thinking democrat
Thursday, May 05, 2005
  Clinton & Friends v. Bolton....
I might be wrong, but there could be something we're all missing about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as our ambassador at the UN. When you really think about it, the objections from Senate Democrats don't explain why they are putting up such total opposition to Bolton's appointment.

Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that we need someone who'll play nice with the other people at the UN. We need an aggressive ambassador who will take names and kick butt. This is the same UN that played a key role in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Not only is this the largest financial scandal in world history, but the UN allowed Saddam to starve and kill his own people while he and everyone involved stole the money that was supposed to pay for food, medicine and other basic needs.

And in case anyone has forgotten, all these people with the help of the media were blaming America for the deaths of Iraqis from starvation and lack of medical care. If only the big bad Americans would agree to end the sanctions, Saddam's government could meet the needs of his people. Like this maniac didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his people and wouldn't kill more if given a chance.

I don't even want to get into the probability that some of the stolen money was used to kill American men and women who volunteered to serve in our military. The point is that the UN hasn't shown any desire to reform. Forget the commissions, reports and proposals. The main activities at the UN these days seem to be hiding or shredding information, and trying to either cover-up or spin the involvement of UN officials and employees. The UN does not want to accept any responsibility.

The Democrats know all this. So, why don't they want to send someone who won't have a problem using the fact that we pay 20% of the UN's budget as leverage? Why not send someone who will demand accountability? The answer may have more to do with President Clinton than the money or the scandal.

The Oil-for-Food Scandal happened on Clinton's watch. President Clinton should be mad as hell that he was deceived, misled, and outright lied to by Koffi Annan and others at the UN. Instead, Clinton's friends from his administration and the media held a secret meeting with Koffi. When it was discovered, everyone described it as a little informal get together to advise Annan on how to handle the scandal. Recently, it came out that Clinton's attorney from his own Monica scandal had agreed to represent Koffi Annan for one single dollar. I really don't think that Clinton's attorney and friend would do this without the President's OK.

Here's the big question! Why wouldn't Clinton and his friends, and Senate Democrats want Annan and the UN thoroughly investigated and held accountable? They know Bolton would raise hell until that happened because the UN can't be reformed until all the details concerning corruption come out. My guess is that what's going on has something to do with Clinton's legacy and the image of the Democratic Party. My guess is that Sandy Berger doesn't have a pair of pants big enough to smuggle out all the UN files that Koffi Annan has concerning President Clinton and his Administration. It's possible that Clinton knew more about a lot of things than he's willing to admit.
 
Comments:
Boy, you think so?

Is it even possible?

After all, it's not like the Clinton Administration permitted high-tech guidence equipment for missiles to be sold to the Chinese, and it's not like the Chinese didn't make certain financial considerations for the '96 re-elect; it's not like the President didn't exchange pardons for contributions, interships for blowjobs, sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom for contributions; is it even remotely possible there is some dirt at the UN, esp. relating to the UN's Food for Oil (Palaces & Bribes) program? Perish the thought!
 
Plus they are hoping that a dem (re Hillary) will win the next election and Billy boy can be named SecGen.

In addition, power politics says never let the other side win anything. If Bolton gets in and is succeddful at reforming the UN or at least on bringing all the corruption public, it will make the Rep look good. . . . .and we al know we can't have that!
 
You are a Democrat?

Anyway.

Of actual "scandal" from the OFF program, the total amount was less than 2 billion. The two portions were the surcharges and the kickbacks. The surcharges were STOPPED by the UN (by using a post-sale pricing mechanism).

Now, the UN itself (the General Assembly) was not in charge of the OFF program, the UN Security Council was. At no time did the US ever try to put a stop to the problems.

Let's say it is a full 2 billion.

That's still less than El Paso and Enron stole from the State of California by artifically creating imaginary congestion on their grid. That was NINE billion dollars.
 
While your conclusions are certainly interesting, they are also incomplete and even short-sighted given Bill Clinton's enormous ego.

The New York meeting you mention from last December wasn't accidetnly leaked to the press, but deliberately so. A spin job to bolster support for Kofi to get him through his current term in office. The point of all this is that Clinton himself wants Kofi Annan's job as Secretary General of the UN, as he has mentioned several times publicly. But to get it, he must first ensure that the US is still "involved" in the UN on the one hand, while unaware of seedier underside of that organization's past (such as OFF) on the other.

2006 which marks the end of Kofi's term as Secretary General, also happens to be Hillary's re-election year to her Senate seat, and the start of the '08 presidential campaign as well. It is vital to the Clintonista that Kofi not be chased from office, but serve out his term, while keeping the OFF hounds at bat at the same time. Check out who is the attorney for Robert Parton, ex- of IIC fame.

Time... and Norm Coleman... will tell.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Name:
Location: Buffalo, New York

Warning: a thinking democrat! Defined as an objective advocate of democracy. Years ago, a close friend claimed he had finally figured me out. He said I was sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative, but that he hadn't been able to discover what it was that pushed me from one to the other. His answer to his own dilemma was, "You are an objective driven idealistic pragmatist." My answer to his conclusion was and still is, "maybe, maybe not." I have a degree in Education and have worked in the following fields: Banking, Consulting, Management, Manufacturing, Real Estate, Sales, Social Work, Transportation, or best summarized as anything that's a good challenge.

ARCHIVES
January 2005 / March 2005 / May 2005 / November 2005 /


Powered by Blogger