Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Difference between a dirtrag and a real newspaper

UN: Via the Minneapolis Red Star Tribune. (dirtrag)

"There really is a lot more to the Oil-for-Food story -- for example, how the United States looked the other way when it knew Saddam Hussein was cheating, because it served Washington's purpose at the time. But the subject here is Kofi Annan, and Coleman is simply wrong in his conclusions, although that is unlikely to dissuade him. In the end, this isn't about Oil-for-Food. It's about the Bush administration's dislike of Kofi Annan. Coleman is simply the designated administration hit man. But the weapon Coleman has chosen, the Oil-for-Food Program, is a wimpy little toy. And no matter how much Coleman tries to make it look larger, that's what it will remain."
Via Scotsman: (Real newspaper)
"...But the Volcker report faulted Mr Annan over an "inadequate" inquiry into the case, and thereby hangs a tale. Under Mr Annan, the UN allowed the food-for-oil programme to degenerate into a corrupt empire in which Saddam Hussein bribed numerous UN and other diplomats to turn their backs while he looted his country and starved its people. Under Mr Annan, UN agencies failed to notice that Iran was making atomic bombs. Under Mr Annan, UN "peacekeepers" conducted systematic sexual abuse of local women and children across Africa. If Mr Annan was blind to all this - involving billions of pounds and millions of people - why would we expect him to know what his son was up to? Mr Annan will keep his job because his political myopia suits those UN members who see the organisation as a platform with which to beat the West. But if the UN is ever to be reformed, it will need a more sharp-eyed secretary general."

Copyright Narbosa 1998-2006
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by