65 Comments

1. Kyda Sylvester:

Oh, he’ll go. It may not be soon and it won’t be quietly, but he’ll go.

Mar 29, 2005 - 1:15 pm 2. jedrury:

Jeffrey Sachs was on C Span this weekend pushing his book “The End of Poverty” to the World Bank and talking up the Millenium Project of which he is the executive director appointed by Annan.

While conveniently bashing the president and Wolfowitz in the cushy liberal confines of the World Bank must have felt like easy candy, one must sense now that his job just got harder in light of Annan’s weakened state. I presume that this is what Roger really means. A question of credibility to sell the program.

You read this 2nd installment of the Volcker report and Kofi gets a pass but only by a whisker.

Mar 29, 2005 - 1:18 pm 3. Richard Nieporent:

The report found there’s no evidence Annan used his influence to give the contract to Cotecna Inspection S.A., a company that employed Annan’s son, Kojo.

Even Inspector Clouseau could have figured out that there might have been a small conflict of interest here. I find it utterly amazing how people are willing to prostitute themselves for a few bucks. As the CBS investigation showed, if you pay someone to investigate yourself, surprise, surprise, the report is not going to come down very hard on you.

Mar 29, 2005 - 1:33 pm 4. LouMinatti:

What if Kofi Annan and the rest of his UN cronies decided that they’ve had enough of US meddling into their business affairs, and announced that they will be accepting bids for a new UN world headquarters location?

I predict it will soon come to this. I also predict this will start a bidding frenzy, with countries falling all over themselves for the “honor” of hosting the UN bureacracy. I’ll bet the French government would dearly love to have the UN move to Paris.

Many Americans would applaud this move. I wouldn’t. As long as they are on our shores we have at least some oversight authority.

Mar 29, 2005 - 1:45 pm 5. jedrury:

Richard:

The report found “no evidence” and did not make the leap which we, readers and observers, make. The report does not make inferences.

I am not here to defend that report but it is through and dogged.

One can not expect the proverbial smoking gun

to inculpate Kofi Annan. White collars crimes don’t go down the way CSI story lines tell you murders do. Memos, time sheets, telecall reports, they don’t detail the conversations held, the winks and the nods, the admissions between fathers and sons.

Mar 29, 2005 - 1:48 pm 6. Terrye:

Lou:

Back in the 80’s I heard some Reagan official tell some UN official [don't remember names] that anytime the UN wanted to to leave NY the US would bid it a fond farewell as it sailed into the sunset.

I doubt if there would be a bidding frenzy for the same reason that I doubt if the Eruopeans will pay for their own defence.

Too damn cheap.

The US and Japan pay for about half the operating costs, plus room and board of course.

Kofi’s tenure is about up and while the US will welcome the idea of changes in the Human Rights Commission there is no way that guys like Norm Coleman are going to allow the UN to tell us how much we are going to spend on foreign aid when they obviously can not be trusted with the money and authority they now have.

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:00 pm 7. Canucklehead:

No one wants to reform the UN. This is just one long, slow train wreck. I don’t expect Kofi et al can deviate from their pre-ordained track of logic. We all know it’s more of the same. The end-state is not in question. The UN is gone.

Here is an interesting link to a 2003 Foreign Affairs article about the UN.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html?mode=print

I still see this UN-Train wreck scenario as a Bull-Steer-Table Fare model.

There is an old saying, “you want to play with the bull? Be prepared to get the horn…”

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:02 pm 8. Richard Nieporent:

jedrury,

You do understand my reference, don’t you? What is the point of presenting a finding that is patently absurd? Basically it says that I am too stupid to be able to determine the obvious. The only way that they could find no evidence is that they refused to look for it or they are incompetent. On a similar note, the CBS report stated that they couldn’t determine if the memos were a forgery. It is funny that all of the experts could.

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:17 pm 9. Mike_Nargizian:

Again, I said this at Michael Totten’s site.

While the blogsphere gives themselves and Claudia Rosett a much deserved pat on the back for potentially aiding in bringing down another major political figure…. the bigger point is missed.

Sure Koffi Annan is a spineless, corrupt self important leftist bureaucrat…. sure he lied about UN Oil for Food…. but the guy is somewhat legit…. if he goes or stays…. whoever replaces him is going to be as bad or worse. Who do you think is going to replace him?

The problem is the UN and its unchecked gaining money, power and world deference.

The UN will never be fixed. It long ago became a bastion of hate, corruption barter. A place of where dictorships and despotic states are given equal weight as Democracies…. and function on every board other thant the Security Council as tyrannies in the majority.

The UN can not even meet its original calling and prevent or recognize genocide.

At best it is an inept bureaucracy at worst a world government being effectively used by EU and despotic dictatorships to neutralize the US.

Norman Podhoretz’s recent article states how he was excited and then dissappointed when his friends and ideological peers – Pat Moynihan and Jean Kirpatrick served as UN Embassadors 30 years ago intent on fixing the new far left ideological slant at the UN.

Its 30 years later and the UN has only grown in money, perceived/deferred power, corruption and hate.

It doesn’t matter who you put in there. It won’t make a bit of difference.

What is scariest to me is this -

While most will still never have heard of UN Corruption and continue to afford it the same respect as always.

Even those educated about UN will be eager to again defer the heir of respect and importance back to the UN when referring to it… no matter what ‘changes’ are made… Koffi fired or not.

That is really really scarey!

As Jean Kirpatrick stated 30 years ago.

The hate crawls the floors at the UN.

Mike

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:36 pm 10. foreign devil:

The utter contempt and absolute effrontery of Kofi and his Chef du Bureau, S. Iqal Riza, calmly and dispassionately getting some underling to shred the UN/Coetecna documents ONE DAY after the investigation was announced is breathtaking. This demands prison sentences and deep humiliation!

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:43 pm 11. Mike_Nargizian:

Why has everyone forgot about Koffi’s right hand man and handpicked friend.

Benon Sevan.

That guy is so guilty he’s swimming in Oil $$’s… and if he’s guilty as sin can anyone outside of OJ Simpson believe Koffi isn’t in it up to his eyebrows?

Koffi’s son is just a sideshow compared to Sevan. The fact that he’s Koffi’s son and is invovled at all is damning but in terms of overall control/direction and money vouchers and kickbacks… Sevan is the main man..

Where is the information on him?

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:46 pm 12. Jan Haugland:

I am a bit surprised that the “clearing” of Kofi Annan and the damning criticism of S. Iqbal Riza is not connected by the MSM (well, I am not, really).

Volcker, if you heard him at the press conference, didn’t say Kofi Annan was innocent in the charges. He said there was not enough evidence to say he was guilty, and he appeared to regret that fact.

Kofi Annan was saved by the lack of documentation.

S. Iqbal Riza had been shredding massive amounts of UNSCAM documents for months, starting just the day after the SC passed the resolution starting the investigation.

Wasn’t that just very convenient?

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:47 pm 13. LouMinatti:

Terrye,

That was then. Today’s reality is different. There is far more animosity in European circles against the US today than even during the Reagan era. Europeans would view this is a fantastic opportunity to stick it to the nasty Americans, costs be damned. What’s a few billion for construction and kickbacks when the EU spends many times that on agricultural subsidies for inefficient French farmers? I think it’s gonna happen.

If the UN isn’t prepared to go that route, I expect them to make Bill Clinton the next UN Secretary General. That would be a good move. Many Americans don’t like Clinton for whatever reason, but at least we would know that the UN would only be inept, rather than corrupt and inept. As a US citizen Clinton would be subject to US laws, rather than being untouchable like Annan.

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:53 pm 14. JC:

Anyone who is “completely outraged!” by the scandals that may or may not have happened at the U.N. regarding Kofi Annan, should be absolutely foaming at the mouth, – about the following.

Well? Is outrage selective? Get up in arms!

(1st comment to the site, we’ll see if it is accepted.)

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:54 pm 15. R C Dean:

JC, why should I be nearly as outraged at US mismanagement of its own funds, when UN mismanagement of oil-for-Kofi was not only an order of magnitude worse, it also served to prop up a genocidal dictator and fund terrorism worldwide?

Mar 29, 2005 - 2:59 pm 16. JC:

R.C. Dean,

Check the links. First off, your “order of magnitude” criticism is simply wrong.

Second, “to prop up…etc”, the United States and the security members are complicit.

Again, follow the links:

“But these attacks on the United Nations frequently deny or ignore three important facts: (1) as members of the U.N. committee charged with monitoring the sanctions regime, the United States and other U.N. Security Council members played at least as large a role in monitoring oil-for-food as the oft-derided “U.N. bureaucracy” but apparently did little to address corruption in the program; (2) Saddam obtained a much larger portion of the illicit revenue used to prop up his regime through oil smuggling outside U.N. auspices than he did through the elaborate kickback schemes he devised under oil-for-food; and (3) oil-for-food achieved considerable success in alleviating the acute suffering of the Iraqi people that resulted from U.N. sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War.”

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:08 pm 17. Roger:

Why wouldn’t it be accepted, JC? The only posts I edit out of this site are those that are racist, obscene or personally abusive. And some of those slip through because I am too busy to monitor. Your views are welcome.

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:11 pm 18. Rick Ballard:

“U.N. Security Council members played at least as large a role in monitoring oil-for-food as the oft-derided “U.N. bureaucracy” but apparently did little to address corruption in the program”

I’m sure that you have the handy link supporting your contention, right? The one showing authorization for UNSC member states to initiate actual investigations? The authority to supoena and question UN bureaucrats – you do have that link to go with your highly detailed yet totally unsubstantiated other allegations, right? ‘Cause if you don’t then I would be inclined to think that prevarication may be your field of expertise.

Btw, who are the top 10 donors for American Progress Action Fund? Wouldn’t be any Bing, Soros, Lewis people or organizations involved, would there? Or Pew or Ford foundation money, perhaps?

And last, you’re jerking the thread around – so if you can’t answer perhaps you could scuttle on home?

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:20 pm 19. JC:

Roger,

Well, according to Rick Ballard, perhaps not so welcome, yes?

But again, thanks Rick for making my points for me.

If you followed my above link, you could see for yourself, but Here’s another:

Security Council Resolution 661

“The Security Council … Authorizes States … to permit the import of petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq … subject to the following conditions:

(a) Approval by the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990), in order to ensure the transparency of each transaction and its conformity with the other provisions of this resolution, after submission of an application by the State concerned, endorsed by the Government of Iraq, for each proposed purchase of Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products”

and

Security Council Resolution 986

To quote further “The United States was probably aware of illicit dealings under oil-for-food but chose to look the other way for strategic reasons. One of the chief mechanisms that Saddam used to profit illegally from oil-for-food — and to bribe others — was kickbacks. Saddam would sell oil for below-market price and then demand kickbacks from the purchasers, or he would purchase goods at inflated prices and divert kickbacks to individuals or companies he wanted to bribe.”

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:37 pm 20. JC:

Update – The last “quote further” isn’t from the actual security resolution, but the media matters link. Was a bit confusing.

And Simon, thanks for the welcome!

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:39 pm 21. Godzilla:

JC

Media matters is biased, and much of the article you linked to is engaged in misdirection, and seems to be more concerned with defending the Oil for Food program. You know what? I’m sure food did make it to the Iraqis, and a lot of it. On paper, it’s a fine program. What the U.S. did or didn’t know doesn’t seem relevant now, since most of the exchanges occurred during the previous administration. It would be nice to get the damn corruption out of the UN. Period.

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:52 pm 22. R C Dean:

As an aside:

On a previous post by Roger on this topic, I posted a snarky comment that was erroneous to the point of idiotic. Roger emailed me and pointed out my error (which all by itself was a nice thing to do).

Even nicer, he removed my comment so my idiosnarkity would not be preserved for public display and ridicule.

Thanks, Roger. You are a class act.

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:52 pm 23. Rick Ballard:

JC,

The Clinton/Albright/Holbrooke foreign policy team adopted a “see no evil policy” on OFF from the get go. Your link states that two month after taking office the Bush administration was beginning to exercise oversight that had been neglected for eight years:

In March 2001, the United States informed the Security Council about allegations that Iraqi government officials were receiving illegal surcharges on oil contracts and illicit commissions on commodity contracts. According to OIP [Office of the Iraq Program] officials, the Security Council took action on the allegations of surcharges in 2001 by implementing retroactive pricing for oil contracts. However, it is unclear what actions the sanctions committee took to respond to illicit commissions on commodity contracts.

Does Soros pay weekly or monthly?

PS Roger is extremely considerate to all here. Some others are less apt to suffer fools gladly.

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:52 pm 24. JC:

Roger,

Since I’m new here, would you inform me of the etiquette allowed here?

When Rick hurls personal ephithets such as “scuttle off”, and “suffer fools gladly”, is it acceptable to respond in kind?

It seems to degrade the quality of the conversation, but I’m not the type of guy that lets a basic lack of respect for people in a conversation pass by unnoticed.

Thanks,

JC

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:07 pm 25. Kevin P:

Roger:

The reason that JC was worried whether or not his or her post would get thru is because it is the convential wisdom on many from the left that more conservative web sites and conservatives in general are being shielded from the truth by the gatekeepers of the right, Murdoch, Rove and the rest of the evil minions of the right. Because you supported the war and have gone after the corruption at the UN you are automatically considered to be part of the censorship crowd. The fact that you are a social liberal, defense hawk, makes no difference. You are part of the dark side and thus you must the type of man who shuts out opposing views.Pro gay marriage, Pro choice,Anti FCC,Pro stem cell research, it makes no difference. You are part of the evil crowd and there is no going back for you. There is no redemption for the mortal sin you have committed.

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:14 pm 26. Rick Ballard:

JC,

scuttle off isn’t an epithet.

My apologies for “suffer fools gladly” I will certainly work on that.

Btw – you haven’t answered any questions that I raised concerning your organization. Are you unable to do so or do you choose to remain off topic while pursuing your agenda to the very best of your demonstrated abilities?

Do you feel that Kofi is correct in retaining his office? Is he the face you want associated with the UN? I must tell you that I feel that he should remain as I regard him as being completely emblematic of the UN. He is a truly fitting leader for the organization. So if you do feel he should remain, then we are in harmonious agreement on at least one point.

Feel better now?

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:19 pm 27. JC:

Kevin,

Actually, the reason is because of the paragraph under “Now you can comment”.

It says,

(If you haven’t left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won’t appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

So, I assumed that there was a protection to filter out spam, and hoped my comment would make it through.

No need to go into what the “left” believes, especially as I hold no belief of the sort.

And there’s a name for those who are generally America-firsters/warlike internationally, and socially liberal. The term is “neo-conservative”, which is what I assume (and I could be wrong) Roger is.

At any rate, I’ve done my duty in pointing out if you want to investigate corruption, where the biggest source of it is currently. Everyone can either take the facts I point to into consideration, or not.

.

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:23 pm 28. Sandy P:

The only question is how big Kofi’s fingerprint divots on the doortrim will be.

Boy, I hate W’s stance on a lot of things, but, heheheheheheheHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, he gave them the chance to be relevant and is trying to save them, and the UN’s going down, down, down.

Oh, well, we tried.

—

Well, JC, that’s what happens when one wants to “get along” with the others. We tend to look the other way.

Uhh, who was prez under most of it?

Of course, this also has to be a big deal, it is, after all, always our fault, we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:26 pm 29. Sandy P:

BTW, JC, that’s old news.

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:27 pm 30. Cybrludite:

Declare Kofi to be a persona non grata, put him on the next flight back to Ghana that has an open coach-class seat, and arrest him if he sets foot back in the USA.

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:48 pm 31. JC:

Rick,

Thanks for the apology.

Re: your questions. You are going to be less scattershot, and not move the goalposts.

What I link to makes it clear that “The U.S. played an equally substantial role in tacitly allowing Iraqi oil smuggling outside the auspices of oil-for-food. Again, the motivation was apparently to hold the sanctions regime in place in order to prevent Saddam from re-emerging as a threat to the world.”.

Was the Clinton administration an accomplice to this? It looks like, for the reasons stated above. Bush continued this policy, for some of his own realpolitik needs. And has been posted elsewhere the complicity involved nearly every single government in the region, the US, and Europe.

The cognitive dissonance, here, is being so “outraged” by Kofi, while not acknowledging everyone else’s complicity, not acknowledging the limited control/review process Kofi had, and then, the largest hypocrisy of all, not acknowledging the much closer to home, much larger (given the space of time) misuse of U.S. funds.

So again, are you screaming for people in the Bush administration to be “taken down” due to the corruption over in Iraq?

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:51 pm 32. Rick Ballard:

“So again, are you screaming for people in the Bush administration to be “taken down” due to the corruption over in Iraq?”

I’m not screaming for anyone to be taken down. Your links have assertions in them – not proof of any mis or malfeasance by anyone. Bremer categorically rejects the assertion of wrongdoing in the piece you cited and I am quite satisfied with his rejection, just as I am quite satisfied with Kofi remaining on his throne. He is everything that the leader of the UN should be. It’s good to know that he cares for his family as well as all the people in the world. His regard for Sevan has been remarkable and his choice of subordinates very indicative of the depth of his convictions. One might wish that he had exercised a bit more oversight in how UN employees conducted sex education classes in Congo but his impeccable actions regarding the Hutu – Tutsi contretemp in Rwanda in ‘94 provided ample forwarning of his probable future conduct.

I feel that George Soros’ support of Kofi is also indicative of precisely the type of man that Soros is. It’s wonderful thinking of the two of them together, planning for a peaceful and prosperous future. I never thought that I would enjoy the realization of the progressive ideal with the pleasure that thinking of Kofi and George inextricably linked provides. If Lewis and Bing could fit into the picture, it would be perfect.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:10 pm 33. Kevin P:

JC:

Thank you oh so much for helping us. The subject is Kofi Annan and the Volcker report.For someone who is concerned about etiquette the fact that you didn’t even try to adress the subject of the thread is very rude. It is very easy to hijack a thread by ignoring the subject of thread and bringing up another subject to change the conversation. Instead of adressing the subject at hand you bring up an old story. Your point about the greatest source of corruption doen’t make sense just on a dollar figure amount.Study the history of war and of course there is always incorrect use of moneys. The difference is that the US has a system for auditing the money. The congress has oversight and with that they have the power to supeona and the ability to prosecute offenders. The UN does not have these abilities. Mr. Volcker has to rely on the generosity of the UN in regards to what records he has access to and who he can question. I have no doubt that he is honest. He just doesn’t have the tools to conduct a proper investigation. The fact that we know that there was shredding of documents means we will never know the whole truth.The fact that he cannot use the threat of jailtime as a threat means that those who committed the fraud have no fear of prosecution. It was bad enough that the 15 to 21 billion that was supposed to go for food and medicine went to build Saddams palaces and provide him with cash for his later escape attempt. The greater crime was that the UN was going to leave this thug in power and was going to trade the human rights of the Iraqi people for stability.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:15 pm 34. Terrye:

Lou:

Europeans only like Americans when we are dying for them or they are making money off us, if they want to take the UN and run it like they run everything else, more power to them.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:31 pm 35. Terrye:

JC:

I remember eharing some time ago that both the UK and the US had complained for years in the UN about both Saddam’s human right record and his smuggling. France and Russia needless to say came to Saddam’s defence. So what is new? Just goes to show you what a bunch of thieves they are.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:34 pm 36. Terrye:

eharing should be hearing. I guess that would not have been too hard to figure out.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:35 pm 37. Stephen_M:

JC,I’ve seen misdirection work here.Rarely. And briefly.But stale misdirection?Well, howzit goin’?BTW Rick Ballard has put pertinent questions to you. Rude to not answer, don’t you think?

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:41 pm 38. JC:

Kevin,

Respectfully, I disagree that I was off-topic, for the following reason. Here’s a (very) strained analogy.

If you hear about someone stealing candy from a 7-11, and raise holy hell about it, but then there is a rumor that your brother/teammate/political candidate has stolen a car, it isn’t rude to point out that “well, I hear you about the stolen candy – but shouldn’t we be concerned about the stolen car?”, I don’t think that is rude.

Now, clearly this analogy doesn’t work on a lot of levels, but I hope I have communicated that pointing out as big, closer to home corruption, actually is on topic.

And remember, at this point, Annan is innocent, while the investigation continues. Who is investigating the US money/Iraq corruption? Kevin Drum says it best: So far, however, all the report says is that Kojo hid is relationship with Cotecna from his father, something he confessed to long ago. Pretty weak beer

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:41 pm 39. JC:

Stephen,

Rick Ballard has asked a series of questions, and at the moment they are scattershot. Questions like “Does Soros pay weekly or monthly?”, aren’t very useful, as I have nothing to do with Soros.

Also, “Btw – you haven’t answered any questions that I raised concerning your organization. Are you unable to do so or do you choose to remain off topic while pursuing your agenda to the very best of your demonstrated abilities?

Do you feel that Kofi is correct in retaining his office? Is he the face you want associated with the UN?”

Most of these are character assassination questions, or loaded in some manner.

Interestingly enough, Rick’s last post was very funny – at least it gave me a chuckle. Very good use of a type of “sublime drollness” to discredit. Didn’t you think so?

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:53 pm 40. Kevin P:

Roger:

J.C. will never get back to topic, he will never respond to Mr. Ballard, he will always bring the thread back to the old story. He will accept the not guilty verdict even though Mr. Volcker clearly doesn’t have the tools to conduct a real investigation.I will let others respond to the 7-11 analogy because that is what he wants us to do. Anything to avoid discussing the topic of Mr. Simons post.He has decided that Roger hasn’t selected the proper subject so he will say anything to avoid discussing it. It is his duty.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:56 pm 41. JC:

Hmm – looking at that, it may come across as sarcastic. I’ll be clearer -

Rick Ballard writes:

“He is everything that the leader of the UN should be. It’s good to know that he cares for his family as well as all the people in the world. His regard for Sevan has been remarkable and his choice of subordinates very indicative of the depth of his convictions. One might wish that he had exercised a bit more oversight in how UN employees conducted sex education classes in Congo but his impeccable actions regarding the Hutu – Tutsi contretemp in Rwanda in ‘94 provided ample forwarning of his probable future conduct.”

That’s good use of language to make a point, and shows a good sense of humor, don’t you think?

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:57 pm 42. Kevin P:

Roger:

He has answered Ballard. Sort of. He arrogantly decides that Rick doesn’t ask the right type of questions. So not only does he decide to change the topic, he also judges what questions are up to his standards. A non answer answer.Soon the royal we will come out.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:03 pm 43. jedrury:

After reading and enjoying Rick Ballard for months, he is worse than a sarcastic poster,

he is, JC, a dreaded ironist!!! A little humor may help.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:11 pm 44. JC:

Cmon Kevin,

That’s a bit unfair isn’t it?

There are unfair questions, right? “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is a typical example.

I’m not Kofi Annan’s lawyer, so I can’t answer every question about him. I haven’t agreed to a cross-examination. As if! And the questions regarding my “organization” fit that criteria. “I am not, nor have a ever been, a member of the Communist – er, Media Matters organization” .

Do you think such questions are useful?

Now, the other: “Do you feel that Kofi is correct in retaining his office? Is he the face you want associated with the UN?”

Well, let’s see. By what standard? Is he perfect? No. Could there be someone better? I suppose. Has he done a lot of good? I think so, within the constraints of the organization and his role (which, as is noted, is very limited in many ways).

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:13 pm 45. richard mcenroe:

KevinP ó Ah, the old Ward Churchill ploy, Kato… you don’t ask ze geud questions, so I will not answer…

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:14 pm 46. JC:

Jedrury,

I completely agree – his irony made me chuckle.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:14 pm 47. yama-arashi:

Thousands of JC’s, talking points in hand, are fanning out. And wasn’t Annan so cute with his “hell no” line. The delivery was off just a beat, kinda like Dean quoting scripture, but to think of all the fun the staff must have had at their morning meeting brainstorming a line like that. Aren’t they clever?

To lay the blame for Oil for Food at America’s feet is quite an impressive sophistication, kinda like calling someone who finally stands up to a student of Stalin/Hitler Hitler. Very post-WW2 Old Europe clever. That Bush didn’t in his first six months put an end to all the dancing and dining with tyrants that was such the rage in the nineties is a given, but that the oil for food program is officially over, no one disagrees on this point I assume, and some of the guilty (Hussein et al) are in jail is the fact JC won’t face. That Annan and Chirac aren’t in jail is also edifying, but not surprising. I’m not saying JC and the Soros moneyed memes won’t succeed in the end, but that they aren’t succeeded for this brief bit of time in history is a great pleasure. I get great pleasure in knowing the tyrants and the Annans and the Chiracs of the world are sitting around having to think up new strategies and brainstorming lines they think might fly. I get great pleasure in the earnestness of all the JCs parroting the newest line they have been fed. JC, having to try so hard, instead of merely engaging in a conversation, is proof of what a deep, deep hole you find yourself in. I put myself in similar holes all the time. Though people like Rick are generous enough to throw me a rope and help me out. I’d throw you a similar rope, but I’m not as nice as many who use this site, and I’m having too much fun watching you jump up and down getting nowhere fast. If admission was charged to getting on this site, I’d gladly pay yours. You made my morning. Thanks.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:18 pm 48. JC:

Yama-arashi,

Hey, no probs. Glad to be of service. Entertaining paragraph of straw man, by the way. I apologize for not being as funny as you guys you though…

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:22 pm 49. jedrury:

But what Rick’s point is important. Annan fits the UN as it is right now.

Can Annan lead it forward from here?

Does he have the credibility now to move forward on the Millenium Project (see earlier post) or in the reformation initiative he put forward a few days ago? Or is he too wounded?

Recall 1998 with Clinton and Monica. These types of corrusive events undercut a leader’s credibility and his ability to force change.

This is what Roger may have been driving at in his earlier post.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:25 pm 50. Kevin P:

Roger:

A Bush spokesman has repeated the presidents support of Anan. He has decided to stay out of the fray and let the reputation of the UN slowly dwindle as the limited facts come out. Probably a smart ploy.As frusrating and corrupt organization as the UN we can’t leave as long as we have the security council veto. As a previous poster pointed out we will have to use the UN when we can and then use combinations of countries to handle specific problems and let the UN do the things it is good at.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:28 pm 51. Rick Ballard:

Yama,

It is time for Japan, Australia, Chile and the US to set up a League of Democracy that will parallel and supplant the UN. As Kevin P points out, W possesses a sense of irony superior to mine. Time is ripening for a new structure based upon clear and time honored principles.

Do you believe that the Japanese polis would accept the fact that the UN is structurally incapable of reform? Further, is the level of corruption that has been (and will continue to be) revealed sufficient to generate support for withholding or diminishing Japan’s financial contributions?

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:42 pm 52. yama-arashi:

Harry,

I mean JC? JC is Harry? Same meme, new management. Same way of writing. Same way of trying to take over a thread [If I had an editor: "You should talk Yama!" Yes, yes, very true. Apologies to all]. Though he has yet to enter the realm of pure rancor and angst. I hope that it doesn’t come to this. He is on his best behavior. Applause. Applause.

The “straw man” defense is the ultimate act of straw manning (to coin a verb). Funny, if my memory serves, the last person who accused me of that was….? Not that I am saying you are him, but it is very interesting.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:42 pm 53. Stephen_M:

My aplologies to JC,I’ve been utterly wrongheaded.From an unimpeachable source, Annan cleared over oil-for-foodThe nightmare is over.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:51 pm 54. Knucklehead:

Rick Ballard,

“Scuffle off”? Is that anything like “Get thee to a monkery”?

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:01 pm 55. yama-arashi:

Rick,

Actually the U.S. and Japan are moving in that direction. I’ll try and find a link when I have some more time, I’m heading out the door now. But why funnel money through the UN and let Annan and Chirac control it? The supporters and opponents of the UN in Japan parallels the political situation in the U.S.. For that matter, the same dynamics are present in a lot of countries. For every Reagan/Nakasone there is a Mondale, a Dukakis. Bush/Koizumi surely are plotting something akin to that, and one less drastic way of accomplishing such goals, is not to leave the UN, but to transfer legitimacy away from the U.N. to smaller units, such as APEC. Or to work in a bilateral fashion or in ad hoc coalitions. For example the India/Australia/U.S./Japan working group that was formed to deal with the aftermath of the tsunami. A great success. I see a two pronged attack. UN reform along with greatly reducing the UN mission, so to speak. For the former, given the pins and needles Annan finds himself on, Annan will suffice. Indeed, he is very useful. I love irony.

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:01 pm 56. Mike_Nargizian:

OT

How do you know when Sean Hannity and Terry’s parents are truly desperate?

When they return a call to and agree to give a political opportunist like Jesse Jackson a stage to use their daughter’s name…

How do you know the Terry Schiavo case has become a circus?

When Jesse Jackson is using it to mainstream himself on Hannity and Colmes using reference to the Rosa Parks and the need for National Health Care.

How do you know when not to believe something Jesse is saying?

When the camera is on and his lips are moving.

How do you know when Jesse gives a hoot about Terry Schiavo?

Are there any cameras around?

What a brilliant, cynical and calculated move.

Jesse knows -

1) She is now going to die either way

2) He can make a sympathetic statement at no cost to him

3) He gains media exposure from Fox News and Hannity of all places without any tough personal questions.

4) He mainstreams himself and burnishes his image once again on a huge national stage on a huge national issue.

COST OF PANDERING SINGULAR EXPOSURE?

1 plane trip and phone call to Terry’s parents.

COST OF ACTING LIKE HE CARES?

Nothing

COST OF REFURBISHING HIS NAME, POWER AND MONEY?

Priceless………….

Meet Jesse Jackson the man who hid behind a car when his “friend” MLK Jr. was shot and then hung around after all his real friends rushed him to the hospital squirted Ketchup on his shirt and started crying for reporters about how he held Martin on the porch.

Yes, the same man who Abernathy and company had caught stealing from the SCLC and were kicking out of the organization. And the same person that used his burnished fake image after Martin’s death, thanks to the NY Times and MSM to capitalize and put the SCLC out of business.

A noble man – a principled man – a man with organized crime ties – a man who has monopolized ‘Civil Rights’ to blackmail corporations and make himself a hundred millionaire – a man who yet today still ‘deserves’ much deference – and finally a man who has buddied up to every anti-American dictator.

A man who ran for President of the United States.

Mike

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:05 pm 57. Rick Ballard:

Knuck,

I would have preferred ‘Hie thee hence, knave, your presence is an offence to your betters.’ but I’m working on a kinder, gentler image. It’s a pity that Denise the Pleasant is tied up in tax fraud schemes.

At any rate, it is a true pleasure to watch someone attempt to plant, fertilize and water astroturf. The “strawman” comment was hilarious after the use of Kevin Drum in an appeal to authority.

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:32 pm 58. yama-arashi:

Rick,

Here is that link.

p.s. I love the part when they start talking about foreign aid as a percentage of GDP vs. “raw money.” Even ten percent, heck thirty percent of not much is not much.

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:35 pm 59. yama-arashi:

p.p.s. The last sentence in that link is classic MSM. How easy it is to re-write history. A sentence here. Another there.

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:39 pm 60. Rick Ballard:

Thanks, Yama. What a wonderful foundation for an organization dedicated to actually resolving issues rather than managing them. You are right about the article, I think that I can hear the reporter/editor’s molars grinding yet.

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:47 pm 61. yama-arashi:

Rick,

Straw man a thread and then complain about being straw manned. The you “straw manned me” defense is so often straw manning to an extreme.

But make sure you also give me a bit of grief too. My comment surely deserved some. I won’t stand for harry/jc having all the fun of being on the receiving end of Rick’s good natured ridiculing. I’m jealous that way.

Mar 29, 2005 - 7:50 pm 62. Rick Ballard:

Yama,

Your comment concerning Hegel (a week or so ago) caused me to order ‘Phenomenology’ (know thy enemy). I imagine that along about page 150 I will be experiencing some ascerbity at the sight of one of your posts which may result in the grief that you mention. In the interim prior to its arrival I continue to reread Strauss – ‘The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism’ this week (or more) and ‘The City and Man’ next. Then Machiavelli followed by Strauss’ commentary. I wonder if I shall be able to finish ‘Phenomenolgy’ without shredding it.

Don’t miss ur choochoo.

Mar 29, 2005 - 8:30 pm 63. yama-arashi:

Rick,

All those big books. Good luck. Me. Barely touch the stuff anymore. Didn’t know what the heck I was doing when I was pretending I was reading them. I have never read this Strauss guy. Or at least read him with any care. I heard Shils talk about Hegel for a few weeks before he hit me over the head with his walking stick. Figuratively speaking. In any case, if I should mention anything about those kinds of things I am obviously drunk.

By the way our trains go swooooooooooooooooooooosh. Or

Zzzooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. Today, just errands around the house. One of those days when you can’t do your work until someone else finishes their work.

Mar 29, 2005 - 9:20 pm 64. jedrury:

Here is the end of the Times’ editorial:

“All this might have been avoided had the secretary general responded properly in 1999. The panel is surely right that the United Nations badly needs stronger conflict-of-interest rules that spell out how to resolve possible conflicts of interest. A cavalier response is the road to trouble, and Kofi Annan needs to demonstrate that he has learned from past mistakes and can still be the strong, effective leader the United Nations needs so badly at this time.”

A scolding from Mama.

So let’s watch how the Times and its Annan allies try to re-make this flawed bruised man into ” the strong effective leader. . . blah blah.” The moves of the UN PR machine are gearing up now.

Mar 29, 2005 - 11:30 pm 65. Canucklehead:

The above comments are an interesting case study in “branding” an issue. It’s all very interesting but does not come to a point. It’s all about process and not about product.

This type of discussion leads me to believe the UN is Table Fare (aka dead meat). The above discussion, viewed in a “focus group” context leads me to believe that no country will rely on the UN for anything other than possible humanitarian “window-dressing” along the lines exposed by the “Diplomad”.

The only way to see if the UN can function is to develop a way of testing it to see how it will react. The short answer is there is no way to test it as the test will be fake or an exercise in “clubby” diplomacy. Without some sense of comfort that the UN can provide value to a nation, it will wobble in it’s orbit and fall to earth. Any country trying to “catch it” or support it would likely be hurt by it’s fall.

Mar 30, 2005 - 7:33 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: