Where We Have Come

Hanson. Enough said:

...Yet despite them all, and after this bloody month of November, here we are now on the eve of elections — the most unlikely of all events in the last half-century of civilization. Just think of it: In place of the past Hussein mass murdering and the present ogres of Fallujah, we are to witness an effort to jump-start democracy in the heart of the caliphate of old, right between the world's worst two governments in Syria and Iran, amid treacherous folk like the Saudis, Jordanians, and al Jazeera cheering the insurgents on. How did we come this far and get so close, when the unprincipled such as Jacques Chirac shunned the once-wounded democrat Allawi and sent his plane instead to fetch the murderer Arafat — a profiteer in the guise of a 'leader' who hand-in-glove with Saddam Hussein made France billions in Iraq and then lectured about morality to those who slammed the cash register drawer on his stealthy hands. How could we ever contemplate the chance of elections when the Saudis, the Syrians, and the Iranians sent millions of dollars and thousands of jihadists to stop it all — lest the virus of freedom spread?
[...]

After The Long Post Last Night, This Is Even More Depressing

I spent most of last evening reading and writing on the UN report. Now I see the above regarding Rwanda and the additional corrupt employees of the UN in another sex/power scandal and can’t help but remember the self-righteous criticism of the blind eye of the world, meaning that 'the world paid attention to 9/11 at the expense of 'real' problems like Rwanda:

4. Africa, including Rwanda genocide is featured prominently and as reason enough not to ‘over-react’ to 9/11.

*87. The biggest failures of the United Nations in civil violence have been in halting ethnic cleansing and genocide. In Rwanda, Secretariat officials failed to provide the Security Council with early warning of extremist plans to kill thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus. When the genocide started, troop contributors withdrew peacekeepers, and the Security Council, bowing to United States pressure, failed to respond. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, United Nations peacekeeping and the protection of humanitarian aidbecame a substitute for political and military action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. In Kosovo, paralysis in the Security Council led the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to bypass the United Nations. Only in one instance in the 1990s - in East Timor - did the Security Council, urged on by the Secretary-General, work together with national Governments and regional actors to apply concerted pressure swiftly to halt large-scale killing.

* 40. The credibility of any system of collective security also depends on how well it promotes security for all its members, without regard to the nature of would be beneficiaries, their location, resources or relationship to great Powers.

*41. Too often, the United Nations and its Member States have discriminated in responding to threats to international security. Contrast the swiftness with which the United Nations responded to the attacks on 11 September 2001 with its actions when confronted with a far more deadly event: from April to mid-July 1994, Rwanda experienced the equivalent of three 11 September 2001 attacks every day for 100 days, 31 all in a country whose population was one thirty-sixth that of the United States. Two weeks into the genocide, the Security Council withdrew most of its peacekeepers from the country.32 It took almost a month for United Nations officials to call it a genocide and even longer for some Security Council members.33 When a new mission was finally authorized for Rwanda, six weeks into the genocide, few States offered soldiers.34 The mission deployed as the genocide ended.

*42. Similarly, throughout the deliberation of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, we have been struck once again by the glacial speed at which our institutions have responded to massive human rights violations in Darfur, Sudan.

Chris Muir Is Back and Everyone Has Noticed

I like this take, which is pretty much like my own! Chris rocks, but so many things get in the way. I am glad that he has returned at I believe Day-by-Day will be to the 2000's what Doonesbury was to the 70's, (yeah the 70's was when it was relevant to everything). Anyone remember when the 'wall' went up around the Nixon White House?

Best Introduction to Viet Nam I've Seen

Via Wretchard, who I really wish had trackback. I don’t know how many times I’ve tried to explain to students and professors that the roots of Vietnam were dug in the Eisenhower administration, not just the plans. The article above is the best I’ve seen to illustrate why this was true.

What's Up With the Gas Prices?

I must say I am no conspiracy believer either. Like Hindrocket, I have to wonder what the heck is going on here.

I used to pay little attention to gas prices, then again I had money and rarely was the one filling up the tank. Things have been different for awhile now, I do notice and have for some time. I’ve been confused for the past couple of weeks, being from Illinois and all. Every winter our gas prices jump, big time. It’s been addressed several times, though with no reductions in prices.
Suddenly this year, prices are dropping, from $2.15 to $1.87. Weird for sure.

Sharon, Man of Peace

(via James Taranto, Best of the Web) Sharon has taken great personal and political risks to bring some semblance of peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with little thanks. It’s past time for Mubarak to step up:


Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Thursday described Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as the Palestinians' best chance for peace, and said that Marwan Barghouti's decision to run in the elections for Palestinian Authority chairman had damaged Palestinian unity...

The UN Report, What It Means to the US

I read Captain Ed’s post. Then I spent the next two + hours reading and writing my take on this report. It’s pretty interesting and also fairly strait forward. While a bit longer than normal, keep in mind the report is 92 pages on PDF, before the annexes:

After spending over an hour and a half reading the UN report, certain things emerge at least to my non-legal mind.
1.They do a surprisingly good job of reflecting on some of the core problems within the UN, among them:

* a lack of credibility, related to both a lack of military force and will to use what they have.

*An over dependence on the few that can provide significant force, i.e., US, UK, FR, AU

2. The UN is actively trying to curb US power, while trying to justify their own relevancy-no surprise there, examples:

*82. Many people assumed it was quite natural that the United States should seek Security Council support for going to war against Iraq in 2003. Superpowers, however, have rarely sought Security Council approval for their actions. That all States should seek Security Council authorization to use force is not a time honoured principle; if this were the case, our faith in it would be much stronger. Our analysis suggests quite the opposite - that what is at stake is a relatively new emerging norm, one that is precious but not yet deep-rooted.

*83. The case of Iraq prompted much difference of opinion. Some contend that the Security Council was ineffective because it could not produce Iraqi compliance with its resolutions. Others argue Security Council irrelevance because the Council did not deter the United States and its coalition partners from waging
war. Still others suggest that the refusal of the Security Council to bow to United States pressure to legitimate the war is proof of its relevance and indispensability: although the Security Council did not deter war, it provided a clear and principled standard with which to assess the decision to go to war. The flood of
Foreign Ministers into the Security Council chambers during the debates, and widespread public attention, suggest that the United States decision to bring the question of force to the Security Council reaffirmed not just the relevance but the centrality of the Charter of the United Nations.

3.There is some attempt to make the US appear to be ‘over-reacting’, to the terrorism threat:

*113. A different threat is posed by radiological weapons, which are more weapons of mass disruption than mass destruction. Radiological weapons can use plutonium or highly enriched uranium but can rely simply on radioactive materials, of which there are millions of sources used in medical and industrial facilities worldwide.

*82. The immediate destructive effect of a radiological or “dirty” bomb is only as great as its conventional explosive, and even the radiation effects of such a bomb are likely to be limited.

4. Africa, including Rwanda genocide is featured prominently and as reason enough not to ‘over-react’ to 9/11.

*87. The biggest failures of the United Nations in civil violence have been in halting ethnic cleansing and genocide. In Rwanda, Secretariat officials failed to provide the Security Council with early warning of extremist plans to kill thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus. When the genocide started, troop
contributors withdrew peacekeepers, and the Security Council, bowing to United States pressure, failed to respond. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, United Nations peacekeeping and the protection of humanitarian aid
became a substitute for political and military action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. In Kosovo, paralysis in the Security Council led the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to bypass the United Nations. Only in one instance in the 1990s - in East Timor - did the Security Council, urged on by the Secretary-General, work together with national Governments and regional actors to apply concerted pressure swiftly to halt large-scale killing.

* 40. The credibility of any system of collective security also depends on how well it promotes security for all its members, without regard to the nature of would be beneficiaries, their location, resources or relationship to great Powers.

*41. Too often, the United Nations and its Member States have discriminated in responding to threats to international security. Contrast the swiftness with which the United Nations responded to the attacks on 11 September 2001 with its actions when confronted with a far more deadly event: from April to mid-July 1994, Rwanda experienced the equivalent of three 11 September 2001 attacks every day for 100 days,31 all in a country whose population was one thirty-sixth that of the United States. Two weeks into the genocide, the Security Council withdrew most of its peacekeepers from the country.32 It took almost a month for United Nations officials to call it a genocide and even longer for some Security Council members.33 When a new mission was finally authorized for Rwanda, six weeks into the genocide, few States offered soldiers.34 The mission deployed as the genocide ended.

*42. Similarly, throughout the deliberation of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, we have been struck once again by the glacial speed at which our institutions have responded to massive human rights violations in Darfur, Sudan.

5. The environment, poverty, and HIV take precedence over other threats, they are implied though undocumented causal effects of terrorism-contrary to the reality of middle class/Middle East/Islamic extremism.

6. Related to number 5 is another implied thesis, that if the ‘developed’ countries would ‘really care’ for those less well off, terrorism would be reduced if not eliminated:

*145. Terrorism attacks the values that lie at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations: respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules of war that protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Terrorism flourishes in environments of despair, humiliation, poverty, political oppression, extremism and human rights abuse; it also flourishes in contexts of regional conflict and foreign occupation; and it profits from weak State capacity to maintain law and order.

*146. Two new dynamics give the terrorist threat greater urgency. Al-Qaida is the first instance - not likely to be the last - of an armed non-State network with global reach and sophisticated capacity. Attacks against more than 10 Member States on four continents in the past five years have demonstrated that Al-Qaida and associated entities pose a universal threat to the membership of the United Nations and the United Nations itself. In public statements, Al-Qaida has singled out the United Nations as a major obstacle to its goals and defined it as one of its enemies. Second, the threat that terrorists - of whatever type, with whatever motivation - will seek to cause mass casualties creates unprecedented dangers. Our recommendations provided above on controlling the supply of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological materials and building robust global public health systems are central to a strategy to prevent this threat.

7. There appears to be an attempt, at least to my reading, of socialism writ large:

*89. The role of the United Nations in preventing wars can be strengthened by giving more attention to developing international regimes and norms to govern some of the sources and accelerators of conflict. A very wide range of laws, norms, agreements and arrangements are relevant here, covering legal regimes
and dispute resolution mechanisms, arms control and disarmament regimes, and dialogue and cooperation arrangements. Some examples are set out below.

*90. In the area of legal mechanisms, there have been few more important recent developments than the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court. In cases of mounting conflict, early indication by the Security Council that it is carefully monitoring the conflict in question and that it is willing to use its powers under the Rome Statute might deter parties from committing crimes against humanity and violating the laws of war. The Security Council should stand ready to use the authority it has under the Rome Statute to
refer cases to the International Criminal Court.

8. I Think this may be the section I find the most interesting:

*Collective security and the use of force Synopsis:
What happens if peaceful prevention fails? If none of the preventive measures so far described stop the descent into war and chaos? If distant threats do become imminent? Or if imminent threats become actual? Or if a non-imminent threat nonetheless becomes very real and measures short of the use of military force seem powerless to stop it? We address here the circumstances in which effective collective security may require the backing of military force, starting with the rules of international law that must govern any decision to go to war, if anarchy is not to prevail. It is necessary to distinguish between situations in which a State claims to act in self-defence; situations in which a State is posing a threat to others outside its borders; and situations in which the threat is primarily internal and the issue is the responsibility to protect a State’s own people. In all cases, we believe that the Charter of the United Nations, properly understood and applied, is equal to the task: Article 51 needs neither extension nor restriction of its long-understood scope, and Chapter VII fully empowers the Security Council to deal with every kind of threat that States may confront. The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority but to make it work better than it has. That force can legally be used, does not always mean that, as a matter of good conscience and good sense, it should be used. We identify a set of guidelines - five criteria of legitimacy - which we believe the Security Council (and anyone else involved in these decisions) should always address in considering whether to authorize or apply military force. The adoption of these guidelines (seriousness of threat, proper purpose, last resort, proportional means and balance of consequences) will not produce agreed conclusions with push-button predictability, but should significantly improve the chances of reaching international consensus on what have been in recent years deeply divisive issues. We also address here the other major issues that arise during and after violent conflict, including the needed capacities for peace enforcement, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, and the protection of civilians. A central recurring theme is the necessity for all members of the international community, developed and developing States alike, to be much more forthcoming in providing and supporting deployable military resources. Empty gestures are all too easy to make: an effective, efficient and equitable collective security system demands real commitment.

9. There seems to be a real attempt to declare the US acted illegally in Iraq:

*185. The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 2.4, expressly prohibits Member States from using or threatening force against each other, allowing only two exceptions: self-defence under Article 51, and military measures authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII (and by extension for regional organizations under Chapter VIII) in response to “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression”.

*186. For the first 44 years of the United Nations, Member States often violated these rules and used military force literally hundreds of times,104 with a paralysed Security Council passing very few Chapter VII resolutions105 and Article 51 only rarely providing credible cover. Since the end of the cold war, however, the yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown. There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single - even benignly motivated - superpower.

*187. But in seeking to apply the express language of the Charter, three particularly difficult questions arise in practice: first, when a State claims the right to strike preventively, in self-defence, in response to a threat which is not imminent; secondly, when a State appears to be posing an external threat, actual or potential, to other States or people outside its borders, but there is disagreement in the Security Council as to what to do about it; and thirdly, where the threat is primarily internal, to a State’s own people.

10. It appears to me that they are attempting to take away the right of ‘preemption’ to perceived threat:

*188. The language of this article is restrictive: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security”. However, a threatened State, according to long established international law,106 can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate. The problem arises where the threat in question is not imminent but still claimed to be real: for example the acquisition, with allegedly hostile intent, of nuclear weapons making capability.

*189. Can a State, without going to the Security Council, claim in these circumstances the right to act, in anticipatory self-defence, not just pre-emptively (against an imminent or proximate threat) but preventively (against a non-imminent or non-proximate one)? Those who say “yes” argue that the potential harm from some threats (e.g., terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon) is so great that one simply cannot risk waiting until they become imminent, and that less harm may be done (e.g., avoiding a nuclear exchange or radioactive fallout from a reactor destruction) by acting earlier.

*190. The short answer is that if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorize such action if it chooses to. If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion,
negotiation, deterrence and containment - and to visit again the military option.

*191. For those impatient with such a response, the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed
action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so act is to allow all.

*192. We do not favour the rewriting or reinterpretation of Article 51.

*196. It may be that some States will always feel that they have the obligation to their own citizens, and the capacity, to do whatever they feel they need to do, unburdened by the constraints of collective Security Council process. But however understandable that approach may have been in the cold war years, when the United Nations was manifestly not operating as an effective collective security system, the world has now changed and expectations about legal compliance are very much higher.

11. The balance of the report mostly addresses peacekeeping and nation building, the later the UN has had some luck with.

IAEA On Iran

Not sure why this is considered news. I had not heard of anyone outside of the US call for the EU 3 to be more careful in the negotiations, now we hear lamentations from El Baradei:

VIENNA (Reuters) - Inspectors from the U.N. nuclear watchdog would like to visit a secret military site in Iran that an exile group said was a nuclear weapons site, but they lack the legal authority to go there, U.N. diplomats told Reuters.

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is solely for electricity generation, earlier this week escaped possible U.N. Security Council economic sanctions after agreeing to freeze all activities which could be used to make bomb-grade material.

The New York Times reported Thursday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believes satellite photographs show that high explosives are being tested and that procurement records show equipment has been bought that can be used for making bomb-grade uranium, citing unnamed diplomats.
The intelligence came from several sources, including nations that are members of the IAEA, the Times reported.

But the military sites the inspectors would like to inspect -- the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran and Lavizan II in northeastern Tehran -- are legally off limits to the IAEA, which only has the right to monitor civilian nuclear programs.

"The IAEA simply has no authority to go to sites that are not declared nuclear sites," a diplomat close to the IAEA inspection process told Reuters. He said that the IAEA had not asked to inspect Lavizan II, although they would like to.

Last December, Iran signed the IAEA's Additional Protocol, granting the agency more authority to conduct short-notice, intrusive inspections. Although the protocol has not been ratified, Tehran has been acting as if it was in force.

However, this extended authority is only limited to declared sites. Additional access to locations like Parchin and Lavizan II has to be negotiated with the country under inspection.

[. . .]

He said that if Iran was hiding a nuclear weapons program, as Washington believes, the IAEA would probably never find it without additional inspection authority.

Diplomats and weapons experts said that the IAEA inspection process had been dealt a severe blow this week when France, Britain and Germany gave in to Iranian demands that a clause demanding Iran grant the IAEA "unrestricted access" to sites in Iran be removed from a draft resolution.

The resolution passed by the IAEA board only calls on Iran to grant access "in accordance with the Additional Protocol."

"It was a terrible blow to this effort to find these potential nuclear weapons sites," David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of a Washington-based think-tank, told Reuters. . .

John Kass On Patrick Daley

Kass came to the Trib to try to fill the hole left by Mike Royko. While I guess no one will be able to do that for me, Kass sometimes comes close. In this column he does an admirable job of reflecting Chicago values, which are a bit more nuanced than some other cities:


Exactly one week before Richard Daley talked about his only surviving son, Patrick, enlisting in the Army, the mayor was at a news conference, waving a section of the Tribune at reporters.

Daley didn't mention Patrick then. The mayor hinted at it, though, with that paper, printed with photographs of young Americans killed in battle in Iraq.

The news conference was about some new plan to use computers to help firefighters combat fires in high-rise office buildings. Next year, they'll offer another new computer plan.

When the news conference was about over and he was changing the subject, Daley deliberately pulled the section of the paper out of his coat--he'd kept it with him for days--and waved it.

I'm not suggesting the Tribune is his favorite newspaper. That wouldn't be true. Most folks in media in this town know that when the Daleys want to put out a message, both the good and the bad, they go elsewhere.

But Daley didn't have a political message then. He wasn't speaking as mayor, but I didn't know it at the time.The father in him was speaking. And he found the Sunday, Nov. 21 Perspective section to be compelling.

It contained photographs of Americans killed in Iraq, from May 26 through Nov. 11. Thanksgiving was days away.He had the paper folded in his hands. He didn't wave it angrily, he just held it up there, above his shoulder, to make sure we reporters would see it.

"When we reflect upon Thanksgiving, we have to look upon all those men and women that have been killed in the line of duty," he said.

His face was gray. He was composed but tired."You look at the ages. You look at 20, 19, 21, 25, 28, 37," he said. "And you think about all these and you go through these pages and you look at these pictures of these young men and women that have been killed in the line of duty."

They keep pointing that out," Daley said. "I think all of us, both schools and the churches and synagogues and mosques and everybody else, should reflect upon what this country means in regards to Thanksgiving.

"Then he turned and walked away. That was last Tuesday, just before Thanksgiving.

And on Tuesday of this week, the mayor talked about Patrick's decision to join the military, how it was his son's decision and that he didn't try to stop him. The mayor and Maggie Daley lost their other son, Kevin, to spina bifida, in 1981.

"I'm very proud of the decision he made," Daley said. "He has friends who are in the military today. He has friends who are firemen and policemen. He believes that is part of public service. I'm very proud of his decision and stand by his decision.

"This had been discussed, privately, in Daley family circles for more than a month. A few days ago, it had leaked to other City Hall insiders and business people and Bridgeport types.

So it is natural that there are some skeptics out there who wonder if there's anything else behind it, since Patrick Daley is 29, with a University of Chicago graduate degree and contacts that could make him wealthy.

I understand. This is a political town where hearts are brutalized by the tribalism and greed and corruption of what goes on at City Hall. Others can't stop nattering about whether a stint in the Army will be good for a political career, if Patrick Daley chooses one.

Yes, he washed out of West Point years ago, and, yes, political strings were pulled to secure that appointment. Yes, he has been shamed by failure.Yes, he got into trouble with the law, at a brawl at his family's summer home before he went to West Point, and he has gotten into scrapes here in Chicago.

Boys with red blood in them get into scrapes with the law. Perhaps you know one yourself. If his name weren't Daley, you'd never have heard about it. And, yes, he has hung out on Rush Street with people who've wanted to use him.

"He's tired of all that," said a man who knows him. "It's hard being the son of the mayor. Even the mayor knows that, since he was the son of the mayor too. "Think how hard your heart would become. Every time you met someone, you'd have to wonder why he or she was being so friendly. You'd have to wonder about that disturbing glint deep in the smiling eyes, about whether you were being set up.

Even though I'm critical of his father's deals, I've always considered the mayor's children off limits for my column, even when they dabble in business and on the edge of politics.But I'd like the skeptics to consider something. Patrick Daley comes from privilege. His father has great power. Yet he's like thousands of other young people in this one thing.He's willing to risk his life for his country, like all those other sons and daughters, their photographs in the paper in the mayor's hand as he waved it and thought of his son.

jskass@tribune.com

Syria Getting With the Program?

It would be nice if the countries that are aiding and abetting terrorism would get with the program. It would save so much time and trouble. The above link was found courtesy of Blaster’s blog.

UPDATE: Then again, maybe not. Guess one cannot afford to ignore the likelihood that WMD went missing in Syria.

We Owe A Debt

There is no doubt that those of us the reap the benefits of this country, are in debt to a level that cannot be repaid. We must be worthy of their sacrifice.

Thank you.

LOL Those French!

. . . "History has been a little hard on the French lately," said Steven Englund, an American award-winning biographer of Napoleon. "And I think they're looking for reasons to celebrate their own history."

[. . .]

Ya think?

What A Wonderful Idea!

I think I'll steal it! Ho Ho Ho!!!

I just spent the better part of 2.5 hours going from Border's, to Walden's, to Barnes & Noble gathering copies of Dickens', A Christmas Carol. Seems the 8th grade read part of it last year from their literature book, but thought they'd like to read the original. Who am I to fight about reading Dickens?

My own children and I have read from a Christmas Treasury since they were small, my daughter just emailed me to make sure I know she still wants to. I'll force myself!

Are Things Looking Up in the Ukraine?

I'm pretty confused how this is going to play out. Seems that in actuality there is not legislative control, but this does appear to get around that. I hope so, read somewhere that the Ukraine could inspire other Eastern bloc countries towards reform, much as Poland did to the Ukraine.


UPDATE: Looking like events might really be going better, via The Command Post.
UPDATE: In the comments, you'll find that Dan, from California Yankee has added more up-to-date info. Dan was the original source for The Command Post link.

Mayor Daley's Son A Republican?

As Blackfive notes, those of us in Chicago have a pretty good idea who worked for the Dems and not. It's not just Patrick, in many ways even the mayor was pretty supportive of GW in the ways that count. Unfortunately, not enough to turn blue to red.

A Great Christmas Gift Idea

Doesn't have to be just for the kids!

Iran and the EU/UN

In light of yesterday’s stories of Iran’s celebration, this editorial is welcome.

Another Call That Kofi Must Go

WSJ has the above editorial, which does not mince words:

It's time for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign.
Over the past seven months, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has conducted an exhaustive, bipartisan investigation into the scandal surrounding the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. . .

. . . Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands--maybe even millions--of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.

While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose.

Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. for all but a few days of the Oil-for-Food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses. . .

Another op-ed by Claudia Rosett looks at the Kojo connection and Mr. Annan’s failure to take responsibility:

[. . .]

Not that one would expect the secretary-general to spend long nights poring over details of every contractor hired by his own Procurement Division. But it is reasonable to expect that somewhere in the multibillion-dollar procurement operations of the United Nations there would be a functional mechanism to require disclosure by all U.N. contractors of such details as, say, a stream of payments to the immediate family of a top U.N. official.

That is not merely a matter, as Secretary-General Annan suggested, of "perception of conflict of interests." Even if nothing wrong gets done, it is a conflict of interest. Both Cotecna and Kojo Annan, through his lawyers, have denied any wrongdoing. Fine. But given that the U.N. is supposed to be a public institution, not a privately held secret society, what's needed here is systematic full disclosure. Had this been the prevailing climate at the U.N. during Oil for Food, there would have been far fewer opportunities for Saddam to scam billions out of the program, and maybe even a lot fewer surprises for the secretary-general.

Some Overhauls of IDEA Passed

IDEA has been law since the 70's, with one change under Clinton, this has been long overdue. It looks like the 'experts' are guardedly optimistic.

Ukraine Parliament Passes No-Confidence Vote

Seems they may be heading for new elections, rather than a revote. May be a play for time, but not sure that's going to make a difference. I think both the 'world' and the Ukrainian people will be very focused on the process, whichever way it goes.

Once Again, the UN Has to Go!

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran claimed victory in its nuclear dispute Tuesday, saying it has isolated the United States while preserving its right to enrich uranium.

Iran said it has not abandoned its right to enrich uranium, in spite of U.S. pressure, noting the agreement it struck this week with the U.N. nuclear agency will only suspend processing for several months.

Speaking to reporters, Iran's top nuclear official, Hasan Rowhani, hailed the resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday authorizing IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to monitor Iran's commitment to freeze uranium enrichment activities. Such enrichment can produce either low-grade fuel for nuclear reactors or the raw material for atomic weapons.

Monday's resolution followed a Nov. 7 agreement on suspending enrichment activities that France, Germany and Britain negotiated with Iran to stave off tougher action by the U.N. watchdog agency, which could have referred Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"This new situation is a turning point in Iran's nuclear case because, for the first time, the (IAEA) board of governors acknowledged Iran's right to peaceful nuclear activities," Rowhani said.

It was, he said, a "great success for Iran and Europeans" because it required Iran to suspend uranium enrichment only temporarily.

The United States suspects Iran has a secret program to produce nuclear weapons and has been lobbying for the country's nuclear file to go before the Security Council. Iran insists its program is strictly for generating electricity.

After the IAEA passed the resolution, U.S. chief delegate Jackie Sanders told the board there were more than a dozen open questions about Iran's nuclear intentions despite the agency's nearly two-year investigation of the country.

"This makes it clear that the IAEA cannot ... offer the necessary assurances that Iran is not attempting to produce nuclear material for weapons," Sanders said.

Rowhani was dismissive of U.S. arguments.

"We have proved that our enemies are liars, and the path of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been legal and peaceful," he said.

"Despite American propaganda, Iran has not abandoned fuel cycle and it will not do that," Rowhani said.
"The suspension (of enrichment activities) will be limited to the negotiation period with Europe and not beyond. In case negotiations cease or are unsuccessful, there will not be any sort of suspension."

The negotiation period, Rowhani said, "means several months, not (a) year."

Iran is negotiating with Europe to acquire advanced nuclear technology.

Rowhani reiterated Iran is committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has no ambition to build an atomic bomb.

"Iran has never pursued the production of nuclear weapons and it will never do that," Rowhani said.

So what else is new???

Hmm, Pro-Choice? Whose Choice?

Too say that one does not follow the other, would be denial. ~Shiver~

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives — a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.
Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

[. . .]

Chicago Connections and The War On Terror

Yesterday it was the story of Michael Jordan's brother, my hero, James Jordan. Today it's the Mayor of Chicago's son, Patrick. Here's a bite:

[...]

In an exclusive interview with the Sun-Times, Patrick Daley -- who recently graduated with honors from the University of Chicago's MBA program and could have pursued lucrative job offers -- told Sneed why he made the decision.

"It's been in the back of my mind for some time," said Patrick Daley, one of Mayor Daley's four children, including Nora, Elizabeth and a second son, Kevin, who died. "I left West Point during my freshman year when I was 18 years old and always remembered their motto, 'Duty, Honor and Country.' But I was so young and not really old enough to understand what it really meant. But I know now.

"I suppose when you're 18 years old -- as I was at West Point -- you're selfish and I didn't want to devote 10 years to an uncertain future. It took me a while to learn that there's also a virtue in selflessness. And I believe that virtue is to serve your country. And the values of West Point are still with me."

So what turned him around?

"I suppose you could say that one defining moment was Sept. 11 and the nightmare at the World Trade Center. I had flown into New York the night before because I had worked there for Bear Stearns. But I was frustrated, I didn't know how I could help. I didn't know what I could do, so I gave blood and volunteered at a hospital.

Decided in grad school

"But it was really last fall when I decided I wanted to serve my country by joining the military. It wasn't that anything special was happening. I was still in graduate school. But it had always been in the back of my mind. And before I knew it, it was in the forefront. I graduated from the University of Chicago in June and could have gone into investment banking or private equity, but it didn't surprise anyone when I told my close friends I wanted to join the military.

"I'm 29 and on the old side to go into the military but not too old."

[...]

James Taranto Has A Wonderful Suggestion

The other day Maureen Dowd wrote about her family Thanksgiving. James has the great idea that the NY Times should hire her brother, Kevin, to take Safire’s place. Yeah!

Might Be My Take

Haven't seen it from Instapundit or Littlegreenfootballs or DailyPundit or Powerline, but it seems that INDCJournal has a problem with how MSM is being dealt with post 2004 election. . .though perhaps he would say we digress? http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001332.php

MS Journalism School On the MSM

Interesting collection of excerpts. Sample:

"They fancy themselves thinkers, not mere scribes."Stephen F. Hayes, Weekly Standard, Nov. 15th:The Other Losers Tuesday Night: The failed media effort to oust George W. Bush

For some 16 months, then, journalists at the New York Times and the Washington Post and the television networks saw themselves not as conveyors of facts but as truth-squadders, toiling away on the gray margins of political debate to elucidate the many misstatements, exaggerations, and outright lies of the Bush administration and its campaign affiliates. Sometimes these "fact-check" pieces were labeled "news analysis." More often, they were splashed on the front page as straight news or presented on the evening news.
Many of these reporters were trained at the best universities in the country. They fancy themselves thinkers, not mere scribes. They go to work every day to tell us not what the Bush administration has said, but what it has left unsaid.

"They have been defeated."Diana West, townhall.com, Nov. 8:Election Day reflection

There is something close to poetic justice in the creaky monolith of Old Media showing its advanced age and crotchety bias in a campaign that now ends in the defeat of John Kerry. That is, in important ways, the mainstream and John Kerry are kindred creatures of the far-away 1960s, both setting their anti-establishment ways during both the Vietnam War and, stateside, the anti-Vietnam War. You might even say that together they helped create and perpetuate the poisonous myth of the Vietnam veteran as enemy of humanity -- touchstone of the self-hating American.

And now, with the re-election of George W. Bush, they have been defeated.

"Unpaid adjunct to the Kerry campaign."Investor's Business Daily, editorial, Nov. 2:By A Landslide

By press time last night, we weren't sure who would be the winner of the 2004 presidential contest. But we were certain of one big loser: the media.

We've watched in slack-jawed amazement over recent weeks as the big media, fearful of another four years for President Bush, have basically become an unpaid adjunct to the Kerry campaign.

"Yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down."Peggy Noonan, Opinion Journal, Nov. 4:So Much to Savor: A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media

But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.

"Still angry that they couldn't deliver their fifteen percent."Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, Nov. 3:Bitter, Angry Losers

No, not the Democrats, but the real losers in this election -- the Old Media, still angry that they couldn't deliver their fifteen percent. I just heard E.J. Dionne on All Things Considered (audio not posted yet) delivering himself of an astonishing amount of anti-Bush venom. Dan Rather was reportedly dissing bloggers last night. And, of course, there are the rather churlish remarks of ABC's Mark Halperin, declaring Bush a "lame duck" before his first term has even ended.

They know who the big losers were in this election.

Better Late Than Never: Fallujah, US Soldiers, and European Media

Via Davids Medienkritik, I found this post on the Corner, scroll down a bit. In spite of all the criticism of the Iraqis considering us ‘occupiers’, in Fallujah they seemed to be hoping to make things just a bit more comfortable for our soldiers:

MORE ON FALLUJAH [Rich Lowry]E-mail:"Rich, I am also a professor at a military-related institution, and my little brother is an enlisted Marine (a sniper with 1-3) in Fallujah. This weekend he called for the first time since the battle began. He informed us that a large number of the residents of Fallujah, before fleeing the battle, left blankets and bedding for the Marines and Soldiers along with notes thanking the Americans for liberating their city from the terrorists, as well as invitations to the Marines and Soldiers to sleep in their houses. I've yet to see a report in the media of this. Imagine that.

Also from Davids Medienkritik, same post, there is more good news for the US:

The Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk criticized Western media "misinformation" about his country and insisted that Iraqis are looking forward to elections "because they will be useful for national unity." "It is not all death and destruction," explained Archbishop Louis Sako in an interview Tuesday published by AsiaNews. "Much is positive in Iraq today," he said. "Universities are operating, schools are open, people go out onto the streets normally."

(...)

"Iraqis are happy to be having elections and are looking forward to them because they will be useful for national unity," he said. "Perhaps not everything will go exactly to plan, but, with time, things will improve. Finally Iraqis will be given the chance to choose. "Why is there so much noise and debate coming out from the West when before, under Saddam, there were no free elections, but no one said a thing?" (...)
Archbishop Sako criticized Europe's absence from the scene. "Europe is absent, it's not out there; the United States is on its own," he said.

On SwiftBoat Members

Via Captain’s Quarters. This is unfair on so many levels, one really doesn’t know what to say. Mind you, I’ve never been sure that the Kerry record in Vietnam should have been an issue, yet HE was the one who made it a centerpiece of his campaign.

My visceral reaction is that Brinkley has lost all credibility which is a shame, he’s a heck of a story teller.

Time For Kofi to Go

Glenn Reynolds had the above article published in WSJ today. Former Czech President Vaclav Havel would certainly be an improvement over Kofi, but then again I might even be able to support Clinton for the postion, well probably NOT. Any other suggestions?

I do think it interesting just how much press the UN scandals have been getting since GW's re-election.

MJ's Brother, In Iraq!

I hope everyone had a terrific Thanksgiving. I have a lot to be thankful for, not the least being my kids who kept things hectic, but helped out in the decorating for the holidays department. They've all returned to school for finals, in about 3 weeks.

Thanks for the emails regarding the institute, it went great! Fa la la la la, a little extra shopping $.

I just saw the above link on Powerline, thank you James Jordan for your service! I've always admired MJ's skill, especially for the Bulls, but his brother is my hero.

Almost bedtime. Funny, first think in the morning and last thing at night:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041128/ap_on_re_us/jordan_s_brother_iraq