Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Keep Talkin', I Like What You're Saying
NR Editors on United Nations on National Review Online: "U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan should either resign, if he is honorable, or be removed, if he is not. The mild-mannered Annan may not himself be corrupt. But he has presided over no less than the largest corruption scandal in the history of the world, Oil for Food. Never has the U.N. been more disrespectable or useless. Moreover, Annan's response to the scandal has been inadequate to the point of disgrace. That he still holds his post is testament to the culture of impunity that pervades the organization.
Annan's apparently congenital reluctance to move forcefully when necessity requires stems partly from his corporatist background: He has worked for the U.N. almost continuously since 1962. He is the original Organization Man, the first of the seven secretaries general to ascend to the top of the greasy pole from entirely within the U.N. He lacks the drive, and the desire, to tame the beast he inherited. Annan is a man willingly in thrall to his employer's unaccountable and inefficient bureaucracy, and a servant of its patronage machine."
I was no fan of Annan's prior to the revelation of Oil-For-Food, so frankly, I would take joy in his resignation for any reason. It doesn't hurt, though, that his exit, whether now or in '06, will be under a cloud of obvious corruption and ill-management.
I find interesting that liberals seem to be supporting him (mainstream media-msm) not reporting on it and all. This scandal is a direct human rights violation all unto itself. By letting Saddam skim the billions, they practically ensured a mal-nutritioned and sickly Iraqi population. In fact, by not stopping the massive-scale pilfering, they are just as guilty of starving those people as Saddam.
So few of those that appeared as if they were taking the moral high road by opposing the war in Iraq have any morals at all, or ethics at the very least. Here is Kofi Annan allowing Saddam and his son to steal from this humanitarian effort. Chirac, Shroeder, and Putin were doing business, regardless of sanctions, with Saddam. Most of the anti-war here in America would've supported the war if it were initiated by a Democrat, but political opportunism got the better of them too.
It's not that I dismiss all anti-war folks as merely just anti-Bush. There are some that just do not believe in war. I can appreciate that. They need to recognized separately from those that clearly just took this opportunity to denigrate the Bush Administration for purely political purposes.
Annan's apparently congenital reluctance to move forcefully when necessity requires stems partly from his corporatist background: He has worked for the U.N. almost continuously since 1962. He is the original Organization Man, the first of the seven secretaries general to ascend to the top of the greasy pole from entirely within the U.N. He lacks the drive, and the desire, to tame the beast he inherited. Annan is a man willingly in thrall to his employer's unaccountable and inefficient bureaucracy, and a servant of its patronage machine."
I was no fan of Annan's prior to the revelation of Oil-For-Food, so frankly, I would take joy in his resignation for any reason. It doesn't hurt, though, that his exit, whether now or in '06, will be under a cloud of obvious corruption and ill-management.
I find interesting that liberals seem to be supporting him (mainstream media-msm) not reporting on it and all. This scandal is a direct human rights violation all unto itself. By letting Saddam skim the billions, they practically ensured a mal-nutritioned and sickly Iraqi population. In fact, by not stopping the massive-scale pilfering, they are just as guilty of starving those people as Saddam.
So few of those that appeared as if they were taking the moral high road by opposing the war in Iraq have any morals at all, or ethics at the very least. Here is Kofi Annan allowing Saddam and his son to steal from this humanitarian effort. Chirac, Shroeder, and Putin were doing business, regardless of sanctions, with Saddam. Most of the anti-war here in America would've supported the war if it were initiated by a Democrat, but political opportunism got the better of them too.
It's not that I dismiss all anti-war folks as merely just anti-Bush. There are some that just do not believe in war. I can appreciate that. They need to recognized separately from those that clearly just took this opportunity to denigrate the Bush Administration for purely political purposes.
