Cynical Nation

More Stuff In The News...you forgot Nicole Richie's fabulous-looking mug shot. 85 lbs. never looked hotter.

"It's hard to imagine a better embodiment for the corruption and inefficacy of the world body than Mr. Annan."

How about George W. Bush or Dick Cheney? I know they dont run the UN, but they would qualify for what you mention. Kofi Annan was not that bad.

""It's hard to imagine a better embodiment for the corruption and inefficacy of the world body than Mr. Annan." (BNJ)
"How about George W. Bush or Dick Cheney? I know they dont run the UN, but they would qualify for what you mention. Kofi Annan was not that bad." (BW)
(BW)


Kofi Annan and his son (Kojo) have been directly linked to the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Can you name a corruption scandal in which G W Bush was directly involved...and I mean legally, directly implicated.

And no, the answer isn't "He's directly responsible for all the Republican scandals of the last six years."

There's no "direct link," there's no direct legal implication.

I'm looking for a corruption scandal that Bush has been directly implicated in, the way Kofi and Kojo Annan are directly implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Again, you seem to have it backwards, G W Bush "isn't all that bad."

He's not Conservative ENOUGH, but he isn't bad. Yes, he's been terrible on the border issue and hasn't stopped a lot of reckless Congressional (GOP-led) over-spending, BUT, he's also finally engaged America in a war that had been relentlessly waged against it by Sharia-adhering Islam for over a decade and his Supply Side policies have taken us out of an inherited recession, into a period of low inflation(2.3%), low interest rates and very low unemployment (4.5%), rising personal incomes, strong GDP and a rollicking Dow (now over 12,000).

Annan undermined the Oil-for-Food restrictions that the U.S. rightfully forged within the UN and in so doing, wittingly or not, sided with the forces of savagery against the Capitalist West.

Annan wasn't only a corrupt and incompetent UN leader, he stood by as the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis in six months in Rwanda, did nothing with Darfur and has tried to equate the savagery of the Islamo-fascist terrorists with America & Britain's ("the West's) righteous war against Islamo-fascism.

And don't forget that Kofi also did a piss-poor job at support the UN's own resolutions. Saddam Hussein violated them brazenly time and time and time again, so what did Kofi do? Did his best to prop up his despotic regime.

Thirteen on Iraq alone before 1441.

And 1441 was only enforced because American and Britain stepped up to do the right thing, in the face of UNSC intransigence.

"Can you name a corruption scandal in which G W Bush was directly involved.

His whole presidency is a scandal. Starting from stealing the victory from Gore, up to appointing incompetent cronies in his administration, lying to the nation to start a war,promoting torture, and repeatedlty breaking the law for illegal spying. What else do you need? Kofi Anan is a much more reliable and honest person than George W. Bush.

> "Can you name a corruption scandal in which G W Bush was directly involved.

His whole presidency is a scandal....

In other words, no. ;-)

Kofi Anan is a much more reliable and honest person than George W. Bush.

He is reliable, I'll give you that. If you're a genocidal government intent on exterminating an entire population, you can rely on Kofi Annan to be too busy mismanaging funds to actually, you know, do anything about it.

"Can you name a corruption scandal in which G W Bush was directly involved." (JMK)
"His whole presidency is a scandal...." (BW)
"In other words, no. ;-)" (BNJ)
"He is reliable, I'll give you that. If you're a genocidal government intent on exterminating an entire population, you can rely on Kofi Annan to be too busy mismanaging funds to actually, you know, do anything about it." I doubt it could be said any better and I doubt, if you really think about it BW, you can't disagree with that assessment either.

"In other words, no. ;-)

Read again what I wrote. Not only is Bush' administration morally corrupt, but they have openly broken the law and he absolutely deserves to be impeached.

"you can rely on Kofi Annan to be too busy mismanaging funds to actually, you know, do anything about it"

Well, I think Bush is far more reliable. You can rely on him to deliberately lie to start wars without any reason that result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. You can also rely on him to completely ignore the will of the nation and continue such wars without any purpose. Sorry, but Bush is far more reliable than Kofi Annan.

Before I say anything I’d like to say two things.
First I think a comparison between Kofi Annan and George W Bush isn’t really going to be productive.

Second I don’t think either of these guys is a stellar example of a statesman.

However what I would like to comment upon apart from the context of any comparison to Kofi Annan is any why there is no “corruption directly attributed to G W Bush, or Dick Cheney, or Condi Rice, et al....”

I think we can all agree that GWB’s presidency has certainly had it’s share of unanswered questions that could be potentially scandalous.

The closed door energy summit’s held by Cheney so long ago at the start of the first term, the connection to Enron and Ken Lay and the appointment of industry lobbyists to energy oversoght committees.

The no-bid contracts to Halliburton and the vice-presidents association with the company, and his continued receipt of dividends as a result of his former association.

The outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. This one was pursued as far up the chain as Scooter Libbey, who said he released the information at the direction of his boss Dick Cheney.

The potential abuse of wiretapping of our own citizens.

Those are just some highlights. Almost nothing has been investigated because the congress has been controlled by republicans. So if you’ll allow me to play devil’s advocate we may not know about the extent of the corruption simply because the corruption is so pervasive. Look at the corruption in the congress over the past few years. I doubt any of those guyswas really going to push for an investigation when it might wind up exposing the skeletons in their own closets.

The closest we have to a proven chain of corruption is the Valerie Plame case. For whatever reason it stopped at Scooter, even though he pretty clearly implicated the vice-president. Which by extension either implicates Bush as well or tells us that he doesn’t know what his own vp is doing. And it also tells us he’s disingenuous because his initial comment was that he was going to deal with those responsible when he discovered who they were.

Anyway I’ll agree that anyone who says there’s an established chain of corruption is wrong, however let’s not lose sight of the fact that despite all the questionable activities and circumstantial evidence there’s been no investigation with the exception of the Plame case, and even that seems to have been killed.

Zilla, as usual, I think your post is cogent and reasonable. I certainly agree about a lot of the "smoke" surrounding the Bush administration. I wouldn't include the Plame leak myself, because I believe that to be a non-issue. Still, there's plenty of other stuff to chose from. :)

You're right, neither Bush nor Annan are stellar leaders, and arguing over which is "worse" is a bit silly. I've already said that I regret voting for Bush in 2004. I never voted for Annan, of course, but I regret that he was Secretary General.

Barry,
I never said Annan was a good secretary general. He was mediocre to bad. But I am tired of the attacks on the UN. Bush has been a terrible president and destructive to the both our country and the UN.

GZ, I believe the two worst things the current administration did was (1) failing to secure our southern border and (2) failing to rein in excessive non-military, discretionary spending.

It should be noted that the Enron scandal, along with the Adelphia, Worldcom and other such scandals occurred during the previous administration and were brought to justice under the Bush administration, and the Bush admin signed onto Sarb-Ox to keep such things from occuring again.

As for Halliburton, it had no-bid contracts in Gulf War I and in the Balkans as well, because there are some things they do that just aren't done by others.

I give the current administration credit for their sound economic/tax policy and for their engagoing us, albeit belatedly, in what I suspect will be a 100 years war against Sharia-based Islam.

The rest, I'll agree has been OK (he nominated some great SC Justices - Alito & Roberts) to bad (the borders and spending).
"I never said Annan was a good secretary general. He was mediocre to bad." (BW)
"Kofi Annan was not that bad."

Moreover, the UN SHOULD be attacked.

It is a corrupt and feckless organization, in which murderous thug dictators hold far too much sway.

Of course, in a "world democracy," tyrannical regimes would outnumber representative democracies/republics (like the U.s. & England)by about 4 to 1.

The UN should be kept impotent...in fact, ideally, it should be kept under America's thumb.

Thank God for Bolton having the guts to confront that organization's ineptitude and corruption.

Kofi Annan demanded "respect," and Bolton let him know he didn't deserve any respect.

> But I am tired of the attacks on the UN.

Why?
Bush has been a terrible president and destructive to the both our country and the UN.
Not nearly destructive enough, in the case of the UN.

So Barry, whats your problem with the UN? We need a stronger not a weaker UN. We need a US president who leads the UN and not tries to destroy it. The US is naturally the leader of the UN.

"...We need a stronger not a weaker UN. We need a US president who leads the UN and not tries to destroy it. The US is naturally the leader of the UN." (BW)
(BW)


Even I'll admit that an American run UN is a farce.

The U.S. represents appx 5% of the world's population.

China represents almost 20% alone, but a Chinese run UN would also be a farce.

Of course, a "world democracy," which the UN would like to be, would be the worst kind of farce, since far more people live under brutal, tyrannical, mostly Left-wing regimes.

The UN hasn't fail to act in Darfur and didn't fail to act in Rwanda because it wasn't "strong enough," it failed to act because (1) most in the UN simply didn't care and (2) there was nothing in it for them.

There was plenty in it for them in undermining the Oil-for-Food program, but no such inducements in either Rwanda or the Sudan.

Zilla, I have rarely disagreed with you as much as I do regarding the Plame kerfuffle.

The sheer tonnage of lies told by Joe Wilson, many of which were duly noted by the 9/11 commission alone, should tip you off that the fatuous ass with the over-the-top hair styling is a monomaniac with an agenda for self-promotion.

Hell, even the new book that came out, written by folks who despise Bush, acknowledged that there is no there there.

He lied...multiple times.

She wasn't covert.

Indictments: One for alleged perjury.

Original source: a State Dept. hack who hated Bush.

As Andy Brown of Amos and Andy would say: "Check and mate!"

"He lied...multiple times.

Mal,
You keep repeating what the republican smear machine invented to smear Wilson and Plame, so they lose their credibility. The facts are different. Plame was undercover. And someone did out her.

Anyone can chose to believe what they want in this case. But one thing remains crystal-clear. That Wilson had warned the administration long before they invaded Iraq that there were nothing in the Niger case.

Who lied? The administration of course. They knew well before they invaded Iraq that there was no imminent threat as they claimed. They still lied and invaded Iraq, ultimately resulting in the complete destruction of that country that we witness today.

> So Barry, whats your problem with the UN?

It's completely failed to live up to its ideals and its mission. I understand that you still support those ideals, as do I. But there comes a time when we reach the point of a "do-over," like we did with the League of Nations. It's time to do the same with the UN.

"It's completely failed to live up to its ideals and its mission. "

I agree with that. But a major reason for that is that the leading country in the UN (us) stopped supporting them and did everything possible to undermine them. The Bush administration is responsible to a large extent for the failure of the UN.

The UN's failure well predates the Bush administration, much as you'd like to blame him for everything. :P

It wasn't Bush fault, for example, that the UN stood idly by during the massacre at Srebenica or the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi. Unless he engineered it from the governor's mansion in Austin.

This all makes for really depressing reading.

I tend to think Anan was more ineffective (inept?) than corrupt. Was he himself connected to the Oil for Food scandal? I thought it was just his son? At least he's done. I don't really have much faith that things will change with Ban, but I guess we can only hope.

As for W...Well, well.

> Was he himself connected to the Oil for Food scandal?

At the very least, he and his chief of staff knew about it and tried to cover it up. It's disappointing to say the least, since Annan was supposed to have been the "reform" candidate.

Still, if he'd had some positive accomplishments to offset the bribery scandal... but... oh well.

".It wasn't Bush fault, for example, that the UN stood idly by during the massacre at Srebenica or the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi."

And see what happened when Clinton sent troops to Somalia. The republicans blamed him for doing that.

The whole "UN problem" started with the paranoia of some in the far-right that the UN wants to "run our country". Nevertheless, I will remind you that, no matter how ineffective the UN has been, it represents international law and should be respected. You can criticize it (and it clearly deserves such criticism) but not try to destroy it. Bush and his incompetent secretary of the state (Condi) have done anything possible to damage this organization. They even tried to approint a caricature like Bolton to represent us there, who has been an open enemy of the UN concept.

I hope this'll be the last time this old issue is dredged up, but regarding the Plame affair, here are the facts;

"Mal,

You keep repeating what the republican smear machine invented to smear Wilson and Plame, so they lose their credibility. The facts are different. Plame was undercover. And someone did out her.

"Anyone can chose to believe what they want in this case. But one thing remains crystal-clear. That Wilson had warned the administration long before they invaded Iraq that there were nothing in the Niger case.

"Who lied? The administration of course. They knew well before they invaded Iraq that there was no imminent threat as they claimed. They still lied and invaded Iraq, ultimately resulting in the complete destruction of that country that we witness today."
"And media reports to the contrary, Wilson did not "debunk" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium. In fact, most intelligence analysts believed his trip "lent more credibility" to reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, and the CIA continued to approve the use of the Iraq-Niger-Uranium language "in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union."
The same Senate report states:

Conclusion 13 (page 73)

The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq..."

"... From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

"a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999."

"b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."

"c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

"d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/07/update_joe_wilsons_forgetfulne_2.html

Wilson's on record stating that he "never debunked the Niger story," acknowledging in his report that indeed there were Iraqis in Niger at that time, while noting, "Niger's two major exports are goats and Yellowcake Uranium, and it's doubtful the Iraqis were interested in any goats."

Just because some time's elapsed doesn't make it OK to spout long discredited and erroneous media reports.

Wilson's own words make clear he never "debunked" the British claim.

> And see what happened when Clinton sent troops to Somalia. The republicans blamed him for doing that.

Bush sent troops to Somalia, not Clinton. Republicans blamed him for cutting and running.

"Bush sent troops to Somalia, not Clinton. "

You are right. It was Bush not Clinton, although the republicans managed to blame Clinton at the end (and it was not for cutting and running). Beyond this, when Clinton and NATO started the war in Yugoslavia, the republicans were blaming him for being "interventionist", or did n't they?

> Beyond this, when Clinton and NATO started the war in Yugoslavia, the republicans were blaming him for being "interventionist", or did n't they?

Some did, some didn't. I did not.

"when Clinton and NATO started the war in Yugoslavia, the republicans were blaming him for being "interventionist", or did n't they?" (BW)
(BW)


What Clinton was "blamed for," was an ill-conceived pile-on against the Christian Serbs in the Balkans.

It's been shown that the Muslims in Kosovo began the genocide in the Balkans and Milocevic and the Serbs merely responded in kind.

Like G W Bush, Clinton was a mixed bag - to the good, Welfare Reform, his cooperation with the Gingrich Congress, which took the lead on Welfare Reform and reducing the debt...to the bad were the rules changes at the SEC that created the "Tech Bubble," and the resulting "unfounded exubeance" that propelled the NASDAQ to an exaggerated level it could not sustain, his ignoring the white collar scandals that flourished in the late 1990s, and perhaps worst of all, his ignoring the war then being waged by Sharia-based Islam against the West.

He also ignored our porous southern border and our growing dependence on foreign petroleum sources. In fact, during that era Al Gore sold Elk Hills, in 1996, as part of his "reinventing government" flim-flam. With that maneuver, Gore achieved what Nixon and Reagan never tried, he got Congress to sit still for privatizing the Navy's strategic oil reserve, known as Elk Hills. This huge oil field near Bakersfield, California to Occidental Petroleum (a company the Gore's have a huge stake in). It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history.

”Zilla, I have rarely disagreed with you as much as I do regarding the Plame kerfuffle.

The sheer tonnage of lies told by Joe Wilson, many of which were duly noted by the 9/11 commission alone, should tip you off that the fatuous ass with the over-the-top hair styling is a monomaniac with an agenda for self-promotion.- Mal”

Mal, I know you have a dislike for Joe Wilson, and I’ll agree he comes of as a pompous ass, however the CIA felt that the act of outing Valerie Plame one of their covert operatives, warranted an investigation by a special prosecutor. That’s why THEY called for an investigation, not Joe Wilson. As a result of that investigation the special prosecutor found Scooter Libbey responsible for leaking her identity. Scooter then disclosed that he leaked her identity at the direction of his boss Dick Cheney.

Now I always here people say things like “you might not like the president, but you have to show respect for his office.” Don’t you think it’s true as well that you might not like Joe Wilson, but you should respect the status of a covert agent? And remember this isn’t about Joe Wilson, it’s about his wife. The only reason Wilson is mentioned at all is because her identity was leaked in an effort to discredit him. Now if you’re correct Mal, was that even necessary? Since Mr. Wilson is already a prove liar as you say?

The whole thing stinks because not only was a covert agent outed, not only was it done for political gain, but we have a clear chain connecting the act to the vice president and nothing has been done about it. Cheney is the second most powerful man in the government, he should be protecting our agents, not exploiting them. Forget about how you feel about Wilson, forget the arguments over whether she

There's still a question over whether Valerie Plame was a covert operative???

"The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington--the "outing" of a CIA officer--may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

"In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

"This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today. As USA Today notes:

"The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. "

I thought Richard Armitage was revealed to be Novak's source. BTW, Libby hasn't been charged with "outing" Plame. He was charged with perjury and obstructing justice.

Another BTW: It's against the law for the CIA to operate agents clandestinely in the U.S. So if it turns out that Plame was, in fact, a clandestine agent, should she be indicted?

“There's still a question over whether Valerie Plame was a covert operative???” – JMK

We’ve discussed this before. That argument is supposition based upon a portion of Joe Wilson’s book, whom interestingly enough you consider to be a liar when it suits you, but apparently a purveyor of the truth when that suits you instead.

However it really isn’t important what Joe Wilson says, what is important is what the CIA says. By bringing this case to the Justice Department the CIA is saying that in their opinion Valerie Plame was a covert agent and since they are the agency responsible for assigning that status it’s ridiculous to argue this any further.

Unless of course you are positing a conspiracy within the CIA to create a fiction around Valerie Plame with the sole purpose of discrediting the White House. If that’s what you believe, nothing I say will bring you back to reality.

Let’s all try and remember a phrase I’ve heard so many times from right wingers on the internet in defense of the Iraq agenda: “We aren’t privy to all the information the government is privy to.”
Perhaps there are facets to this that we aren’t aware of since it was supposedly covert. Perhaps there were assets in the field compromised by this disclosure, perhaps we lost ground in the war on terror as a result of this. Perhaps not. At very least we lost whatever investment had been made in creating her identity. And for what? All to punish Joe Wilson for having the audacity to speak out against the president for something that we now know he was right about to begin with.

Is that ok? Even if you want to make technical arguments about the legality of disclosure, does anyone here really believe that in disclosing her identity the White House was serving the public’s interest? Is their anyone who disputes that this was done to further a purely partisan political agenda, and that national security took a backseat?

“I thought Richard Armitage was revealed to be Novak's source. BTW, Libby hasn't been charged with "outing" Plame. He was charged with perjury and obstructing justice.” – Withoutfeathers

Yes Armitage was his primary source, and then suddenly it became the main topic of conversation for all of these guys. It clearly became politically motivated. But I’m not sure why it’s somehow better that it came from Armitage initially and then moved on to be a topic of conversation with Cheney’s chief of staff. If Cheney directed him to speak about it then it’s just as bad. Maybe we’ll learn some more since Cheney has been called to testify at Scooter’s trial.
And to be really clear he was charged with “perjury and obstructing justice” in relation to the Plame investigation. You know how it works, if a prosecutor can’t get you on one charge, he’ll look to get you on a related one. Like Al Capone going to jail for tax evasion…or to use one you’re fond of Clinton being impeached over lying about a BJ.

“Another BTW: It's against the law for the CIA to operate agents clandestinely in the U.S. So if it turns out that Plame was, in fact, a clandestine agent, should she be indicted?” – Withoutfeathers

Well since we’re discussing purely hypothetical concepts wouldn’t it be more appropriate to indict whoever authorized it at the CIA? Here’s another hypothetical construct for you…perhaps Plame had a clandestine persona outside the US along with clandestine contacts yet she had a stateside base of operations. Is that a violation of the law? It’s pretty much implied that everyone in the CIA works on something occurring in a foreign land, and I think it’s reasonable to believe that some of them may have a covert aspect to their work even though they spend the majority of their time stateside. The fact is that neither you nor I know this, and that’s really the way it’s supposed to work – that’s why it’s called “covert”.