Those wild and crazy guys at the UN apparently don’t know when to quit:
UNITED NATIONS – The man who abruptly retired as Kofi Annan’s cabinet chief after shredding papers related to the Oil-for-Food program has been shredding still more documents at the United Nations, an eyewitness told FOX News.
Iqbal Riza, who has been working on a $1-a-year salary as a special advisor to Annan, has been shredding large quantities of unknown documents in his new 10th-floor U.N. office across the street from the U.N. Secretariat building, the source said.
I guess that’s what we’ll all have to look forward to when those great international public servants take over the Internet. Personally, I’m getting my bribes in early. Iqbal, baby… lunch? (ht: Fausta)
Thank you Roger,
The folks at this site http://www.papershreddersinfo.com/historyofshredders.htm I believe should add Iqbal to their list.
As RL said, when you need a heavy-duty machine for shreading whole file-cabinets-full of paper at a time, you really need to spend the extra bucks and get the Rose Law model.
Maybe he’s just making materials for the ticker-tape parade the UN is planning to throw John Bolton after he’s elected.
I mean confirmed…er, recess appointed.
RBMN, is it really necessary to use everything as an opportunity for partisan jibes? Many people have DIED because of the UN and its hideous corruption. By comparing Oil for Food shredding to the cheesy Whitewater real estate fraud, you merely create more partisan animosity and less opportunity for bipartisanship which is vital for the US attempts at UN reform.
SJ,
The only legislation concerning the UN that has been proposed to date is the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act which was opposed by 176 Dems and supported by 8. It is obvious that no bi-partisan support is needed in the House and it is obvious that very little to none will be forthcoming. The Senate may be another matter but I am curious as to where you believe this reservoir of willingness to reform the UN exists within the Democratic Party?
The donks are happy with the UN just as it is because it’s their convenient escape-hatch for ever having to do something about an international problem. They continue on this path despite one of their own having to take matters into his own hands (well after he should’ve, but that’s another matter..) and prospects of them being in power anytime soon are somewhat remote. Btw, not that I’m complaining but when are the troops coming home from Bosnia?
Rick Ballard, you may be right that most Democrats don’t have the stomach to reform the UN. But SJ’s basic point is right. Excessive partisanship will not, as the Lakers’ Stu Lance often says, “get it done.” Moreover, she is also correct in pointing out that the comparison between Whitewater and Oil-for-Food is absurd. The latter is a serious matter affecting millions of human lives.
Roger,
I didn’t refer to Whitewater, nor would I. Show me the reservoir of willingness to reform. Did you read the Senate Minority Report? Levin’s staff spent 10 times the effort and words trying to make the US look like crap than they did examining the nexus of the problem.
Should OFF be partisan? No.
Will it be partisan? Yes – whether you or I or anyone else outside of party leadership believes it to be reasonable or honorable is irrelevant. The decision has been made.
Re: SJ at July 16, 2005 08:31 AM
I wasn’t trying to be especially political, but as my liberal friends know so well, satire sometimes moves the ball when nothing else works. The fact that the UN and Annan have become a joke is not my fault. The Left’s problem is that they often go overboard with their satire–cross the line into mean (e.g. Bushitler.)
Roger ó Shouldn’t you have quoted somebody who *did* get it done? ;D
SJ, RBMN ó Every Friday I march in a counterprotest in Studio City. There is nothing ó NOTHING ó happening in this world that the protesters across the street do not turn into an attack on Bush and the Administration. They are incapable of seeing anything except in terms of domestic partisan politics. If there is any partisan divisiveness here, it is not coming from the right.
ìShow me the reservoir of willingness to reform.î
Reservoir? I donít see a small tea spoon. There is not the slightest evidence that the Democratic Party is even mildly interested in reforming the United Nations. Does that mean I will go out of my way to insult Democrats? On the contrary, I want to encourage Democrat politicians like Joseph Lieberman, Evan Bayn, and Joe Biden to do the right thing. Unfortunately, these gentlemen keep a low profile on this issue. None of them appear willing to oppose the hard left within their party.
Sad but true, David Thomson. The blogosphere should address them directly on this matter.
Is there a potential method of strongly urging reform within the Secretariat that does not involve a threat to withold dues?
Annan has a “reform” proposal that he is placing before the GA in September. It actually consolidates more power within the Secretariate without addressing the need for an independent audit agency along the lines of the US GAO. Additionally, Annan’s proposal includes what amounts to a tax based upon GDP that would be taken in and disbursed through the Secretariat. A perpetual OFF, if you will.
Don Kofi just keeps marching on under Maurice Strong’s wing, secure in the knowledge that the structure of the UN prevents accountability now and that it will continue to do so.
And the US can’t even get an ambassador approved who will forcefully raise the necessary issues.
Imagine what might be accomplished if bi-partisanship actually existed on this matter.
My curiosity was piqued by this bit of information:
This is from the SG’s website:
Certainly intriguing, but I gotta say, addressing “emerging threats” just doesn’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit. So how do they plan to accomplish this? Read on:
Now you’re talkin’. Bringing together “high-level” groups of “eminent persons” for the purpose of issuing reports–now that’s where the UN shines. My only fear is that a threat “emanating from hostile perceptions that foment violence” will emerge before late 2006 and we’ll be caught flat-footed without a “plan of action”. (PS> This, not surprisingly, is the brainchild of the same man who said Sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength. Can you guess who?)
BTW, brand new initiative not even in the committee stage as yet and still they have “large quantities” of documents that require shredding. The UN must generate paper in horrifying volume.
Ugghhh… I am reminded by your comments of the often hidden but still great divide between neo-cons and mainstream Republicans. I prefer the Wolfowitzes of the world, who look forward and try to get others on their side, to those who look backwards, dwelling on past slights and grievances (like Whitewater). That is the way of the former Yugoslavians, of the Palestinians… not the way forward.
Yes, well let’s not be quite so quick to cast aside certain “past grievances (like Whitewater)”. The past is prelude to the future and one Hillary Rodham Clinton looms large in that future (now here an “ugghhh” seems entirely appropriate).
There will not be bi-partisanship until after Nov/08. Iffy then. The Dem’s are in too deep. They cannot let themselves be seen as accepting of the Repubs ‘agenda’, no matter the seriousness nor the consequences. They are, at least temporarily, under the control of the moveon’s and mooreon’s of their far left. Until the national Dem leadership deals with that issue, there will be no change.
Isn’t it odd how the side that asks us to abandon old partisan grievances is the same side publishing books about the Bush family’s alleged ties to the Nazi’s before WWII?
What is the political upside for supporting Don Kofi and his posse? I know that the MSM is playing hide the ball on this scandal but the stench of corruption has become too strong for that to work.
It’s not as if the UN is well loved by the vast majority of Americans – I just don’t see a big political plus in taking a position that is going to turn out to be an objective support of corruption. The gains available to the Dems by taking a bi-partisan supportive position seem to vastly outweigh the potential damage that will occur when the story finally can’t be avoided.
How much harm could there be in Evan Bayh calling for Iqbal to be barred from the UN offices?
Roger
You mentioned recently a trip you were taking to Japan? I just finished Andrew Horvat’s “Japanese Beyond Words”. It’s intended to round out the cultural competency (!) of people who have learned basic Japanese, but still need to learn all the underlying cultural traits and non-verbal cues of the actual Japanese culture. Simply knowing how to say something in the language is not enough, you must learn what can be said under what circumstances, and there are elaborate rules governing this.
It’s very well written, even funny in places, and worth your time, unless you are already fully versed in Japanese ways.
Any connection to the cross cultural understanding required between conservaives and “neocons” is more or less accidental. Ok, not really.
SJ:
I agree that the Clinton scandal stuff is old news and when Hillary runs in “08 the smartest thing they can do is not mention the scandall years. America remembers and if it didn’t work to kick Clinton out I doubt that it will work against HC.
But as far as bi-partisan cooperation you can forget it. The Dems have been in full battle mode since the day after the Presidential election. Every Bush appointment has been draggged thru the dirt, Condi is a liar, Bolton is a out of control ashtray tosser, every circuit court judge is a radical judge who will end life as we know it. Even HRC herself compared Bush to the MAD magazine coverboy and said that the Bush administration has seen the “greatest abuse of power in the History of the United States.” Worse then Nixon, worse then Grant and the Tea Pot dome,and of course worse then her Husband. The Black Caucus and the NAACP portray Bush as a baby killing madman who started the war so he could make money for himself and his Haliburton cronies and of course Karl Rove is a combination of Darth Vader and the anti-christ. And of course Bush has set up a regime of torture in the Army that is worse then the gulag, Hitler and Pol Pot.
The Bush Administration has made plenty of mistakes and they can play hardball when they need to. But the Dems have decided to go nuclear in their political battle against Bush and it will not change until ’08 or unless they do so poorly in 06 which I can’t see happening. Bush can try to be as bi- partisan as he wants but there is no bi in the Dems worldview these days.
Kevin Peters
Presiden
>Isn’t it odd how the side that asks us to abandon old partisan grievances is the same side publishing books about the Bush family’s alleged ties to the Nazi’s before WWII?
SJ ó Sorry if I misflagged you, but I still disagree with you. Putting aside “old partisan grievances” means ignoring things that A) the Democrats did before, and B) will do again, given the slightest chance.
Ignoring their past behavior is “not just wrong, it’s a mistake” as Napoleon was once told. Particularly since the treatment the MSM would give a Hillary candidacy, for example, would be much closer to that NYT tongue-bath she got last week rather than a real look at her pile of poses and lack of any real achievements Remember, these are people who still treat McCain as a fighting maverick rather than the corrupt censorious opportunist the facts show him to be, and are actively helping Wilson with his edit of history in the current Rove unscandal…
In the absence of a responsible, or even particularly diverse media. it falls to the blogosphere to be the repository of these facts.