None Dare Call It Corruption

If it seems odd that ‘Cheney-gate’ hits the frontpages for days as some kind of pumped up scandal, but continued corruption at the UN goes entirely unnoticed by the media and the left, it’s because they protect their own. (I believe that’s called a culture of corruption by some definitions.)

Did you know that the United Arab Emirites just paid off Kofi Annan with a cool half-million dollars?

Annan received his award at a glittering February 6 ceremony in Dubai, as outlined in a press release from Annan's office that noted the honor, but neglected to mention the half million bucks that came with it. Surrounded by presidents, businessmen, and nearly 130 environmental ministers, Annan collected this purse as winner of the biennial Zayed International Prize for the Environment, given out by the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

So entwined were Annan's own U.N. colleagues in the process that selected him for this award that it's tempting to relabel the entire affair as one of the U.N.'s biggest back-scratching contests. Chairing the jury panel, which voted unanimously for Annan, was the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, and among the jurors was the U.N. undersecretary-general for Economic and Social Affairs, José Antonio Ocampo. Both men owe their current jobs to Annan. Serving as an "observer" of the jury panel was Pakistan's ambassador to the U.N., Munir Akram, who just finished a term as president of the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council, which works closely with Annan. On the
website for the Zayed prize, the public relations contacts include a U.N. staffer, Nick Nuttall, listed complete with his U.N. email account and phone number at the Nairobi headquarters of the U.N. Environment Program. weeklystandard.com

The frenzy of the left and the press in treating Cheney accidentally shooting his friend on a hunting trip as a scandal is nothing new. Everytime Bush sneezes, it's a scandal. His every breath is no doubt resented by some on the left. (It's only after the 'scandal' doesn't pan out that it becomes a Bush-Rovian distraction.) What also shouldn't be surprising is that pointing out that what Democrats are calling singularly Republican corruption is actually not illegal activity and is in fact something Democrats as well as Republicans engage in routinely.

Incredibly, Democrats and scandal mongers won't consider Kofi Annan's 'prize' worthy of attention at all. "The UN is not corrupt," they say, "Bush is."

Well, since the UN is the only liberal hope for peace in the world, the left can be excused from tolerating such corruption. Corruption like raping children, engaging in the sex trafficking, killing and torturing civilians, watching as genocide is committed, embezzling billions of dollars, taking bribes from Saddam Hussein... is ok on the left-- if you are a liberal institution .

In fact the most corrupt administration in history is undoubtedly Kofi Annan's UN. But don't tell Democrats that, or you will be accused of 'engaging in political attacks'.

Posted by Eric Simonson at February 19, 2006 1:21 AM
Comments
Comment #127290

Where is a single fact tying the UAE to 9/11 that doesn’t exist for the US which had its own American al-Queda sponsors? Where is a single fact tying Annan to the crimes you mention? He is one man, the US is far more influential in the decisions the UN makes than Annan is. Yet, you hold him responsible for rape, genocide, and corruption but not the US’s larger role? Even the US is limited in its ability to dictate that all evil in the world cease and desist with its mighty economy and military, yet, you want to hold one man at the UN responsible.

I am not convinced Annan is squeaky clean as far as corruption is concerned, but, his receipt of an award for supporting environmental challenges whilst your President sees environmental concerns as impediments to profit, is well, very telling in terms of what motivates this article. Envy, and jealousy, apparently, that the UN should honor such as Annan, and hold such as Bush in such low regard.

The only case you appear to have made here is one where Annan appears to work better with others than your exalted leader in the White House. If Bush would try working with others instead of dictating to them, he too, might be honored one day by the world’s people and nations. Since C. Rice has gotten out from under his thumb, her reputation and respect in the world has climbed. Working with others instead of trying to force their hand all the time, has value and merit as Rice clearly understands. Should she too be villified by you for upstaging your President? Maybe in a future article, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2006 2:58 AM
Comment #127291

I was waiting for this…

After weeks of no UN Bashing due to BushCo’s desperate need for UN help against Iran, I knew it would end when the UN turns against the WingNuts.

That day came when the UN called for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay Prison. Yup… the same week the REALLY bad Abu Ghraib pictures came out. Those pictures where the Prisoners were NOT going through some weird Fraternity Initiation Prank and were in fact LOOKED being tortured. The UN released a statement condemning the Prison and demanded its closure.

I knew the GOP Spin Machine would retaliate…

…and here they are. I suppose we should be grateful no mention of the Oil For Food Scandal was made this time. Maybe the GOP Memo told Eric Simonson to stop posting Oil For Food? Some American Companies were implicated so I guess they were worried that the Corporate Donations would be reduced?

Anyway… Great Job, Eric Simonson!!! Distract us from the illegal detention of human beings just cause they are not Americans. Nevermind that a VAST majority of them are completely innocent and thus can’t be put on trial.

Did you know those 3 Britons released without charge are now making a movie on their experience? Must be a real help for winning hearts and minds.

This is what a Republican is all about. 500 Billion Dollars to go to war, torture and feed the Military Industrial Complex. Less than 10 Billion Dollars for International Aid, Public Schools and Veterans Benefits.

Hope the WingNut Bloggers get a $ bonus for doing a great job. Remember… if you negotiate, you might even beat Armstrong’s pay grade!!!

Posted by: Aldous at February 19, 2006 3:01 AM
Comment #127295

I see Rush Limbaugh must have finally tired of going on and on about Elmer Fudd’s hunting accident.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 19, 2006 3:22 AM
Comment #127306

Incompetence, stupidity, compulsive lying, arrogance and abuse of power all have their proper place in the Republican Party.

This Thread is about the use of mudslinging by the GOP to distract and discredit all who criticize them. The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, UN, Amnesty International, GAO and even Pat Buchanan have all been smeared by paid Shills.

Truth Hurts… but hitting your head in the wall dulls that pain with another greater pain.

Posted by: Aldous at February 19, 2006 4:25 AM
Comment #127307

There are so many irregularities at the UN that I can only applaud the brass spherical objects of anyone able to support Annan. A short list of recent ethics incidents at the UN includes:

The whitewashing of proven sexual harrassment charges against ranking un official, a close friend of Annans, who was allowed to resign, reserving his right to a benefits package;

An exposee, including video evidence, clearly showing the UN peacekeepers trading relief supplies for sexual favors was released this year. No action was taken in this case.

Annan was recently investigated for financial misdeeds and the commission clearly indicated that Annan was implicated, but they declined to state that his actions were criminally actionable. Interviews with the commission members after the report was released were very damning indicating an environment where corruption, if not actively facilitated, was allowed to flourish.

Going back to days prior to the Iraqi invasion, there is ample evidence of corrupt and slovenly practices associated with the Oil for Food Program, including Annan’s son’s extremely lucrative contract with a program participant.

It is difficult to conceive that Annan could unknowingly be surrounded by such flagrant instances of corruption. If he is that unaware of his surroundings, he is not capable enough for his position.

And now the UN condemns Gitmo, a facility that they have not even seen. I expect that had they inspected the facility the UN would still object. In suggesting repatriation of these terrorist thugs, Annan displays either a total lack of understanding of the threat trained, battle hardened terrorists pose or an absence of concern for this threat since knows that the US will ignore him. This allows him to speak to his anti-American base without facing consequences of advocating purely partisan policies.

Well, this is the sort of activity you can expect from an organization that includes such luminaries as Angola on their Human Rights commission.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 19, 2006 4:27 AM
Comment #127326

Eric,
Did you know that you are going against Karl Rove’s Game plan? While I am sure (actually hope)that last week’s hunting accident was not planned, one could say that the delay in telling the Media was so that it would give Rove & Company cover with their Main Stream Media friends over the Katrina Hearings. Now that may sound cold, but what happened last week in the MSM?

No, President Bush got his stump speech out to his captured citizens. Congress and the Adminstration was not having to answer questions that they have no excuse for insuring that lives were saved. And all a friend of Vice President Cheney had to do is to get shot by a gun that would not kill him. Talk about some extreme party loyality.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 19, 2006 6:11 AM
Comment #127337

jay jay snow man please do not compare cheney and Elmer Fudd with each other, elmer was a much smarter and better hunter than cheney.

Posted by: Roger at February 19, 2006 6:59 AM
Comment #127377

Leave it to a ultra-conservative to rant about the UAE and the UN when our own country is in a Constitutional crisis. This post compares apples to oranges and fails to connect that they are even fruit. What the UAE does with its money is its own business. As for the corruption issue, if it were the Nobel prize, would it have been corruption as well? Come on, put some serious thought and realistic analysis into your work. At least when I criticize the Bush administration I can connect the dots with facts and media reports.

http://rantingattheboss.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Jim Downey at February 19, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #127382

George,

“IDIOTS?”
Gee, your getting kind of personal aren’t you?

Roger, Henry, Aldous, Jay Jay, et al.,
If Eric says “the left” and Democrats are responsible for Kofi Annan and everything to do with the UN, it must be true. He wouldn’t try to mislead his followers or distract us (and them) from more important issues would he?

Apparently you didn’t get the memo, but the ruling elite (President Bush, VP Cheney, DeLay, Frist, and Co.) is not subject to the same laws as the rest of us and any hint to the contrary is un-American and seditious. If the VP wants to shoot someone its really none of the business of either you or the local police. The VP will brief them (and us) when and if he gets good and ready. Any plain textual reading of the constitution will tell you this Administration is totally above the law. Torture, domestic spying, renditions, suspension of habeas and/or any treaties (like Geneva), insider stock sales, structuring, money laundering, bribery, shootings, etc., etc., etc., its all good. Quit worrying about those things and lets do something about Kofi Annan and the UN before all of western civilization crumbles.

Posted by: RMD at February 19, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #127383

I am just a simple, backwoods hillbilly who believes in God and family. From what I have seen and read about any elected official in office, none are worth a plug nickel.
They all end up believing they are better than those that voted to put them in office. As far as the press goes they are just as bad. The reporting that they do is so lopsided it isn’t funny, not to mention that any one with an ounce of common sense can see (not to mention) the bull crap that they spread.

Posted by: Keith at February 19, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #127388

Now I feel like and “IDIOT.” I meant to say, “Gee, you’re getting kind of personal” not “your getting kind of personal.” Three lashes with a wet noodle.

Posted by: RMD at February 19, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #127400

The reason why the MSM/Left ignores the UN story is b/c it’s easier to go after the Bush administration. The press is lazy and incompetent and they keep showing us who they really are everytime. The internet won’t allow them to hide anymore; we get our news and information from a bevy of sources, so they can’t ignore the issues without us knowing about it.


The left can continue to attack; however, with no ideas and solutions, it won’t amount to a hill of beans…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 19, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #127443

Rahdigly,

Right. It’s way easier to “go after the Bush Administration” than it is to cover the UN and Kofi Annan. The MSM is just lazy and incompetent. The Bush Administration would never vindictively attack any of their critics. But that Annan guy, he’s vicious.

We can listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch FOX News and read NewsMAX on-line and it gives us cover to believe whatever we want! We can tell from their content that they are all “fair and balanced” sources. Everyone knows the MSM is biased, so who can blame us for shopping around for sources that tell us what we want to hear? After all, it is the truth. Why should we listen to, watch or read the MSM who might tell us something we would rather not know or something that would challenge our beliefs? Everything they say is a lie anyway. “The left” doesn’t think for themselves, why should we? Life is good!

You’re also right that “the internet won’t let them hide any more.” I know everything I read on the internet is true. Take your post for example…

Posted by: RMD at February 19, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #127450


SCAPEGOATING THE U.N.- The MSM doesn’t want to

talk about the U.N. they just want to bash the

Bush administration. The entire U.N. budget

including peacekeeping is less than 5 billion.

According to the C.I.A. Sadam got 1.7

billion in kickbacks from the oil for food

scandal and 10.9 billion smuggling oil across

his borders. Halliburton got the American people

for at least the 1.7 billion. And Exon/Mobil

beat the 10.9 billion in one quater with it’s

oil for profit scandal.


Posted by: jlw at February 19, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #127452

The U.A.E. gives Kofi Annan a half million. Is

this the same U.A.E. that helped finance the

911 highjackers. Is this the same U.A.E. that

the Bush administration just gave a multibillion

contract to run five of our ports.

Posted by: jlw at February 19, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #127453

I am a U.S. citizen, not a U.N. citizen. I am going to be more concerned with the going-ons of our own leaders, before I am going to be concerned about who gets an award at the U.N. As far as I am concerned the U.N. is a worthless pile of crap that can be disposed of at anytime. It has done more damage than it has done good.

The right likes to try to scare people into believing that the U.N. will become the world governing body, including over the U.S. In order for that to happen, the U.S. Constitution would have to be abolished. Oh, that’s right, President Bush is working on that.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 19, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #127467

>>the left can be excused from tolerating such corruption. Corruption like raping children, engaging in the sex trafficking, killing and torturing civilians, watching as genocide is committed, embezzling billions of dollars, taking bribes from Saddam Hussein… is ok on the left— if you are a liberal institution .


eric,

Did you really post this? With ‘K’ Street, DeLay, Cummings, Enron, Halliburton, Abramoff, et al, how could you find the nerve?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #127499

Nice spin.
I am in awe. UAE gets our ports due
to payoff at UN.
Never mind the yes men put quietly
in charge of rubber stamping this
deal. By BUSH himself or the fact
that Repubs and Dems have expressed
concern about this deal. Only to
be told by BUSH it is to late and
he will go forward with or without
any debate.
To say the UN has a single thing
to do with this mess is a JOKE.
Considering the only people that
could raise the alarm and stop it
were Republican apointed Departments.
Homeland Security , Defense Department,
ETC ,ETC.
Sometimes your irresponsible spin
borders on TREASON.
Then again america might wake up
if you called it as it is.
Where has all the money for our safety gone?
The same place the money for this
sale will go some crooked pocket.
If stupidity is bliss you must be in heaven.

Posted by: Honey P at February 19, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #127502

David,

What do you mean David? It’s our fault or no one’s fault? Your point being that the US is responsible for 9/11?

Is it too much to ask for some consistancy? If accepting a $1,000 personal contribution from Abramoff makes a Republican congressman ‘corrupt’, does accepting $500,000 dollars make Kofi Annan corrupt? No? Well, I wonder why that is? I wonder why when the UN resisted removing Saddam Hussein and they also happened to be accepting bribes from him and administering the oil-for-food program that this little fact escapes the left.

Posted by: eric 'on the payroll' simonson at February 19, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #127503

OOHHH and wake up!!!!!!!
If you can tell what party
a reporter is from they are
not a reporter they are a
propaganda tool. You
may need deprogramming.

Posted by: Honey P at February 19, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #127504

RMD,
“Why should we listen to, watch or read the MSM who might tell us something we would rather not know or something that would challenge our beliefs?”

The MSM is so bad, that you can almost count on anything they say to be the complete opposite of what is true. Well, almost. Rather-gate, Newsweek story, Katrina coverage, NY “Treasonous” Times leaking CIA and National Security information, etc. (etc). That’s what you call having “no credence” with the public. Sales are down to their publications and they are showing no signs of being more balanced. None!


So, RMD, if you want to continue listening to the MSM and regard them as factual and fair, you go right ahead. I’m going to continue to look at a bevy of sources and make up my own mind; you know, you can actually do that nowadays, you don’t need the MSM to spoon feed it to you.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 19, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #127506

FOX Newsflash:

In a stunning announcement, Treasury Department officials announced that, after secretly putting US security out to bid, Iran has been chosen and is now the new owner of the Department of Defense.

Many note the exact same people will continue serving in uniform, and those making most managerial decisions will remain in place. Only the ownership will change.

“We have a long relationship with certain members of the Iranaian government, if you will,” stated a Senior administration official, “and they have passed security checks. People like Admiral Poindexter, Col Oliver North, and John Gannon can vouch for their reliability.”

Michael Moore, well known liberal and terrorist sympathizer, denounced the sale as a violation of the Constitutional.

When asked about Moore’s controversial, inflammatory, obviously wrong-headed accusations, President Bush refused to answer questions about “old laws.” He vowed to address the issue when he returns from vacation in April.

Attorney General Gonzales suggested the sale involves obsolete, “quaint” provisions. Gonzales and Republican Senator Pat Roberts will review the matter in secret committee, and make the necessary changes to the constitution, in order to bring it into line with the present days needs of both the Executive Branch and the winning bidders.

Posted by: Phx8 at February 19, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #127508

David,

The only case you appear to have made here is one where Annan appears to work better with others than your exalted leader in the White House. If Bush would try working with others instead of dictating to them, he too, might be honored one day by the world’s people and nations.

I see. I’m not sure what to make of this exactly. But it is interesting that accepting bribes is described as ‘working well with others’ as long as we are not talking about a conservative. But then, that is the point I was trying to make— see no evil, hear no evil at the UN, but everything about Bush is evil.

Q: Can you give me one example of Bush dictating?

Since C. Rice has gotten out from under his thumb, her reputation and respect in the world has climbed. Working with others instead of trying to force their hand all the time, has value and merit as Rice clearly understands. Should she too be villified by you for upstaging your President? Maybe in a future article, eh?

I don’t understand you today David. I’m hoping that Rice will run for President in 2008. I can’t imagine why you would think Rice was ever “under Bush’s thumb”. Her reputation and respect is entirely due to Rice’s qualifications. Bush hired her. Bush promoted her to Secretary of State after all.

You could literally put Condi Rice in any position in government and she would not only succeed but excel at her post.

Posted by: eric 'on the payroll' simonson at February 19, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #127509

““I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse.”

Secretary of State Rice, on the sale of DoD to Iran, as well as the triumph of Hamas a few weeks earlier.

Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #127510

Aldous,

…and here they are. I suppose we should be grateful no mention of the Oil For Food Scandal was made this time. Maybe the GOP Memo told Eric Simonson to stop posting Oil For Food? Some American Companies were implicated so I guess they were worried that the Corporate Donations would be reduced?

Well, you could have followed the link to get your oil-for-food education.

Anyway… Great Job, Eric Simonson!!! Distract us from the illegal detention of human beings just cause they are not Americans. Nevermind that a VAST majority of them are completely innocent and thus can’t be put on trial.

No need to detain them at all then, right? There is no terrorist threat after all. It’s all a Bush conspiracy, I suppose, to set up an American dictatorship.

Should they all be let go?

Did you know those 3 Britons released without charge are now making a movie on their experience? Must be a real help for winning hearts and minds.

This is what a Republican is all about. 500 Billion Dollars to go to war, torture and feed the Military Industrial Complex. Less than 10 Billion Dollars for International Aid, Public Schools and Veterans Benefits.

Hope the WingNut Bloggers get a $ bonus for doing a great job. Remember… if you negotiate, you might even beat Armstrong’s pay grade!!!

Well, I didn’t get that Mercedes Benz raking leaves in the neighborhood. Of course all my other Republican friends make fun of me because they made all their money stealing from the poor. My shares in Haliburton are doing pretty well though.

Posted by: eric 'on the payroll' simonson at February 19, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #127512

phx8,

re: Fox newsflash

I can understand the need to resort to fiction to make your point. But since there really is no war on terror, what would be the matter with Iran controlling our government? There is no threat, remember?

Seriously phx8, let me ask you a question.

Exactly how would you categorize Kofi Annan accepting half a million dollars from the government of UAE? Perfectly ok? Morally grey? Or corrupt?

Because it has been put forward that accepting a $1,000 personal contribution from Jack Abramoff makes a Republican congressman corrupt.

Posted by: eric 'on the payroll' simonson at February 19, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #127523

I’d characterize the prize won by Annan as questionable. The reason it is in the grey area is that some of the people on the panel work for the UN. The prize won by Annan has been won in the past by Carter & the BBC. People at various other agencies, some with ties to the UN, have won other Sayed prizes in the past. The award itself is funded by the UAE, but suppposedly not determined by them. In any event, the UN should have restrictions in place when members win such awards.

There’s nothing wrong with a congressman accepting a legal $1000 contribution from Abramoff. There is everything wrong if it is done outside legal boundaries- if, say, the congressman pockets the money without reporting it, or sells a vote for the money. Who are you referring to?

Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #127541

I agree with phx8, if the prize given to Annan was a bribe, what did he do for the UAE for this “bribe”, in fact what is he or the UN in a position to do for the UAE?

Posted by: Warren Dace at February 19, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #127543

Something you will not find on your news.

The pentagon and Halliburton (KBR to vets)
Has spent Billions of your tax money on
PERMANENT MEGA BASES IN IRAQ. no less than
5 twenty square mile bases 1 of them
less than 70 miles from Bagdad. BALAD BASE
has Subway , Pizza Hut, Popeyes, Starbucks
and a 24 hour Burger King. Let us not forget
KBR Land the sole shopping area for permenently
stationed Military. In 2003 the cost was 7 billion
and construction was no where near compleat.
Now sit and wonder why the Iraq people feel
they are being occupied? They call these bases
Little America and feel it is a slap in the face.

Posted by: Honey P at February 19, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #127554

Eric-
If you want to play the moral authority game, why not clean up your own party, which currently holds power, before going in front of the world and criticizing them for their corruption?

Here’s an idea: instead of making corruption a partisan issue to beat each other over the heads with, why don’t we admit that it’s to both our party’s advantage to clean up their behavior. Then we can go to the UN together as a party and ask for the same.

Sound good?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #127559

Eric Simonson:

So you are claiming that ALL the prisoners in Guantanamo are guilty? Does this include those prisoners held for YEARS and then quietly released without charge like the 3 Britons?

Are you willing to punish the innocent? Do you include yourself and your family in the list of willing Guantanamo Detainees?

Posted by: Aldous at February 19, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #127560

Stephen,
“If you want to play the moral authority game, why not clean up your own party, which currently holds power, before going in front of the world and criticizing them for their corruption?”

There’s a reason why they “currently hold power”; if you (ever) figure out why, you might want to let the dems in on it…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 19, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #127578

phx8,

I’d characterize the prize won by Annan as questionable. The reason it is in the grey area is that some of the people on the panel work for the UN. The prize won by Annan has been won in the past by Carter & the BBC. People at various other agencies, some with ties to the UN, have won other Sayed prizes in the past. The award itself is funded by the UAE, but suppposedly not determined by them. In any event, the UN should have restrictions in place when members win such awards.

Thank you. I think it’s further over in the corruption - or questionable area than that, but I appreciate the candor. Imagine if Bush accepted a ‘freedom prize’ from Halliburton in the amount of $500,000 dollars, when freinds are on the committee handing out the prize.

I know that you and I would never be corrupted by the money but not everyone is as virtuous as we.

There’s nothing wrong with a congressman accepting a legal $1000 contribution from Abramoff. There is everything wrong if it is done outside legal boundaries- if, say, the congressman pockets the money without reporting it, or sells a vote for the money. Who are you referring to?

My point exactly. I’m referring to Howard Dean actually. Because in trying to paint the ‘culture of corruption’ this is basically what democrats are alleging. That recieving money from Abramoff personally is corruption.

Posted by: esimonson at February 19, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #127585

eric, your argument falls flat on its face regarding bribing the UN. The US is biggest contributor to the UN making it the biggest briber of UN policy. What’s good for the goose, should be good for the UAE gander, don’t you think? There is plenty of evidence of corruption existing in the UN. Does that make the entire concept of the UN corrupt? There is plenty of corruption in American government. Does that make the concept of America and all who run it corrupt?

See how your argument goes absolutely nowhere and makes not one rational point in favor of where you would like to go with it?

Nice try, though!

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #127587

honeyP,

You mean that they are putting equity into land in Iraq! What a dastardly deed. Spending money to build up infrastructure in Iraq should be a crime…?

Stephen,

If you want to play the moral authority game, why not clean up your own party, which currently holds power, before going in front of the world and criticizing them for their corruption?

?… I thought that your main concern was corruption, and rooting it out?

Here’s the problem. When talking about corruption you said:

Now is not the time to hold back, for any reason. Wrong is being done, and if we chose to crackdown on it it’s politically a win-win. This is the point of Democracy: we compete to be the more sympathetic candidates to the voters. Well, why the hell not? What else is a Democratic party useful for?

Now do you mean this just about the ‘Bush scandals’ made up every week by the DNC or do you believe that actual corruption should be cleaned up?

Because on the one hand we have a Republican lobbyist being prosecuted for bribery— while Bush is in office, imagine that! Sounds like cleaning going on to me. On the other hand you have Kofi Annan who is still running loose and living large.

My second criticism, particularly with the DNC for instance, is that Howard Dean has redefined corruption. Corruption only counts now if it’s a personal check. Did Democrats receive money ‘from’ Abramoff? Yes or no?

Is lobbying corruption? Yes or no?

Here’s an idea: instead of making corruption a partisan issue to beat each other over the heads with, why don’t we admit that it’s to both our party’s advantage to clean up their behavior. Then we can go to the UN together as a party and ask for the same.

Sound good?

I’m not sure… but didn’t you just make this a partisan issue? This is definately a change in position from before when you referenced the “incompetence, radicalism, corruption, and a perpetually combative political outlook” of Republicans and basically ignored the fact that Democrats had any part of it.

Americans are growing very tired of Republican leadership. Now’s our chance to become the new majority. Now’s the chance to gain a public mandate, with Americans open to our ideas and our direction of thought. With the Republican alienating all the different parts of their electorates with incompetence, radicalism, corruption, and a perpetually combative political outlook, nows the time to bring a breath of fresh-air.

The Republicans have had more than their fair share of second chances. Let’s start cracking heads and winning seats. God knows we have enough reason to.

Posted by: esimonson at February 19, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #127589

David,

eric, the your argument falls flat on its face regarding bribing the UN. The US is biggest contributor to the UN making it the biggest briber of UN policy. What’s good for the goose, should be good for the UAE gander, don’t you think? There is plenty of evidence of corruption existing in the UN. Does that make the entire concept of the UN corrupt? There is plenty of corruption in American government. Does that make the concept of America and all who run it corrupt? [Emphasis mine]

See how your argument goes absolutely nowhere and makes not one rational point in favor of where you would like to go with it?

Nice try, though!

Well, if the argument you see is not rational it’s because I’m taking one of your positions on the ‘Republican culture of corruption’ and making a comparison to make a point.

Didn’t you just write a post entitled, “Corrupt America”?? In it you defined corruption rather broadly when speaking of Bush, ‘the Abramoff scandal’, and the campaign finance system but you now define it very narrowly when it’s about the UN. Why is that?

Corruption. The word corrupt means to alter a normal healthy state to one of being putrid, unsound, or debased. Corrupt is probably the most apt description of our government in these times. Take the Abramoff scandal which, certainly paints a picture of wide spread bribery of politicians and their aides in exchange for legislation which harms the nation, but favors the hands that feed the reelection coffers of incumbent political parties and politicians. Our campaign finance system is little more than a vast bribery scheme. A scheme in which small numbers of very wealthy persons, or somewhat larger groups like trade associations get their favors, as in permanent tax cuts or lax environmental standards, while the majority lose pensions, jobs, and educational quality or assistance and feel the hardship of ever increasing costs for energy, health care, prescriptions, food and housing.

Now tell me again how Kofi Annan’s receipt of half a million dollars is not corruption in your eyes.

Posted by: esimonson at February 19, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #127591

It’s the left’s goal for globalization. Many of their leaders think their own country one of the gravest damnations on the planet (Hi Algore of Arabia! Hi Jimmy!). So of course the left wing media, to include the NYT with the UN in their own backyard, won’t put serious effort into the MULTIPLE UN scandals. It goes against their agenda.

But a hunting accident … WOW!!! Now that’s national news for a month!!!!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 19, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #127592

>>There’s a reason why they “currently hold power”; if you (ever) figure out why, you might want to let the dems in on it…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 19, 2006 09:15 PM

rah,

You might want to retract that challenge…the answers on why Repugs are in power are not nice ones.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #127596

David,

eric, the your argument falls flat on its face regarding bribing the UN. The US is biggest contributor to the UN making it the biggest briber of UN policy. What’s good for the goose, should be good for the UAE gander, don’t you think? There is plenty of evidence of corruption existing in the UN. Does that make the entire concept of the UN corrupt? There is plenty of corruption in American government. Does that make the concept of America and all who run it corrupt? [Emphasis mine]

See how your argument goes absolutely nowhere and makes not one rational point in favor of where you would like to go with it?

Nice try, though!

Well, if the argument you see is not rational it’s because I’m taking one of your positions on the ‘Republican culture of corruption’ and making a comparison to make a point.

You defined corruption rather broadly when speaking of Bush and ‘the Abramoff scandal’, but you now define it narrowly when it’s about the UN.

Corruption. The word corrupt means to alter a normal healthy state to one of being putrid, unsound, or debased. Corrupt is probably the most apt description of our government in these times. Take the Abramoff scandal which, certainly paints a picture of wide spread bribery of politicians and their aides in exchange for legislation which harms the nation, but favors the hands that feed the reelection coffers of incumbent political parties and politicians. Our campaign finance system is little more than a vast bribery scheme. A scheme in which small numbers of very wealthy persons, or somewhat larger groups like trade associations get their favors, as in permanent tax cuts or lax environmental standards, while the majority lose pensions, jobs, and educational quality or assistance and feel the hardship of ever increasing costs for energy, health care, prescriptions, food and housing.

Now tell me again how Kofi Annan’s reciept of half a million dollars is not corruption in your eyes.

Posted by: esimonson at February 19, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #127599

marysdude,

You might want to retract that challenge…the answers on why Repugs are in power are not nice ones.

You mean like winning elections— getting more votes?

Posted by: esimonson at February 19, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #127600

Eric-
If you go to the international community to push reform, you will encounter political resistance, same as we encounter here with you. What I’m saying is that we would be better able to set high standards if we could be observed to live by them ourselves. Otherwise, the UN can use the excuse you use by pointing out Democrat and UN corruption.

I made my small little proposal in light of what I’ve found to be an obvious problem of this blame-game approach you’re using: people can remain indefinitely busy telling others suggesting reform to take care of their own party members. Given the obvious dilemma, I look at it and see the partisanship as blinding us to the real problem: a pervasive culture of corruption.

As long as we concentrate on using this as a bludgeon against the other side, people will get stubborn about this issue. I think corruption is something we need to get together about, across party lines. Otherwise, you have people trying justify corruption in terms of everybody else’s.

That doesn’t mean corruption is equal. I still stand by the argument that it’s stronger on the other side. That said, it could just as easily change when we take over. Then such corruption would become my problem. I’d rather it not end up that way. We should recognize that corruption simply goes where power goes, that it is chronic, and that anybody can fall victim to its lures.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #127676

Eric, I don’t know. The reason I don’t know Annan’s award is corrupt is because I laud the Nobel Peace Prize. Is it too, corrupt? By you argument it is. How about Research and Development grants awarded to universities and corporations? Are they corrupt for no other reason than money changes hands?

Or, is it possible that such awards bring attention to values, efforts, and pursuits which are, in and of themselves, laudable. I certainly consider respecting and protecting the planet that supports us laudable. If there is overt or veiled quid pro quo for Annan’s receipt of the funds which will favor the UAE to the detriment of other nations, then, yes, I would consider it corrupt.

But, you have asserted no such evidence of anykind. Therefore, I will stick with my original opinion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2006 3:40 AM
Comment #127677

Also, eric, in the quote of my words, what part of it do you see as an indictment of the Republicans to the exclusion of the Democrats? I know what my intent was, and upon review of those words as you quoted, it appears my intent came through loud and clear, that it is the system that is corrupt, regardless of which party holds majority control.

Nice try, though.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #127681

Stephen Daugherty said: “We should recognize that corruption simply goes where power goes, that it is chronic, and that anybody can fall victim to its lures.”

The fact that it has been chronic, DOES NOT MEAN it has to or should remain so. Kick some incumbent asses out of Congress from both parties over this corruption, and I gurandamntee you effective and responsible reform will be forthcoming, post haste. For nothing so motivates politicians like the prosepect of not being reelected. Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy’s sake.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #127703

Unfortunately, there is no one to bring Kofi Anon or anyone in the UN to justice. You’d think that the major scandals and bribery going on would have resulted in at least a few prosecutions by now, but no one is going to jail. While a valient and idealistic attempt at global cooperation, the UN has become a failed execution of this idea, simply because a majority of the participants are tyrants and dictators of their own countries, allowed to outvote civilized nations like the USA.

John Bolton is making some inroads as ambassador, but we ignored the deteriorization of this organization for decades. It’s going to take a radical upheaval in the UN to make it a viable, effective organization, especially after their extreme embarassment in the opposition to freeing Iraq.

Posted by: G. Bro at February 20, 2006 5:59 AM
Comment #127717

>>Unfortunately, there is no one to bring Kofi Anon or anyone in the UN to justice. You’d think that the major scandals and bribery going on would have resulted in at least a few prosecutions by now

G.,

I did not know Kofi was part of the Cheney/Bush administration…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 7:28 AM
Comment #127723

Marysdude,
“You might want to retract that challenge…the answers on why Repugs are in power are not nice ones.”

I will do nothing of the sort; I meant what I said. If the repubs are so bad and they’re beating the dems, what does that tell you about the dems? So, once again, worry about the dems getting a clue first, then you can talk about the Repubs.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 8:27 AM
Comment #127745

>>worry about the dems getting a clue first, then you can talk about the Repubs.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 08:27 AM

rah,

I am getting a clue (actually the clues just keep piling up)…that’s why I can talk about the Repugs.


Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #127746

I too am a U.S. citizen. Which is why i can only vote for any party other than the Dems. Their new idea of utopia is to turn us all into UN citizens.

Posted by: pige at February 20, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #127786

pige,

You do realize that Utopia comes from the Greek phrase “ou topos” that means “no place”.

Now, do you really think that “Utopia” as Thomas Moore wrote about is a bad place?

Posted by: Rocky at February 20, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #127828

I agree with David Remer to a point. We should fire some incumbent asses in congress. Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein and Harry Reid for starters…..

Posted by: JD at February 20, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #127846

>>I agree with David Remer to a point. We should fire some incumbent asses in congress. Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein and Harry Reid for starters…..

Posted by: JD at February 20, 2006 01:57 PM

JD,

Don’t stop there…get rid of the rest of the Democrats as well…that way Abramoff’s rascals can take the rest of our national treasure.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #127868
But a hunting accident … WOW!!! Now that’s national news for a month!!!!

Ken,

Are you still talking about this? The only ones I hear still talking about this are the Cons and the biggest Con of you all, Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #127888

Abramof’s Rascals - gee, sounds like a rock band. Hey Marysdude, why aren’t there any conservative democrats? Why is the democratic party so left leaning? I mean, shouldn’t they have a fair and ballanced party? Yes, I love that “fair and ballanced” phrase….

Posted by: JD at February 20, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #127889

“Cheney-Gate” was a useful distraction for the seditious speech by former VP Al Gore pd for by the Saudis to be broadcast on the al-Queda network.

Posted by: pige at February 20, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #127905

>>Why is the democratic party so left leaning? I mean, shouldn’t they have a fair and ballanced party? Yes, I love that “fair and ballanced” phrase….

Posted by: JD at February 20, 2006 04:13 PM

JD,

B Clinton, Gore, H Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and many others are more middle of the roaders than left leaning. In fact, B Clinton is actually a fiscal conservative and instituted welfare reforms that put him somewhat in the social conservative camp as well.

Good politics is compromise, no matter which camp you’re in. Currently there is ZERO compromise, hence…bad politics. When Repubs learn to give and take, we’ll all be better off. That won’t happen under Cheney/Bush.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #127915

I agree JD. What amazes me, and astounds anyone with a brain is how anyone calling themselves conservative could possibly side with Bush/Cheney, as they have violated the fundamental precepts of conservatism with such abando and glee: fiscally conservative (pulease!), small government (not!), and keeping the our citeznry safe from federal intrusion (hello NSA!). To watch you guys do back flips to justify this is, well, pathetic to be quite honest. I support these conservative tenets, unlike our current adminstration.
Regards.

Posted by: cp at February 20, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #128016

I am a cynic who is the daughter of two cynics who has never understood how any adult can live in these United States and be un-cynical.

How can any sane individual quote W and this administration?

How can any sane individual support the slaughter of people in Iraq, who have never acted agressive in any manner with people in this country?

How can any sane individual, who considers him or her self to be civilized and still try to justify the torture of Iraqis?

How can any sane individual justify holding people in Guantanamo, without charges, without access to legal help, with no limits on the time that they can be held and no contact with anyone who could or would help them?

How can any sane individual really believe the idiocy spoken by this administration?

How can any sane individual believe anything that that liar living in the White House says?

How can any sane individual not be very disturbed about the obvious profiteering of companies like Halliburton by this “war”, Halliburton who should never have gotten a contract because of the conflict of interest concerning Cheney?

How can any sane individual not be ashamed of the actions of this administration, military actions, financial actions and unhumanitarian actions?

On behalf of the sane people here I will apologize to all who have been harmed by the
actions of this never elected and criminal administrative. Since those who planned and ordered these actions never will.

Anyone supporting and justifying W’s administration should be ashamed.

Posted by: OpenEyes at February 20, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #128058

JayjayS,

do you really expect us to believe you listen to
Rush L. 3/5? I would’ve thought that some of
those facts and some of that uncommon common
sense would’ve rubbed off on you by now. Guess
you got to be more “open-minded”!

Posted by: Dale G. at February 21, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #128144

Just another GOP red herring, “So what if the Bush Administration is corrupt - the UN is too!”

They will gladly dismiss their own party’s corruption if they can show that someone else is doing wrong, or at least allege it, facts optional.

So much for the “two wrongs don’t make a right” thought process.

I’ll file this one right up there with these other fine GOP talking points:

“Cheney shot a man? Ted Kennedy drowned a girl!”

“W illegally spied on Americans? Clinton got a blow job!”

“We’ve killed over 30,000 innocent civilians in Iraq? Saddam killed thousands too!”

“W ignored intel during the first eight months of his presidency and 9/11 occurred on his watch? It’s Clinton’s fault, W was only President for eight months when it happened! Hey, there were trails on the ranch to build anyhow.”

“The Cole attack occurred on Clinton’s watch? He must have been asleep at the switch. Where’s the accountability?”

“W did coke? Clinton smoked pot!”

“W has a DUI? Cheney has two DUIs! Errr…scratch that one.”

“Abramoff personally donated to lots of Republicans and no Democrats? Well even though the Whitewater Investigation found nothing, the Clintons were INVESTIGATED by the GOP!

“W is in multiple photos with Abramoff after the White House indicated that Abramoff was only there for two Hannakuh evnets? I saw a picture of Hillary with some guy that would later be convicted of dealing drugs!”

“Cheney and maybe Bush ordered Libby to divulge Plame’s identity for political reasons? Ever hear of Travelgate? Even though the investigation and report found nothing, the Clintons were INVESTIGATED by the GOP!”

“Libby outed an Undercover CIA Agent? Um…Clinton got a blowjob!”

Posted by: Boomer at February 21, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #128154

Verrry good, Boomer…your post is right up there with CPAdams stuff, and that’s a compliment.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #128206

G. Bro,

the UN has become a failed execution of this idea, simply because a majority of the participants are tyrants and dictators of their own countries, allowed to outvote civilized nations like the USA.

Great, now UK and France are considered dictatorships! I agree that Russia and China, the last two UNSC permanent members, could but USA, UK and France may still hold majority. Plus, USA alone perfectly could (and, in fact, have far more than any other permanent members) use his veto whenever she wants. “Outvoted” permanents members at UNSC is not possible. Quite the reverse.

It’s going to take a radical upheaval in the UN to make it a viable, effective organization, especially after their extreme embarassment in the opposition to freeing Iraq.

Their? AFAIK, most of worldwide opinions was aligned with the UN nations who opposed Iraq War (yeah, let’s call it afterward a Freedom War but in February 2003 it was a “Saddam has huge WMDs stockpiles that could hit UK and USA in less than 1 hour!” War) and the embarassement was more on the pro-war nations than the reverse…

And, please, don’t forget than USA is one part of this “their”, and not the least one.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 21, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #128230

I smell a whiff of desperation in the conservative/Republican ranks lately. They’ve gotten more shrill, like in the good old days when nobody voted for them. It smells like victory.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 21, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #128375

More vituperative, divisive rhetoric from the far Wrong wing. Just what this country needs. Eric, why do you hate your fellow Americans so much?

Posted by: ElliottBay at February 21, 2006 10:30 PM
Post a comment