Click this picture & go to the "last" for the latest UN scandals:
Posted on 12/05/2004 3:29:31 PM PST by Embraer2004
NOW THAT virtually all of official conservatism and the Republican legislative juggernaut have opened up on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, with President Bush's winking acquiescence, it's time to explore a simple question: Just what is it that the guy has done? The answer is nada. It turns out there is no evidence that he did anything while the notorious and corrupted oil-for-food humanitarian program was operating in Iraq during the 1990s and beyond.
This lack of even a charge comes in the face of Annan's unequivocal denial that he ever had a single thing to do with, or any specific knowledge about, any of the deals made while the mess of a program was operating.
The latest headlines were generated last week by a freshman Republican senator, Norm Coleman from Minnesota, who chairs the principal subcommittee that has been investigating the program for months. Coleman called on Annan to resign.
Oil-for-food was a mess, and Annan made a world-class goof in appointing an apparently corrupt official to run it. Instead of easing the impact of UN sanctions on Iraqi civilians, the program was an opportunity for profiteering both by businesses and by Saddam Hussein.
The problem, as Senator Levin points out, is that the US government as well as the entire Security Council had complicit knowledge of just how dirty the program was. Members worked hard to make sure Iraq did not use earnings for weapons of mass destruction.
However, as Levin also points out, Presidents Clinton and Bush decided against cracking down on allies like Jordan and Turkey that were buying oil illegally from Iraq in violation of the sanctions regime, which makes current attempts to put the mess on Annan's shoulders borderline ludicrous.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
And here I thought liberals believed in the seriousness of the charge as the standard. Silly me.
And yet we're somehow to believe Rumsfeld and Bush are responsible for Abu Gharib. And Reagan for Iran-Contra.
Which is it, my liberal friends? Are superiors responsible for the actions of their underlings or are they not?
Simple question, what's your answer?
And let me make my standard correction on these articles-
"The problem, as Senator Levin points out, is that the US government as well as the entire Security Council had complicit knowledge of just how dirty the program was."
Should read...
"The problem, as Senator Levin points out, is that the [Clinton Administration] as well as the entire Security Council had complicit knowledge of just how dirty the program was."
your liberal media type make me want to puke...thank goodness for the net and the blogs...my bloodpressure stays at an ok rate when i'm blogging rather than reading clueless gum suckers like "oli the ant'...squish these types LIKE YOU DID THE RATHER TEXAS FLEABAG ..please..bcboy
Click this picture & go to the "last" for the latest UN scandals:
Your price is too high. I'd ask for three quarts of 1O-W-30 - used.
Or maybe just the barrel . . . no sense in trying to drive a hard bargain if we can just rid ourselves of Bow Tie Boy.
The fact that Annan 'did nothing' (which I don't believe, I think he was likely involved) is exactly the problem. He was charged with ensuring the money was used to feed the Iraqi people. Instead it buit palaces, bought yachts, funded terrorism and WMD programs. Meanwhile, the people the program was supposed to help starved and suffered from lack of medical supplies. And Annan, the guy in charge, to quote Tommy Oliphant, "did nothing."
And Dick Cheney is still responsible for Halliburton.
Isn't Oliphant that prissy twit who always wears a bow tie?
This reminds me of the "who hired Craig Livingstone?" defense. Nope, nobody in charge, mistakes were made.
You've got him! He is the effeminate bowtie liberal. By contrast, our conservative bowtied Tucker Carlson is masculine and good looking (the opposite of Oliphant)
Based on these principles, Ken Lay should be cleared immediately.
Oh, yes he is guilty. As the article said he did nothing. He could have done a lot to stop the abuse, but he chose not to. A good leared does not sit on his hands and do nothing.
It is time for him to go, along with the whole UN, out of the USA.
Kofi's biggest sin, now, is that he is stonewalling and refusing to give Coleman access to the records he wants to see. so he belongs in the headlights.
Given his breathtaking arrogance, Oliphant might be surprised to learn this is his only photo on 'google images.'
While I am not yet convinced that is true. It could be the whole problem. He did nada in the face of corruption, he did nada while the oil for food program was going on. He did nada, and the organization he leads does nada to help the free world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.