1 unless they block it, and Democrats said Thursday they intend to try.

Officials said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the party’s leaders, had notified Republicans they will try to add the anti-pay-raise provision to a bill that provides funds for most government agencies through Feb. 15.

Reid and Pelosi are standing firm in showing solidarity with every other hard-working blue-collar American who has to make do on $141,300 a year and endless perks, and they won’t accept a penny more! (shady land deals, however, are still fine)

The Iraq Study Group and James Baker’s Saudi Connection: Dem Skepticism Takes a Magical Holiday

As we’re all aware, the Iraq Study Group, otherwise known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission (lawyers can’t do anything without having the word “commission” in the title, can they?) has released their report.

The “Study Group” — the stated goal of which was to pursue a round-table bipartisan discussion on commissions for the purpose of delineating task forces and implementing two-way dialog on methods for eliminating bureaucracy in the arena of Middle-East think-tanks — found that the United States is way off course in its goal of getting out of Iraq. President Bush disagrees in many areas.

Democrats in Congress and the mainstream media have gleefully devoured the report as damning evidence of the failures of Bush and Rumsfeld to properly wage war (by “properly” I mean doing it so nobody gets hurt or loses cable reception in the process). Gee, normally Democrats are so inquisitive about the source of their information. What happened?

Just for fun, lets ponder one question for a moment. Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, some Americans filed a $1 trillion lawsuit against Saudi officials and the Sudanese government. Who is a senior partner in one of the law firms Saudi Defense Minister Sultan bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz hired for his defense? You guessed it: James Baker III.

This all could be meaningless as it pertains to the Study Group findings, or maybe not, but still, how loud and how often would this fact have been trumpeted in the media if the Iraq Study Group report found that Bush’s war plan was right on track? How come nobody is pointing to Baker and questioning his personal motives? How can Baker be considered “neutral” in any of this?

What about Hamilton?

Then of course there’s Lee Hamilton, who once co-chaired a commission (there’s that word “commission” again) to investigate security issues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This was again done hand-in-hand with James Baker. The Baker-Hamilton report on Los Alamos, which was commissioned (doh!) in the early summer of 2000, after the theft of hard drives at the apparently not-so-heavily-guarded laboratory, released their recommendations later that year.

And how’s that going? Earlier this year, police in New Mexico, responding to a routine call at a trailer park, found nuclear secrets from Los Alamos that were allegedly “accidentally” taken by an employee — who was keeping them nice and warm next to a meth lab. The Baker-Hamilton report recommendations sure did a bang-up job there. What was recommendation #1? “Fire Gilligan as security director and replace him with Barney Fife”?

So, take the “Iraq Study Group” report for what it is: An opinion presented by people who have potential agendas and past track records of laughable failures, not to mention have the word “commission” listed way too many times on their resumes.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com