Turtle Bay Business As Usual
On the one hand....
If the equivalent scandal had erupted from the Bush Administration, with several of his Cabinet secretaries hip-deep in the malfeasance but no "smoking gun" linking it to the White House, what do you think the Democrats would be demanding he do?
On the other hand....
The answer to my question above is they wouldn't have to demand the President do anything because majority Republicans would be so terrified of the collateral political damage (which would hit them regardless) that they themselves would ram thorough impeachment articles like a battering ram. Oh, the Democrats would still howl in triumphant moral supremacism anyway and also demand Dick Cheney's impeachment along with enough GOP congressional resignations to return majority control to them.
But I suspect none of that would be necessary because President Bush would take responsibility for the scandal by resigning the presidency.
But then, a man with the personal honor and integrity to take responsibility for such a scandal by resigning his office would almost certainly never have a scandal like that arise on his watch in the first place. Consequently it is no surprise either that the Oily Food scandal erupted on Kofi Annan's watch or that he refuses to take responsibility for it by quitting.
It this sounds an awful lot like vintage Clinton scandals - blatant, appalling. systematic corruption with no "smoking gun" unequivocally linking it to the top - go to the head of the class.
But then did anybody really expect an internal investigation to force Annan's departure? After all, it's the dictators and kleptocrats that run Turtle Bay, not the West or the United States. That's quite obviously why Annan was appointed Sec-Gen in the first place (ditto his Egyptian predecessor, Bhutros Bhutros-by Golly); they knew he was one of them and would, accordingly, keep the gravy trains running on time. Why on Earth would they get rid of him as long as the gravy on those trains remains undiminished?
That brings us back to the same point we always end up at when it comes to UN reform: the quarter of the UN budget ponied up by the U.S. That's the only leverage we have in that place, and the only way we can compel Kofi Annan's ouster.
As to who would replace him...well, let's just say that his entire adult life has been preparation for that moment.
And he would "feel the world's pain"....
[HT: CQ]
The [Oily Food program] report, by Paul Volcker, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, undermines the Secretary-General’s claim to either diplomatic or administrative competence. Before next week’s highly charged summit in New York, the UN’s 60th anniversary, it greatly weakens his position. ...
The report says that Annan’s sins were those of omission not commission. It finds no “smoking gun”. ... But the omissions were enormous, allowing Saddam Hussein to manipulate the programme to try to buy influence, including influence with senior UN officials.
If the equivalent scandal had erupted from the Bush Administration, with several of his Cabinet secretaries hip-deep in the malfeasance but no "smoking gun" linking it to the White House, what do you think the Democrats would be demanding he do?
On the other hand....
Kofi Annan faced savage criticism yesterday but vowed to stay in charge of the United Nations.
Mr Annan said that he took responsibility for the "deeply embarrassing" failings outlined in an independent inquiry into the UN's oil-for-food programme in Iraq.
The report, overseen by the former US federal reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, revealed serious shortcomings in its work, Mr Annan admitted. But he suggested that he could not be held personally responsible. ...
Mr Volcker argued that the secretary general had much to answer for.
"His behaviour is certainly not exonerated. There is a litany of deficiencies," he said, adding that the UN was guilty of both maladministration and corruption.
The answer to my question above is they wouldn't have to demand the President do anything because majority Republicans would be so terrified of the collateral political damage (which would hit them regardless) that they themselves would ram thorough impeachment articles like a battering ram. Oh, the Democrats would still howl in triumphant moral supremacism anyway and also demand Dick Cheney's impeachment along with enough GOP congressional resignations to return majority control to them.
But I suspect none of that would be necessary because President Bush would take responsibility for the scandal by resigning the presidency.
But then, a man with the personal honor and integrity to take responsibility for such a scandal by resigning his office would almost certainly never have a scandal like that arise on his watch in the first place. Consequently it is no surprise either that the Oily Food scandal erupted on Kofi Annan's watch or that he refuses to take responsibility for it by quitting.
It this sounds an awful lot like vintage Clinton scandals - blatant, appalling. systematic corruption with no "smoking gun" unequivocally linking it to the top - go to the head of the class.
But then did anybody really expect an internal investigation to force Annan's departure? After all, it's the dictators and kleptocrats that run Turtle Bay, not the West or the United States. That's quite obviously why Annan was appointed Sec-Gen in the first place (ditto his Egyptian predecessor, Bhutros Bhutros-by Golly); they knew he was one of them and would, accordingly, keep the gravy trains running on time. Why on Earth would they get rid of him as long as the gravy on those trains remains undiminished?
That brings us back to the same point we always end up at when it comes to UN reform: the quarter of the UN budget ponied up by the U.S. That's the only leverage we have in that place, and the only way we can compel Kofi Annan's ouster.
As to who would replace him...well, let's just say that his entire adult life has been preparation for that moment.
And he would "feel the world's pain"....
[HT: CQ]
posted by JASmius at 9:25 AM
<<< Home