Great news! We're letting two of our most prominent enemies in the country to speak at the United Nations! Who decided that this was okay? Fox News reporting, though no link yet, but Drudge has us covered:

Ahmadinejad to Cuba, New York Wed Sep 06 2006 20:23:38 ET

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to attend the summit of Non-Aligned Movement countries in the Cuban capital Havana in mid-September, an official said Wednesday.

"The president will take part in the summit of Non-Aligned countries in Havana," said the official from the president's office, who asked not to be named.

The summit of the 116-nation grouping is to take place between September 11-16, and Ahmadinejad is also expected to attend the UN General Assembly in New York that starts on September 12, the official said.

MORE

Ahmadinejad said in Tehran Wednesday that his attendance of the UN General Assembly would be a "suitable opportunity" to challenge Bush in a television debate.

"My forthcoming visit to New York for the UN General Assembly would be a suitable opportunity to hold the debate and all world people, especially the Americans, could hear and watch it without censorship," the news agency ISNA quoted the Iranian president as saying in a cabinet session.

Developing...

I'm having trouble digesting this right now, and I'm too hungry to think a whole lot about it. But there is nothing good about this.

*UPDATE*
Newsmax is on it too:

UNITED NATIONS -- U.N. officials tell NewsMax.com "they expect" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to travel to New York City to attend the 2006 General Assembly.

The controversial Iranian leader attended the 2005 GA and held several "colorful" news conferences during that visit.

Ahmadinejad will be at the U.N. at the same time key members of the security council will gather to decide what type of sanctions to impose on the Iranian regime for its refusal to suspend its "enrichment" of nuclear fuel.

Iran's U.N. mission in New York City had no comment on the expected presidential visit, however late Wedenesday evening, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) confirmed that Ahmadinejad told his cabinet in Tehran that he intended to visit New York City and speak at the United Nations.

In addition to the Iranian president, the U.N. also confirms that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, another Bush antagonist, also plans to visit the Big Apple at the same time.

Both Ahmadinejad and Chavez will first visit Havana to attend the summit of non-alligned nations being hosted by Fidel Castro the week of September 11.

President Bush is expected to address the U.N. General Assembly on the same day as Ahmadinejad, September 19. Bush will address the U.N. at 11:30 a.m., the Iranian takes to the same podium at 7 p.m.

At least there's a bit of good news:

The 2006 General Assembly will be Annan's last.

The U.N. chief expects to end his 10-year term January 1, 2007.

Let's hope that seeing Annan leave means less corruption and less little girl raping at a level Warren Jeffs could never dream of. I'm not holding my breath though.

*UPDATE*
Allah seems to think (correct me if I'm misreading) that this will backfire in the sense that it will open up the eyes of other western countries, about what sort of organization the UN is. I'm not that confident, because most of the west is in appeasement mode already.

 

Who didn't see this coming? Anyone else getting Deja Vous?

LAPPEENRANTA, Finland (Reuters) - The European Union agreed on Saturday to try to clarify Iran's stance on halting uranium enrichment within two weeks and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan held talks in Tehran to try and settle the standoff.

Annan's visit to Iran takes place two days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported Tehran had failed to meet the U.N. Security Council's August 31 deadline to suspend sensitive work.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking atomic bombs, said on Friday it was consulting European governments about possible sanctions against the Islamic Republic, but the EU signaled it wanted to see more dialogue with Tehran which says its atomic activity is aimed at producing power.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm excited about the prospect of more empty resolutions! My brother takes a tougher stance when one of his daughters doesn't share toys with the other. Maybe we should put him in the UN to put Iran in "time out" like he does with the girls. It would be tougher than what we're doing now.

But Solana told reporters: "There's no deadline, whenever we finish ... We are going to start in the coming days and I hope that it will be very short. We don't need many meetings."

So they had a deadline that they failed to meet. Now we've given them another 2 week deadline with absolutely no reason to believe anything will change, but even that two week deadline is really a non-deadline? Boy are we lucky to have the UN.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

(Note 1)***(This turned out to be a longer post than expected, but it's important that you read the entire thing to understand how deep the deception went on this one)***

(***NOTE 2***, in researching and writing this I've also discovered that these headlines are in fact LIES. Not just because some headlines say "6,000" instead of "nearly 6,000" (5818), but because the Reuters piece clearly points out (if the reader does the math), that AT LEAST 594 (almost 10%) of these civilians "killed" didn't die as a result of violence!!! They died of natural and of other "normal" causes! That's right! So, no Yahoo! News they weren't all "slain" and Reuters and others they weren't all "killed")
(Edit:*I’ve capitalized “AT LEAST” above, so that liberals understand that even under the best set of circumstances for the UN & the media, their lie was only about 10% of the deaths, but it seems much worse. Please read beyond the opening paragraphs!*)

The AP and Yahoo! are up to their old tricks again. They just love misleading headline skimmers with headlines that leave a false impression, but don't quite rise to the level of "lying" (though they've done that before too). Today's example is particularly disgusting. Below is a cropped screen shot of what my eyes were treated to when I pulled up my browser and watched my home page (Yahoo!) load a few moments ago:

That's right: Nearly 6,000 Iraqi civilians slain in May, June

It's clear that the intention of this headline is to leave the reader with the impression that these deaths were collateral damage of U.S. military operations. It's intended to make liberals get excited to have a new number (remember the milking of 2,000 military deaths) to blame evil America for and shout that we're targeting civilians. It's also intended to make folks who are on the fence and even conservatives think "wow, maybe the liberals are right, we are targeting thousands of civilians." Bull!

Before we get to the truth of what this number really is, and how it seems like it might be completely bogus anyway, I have to wonder who chose the headline. Generally when you click one of these headlines on the Yahoo! home page, you're taken to an article with the same headline, usually from the AP or Reuters. Every once and a while, including this case, the AP article actually has a completely different headline. In these cases I always make sure to do a search to see if anyone else is using the headline used on Yahoo!'s home page, to determine if it appears that Yahoo! specifically chose their own headline. In this case they did.

See, usually these AP wire stories that Yahoo! links to already have a headline and it will be the same on Yahoo!'s home page if the story is listed there (honest headlines or not). But this is one of those cases where it seems quite clear that someone at Yahoo! decided to spruce it up a bit, because the actual AP headline reads: Iraq civilian toll spikes to nearly 6,000 (also at The Boston Globe). While I personally find the one Yahoo! used a bit more over the top, they are both VERY misleading, if not down right false.

On to the problem with this "6,000" figure... First of all, I think we can all agree it's intended to appear as if these are the result of "our" war or military. What we're actually talking about, as you'll see if you read the article, is deaths resulting from terrorist attacks and sectarian violence (if that). Wouldn't a more appropriate headline be: Iraq: Insurgents Kill Nearly 6,000 In May/June or even Violence In Iraq Leaves 6,000 Civilians Dead May/June. But those headlines wouldn't lead a casual headline reader to believe that these were killed by the U.S. military, so they just won't do. What was I thinking!?

If the misleading headlines don't piss you off enough (because they occur with such regularity), don't worry it gets much worse! For starters, it appears that this is a figure pulled out of a United Nations report, which makes it questionable enough, but that ain't even the half of it. But before I move on, I do have to give slight credit to Yahoo! Asia News for making clear that this is a UN number in their headline on a Reuters story: U.N. says 6,000 Iraqi civilians killed in May-June, as well as The Sydney Morning Herald who ran the same article, with only a slightly different headline: 6,000 civilians killed in May-June: UN. It's still disturbing that they don't indicate WHO killed these civilians (because as we'll learn, man weren't "killed"), but at least they mention that this is a United Nations claim.

Now, 6,000 civilian deaths is still a pretty explosive and disturbing figure regardless of who killed them, right? Well, maybe most of them weren't killed, but just died the way "normal" people die. Think I'm stepping out on a pretty big ledge there? Follow me for a minute.

Let's first look at how the AP opens this story:

UNITED NATIONS - Nearly 6,000 civilians were slain across Iraq in May and June, a spike in deaths that coincided with rising sectarian attacks across the country, the United Nations said Tuesday.

The report from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq describes a wave of lawlessness and crime, including assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, torture and intimidation.

Hundreds of teachers, judges, religious leaders and doctors have been targeted for death, and thousands of people have fled, the report said. Evidence suggests militants also have begun to target homosexuals, it said.

"While welcoming recent positive steps by the government to promote national reconciliation, the report raises alarm at the growing number of casualties among the civilian population killed or wounded during indiscriminate or targeted attacks by terrorists or insurgents," the U.N. said in a note accompanying the report.

Then we're hit with this:

According to the report, 2,669 civilians were killed in May and 3,149 were killed in June. Those numbers combined two counts: from the Ministry of Health, which records deaths reported by hospitals; and the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad, which tallies the unidentified bodies it receives.

At this point in reading the article, one is most likely already surprised that this "spike" in deaths, wasn't at the hands of American military. But still disturbed by the level of voilence. But the AP's own "death count" may cause you to think twice:

The report's figures were higher than some other counts, but even the U.N. said many killings go unreported.

According to an Associated Press tally based on its daily reporting, at least 1,511 civilians were killed, in May and June, with at least an additional 289 police and security forces killed.

The AP tally showed that from January through June 2006, at least 4,191 civilians were killed. The minimum number of police and security forces casualties in that period was at least 805 killed. The AP figures do not include insurgents.

Interesting. The AP's figure is only about 26% of the UN's figure (5818). Not only that, but the AP's TOTAL FOR THE YEAR is only 72% of the UN's May and June number. If you read the article and go back to a section I didn't quote, the UN report says that this year's number stands at 14,338. Again, the AP is saying only 4,191 for the year which is only about 29% of how many the UN is claiming for the 2006 total. Hmmm, notice a trend? The AP's count is between 26 and 29% of the UN's count for both the May/June number and the year's total! Just a slight difference right?

Okay, so we see an almost unbelievable difference in the civilian deaths put out by the UN versus what the AP has counted, but what could be the cause?

It was unclear whether the tally from the Medico-Legal Institute included only those who were killed as a result of violence.

Interesting, so the group that gathered these numbers for the report may have included other deaths, unrelated to the violence!? I (sarcastically) wonder if counting deaths from disease, age, car accidents, etc. might account for such a huge difference in the tallies.

As much as I'd like to say it did, it doesn't end there! The Reuters story I mentioned earlier that can be found at The Sydney Morning Herald and Yahoo! News Asia, contains some interesting bits about how the total tally was gathered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some numbers seem like they overlap, and may be being counted twice. Either way, the conclusion of the article leaves one seriously questioning this UN "report".

First, what the Reuters piece says about the numbers gathered to make that 5818 (I know, doesn't sound as "cool" when it's not 6,000, right?):

Baghdad morgue officials have said they took in 1,595 bodies in June, 1,375 in May and 1,155 in April. Of those, about 80 per cent were victims of violent deaths, they said.

The UN report included all the morgue entries for May and June in its total of violent deaths along with 1,294 deaths recorded in May by the Health Ministry and 1,554 in June.

Add those 4 figures up and you get that 5818 number. (Note: the one figure not in bold and not included refers to April). First of all, in that first paragraph (the morgue stats) we learn that of the 2,970 they counted, only 80% or 2,376 were the result of violence, according to Baghdad morgue officials. Leaving 594 that either died naturally or by some other cause. Wait a minute, 594 is larger than 10% of the original 5818 number (again, not 6,000 anyway). So more than 10% of what the AP reported were not "killed", but died in a "normal" way. Set aside poor reporting, why would the UN even include these numbers in the report?

On two that second quoted Reuters paragraph... It states that the May/June number from the Health Ministry is 2848. I could be wrong, but I would say that those figures probably include some of those at the morgue, no? Doesn't it seem like we're talking about overlapping numbers, being counted twice? I encourage you to reread this, as it may be hard to follow, as well as read the two full articles, and see what you make of it. Pay particular attention to the first line of that second paragraph I just referred to:

(again)

The UN report included all the morgue entries for May and June in its total of violent deaths...

Why would all morgue death's be included in the UN's count of violent deaths? I hope someone bigger takes and runs with this so we can get some answers.

Beyond just my suspicions of overlapping numbers and obvious tinkering proved above, the Interior Ministry in Iraq issued a report based on figures provided by the Health Ministry that gives WAY LOWER numbers:

Health Ministry figures incorporated in a monthly report issued by the Interior Ministry, however, show a lower level of civilian deaths. According to that report, 935 civilians were killed in violence in May and 889 in June.

WHOA! So Iraq's Interior Ministry/Health Ministry number is only 1824!? That's a far cry from 5818, dontcha think? In fact, the Iraq ministries' numbers are only 31% of the UN's. This is especially interesting, considering that the AP's count was 26% of the UN's. The AP's number was just only 313 less than the Iraq count, a much more reasonable and understandable difference.

So the obvious question is - Who do you trust here? Do you trust the UN's conclusions (we've proven were skewed by at least AT LEAST 595 and probably much more), or do you trust two other counts that are relatively close to each other, and greatly contradict the count of the United Nations.

***UPDATE***
Not surprisingly, the New York Times has joined the party to perpetuate the lies and not do the research and at least discover what little old RightWinged.com did. I'm too annoyed to pick apart the Time's piece, because it's just like the others, only worse. But I will briefly pick on a couple. They found a new way to make the lying numbers sound... cooler? You know, to give the liberals just another line to spout off all over the internet. The opening paragraph reads:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 18 — An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today.

Ignoring their own headline, and the fact that they don't mention that these weren't at the hands of the United States military, they should have been able to do the simple math to determine that their opening paragraph IS A LIE! We know that 1,595 was the June number provided to the UN by the Baghdad morgue officials, who said that 80% (1,276) died as a result of violence. Even with the strange choice to add that to the Health Ministry's June figure (1,554) you only get a total of 2,830. If you were to somehow still convince me that this highball number was close to accurate, you still only get 94.33 deaths per day.

Again, I don't think that 94 per day figure is accurate either, but it's approximately 6 (or 6%) less than the NY Times lied and said it was, when they claimed the number was over 100 per day.

The Slimes goes on to report other wildly high death count claims from other sources, and waits until almost the very end of the article, on the second page to throw out this bone before burying it in their backyard:

The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that uses news reports to do its tallies, reported that at least 840 Iraqi civilians died in June, compared with an all-time high of 1,100 the previous month.

Big surprise, right? The NY Times lying again and burying numbers that don't suit their agenda. Sometimes I don't know why I bother, it's not like that DNC manual cares what anyone right of Castro thinks anyway.

***UPDATE***
I just checked on the CIA World Fact Book, and I was surprised to see that Iraq's death rate (5.37 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) is actually substantially lower than our own in the United States (8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) I am curious why they have a lower death rate than us, but that's for another day.

What these numbers tell us is that, given Iraq's population of 26,783,383, an average of 394 die a day. Why didn't the media just go all out and run headlines that read: "394 Iraqis Killed Daily"? Hell, by the standards of the UN, Yahoo, Reuters, The NY Times, and the rest of the media I guess we should prepare to splash tomorrow's papers with the headline: "6,754 Civilians Killed In the United States Daily". It would be just as accurate as all of what we've just seen regarding the Iraq civilians.

Anyway, I better get out of the way before I get trampled, as the rest of the media races to get this "story" out there.

 

***UPDATE 5/11 10:10 AM CT***
Hot Air's latest Vent With Michelle Malkin hammers the UN for all of what was discussed in this post, and more.

***UPDATE***
Not surprisingly the UN has elected Cuba, among other human rights abusers to the Human Rights Council. At least Iran and Venezuela didn't get in.

***UPDATE***
A former UN worker gives her first hand testimony in RightWinged.com comments. In case you missed it, I've added it to this actual post. Scroll down to read it

***SCROLL FOR MORE UPDATES***

Whether you agree with me about the need to disband United Nations or not, you would have to admit that they are the most corrupt and disgraceful organization in existence today. No I'm not just talking about the biggest scandal of all time, Oil for Food, I'm talking about the habit their "peacekeepers" have of raping small children in war torn and third world countries.

It's actually kind of interesting that the latest story comes out just a day after I posted on the rape of thousands of little girls in the Congo at the hands of the UN. That post of course was about Eric Shawn's new book The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World, and I mentioned the underreported story of mass child rapes occuring at the hands of the UN, when saying that I hoped it has it's own chapter in the book. I also mentioned a similar story from a few years back in Bosnia, but if you do a few quick searches you'll see the UN is doing this all over the world.

Well today's story that should be, but I suspect won't be front page NY Times material, and probably won't get mentioned at all by most of the media, just piles on and shows that the United Nations are by no means cleaning up their act. In this article you'll learn that in one confirmed case, they "supsended" the official involved. If I recall, when I heard the limited reporting on the rapes in the Congo, similar actions were taken. SUSPENDED!? Are you kidding me!?

Reuters has some coverage (that again, I doubt many will pick up) and I couldn't help but notice that they left "UN" and "United Nations" out of the headline that reads: Peacekeepers, teachers prey on Liberia girls: report. Peace keepers huh? Doesn't sound like they're worried as much about peace, so why not mention that it's the "United Nations" in the headline?

MONROVIA (Reuters) - U.N. peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers are having sex with Liberian girls as young as 8 in return for money, food or favors, threatening efforts to rebuild a nation wrecked by war, a report said on Monday.

Save the Children UK said an alarming number of girls were being sexually exploited by men in authority in refugee camps and in the wider community, sometimes for as little as a bottle of beer, a ride in an aid vehicle or watching a film.

Such a classy operation... why are we part of this group again?

The 20-page document said local people reported sexual exploitation by peacekeepers in every location where a contingent of the UNMIL peacekeeping force was stationed, highlighting the continuing problem of sex abuse by U.N. forces.

Allegations of sexual misconduct have dogged U.N. operations in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Haiti and especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the world body has accused members of its biggest peacekeeping force of rape, pedophilia and giving children food or money in return for sex.

Well, that's only a partial list of countries where this is and has happened, but I guess minimal reporting is better than no reporting.

The U.N. force in Liberia said in a statement eight cases of sexual exploitation and abuse involving U.N. personnel had been reported since the start of 2006. One of those had been substantiated and the member of staff suspended.

Way, way to go UN, that's really throwin' the book at 'em! By the way, eight cases may have been "reported", but I would guess, like in the other countries, there are probably thousands of occurances. Keep in mind that this is the UN statement saying that there have been eight cases reported, and they obviously have an interest in downplaying what is clearly a worldwide scandal.

The report's compilers spoke to more than 300 people in camps for displaced people and communities where people had recently returned to their pre-war localities.

"All of the respondents clearly stated that they felt that the scale of the problem affected over half of the girls in their locations," it said, adding aid workers, teachers, camp and government employees, policemen and soldiers were involved.

"The girls reportedly ranged in age from 8 to 18 years, with girls of 12 years and upwards identified as being regularly involved in 'selling sex'," commonly referred to as "man business," it said.

It did not give a total number for estimated cases of sexual exploitation in Liberia.

Yeah, those bastards in the Congo thought they were really something when they raped 12 year olds... let's seem 'em top this! Read the rest here.

Rumor has it that the UN's new motto is going to be "Just when you thought you war torn country couldn't suck any more, we come in and rape your elementary school aged children!"

Again, I have links to the Congo and Bosnia stories in my previous post, but I'm sure if you dig around you could find more coverage, despite the fact that you probably never heard about it from the NY Times or on the network news. I just did a quick Yahoo! (not Yahoo! News) search on 'United Nations Rape', and the number one result of course is from the "alternative media", a World Net Daily article dated March 1, 2005 with the headline: U.N. targeting own sex abuse. But don't let the headline fool you, because without any media coverage to drive public outcry, he United Nations just really sweeps it all under the rug, and of course continues this peacekeeping outrageous behavior, now in Liberia.

Again, you can dig up all kinds of underreported information on the UN's rape and child rape problem, but here's just a bit from that WND article that was about the empty claims that Annan was going to crack down on people over this continuing problem:

As it currently stands, many peacekeepers accused of wrongdoing are never punished, since they're simply sent home to be handled by their own governments.

"We are taking very firm measures – changing some of the commanders, some of the civilian staff have been disciplined – and we've come up with very strict instructions that they should not fraternize the way they have done in the past," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday.

(sarcasm) Whoa, cool your jets bub! That's a little harsh wouldn't you say? "Changing commanders", "disciplining staff" (why do they remain "staff" at all!? And why are they not being prosecuted?!). Boy, I don't want to get on your bad side! (/sarcasm)

By the way Kofi, did these people really need "strict instructions" to know not to rape women and small girls? I don't think anyone on the planet needs "instructions" not to do that, and I should expect the UN has an employment screening process that would allow them to determine if someone was legally retarded, as they would have to be to not know better than to rape women and children!

Now here's something really interesting:

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the widespread sex scandal came to be known as "the U.N.'s Abu Ghraib," with the London Times providing some specific examples, including:

That got me thinking.... Where are the 45 front page NY Times stories in 50 days (or whatever it was)? I mean, we have prosecuted something like 8 or 9 people for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the media coverage continues to this day, despite there being nothing really new since the first month the story broke. We've had the ACLU sue for the release of more pictures that stood to do nothing but spark more muslim outrage, and added nothing to the story... But I haven't heard jack about this, and the raping of 8 year old girls is certainly worse than making a bunch of captured insurgents get naked and stand in a cheerleader pyramid, wouldn't you agree?

When will Human Rights Watch and all the others will be attacking the United Nations relentlessly over this? When will the media overcover this until they are doing nothing but repeating the same exact information all day every day?

Now for the handful of examples mentioned in that last excerpt:

* A French U.N. logistics expert in the Congo shot pornographic videos in his home, in which he had converted his bedroom into a photo studio for videotaping his sexual abuse of young girls. When police raided his home, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a law enforcement sting operation. As the Times reported, a senior Congolese police officer confirmed the bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, with a remote control camera on the fourth side.

* U.N. officials are worried that the scandal, which already has netted 150 allegations of sex crimes by U.N. staffers, will explode if the pornographic videos and photos, now on sale in Congo, becoming public

"It would be a pretty big problem for the U.N. if these pictures come out," one senior official told the Times.

* Two Russian pilots paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them, the report adds.

* U.N. "peacekeepers" from Morocco based in Kisangani – a secluded town on the Congo River – are notorious for impregnating local women and girls. In March, an international group probing the scandal found 82 women and girls had been made pregnant by Moroccan U.N. staffers and 59 others by Uruguayan staffers. One U.N. soldier accused of rape was apparently hidden in the barracks for a year.

Congo's Minister of Defense Maj.-Gen. Jean Pierre Ondekane told a top U.N. official that all U.N. "peacekeepers" in Kisangani would be remember for would be "for running after little girls," the Times reported.

* And at least two U.N. officials – a Ukrainian and a Canadian – have been forced to leave the African nation after getting local women pregnant.

In backwards order...

"Forced to leave", again way to bring the hammer down Kofi.

Impregnated 82 women and girls? Can you imagine how many they actually had sex with?! Can you remember ever reading a headline that said "UN Workers Impregnate 82 Women and Girls In the Congo"? I don't.

Condiments for sex? Way to help out these poor people UN, great job as always! I just can't even imagine how cruel and evil must these men are. And are they rotting in jail? The story doesn't say but my guess is they are still working in the same capacity as they were when they commited these acts, since the UN hasn't even done anything that could be called a slap on the wrist in any of these cases.

Now, the first example in the list is where see the extreme double standard. Remember just before those examples I told you how they call this the "UN's Abu Ghraib", but obviously the media hasn't had the same interest. Well that first example in that list is very telling. Where have the ACLU and far left groups been? Why are they not demanding the release of these images?! Obviously they wouldn't want to print them, but shouldn't they be as outraged, or actually much more outraged than they were over Abu Ghraib story?

Wondering what the human rights groups are saying? The UN is obviously not saying anything about it, so let's see if anyone else is.

Human Rights Watch doesn't mention this story... But they do have "U.S.: Bush Should Close Guantanamo Now" as their top story. I checked their "news" page, and nothing there either.

Amnesty International is as silent as HRW, but of course they managed to squeeze in a dig at America in their latest news section, with a headline that reads: US: Government creating "climate of torture". Also like HRW, they have nothing on their news page.

Would you believe it's the same situation at Human Rights First? And of coures, the obligatory America bashing headlines are there: U.S. Must Abide by Ban on Cruel Treatment and Groundbreaking Research Shows Over 600 U.S. Personnel Implicated in Widespread Abuse

I think you get the point. If you would like to express your outrage, there is only one way to contact the UN on their web site, through this contact form. But I think you'd be better off contacting the media with your outrage because it's only through their coverage that pressure will be put on the UN to do something.

I'm surprised to see that the blogosphere hasn't even really picked up today's Liberia story. There are a couple LiveJournal people who's copied the whole story without anything further, and this genius who's headline reads: So we're in Iraq fighting for human rights...what about Liberia? Darfur?. I know if you follow the link, you'll see that this text is small, but it is the headline. It's the headline in Technorati, and the rest of the post is the copied and pasted article. I think it's pretty clear that this girl didn't bother to read the article to find out that the UN is the guilty party here. I'm sure if we asked her if we should go to war against the UN in Liberia she'd be a little confused.

More from Gateway Pundit

***UPDATE***
Others:
Expose the Left has video of Eric Shawn on Hannity and Colmes, and Independent Conservative has audio of him on Hannity's radio show, discussing his new book: The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World

***UPDATE***
A lot of bloggers are up in arms over Cuba being given a Human Rights Council seat. While I certainly completely agree with their outrage, at the same time I'm kind of like "what did ya expect?" The UN is a horrible institution that was even entertaining the idea, and it looked likely for a while, to let Iran on the council. So yes, this is deserving of everyone's outrage, but at the same time I never expected anything better from the UN. For more on this check out:
Michelle Malkin (thanks for the link), Captain's Quarters, Gateway Pundit, Publius Pundit, Babalou Blog, Stop the ACLU

***UPDATE***
It seems the UN has similar problems to this elementary school. At least in this school, where 12 boys aged 6-8 sexually assaulted an 8 year old girl, they were suspended. A teacher who should have been watching has been fired, and another suspended. It's sad that the UN can't even be this harsh with their ADULT employees repeatedly raping little girls, impregnating them, trading tiny amounts of food for sex, etc.

***UPDATE***
I received the following in a comment from someone calling herself Mishka. Of course I have not verification of whether this is true or not, but I suspect it is. Basically she gives a first hand account of being witness to these shameful UN activities:

I am very sorry to tell you that UN corruption and rape is not limited to the countries you've listed. I was personally a UN officer in Eastern Sudan and the biggest difficulty of my job was not the harsh environment we lived and worked in, but dealing with other fellow officers, predominantly from other African countries. These gentlemen not only abused girls in the refugee camps, but ended up raping a UN volunteer in our compound. I was quite new at the job and quite young. My attempts to do something about these abuses lead to my contract being discontinued. The gentleman who raped my friend was quite high on the chain of command in the UN and was far more powerful. Before my contract ended, I left voluntarily because I was harrassed and threatened by some of my fellow UN officers. There was only one other female in the camp, the rest were all men. The UN has some very hard working and dedicated people who have done an amazing job in relief and development, but they are a minority. The organization as a whole is quite corrupt and needs to be dissolved and replaced by another body that is made accountable to donor countries. I went to Sudan with the most idealist and naive mind. I wanted to make my contribution towards making the world a better place. I left my job in Sudan emotionally scarred for life. My friend who got raped was never able to bring this bastard to justice. God knows how many other victims he's leaving behind. Disgusting, just disgusting!!!

 

As you might have heard, Fox News' UN reporter Eric Shawn has a new book out entitled The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World. I just ran across National Review Online interview with Eric, conducted by the NRO's Kathryn Lopez, and thought I'd pass it along to everyone. I have only begun reading it, so I'll just excerpt the opening for you, and you can go check it out for yourself.

The U.N. has been incapable of confronting the gravest issues of our time, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation,” Eric Shawn tells National Review Online. “ It should stand as a beacon of hope and humanity. But instead, that ideal has been perverted by compromise, appeasement, and graft.”

As a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, Shawn covers the United Nations-so you know he never runs out of stories. In his new book on the beat, The U.N. Exposed, he, as the subtitle tells, reveals How the United Nations Sabotages America’s Security and Fails the World. He took some questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez on the tsunami at Turtle Bay, wasted tsunami funds, Iran, and much more.

Read on....

Like I said, I've only begun to read this, but I suspect it's worth a read, just as I suspect Eric's book will be. Incase you didn't know, I'm a "Get the UN out of NY"er, and I find them to be a shameful anti-American organization with (tinfoilt hat pleas) NWO goals that they hope to achieve through myths like "global warming" and overpopulation, among others. I also find the lack of reporting on their tremendous scandals a disgrace, particularly a story I heard about a couple years ago, but haven't heard any follow-up on, which is that UN officials were raping thousands of little girls in the Congo, as young as 12 and some reports even younger! As I said this was a couple years ago and I haven't heard any coverage about the UNtouchables since, but I did dig up this one WND article about the situation, though if want to dig I'm sure you can find more out there. And it's not jus the Congo, I found this article about similar activies in Bosnia, when I was looking for the Congo story.

Anyway I obviously don't think the UN exists for anything but evil, and it should be taken apart ASAP... But we know that won't happen, so I guess having John Bolton be our UN man is as good as it will get.

Back to Eric Shawn's book, I hope he covers the Congo rape situation in the book, because no one else seems to want to, in addition to all the obvious inner office type sex scandals, weasels abusing their immunitiy.... and oh yeah, only the biggest scandal in the history of the world - Oil for Food!

You can order your copy on Amazon now: