File this under "It's About Time."

The MSM hasn't picked this up yet, but Lucianne posters found it in a Calcutta paper. Personally -- I don't expect MSM to cover it. 

Bolton blasted the U.N. assembly for it's vote on a resolution against Israel over recent civilian casualties in the Gaza.

"Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said.

"This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist." "Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said. 

What a shame this guy won't be approved.  Too bad the Prez can't reappoint him during the upcoming vacation.

The US needs him -- or someone -- with the gumption to speak out: 

"This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region," Bolton continued.

"In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States," he said.

"The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries," Bolton charged.

"The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies," he continued.

Thanks, John Bolton.  Someone should have said this long ago. 

  Pelosi has repeatedly reminded us how she knows how to handle people, i.e., get what she wants.  It didn't happen yesterday, however.  Her choice for Majority Leader didn't pass muster with other democrats. 

Methinks the Pelosi-House honeymoon is over before it began.  Hoyer received twice as many votes as Pelosi's personal choice, Murtha.  Yet it was all kudos, kissy-kissy hugging and buddy checks at the following press conference. 

I'd like to see a replay of that podium party.   Especially the scene in which Hoyer lofted Pelosi's hand as a gesture of "victory" and how she quickly pulled away ....

Another rejection of what Momma-Pelosi wants and dems may unveil another hysterical, screaming me-me among their ranks!

Murtha better take the boys into the back room and 'splain what a bouncin' betty is ....

Not sure what all this means, but here I sit (and yes, except for the leg-cross -- I somehow resemble the image) -- just watching the world!

And all this while I considered myself a tee-totalin' whisky-palian of Jewish heritage. 

Who knew.

The Guardian WatchBlog observes who the real election victors were -- and the message their victory sends to our troops. 

As the dust of the 2006 election settles, it's clear who the real winners are. Our enemies pay far more attention to our politics than most of our citizens, and know just how to manipulate our media to achieve maximum impact. Think it's a coincidence that October was constantly referred to as, "the bloodiest month since 2003" in every newscast for weeks before the election?

Read this entire post for the full impact of the message the Guardian says we are sending our troops.

By putting into power those who advocate retreat from Iraq in the face of the enemy, we have failed the troops who depend on our moral support to sustain them. The only Democrat plans for Iraq I've ever heard are "cut and run" (immediate withdrawal), "cut and walk" (phased withdrawal), "split and quit" (divide the country, declare victory and leave) and "hide and bide" (retreat to secure bases and let Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds, Ba'athists and al-Qaeda fight it out). Not one major Democratic leader has called for winning, and our troops know that.

Post-9/11 America voted, in essence, to affirm a retreat from Iraq. Only George Bush, who has led us in the war against terrorism, can lead the re-writing of that message, the "course" we are to "stay," and what this message says to our troops.

I had hoped Iraqi leaders actually heard President Bush's message last week.

By this report, the PM did.  He called on lawmakers today to make a critical decision: "to declare their loyalty to a unified Iraq -- not their religious sects or political parties ...."

Al-Maliki, who also said a government reshuffle was in the works, was responding to questions by lawmakers during Sunday's closed session of parliament.

In a statement afterward, al-Maliki's office said he used the meeting to outline Iraq's political and security situation and plans for bringing stability to the country.

It said al-Maliki "called for a comprehensive Cabinet shake up suitable with the current period."

The statement said al-Maliki told legislators that all politicians should "be responsible and contribute to improving security and pushing forward with reconciliation."

Shiite legislator Bassem al-Sharif said al-Maliki also told the lawmakers to stop squabbling, al-Sharif said. "Let your loyalty be to Iraq. Help the government," al-Maliki reportedly said.

The prime minister was responding in part to public charges by lawmakers that the government was complicit in the killing of members of the Sunni minority, even as some Shiites in the government claimed al-Maliki was being unduly harsh in dealing with Shiite militia members.

Dhafer al-Ani, of the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, told The Associated Press later that al-Maliki's comments "were disappointing because they were sidelining (Sunnis) and included threats."

He said that his organization, which holds 44 seats in the 275-member parliament, is reviewing its participation - a hint that members might pull out of the political process.

Al-Ani said al-Maliki blamed raging violence on Sunni extremists and followers of Saddam Hussein and failed to accept blame for Shiite militias.

Al-Sharif quoted al-Maliki as saying that "I will not allow the army and police to be loyal to political groups," al-Maliki said.

The United States is pressuring al-Maliki to disband Shiite militias, but he countered in the closed session that both Sunnis and Shiites had militias.

"You all have militias. I will not accept a government made up of militiamen," he was quoted as saying.

In previous posts, I attached the tag "political humor" to anticipate the lack of seriousness with which my suggested plan for Iraqi stability would be taken.   It remains my contention, however, that any serious plan for stability in Iraq must begin with designated regional/geographic regions -- contrary to the PM protestations.

Rumored U.S. overtures to meeting with Syria seem to have filtered through as well. 

On Saturday, al-Maliki told editors of local newspapers that Syria, which the U.S. and his government accuse of allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq, wants to start afresh with Iraq.

"We have the same desire," al-Maliki said.

Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Labib Abbawi said Sunday that an official invitation has been sent to Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Moallem and he accepted. No date for a visit was set.

Let's anticipate that this is the first of many positive steps toward stability.

GULL'S 5-Step PLAN: 

Step 1: Divide Iraq into states.  Divide larger cities into districts.  Let each state/district elect local governors (and representatives to the national governing body).

Step 2: Hire existing Iraqi militias to control/patrol the states/districts.  Give bonuses to militia chieftans and their "police" force for kicking out foreign thugs, protecting and promoting businesses and keeping communities safe. 

Step 3: Use US/coalition forces as advisors.  Keep coalition "strike" forces in strategic areas. Continue to train/develop an Iraqi military.
  
Step 4:  Redeploy US troops home and/or to other Middle East locations.

Step 5:  Focus Iraqi militias and military forces on protecting Iraqi resources -- including oil drilling, refineries, transportation routes and borders.

CLICK THE  "CHECK BOX" BELOW TO VOTE!

NOTE:  Democrat voting strategy #42 in effect!  You do not have to be alive, registered or a US citizen to vote!!!!  You may vote early, late aaaaanddddd often.  Duplicate votes are allowed .... Knock yourselves out.  Cheaters welcome! 

I must admit -- I don't feel altogether comfy with these old-school politicians in advisory roles to solve current problems .... And this criticism cuts both ways.

Bush is meeting with Baker .... Dems are meeting with George McGovern.  Neither of these "advisors" have a history of non-partisanship ....

Not that these folks weren't top-of-the-line in their day, but the world has changed considerably over the last 20-some years.  Principles of diplomacy may not have changed that much --- but we're dealing with an enemy that could care less about diplomacy.  They want to kill us.  Indiscriminately, too.  They want to fly their flag from our White House (which will be hard to do if they burn it first, but their point is well taken). 

Back in July, McGovern spoke at an anti-war conference in Canada.

Former US presidential candidate senator George McGovern called the conflict in Iraq a "needless and mistaken" war.

And he accused the administration of President George W. Bush of misleading the American people in pursuing the war.

"We are jeopardizing the very liberties we profess to be fighting to save in these costly and, in many respects, self-defeating wars," McGovern, 83, said on Saturday at a conference of Vietnam War draft dodgers and resisters held in this British Columbia Interior community over the past week. "I think it jeopardizes the quality of our lives and the standing of America in the world."

McGovern was a major opponent of the Vietnam War, the draft for which many of the delegates to the conference fled to Canada to avoid.

"We haven't learned as much as we should from the lessons of the past," he said.

McGovern, the Democratic candidate for president against Richard Nixon in 1972, stressed there are wars worth fighting. A World War II bomber pilot, McGovern said he is a supporter of the US military.

"I support our troops in that I don't want them involved in needless and mistaken wars," he said.

He said the Iraq conflict is heading the same way as the Vietnam War.

"This time we're bogged down in the Arabian desert in a country that is no threat to the United States, that had no weapons of mass destruction," McGovern said.

Further, he said, Iraq had no connection whatsoever to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York's Word Trade Center.

But, he said most Americans believe the assertions from the White House that Iraq was involved in those attacks.

McGovern was first elected to the Senate in 1962 and re-elected in 1968 and 1974. He served UN appointments under presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

He left the Senate in 1980 and taught at several institutions.

He has received numerous awards and honorary degrees, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the US' highest civilian honor, in 2000.

Also at the conference was Jeffrey House, a draft dodger turned Canadian lawyer who represents American soldiers seeking asylum in Canada.

House called the Iraq war "a gigantic crime."

Many of the speakers encouraged Canada to remain a haven for those who choose not to fight in Iraq.

Mr. Baker spoke on ABC in early October:

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker told "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance that the current Iraqi government is capable of sustaining peace in the war-torn region.

But he warned, "If they think we're going to leave, then they won't be able to do it."

Baker is leading the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group charged with making a "forward-looking assessment of the situation in Iraq."

He said, "[Iraq is] capable of doing it if it gets the political will."

The Iraq Study Group is expected to make its formal assessment after the midterm elections this November. Baker told ABC News that the report may be ready by December, but that deadline could slip into next year.

Most important, Baker stated, the report must "take this thing out of politics."

"We're going to try very hard to stay away from the political terms, change the course, stay the course, and all that stuff," Baker said.

With the president's blessing, Baker is acting with Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman and the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, and others. Baker described their efforts.

"I think the administration knows that we are working hard to come up with a consensus recommendation," he said. "We've got a lot of good Republicans and Democrats on this commission, and we are determined to come up with a consensus report."

But Baker admitted he's "not sure" that the Bush administration will heed any advice given by the independent group.

This past week, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a stark assessment of the situation in Iraq.

He told reporters, "In two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's a responsibility of our government internally to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take? And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time."

Baker said he concurs with Warner.

"We're taking a look at other alternatives," he said, "We haven't rejected a lot of ideas."

On the separate but pressing issue of North Korea's latest threats of another nuclear missile test, Baker disagreed with the Bush administration's refusal to engage directly in bilateral talks with the rogue nation.

"I believe in talking to your enemies," Baker said. "In my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."

I have no idea what influence the ole boys (including new Secretary of Defense Gates) will have on a solution for Iraq.  For the sake of our troops and national unity, I hope they each contribute to bipartisanship.   

And I still like MY plan. 

Part 1: Divide Iraq into states.  Divide larger cities into districts.  Let each state/district elect local governors (and representatives to the national governing body).

Part 2: Hire existing Iraqi militias to control/patrol the states/districts.  Give bonuses to militia chieftans and their "police" force for kicking out foreign thugs, protecting and promoting businesses and keeping communities safe. 

Part 3: Use US/coalition forces as advisors.  Keep coalition "strike" forces in strategic areas. Continue to train/develop an Iraqi military.
  
Part 4:  Redeploy US troops home and/or to other Middle East locations.

Part 5:  Focus Iraqi militias and military forces on protecting Iraqi resources -- including oil drilling, refineries, transportation routes and borders.

When I was in Vietnam, I lived with a civic action group (PHILCAG) in TayNinh.  They built schools, hospitals and trained local villagers to develop their own utility systems.  They also carried big guns to protect themselves.  Made sense to me. 

To win hearts and minds -- you sometimes have to carry a big stick to ensure that bodies follow suit ....

.... to be continued ....

Alliteration aside -- I had a series of mind throbs this morning ...

  What if Rove intentionally "let" Democrats win -- to punish Repubs and RINO's who distanced themselves from the President during the campaign?

After all, it's feasible -- with Blue Dog Democrats -- more of the President's pet projects will be approved. 

Do I care who controls the House and the Senate?  Nope.

Does the President?   He appears to be focused on doing his job, making a seemed-to-be-sincere overture to the Dems and leaving the speculating to others.  As long as he can fix the illegal immigration problem (requiring illegals to register, start paying taxes IMMEDIATELY, penalizing employers AND securing borders) -- I'll be content.  On that issue, at least.

* About those fresh eyes ..... What if Gates and Baker come up with a viable plan for stability in Iraq?  Who wouldn't support that?  Well ..... I can think of a few:  Iran, Syria, a few libs, a bunch of terrorists.

I have a plan to offer. 

Part 1: Divide Iraq into states.  Divide larger cities into districts.  Let each state/district elect local governors (and representatives to the national governing body).

Part 2: Hire existing Iraqi militias to control/patrol the states/districts.  Give bonuses to militia chieftans and their "police" force for kicking out foreign thugs, protecting and promoting businesses and keeping communities safe. 

Part 3: Use US/coalition forces as advisors.  Keep coalition "strike" forces in strategic areas. Continue to train/develop an Iraqi military.
  
Part 4:  Redeploy US troops home and/or to other Middle East locations.

Part 5:  Focus Iraqi militias and military forces on protecting Iraqi resources -- including oil drilling, refineries, transportation routes and borders.

Will it work?   It would sure take a lot of Americans out of harms way.  And it might provide stability to a nation badly in need of it.

*  Can Democrats be proud that terrorists' positions and goals mirror theirs? 

Damned if I would. 

But I've said all along ---- we deserve what we let happen. 

.... to be continued ....

eh. eh. eh. 

Credit: Michael Rameriez

We posted a tribute at Beyond Rhetoric earlier this week ....

The image above has been a permanent fixture in our sidebar.