Posted on 10/22/2005 12:55:43 PM PDT by 68skylark
NEW YORK — The scandal engulfing the United Nations Procurement Department () now appears to be bottomless. It also shows signs of growing more sinister, especially where it involves a mysterious private company called IHC Services (), which did big business with the procurement department until it was removed from U.N. rosters in June.
New details of how dark the scandal could prove to be have emerged from the private sale of IHC on June 3, 2005, just as the procurement scandal was about to break. It now appears that while doing business with the U.N., IHC had links both to Saddam Hussein’s old sanctions-busting networks, and to a Liechtenstein-based businessman, Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., known among other things for his ties to a figure designated by the U.N. itself as a financier of Al Qaeda ().
Registered in New York State, with offices in New York City and Milan, IHC has been involved in possibly hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of business with the U.N. since the mid-1990s, serving both as a direct supplier and as a go-between for a wide variety of other contractors. This work has included IHC’s signing or helping to broker contracts for supplies ranging from portable generators to rations for U.N. peacekeeping troops in such trouble spots as West Africa and the Middle East.
IHC came under public scrutiny this summer, after FOX News broke the story on June 20 that IHC had maintained especially close ties with Alexander Yakovlev (), a Russian official in the U.N. procurement department, who while handling an IHC contract with the U.N. had obtained a job for his son with the company, and had also been channeling funds to a secret offshore bank account.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The UN is just rotten to the core. Every time you pick up a rock at UN headquarters, there's something really nasty lurking underneath.
I'm trying to think of a single example of the UN doing something positive recently and I just can't.
Like the Energizer Bunny..
'It' just keeps going and going ...
I don't understand why the Bush administration has dealings with the UN -- they should know better, or maybe the Bush administration isn't as clean as they want us to think they are.
Released on a Saturday for minimum news coverage
This is the prime reason that made the Iraq war necessary yet the msm refuses to cover it. Libs at work have never even heard of the scandal yet repeat the lie that we wnt to war over wmd and none were found.
"I don't understand why the Bush administration has dealings with the UN -- they should know better, or maybe the Bush administration isn't as clean as they want us to think they are."
====
This must be the most ridiculous thing ever posted on this board (the part about speculating that "the Bush administration isn't as clean as they want us to think they are".)
President Bush is working with the UN, because there would be too many repercussions to just unilaterally withdraw. But he is trying to reform them from the inside, that's why he appointed Bolton.
The UN has been ROTTEN to the core since its inception! When the MSM had control of what the public knew, it was easy to keep the muck and smell from everyone. Now, it no longer is possible to do that.
I'm sorry if you didn't care for my comment. I admit I was trying to be provocative. But really, doesn't it bother you that the Bush Administration puts so much money into the UN? Shouldn't we be trying to cut it off, if the money is finding its way to people like Saddam and Al-Queda?
Like you, I'm a fan of John Bolton. But if appointing him is the only concrete action the Bush administration is willing to take, I think that's a completely inadequate gesture, in light of the size of the problem.
I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is taking bribes or any other improper payments from the UN. But I do think they are guilty of shirking fights that should be fought, to clean up the UN or get out.
"...doesn't it bother you that the Bush Administration puts so much money into the UN?"
Every administration since Truman has poured money into that black hole. You can't single Bush out.
Picco’s arrival on IHC’s board came at roughly the same time that IHC appears to have first established ties to the U.N. On Dec. 22, 1996, according to the U.N., the company was registered on the U.N. Procurement Department’s list of approved vendors. That was the same month that the U.N. Oil-for-Food program began operation in Iraq.
Well well well....
I don't understand why the Bush administration has dealings with the UN
We're discovering this stuff, aren't we?
Look at the uproar appointing John Bolton caused.... it's up to the congress to cut funding.
The UN is consistently corrupt.
If one wants to make a long stretch one could be appreciative of the UN by alleviating one of back issues by lessening the weight of ones pocket placed wallet.
Other than that I can't think of a positive coming out of the UN as a citizen of the USA.
Like what? The UN will write an angry letter denouncing us; then have a council meeting on where the hell they will now have to meet and who will finance their latest corruption?
The U.N. should have been blown out a long time ago.
Getting out isn't an option for if we were to get out we would lose ALL voice in the UN.
As a standing member of the founders of the UN our only option to be rid of the corruption and mayhem in the UN is to better our inside forces. This has been done with the appointment of John Bolton.
Leaving the UN to their corruption without influence would only increase the cause for concern for us as a nation.
Like a worldly organization that is driven by the ideal of destroying our way of life.
If you think that they are doing it now, just imagine an organization without us holding our seat within that holds veto power.
Nonsense. If the U.S. pulled out of the U.N., the U.N. would collapse within a year due to loss of our ridiculously ample "dues" to their terrorist love-fest.
The sooner we exit the U.N. and relocate them to Gaza (so they can snuggle up with the very terrorists they adore so much) the better off we'll all be.
Shirking fights?? The President is still fighting the world because he didn't have UN approval to go into Iraq. Now the UN is in Iraq making DNC talking points about voter fraud.
As much as I would like to see President Bush withdraw us from the stinking UN and kick them out of the USA, it must be done in the same way one eats an elephant ... one bite at a time.
There has been an investigation going on of the Oil for Food scandal for well over a year, with more fingers pointing at the UN everyday. He went around the demonRATS and the crybaby, and recess appointed Bolton. Congress voted to cut our "contribution" to the UN by half. (did that stick?)
Like everything else, it takes time. President Bush can't "nuke" the UN, anymore than he can "nuke" SS or DOE or appoint any judge he wants.
Bravo Sierra.
Like everything else, it takes time. President Bush can't "nuke" the UN, anymore than he can "nuke" SS or DOE or appoint any judge he wants.
Sensibility and long term vision has just become your claim to fame justanobody.
To me anyway!
If you keep flattering me like that people will begin to talk. *fluttering eyelashes* ;*)
Well, there's a brilliant and thought-out rebuttal.
(/SARCASM)
It's long past time we put the UN on the list of terrorist groups.
Axis of evil bump
Consider the discoveries that have been made since the invasion of Iraq. Consider how those discoveries have reflected on Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
Despite the MSM's blackout, the words "Oil for Food" are now synonymous with the words "United Nations corruption".
This administration has done more to damage the UN's image than any other. And the President has done it without ever appearing to "attack" the institution.
This simply can't be.
If you think that they are doing it now, just imagine an organization without us holding our seat within that holds veto power.
OH MY GOD! If the UN can do this, I shudder to think what the League of Nations is cooking up right now!
When the most powerful, resourceful and generous nation on earth doesn't recognize you, you cease to exist!
Well "everybody else did it too" isn't really a great defense. I think we should ask for high standards in the current administration (and the next one too, for that matter). Let's do better in the future than we have in the past.
I'm starting to think the UN is beyond reform and beyond help. It's time to start thinking about more radical solutions.
Maybe I've been too harsh. Maybe the Bush administration is doing a good job of cleaning up the mess and making sure U.S. taxpayers are getting good value for the money we send to the UN.
Maybe we're on the right track, and we just need to keep doing what we're doing to have a nice, clean, helpful UN in the future.
I doubt it, personally. I think we're on the wrong track, and the Bush administration is doing little more than rearranging a few deck chairs.
"ethically-challenged"
LOL
I never said I was happy about it. I simply pointed to steps that have been taken. The Oil for Food scandal may very well be their own downfall. Then of course there is Dar fur and a myriad of other areas I could sight.
Personally, I don't think they can be "reformed" and would rather see them cease to exist. In the meantime, we have Bolton on the inside, hopefully gathering more ammunition. Have you given any consideration to the maniacal opposition to the Bolton appointment? To me, it was a big red flag that something more than a dislike of his personality is involved. I could be wrong, but...
There are many outside factors involved, the WOT not the least of them. Prosecuting the WOT takes precedence over the UN, IMNSHO.
The day is coming....
I have to admit that EGPWS has a point here.
The 'enemy' has more than enough money to build the new UN building, and call it a world court.
As much as I detest the UN, we're probably better in it.
*dreaming*
Wouldn't it be nice if we could take it over, and clean it out?
I'm sorry if that has led me to make intemperate comments. Like you say, maybe the Bush administration is doing about all they can at this time, and maybe I should cut them more slack.
We'll see. I hope you're right, but I have my doubts.
It takes small but sure steps.
To overthrow, cut off, or force the dissolution of the UN in short time would create circumstance more concerning than what we face today.
There comes a point, though, where the UN proves itself unreformable. And, at that point, the world would be better off if we withdrew.
Without the financial support of the U.S., the UN shrivels. And without U.S. involvement, many countries would have to reconsider their own position. Especially, if we took the opportunity to form a separate structure limited solely to those countries which practiced democracy, for example.
In my view, we are fast approaching that point.
The UN needs to be abolished. They should not be receiving our money or anything from us. And we should take back the land that the UN is built upon.
And adopt the policy in my tagline...
I disagree. If it got any name after the U.S.'s departure, it would be "The League of Nations."
When the U.S. leaves the U.N., it's all over but the shouting.
And FYI: EGPWS's "Bravo Sierra" remark isn't a "point," it was an asinine, knee-jerk epithet.
Isn't that the approach that we are taking?
After all, as a first step we don't exactly have "Halfbright" as a representative supporting us via the UN nowadays do we?
As long as the corruption has been going on in the UN, why do you think that NOW it has become news and a thoughtful contemplation?
It was and is a well placed statement with forethought and reason.
All these acronyms give me a headache. I didn't even know there was an agency at the UN called the IMNSHO.
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.