Megan McArdle does not highlight what to me is the most interesting part of Eli Lake’s report on the missing explosives controversy in this morning’s New York Sun:
On Monday, a spokesman for the American mission at the United Nations questioned the timing of the release of the material on the part of Mr. ElBaradei. Rick Grenell told the Sun’s Benny Avni the “timing seems puzzling.”
After a behind-the-scenes battle inside the State Department this summer, the Bush administration opted to reject Mr. ElBaradei’s bid for a third term as director general of the atomic energy agency.
At the time, Washington was collecting intelligence – disputed by some agencies – that Mr. ElBaradei was providing advice to Iran on how to avoid sanction from his organization for its previously undisclosed uranium enrichment programs.
Isn’t it interesting how all things connect? Something close to an open war has been going on for some time between the UN and the Bush Administration. Not long ago, an internationalist, I would have been reflexively on the side of the UN, but since the revelations of the Oil-for-Food scandal, my respect for the kleptocracy enablers on Turtle Bay has sunk to near zero.
This latest revelation is nothing more than a salvo in that war, timed to remove Bush from office. As we all know, at this very moment, the Oil-for-Food hearings are continuing in the House. In the event of Bush II, the conclusions of Henry Hyde’s committee will undoubtedly get serious attention, at least we can hope so. Big changes could ensue between the United Nations and its greatest financier. Under a Kerry Administration, who knows? Most likely for the International Enron on 44th Street it will be business as usual. No wonder they are meddling in an American election. To me the most interesting investigation would be the provenance of the leak, not the almost stupefyingly banal “fact” that some explosives out of many may or may not have gone missing during a war.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
26 Comments
1. thibaud:Aux armes, Bloggers! This one stinks to heaven. Bloggers need to start cultivating their own sources in places like DoD, State, the UN, etc.
Let’s get the scoop on this latest skullduggery within the IAEA.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:02 am 2. TmjUtah:The issue is not weapons.
It is the continuing commitment to hunt down, defeat, and prevent the resurgence of the people and regimes who use them to kill us.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:08 am 3. Fausta:Investor’s Business Daily calls it straight out, There’s no polite way to put it: This story was a lie, apparently cooked up to serve the Times’ partisan ends.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:12 am 4. Knucklehead:Three reasons to vote for GWB on 11/2/04:
- he will continue to fight against the Islamomurderers
- he will continue to fight against the UN internationalist kleptocrats
- he will continue to let the reactionary Democratic party and its PR organ, the MSM, commit suicide
There are other reasons, but those suffice for me.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:19 am 5. Tom Maguire:Great job as usual, Mr. Simon.
I am not so sure about how “behind the scenes” the battle between the US and ElBaradie was – at the end of September, it was reported that the US would oppose ElBaradei’s attempt to win a third term as head of the IAEA.
His letter that initiated the explosives story was sent on October 1.
Of course, there has also been the ongoing tussle between the US and the IAEA over whether to refer the problem with Iran to the Security Council.
Of course, none of this has been hinted at in the Times.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:23 am 6. Cap'n Billy:Click to see what Bush just said in Pennsylvania about the weapons cache : Drudge
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:29 am 7. stumbley:Two things have been made very clear to me during this election cycle:
1. The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column; and
2. Whatever the results of the election, the blogosphere must be protected. It’s the only media outlet with any chance of finding the truth.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:33 am 8. Otter:Not to dispute your larger point, but one bit there captured why I’ll be voting for Bush so reluctantly next week.
At the time, Washington was collecting intelligence – disputed by some agencies – that Mr. ElBaradei was providing advice to Iran on how to avoid sanction from his organization for its previously undisclosed uranium enrichment programs.
The problem is that, in this and in all disputes in the foreseeable future, claims from US intelligence agencies are worth nothing. They’re worth nothing abroad and they’re worth next to nothing domestically. Bush bet their entire credibility on Iraq and lost.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:38 am 9. Matt Evans:The implication in Roger’s comments is that if Bush is re-elected, the US may pull out of the UN ? At least, thats how I read it.
My question is, what are the implications, both long term and short term, in doing so ? Would there be any mainstream support for doing so ? Would a vote need to be taken in Congress and what would it take ot pass such a resolution ?
I am a firm believer in the utter uselessness of the UN. The recent weapons story is underscored by Duelfer’s comments- the US asked the UN to destroy the friggin explosives in 1995 and the UN wanted to continue to monitor them. What kind of logic does the UN use in making these “decisions”? It seems apparent that the UN didn’t feel these weapons posed a threat due to the lack of WMD’s – again, what kind of logic is that, when the UN ignores that a brutal dictator has access to these stockpiles of dangerous materials (which he alleges is for “mining”- give me a break) ?
The US should leave the UN and see if anyone wants to follow. We have shouldered too much of the burden for too long and its time to tell the representatives of these thuggacrocies to get out of New York.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:40 am 10. Otter:The implication in Roger’s comments is that if Bush is re-elected, the US may pull out of the UN ? At least, thats how I read it.
I very much doubt that’s what he’s saying, but in any case, the likelihood of it happening is zero. Even more zero than the chance of a draft.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:51 am 11. Peg C.:Roger,
You have said that you are loathe to give up on the U.N. entirely, but it is increasingly apparent that one of the world’s greatest dangers to peace, tranquility and the survival of democracy everywhere is the U.N. itself. It is incapable of keeping peace, it is increasingly involved in wholesale theft of various countries’ assets, and it is now directly acting subversively in respect to the U.S. Why should we continue to give it a dime or host it’s miserable presence? It is incapable of reforming itself or being forceably reformed. There are missions under the U.N. that do good work, but that’s a little like saying UBL built roads and bridges and schools for the people.
It’s past time to shut down this endlessly corrupt and immoral institution and create a new one from democracies that actually benefit the world and operate (more or less) transparently. Past time also to shut out for good the dictators, kleptocrats and lunatics that make up much of the current body. The prospect that Kerry would give up untold amounts of authority and sovereignty to these people is simply not to be borne.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:52 am 12. Bucky Katt:Matt sez:
“What kind of logic does the UN use in making these “decisions”? It seems apparent that the UN didn’t feel these weapons posed a threat due to the lack of WMD’s – again, what kind of logic is that, when the UN ignores that a brutal dictator has access to these stockpiles of dangerous materials (which he alleges is for “mining”- give me a break) ?”
I’m wondering if the IAEA wasn’t on the dole too as part of the Oil for Food scandal. Wouldn’t surprise me if they weren’t taking bribes from Sadaam (or some complicit middleman) as well.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:54 am 13. Katherine:Well, it took a decade for the real Evil Empire to crumble from the final devastating earthquake delivered by Solidarity movement. People used to wielding power will not give it up easily. Multiple strikes back are to be expected, including litigation and legislation. If Kerry wins, we may even see return of IRS audit .
In the end however, power equation will change simply because the environment is different now. Never before we the people had so much power to make our voices heard. We have to be eternally grateful to Al Gore for the gift that is Internet.
Oct 27, 2004 - 9:55 am 14. Katherine:I donít think that leaving the UN is in the offing, unless there is strong grassroots demand by the voters for such a move. In which case the administration may be inclined to oblige.
Some time ago, when I still subscribed to The New Yorker, I read an article about Karl Rove and his plans for the future of Republican Party. The guy is an utter pragmatist. While other Bush advisors do favor leaving or curtailing the UN, Rove thinking is that since majority of voting public still considers the UN as important organization, we should stay put and make whatever use of it we can.
However, we can still hope that the Congressional investigation into Oil-for-Palaces program and latest moves by El-Baradei will help to somewhat weaken the UN. It would be pleasing if the UN kleptocrats started to realize that whatever power they wield, it is at our sufferance.
Oct 27, 2004 - 10:13 am 15. Duthieon:Bush supporters like myself have got to face the facts…the media, whether it’s The Washington Post (see http://duthieon.com/duthieon/archive/2004/10/27/564.aspx) or Slate (see http://duthieon.com/duthieon/archive/2004/10/27/564.aspx) or the New York Times and CBS are fully and firmly in the tank for Kerry. As such, both the blogosphere and other efforts by supporters are increasingly important. But most important of all is to get out and vote. This is not a year to skip this important task, especially given the efforts that the Dems have been making to cancel out legitimate votes with fraud.
Hopefully, some folks in the middle are also getting tired of this crap from the MSM and will be motivated by their anger to pull the lever for Bush (sidenote: are there any voting machines left today that still have levers?).
Oct 27, 2004 - 10:17 am 16. Anondson:Not sure if Roger was hinting that if Bush wins the US would “punish” the UN. I almost got the opinion that if Bush loses, the Republicans who control Congress would just as likely want to hurt the UN.
This was one of the dumbest things a UN employee has done. Ever. This will only hurt the UN as a whole in the end. I actually imagine that at this point, the best result for the UN bureaucracy would be for a Bush win so that Bush could be there to restrain the Republicans in Congress.
Take Bush away, after this stunt, there is little incentive for the GOP controlled Congress to not return the favor in spades. In fact, I argue, there is more incentive.
Oct 27, 2004 - 10:30 am 17. Matt Evans:Otter, I don’t think Roger is ruling it out. But its not Roger I’m concerned about but obviously, the administration.
Several folks have expressed doubts that we can (or will) leave the UN. Several questions- why do we stay ? Because part of the country wants to stay ? Does that necessarily make it right ? Or make it policy ? Also, what if the Hyde report on the UN Oil for Food scandal ends up being very very damning- and I mean, damnation of the kind that can’t be simply spun on the front page of the NYT ? What if the corruption uncovered goes to the very core of the UN (ie Annan and pals)? IF IF IF the UN is proven, by at least circumstential evidence, to be a corrupt body that was stealing vast sums of money, will the American people still want to be a part of it ? And what will the left’s excuse be ? “Awww, whats a little corruption between friends”.
I guess I cannot wrap my mind around the argument that we can and should remain involved in this utterly corrupt body. Not only do we hamstring ourselves by subjecting our country to UN oversight, we tacitly support dictatorships, tyranny, thugoacracies, et al. The prescence of the US gives those countries legitimacy because arguably, if the US wasn’t part of the UN, the UN would promptly crumble under the weight of its global and economic responsibilities. Don Koffi knows the results of the Oil for Food investigation – he also knows that if Kerry is in the White House when it breaks, the administration will take little to no action – maybe a sternly worded letter or something equally ridiculous.
When Rove was looking at the UN years ago, did he foresee a fraud on the scale of oil for food ? Did he foresee the UN blocking US action against a n agressive tyrant, simply so the UN and member nations could continue to benefit from stolen Iraqi oil ? Rove’s a smart guy but I’m not sure even he could imagine the sheer amount of severe decay which exists in the UN.
So as a follow-up, what steps does the US take, both under a Bush admin and a Kerry admin (god forbid) if the investigation turns up a fraud on a scale that makes Enron look like some kind of minor embezzlement scheme ?
Oct 27, 2004 - 10:30 am 18. Obsidian:Matt: “My question is, what are the implications, both long term and short term, in doing so? Would there be any mainstream support for doing so?”
Politically, it seems to me that the UN needs to be discredited a lot more before that becomes possible. If following up on oil-for-food implicates many top UN officials that may just do it. Perhaps some of the other mis-behavior of the UN can be documented and publicised. At which point the US can form a new body (let’s suppose a “Council of Democracies”) and exit the UN with a “more in sorrow than in anger” kind of speech.
Implications – well, the UN will lose 4/5 of its funding. You know, I’ve been thinking recently that for the UN to consistently act against our interests while we are the biggest sponsor by far is adding insult to injury… it doesn’t seem like a good deal for us.
If I was organizing an international body, I would give it no steady budget. Instead, form ad hoc task forces for specific purposes, with a specific duration, which are funded independently by pledges from the member countries. Once there is a steady budget, the corruption starts to accumulate… honey attracts flies.
I would definitely make it a clear foundational principle that participation requires meeting fairly high standards of participatory government and political freedom (while not insisting on any particular system). Sovereignity derives from the consent of the governed; dictators represent nobody but themselves and therefore have no standing. Such a body should refuse to even formally recognize any government which is not participatory. This is necessary to address the problem of the UN being essentially a council of very small dictatorships (majority of the members are dictatorships with population under 10 million). There also needs to be a recognition of the fact that not all members are equal. Perhaps two levels, member and associate member? For example, Japan would be a member, Greece would be an associate member, and China would not be recognized. Or perhaps allocate a pool of votes based on GNP+population? Of course the US should preside, in recognition of its current role in the world.
Matt: “Would a vote need to be taken in Congress and what would it take ot pass such a resolution?”
I can’t begin to imagine
But certainly the UN has to be made to look very very bad. Perhaps it is not necessary to withdraw from the UN per se, just establish a parallel organization, cut funding, and leave it to rot in oblivion?
Oct 27, 2004 - 10:38 am 19. Jamie Irons:Katherine
We have to be eternally grateful to Al Gore for the gift that is the Internet.
See my comment to you on another thread: On being mean to sweet little…
Jamie Irons
Oct 27, 2004 - 10:46 am 20. HA:Why doesn’t somebody organize a protest against the UN? If somebody organizes it, I’ll be there.
Hey Protest Warriors! Are you listening? Are you tired yet of REACTING to the lefty protesters? Isn’t it time to go on the OFFENSIVE?
http://www.protestwarrior.com/
Oct 27, 2004 - 11:57 am 21. Terrye:I am voting for Bush as much because of his opposition as anything else. In other words I am voting against Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, Al Gore and the New York Times as well as the United Nations..
This last stunt by the NYT and their friends at the UN just makes me that much more determined to question the motives of people like Kofi Annan and the other self appointed saints at the UN as well Kerry himself.
They want everything to go back to the way it was. The nice big fat scams and expense accounts and internationalist multilateral self absorbed bureaucrats ruling over the UN like a not so benign monarchy. They can’t be questioned and they are obligated to no one but themselves. Why, it is even out of line to ask for honesty and competence.
Why wait until the election to spring this story? They could have made an issue of this a year ago.
Why weren’t the explosives destroyed or moved before the invasion?
And why is Kerry so quick to attack the military and take the word of a UN employee?
What is next? Is Kerry going to say the servicemen were too busy cutting of ears and raping and pillaging their way across the country side of Iraq like the army of Genghis Kahn to bother securing these weapons?
Oct 27, 2004 - 1:22 pm 22. Crank:In the event of Bush II, the conclusions of Henry Hyde’s committee will undoubtedly get serious attention, at least we can hope so.
Anondson is right: if Bush wins, the Administration, bent on keeping our diplomatic options open, will continue to keep a lid on the congressional probes. But if Kerry wins, the UN immediately becomes Kerry’s Whitewater, Monica, Halliburton and Enron all rolled into one. He’s tethered himself so tightly to the UN that Republican investigators will have a bottomless incentive to expose the corrupt, hypocritical, anti-Semitic, terror-abetting, tax-evading, dictator-coddling fraud that is the United Nations, day after day after day.
If people at the UN think their best interests are with a Kerry victory, they don’t understand American politics at all.
Oct 27, 2004 - 1:37 pm 23. Katherine:ìBut if Kerry wins, the UN immediately becomes Kerry’s Whitewater, Monica, Halliburton and Enron all rolled into one.î
Crank,
Yes. And we all know how well the Whitewater/Monica worked for the Republicans.
Regardless, if Kerry wins any results from Hyde investigation will be spun by MSM as the VRWC attack on a saintly, internationalist, peace-loving President, in revenge for the lost election. Public will glance at the headlines and will shrug. I donít think that the shenanigans at the UN really register that much with majority of people. However, there is an upside to this indifference: Congress may indeed manage to cut some of the UN funding without much ill effect.
Jamie,
I answered you on the other thread.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/10/a_skimmity_ride.php#c24095
Oct 27, 2004 - 2:29 pm 24. Jamie Irons:Thanks, Katherine
You are getting good at being evil (the word has to be pronounced “EEE-ville,” as Mike Myers would do it in his Dr. Evil role), and so you can now be a member in good standing of the GOP.
Jamie Irons
Oct 27, 2004 - 4:18 pm 25. tcobb:As much as I despise the UN, I think it would be a big mistake to withdraw from it. As it stands now we have an irresistible veto in that organization which we have used many times in the past. If we got out we would have a ready made alliance against us that would use the rather hollow and undeserved “legitimacy” of that body to impose one sort of sanction after another on us. Don’t think for a moment that it wouldn’t happen.
I think it makes much better sense to be there on the inside where we can throw a monkey wrench into the machinery, which I think we should not hesitate to do at every opportunity.
Oct 27, 2004 - 5:24 pm 26. Katherine:ìIf we got out we would have a ready made alliance against us that would use the rather hollow and undeserved “legitimacy” of that body to impose one sort of sanction after another on us.î
Yeah, and whose army? And if they would not want to trade with us, fine, letís see who would crumble first.
Oct 27, 2004 - 6:12 pm