Click this picture & go to the "last" for the latest UN scandals:
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:
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."
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.
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.
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.
Oliphant is trying to spin the truth by highlighting Jordan's and Turkey's buying of illicit oil as the major violation, indeed the only one mentioned in his article. These "leaks of oil" were small potatoes in relation to the major schemes.
The major violation schemes involved kickbacks and "credits" to people Saddam wanted to "cultivate". That's where the 21 billions of $'s went and you can bet that Kofi, Kojo and friends benefited nicely.
Even if it were assumed that Kofi knew nothing and had no involvement in this rampant scandal, it must also be assumed that he is a totally incompentent nincompoop, incapable of the job of SecGen. After all, under Oliphant's assumption, all this went on while Mr. Magoo Anan didn't see it.
Oliphant has never met a breed of vermin he didn't want to put on the endangered species list.
you have freepmail..
bump
It's the UN that goes.
Assuming Oliphant only reads left wing publications he ought to at least read the Times of London where he might find out just a little more about Kofi, if he is interested.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1388672,00.html