I'll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours
This in the Times yesterday:
"President Bush called for a 'full and open'' accounting of Iraq's now-defunct oil-for-food program following accusations Iraqi President Saddam Hussein illegally reaped billions of dollars from it because of Annan's lack of oversight."
Okay, so a couple of billion dollars found its way into Saddam's coffers because Kofi wasn't paying attention, but it was the Security Council that was supposed to be overlooking this program. But if the Bush administration is calling for full disclosure, I think it's only fair that Bush reveal his oil profits and its sources. And Iraq isn't under Saddam's control and the reason for that is because he had weapons of mass destruction, yet unfound. Plus there is the issue of defense contracts awarded on a non-competitive basis to companies that are now overcharging the government under those same contracts. If we're going to talk about a lack of oversight, what about the post-war planning in Iraq?
Now if you think the two are seemingly unrelated, here is the connection:
Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota is qouted in the article as saying, "In order for the taxpayers of the United States to feel comfortable about supporting the United Nations, there has to be an open accounting,'' he said.
posted by Dawn Withers @ 11:16 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Wow. Do you just invent your own rules of logic as you go?
First of all "couple billion" you so casually mention is actually 23.5 billion dollars. The Security Council is not responsible for oversight, the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)is responsible for oversight. It has refused to make public any of the 55 audits done of the OFF program since 1996. Furthermore, the OFF scandal did not extend to the US government whereas it did involve high level officials from France, Germany, and Russia. Your facts on the OFF scandal are just wrong.
Secondly, what correlation is there with the OFF program and your desire "that Bush reveal his oil profits and its sources"? Is this a hint a conspiracy theory? It is well known that the President failed in his oil endeavors and the large majority of his wealth was generated through his stake in the Texas Rangers. The issue of defense contracts is largely overblown. I suggest you read this article from the Washington Post if you are interested in actual infromation instead of conspiracy theories, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60726-2004Sep29.html
Again, your "facts" are wrong
Your logic is faulty even if one assumes that your "facts" are right. Even if the the President and his administration were guilty of all these improprieties as you insinuate, why is the investigation of the UN OFF scandal tied to investigating the the adminsitration?
Should the guilty parties at the UN be spared investigation because you think the US has also engaged in corrupt actvities? Should we allow for a clear case of corruption to pass beacause you do not like the Bush administration? If you think about it this is what your post was all about wasn't it? It really wasn't about the UN of the OFF program, it was just an excuse to blow off some partisan steam. Logic be damned so long as you can make some hackneyed attack on the President right? I probably shouldn't even have wasted my time but I couldn't resist introducing some reality to a liberal.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm a fairly left of center Dem, and I have lots of agreement with the Bushies, especially about bulldozing the UN into the East River after we get an accounting. Let's start over with a council made up of democratic (little "d") countries whose election standards pass muster. All for the Ukraine joining say "Aye!" Next, let's get the Israeli contractors building their wall to start one for us where SoCal meets the Pacific at the Mexican border, and run that sucker straight across to Texas. While we're at it, make having a US birth certificate or the proper green card or visa papers a condition of renewing your drivers license. America first is not a sentiment restricted to the right side of the aisle. And, while we're at it, let's admit us Dems got our heads handed to us by the GOP because they have better ideas and better grasp of the war situation. The sooner we start acting like Harry Truman and less like Michael Moore, the better. Then again, maybe I'm not a left of center Dem any longer...
Dems need to get back to populism, the corporation whoring being done at the peoples expense will be make people beg to get a Dem back in the Presidency.
http://gubermintcheez.blogspot.com/
Very well said. And as we know, the louder the repubniks and christian right scream, the closer to the truth we are.
Good going, keep up the good work.
In response to millerdunwoody: I've always been a Dem, I've always voted for Dems, and I continue to support the Dem party. That said, I can disagree about the UN with a clear conscience. Having lived in NYC area for many years, I've seen the actions of UN personnel "up close and personal", and it is not always a pretty picture. My belief is that (in general) what good comes out of the UN comes from the work of the democratic countries. Hence, my thinking is that a new organization might serve all interests better. Emerging democratic countries, like the Ukraine strives to be, get that way because their people get ideas about a better life from exposure to the media of and travel to the free countries. They don't get much help from the UN. Is this UN a force for positive change? In some cases, the answer is obviously yes. But, I also believe that if you dig deeply enough under the positive accomplishments you find one (or more) of the democratice countries working hard, taking a leadership position, and getting things done DESPITE the goings-on in midtown Manhattan. I predict that when Paul Volker is done, there is going to be lots of egg to go around for the faces of UN diplomats from some of our "supposed" friends. Do I support unilateral invasion of another country? No. Do I think the war in Iraq was necessary? Likely not. Was it attacking the "low hanging fruit"? Most definitely, otherwise Bush would have taken on N Korea or Iran. But, I don't think the UN is the answer either. And I really believe that the immigration problem is both an economic security and physical security issue that demands an answer. I don't think Bush has the right answer on immigration because I think he (like some leftist Dems) see the influx of Mexicans as future votes for his party, but some factions within the ranks of the Republicans are pushing for immigration reform. And I believe that "good fences make for good neighbors". I was perhaps being a bit facetious in my post just for the fun of it, but there are Dems like me who don't think cozying up to Michael Moore was the answer. And to be honest, I really didn't know too much about John Kerry before he became the frontrunner, but when I found out that he had been to Vietnam and then threw away his medals and testified before congress in the way he did, I got that sinking feeling that the party had blown it again by picking the wrong man. As I repeated in my post, the next Harry Truman is what the Dems need to return to power. And I'm not sure old Harry would cotton to the machinations of the current UN.
online shopping cart resources are tough to find. Good post though. Have a look here if you would online shopping cart
Very informative air travel. Stop and have a look at air traveltoo.
Post a Comment
<< Home