Examines issues of the day against a triumvirate of core principles: liberty, responsibility and justice.
comments: americanbeacon@hotmail.com
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is where you stick random tidbits of information about yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thursday, April 22, 2004
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude
and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can
you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I
don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and Replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet
above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and
100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."
I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're
going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.
You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect ME
to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in
before we met, but somehow, now it's MY fault."
4/22/2004 12:24:00 PM
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Long Version:
Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin have American blood on their hands. It is their corruption and betrayal that made the war in Iraq inevitable. This means that John Kerry is right about a "coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted" in Iraq - however this does not describe our side, but that of our enemy. While the left loves to trot out the old "no blood for oil" canard during any Persian Gulf region intervention, it turns out that we were forced to spill blood only because of the greed of Saddam Hussein's business partners. Because of our "allies'" oil payoffs, a war ensued. The right should be chanting "no oil for blood."
Revelations of what is being dubbed UNSCAM (the name combines the Abscam scandal and the United Nations' first Iraq inspections group named UNSCOM) not only discredit the UN even further, the mere possibility of which is remarkable in itself, but also have the effect of identifying precisely why Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched. It also means that John Kerry's carefully "nuanced" explanation for his vacillating and erratic position on the war in Iraq needs to be, shall we say, fine-tuned once again.
What we now know is that Saddam Hussein hijacked the U.N.'s "oil-for-food" program and used it both to enrich himself and to buy influence around the world. He and his co-conspirators made money through kickbacks, and combinations of overcharges and undercharges. Estimates of the theft that occurred top $10 billion. With 25 million citizens and a 2002 GDP per capita of $2,400 (from the CIA factbook), the roughly $400 per person stolen by Saddam and his enablers is significant - 2 months of income.
How did Saddam manage to skim so much off the top? Wasn't there someone at the U.N. providing oversight? Perhaps this is why Benon Savan, the UN official charged by Secretary General Kofi Annan to administer the program, was allocated over 11 million barrels of oil. In case that did not buy enough influence, a fellow by the name of Kojo Annan (the last name is familiar for a reason) also benefited through his employer, which just so happened to have been hired by the UN to administer the food and medicine imports into Iraq. The U.N. itself "earned" over $2 billion in administrative fees. General Tommy Franks was right when he called it the "oil-for-palaces" program, but they were not only Saddam's palaces.
The most disquieting piece of the story, though, is not that Saddam stole from his people, for that is standard operating procedure for any dictator from Yaser Arafat to Fidel Castro. The most astonishing discoveries are the identities of those who benefited from Saddam's largess. Not surprisingly, they include high government and civic leaders from two veto-wielding Security Council members: France and Russia. Also not surprisingly, they include Saddam apologists from coalition nations, such as George Galloway, the highly vocal anti-war Scot.
This is where culpability for the war comes into play. While President Bush and Prime Minister Blair actually ordered the invasion, the die was cast when France, Russia and the U.N. signed onto Saddam's payroll. The reason is that the use-of-force threat that was the core of Resolution 1441 was rendered impotent since Saddam had 2 Security Council vetoes in his back pocket. As a result, Saddam reasonably assumed that he was immune from decisive U.N. action, which he was.
Nobody, not even the most anti-war activist, would argue that Saddam had any intention of genuinely adhering to U.N. mandates unless he was confronted with an ultimatum. Indeed, John Kerry explains his vote-for-the-war-as-a-vote-against-the-war (quintessential Kerry flip-flopping) by saying that he thought Saddam would cooperate with UN inspectors only when faced with a credible threat to enforce disarmament. Kerry knew any threat devoid of credible military action would be empty and that Saddam would simply ignore it. By providing Saddam with the confidence of being immune to an attack, he was free to disregard all U.N. demands and flout all attempts to enforce them. Iraqi deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz confirmed this to an American Congressional delegation by admitting that Saddam refused to comply because he never believed the threatened use of force was credible.
With a Security Council Resolution 1441 stipulating that Iraqi non-compliance would trigger "serious consequences" (diplomatic lingo for an attack) and with coalition troops poised at the borders and ready to enforce 1441, Saddam's defiance left Bush and Blair only two options: (i) to back down, and irreparably damage American, British and U.N. credibility, and embolden other tyrants and terrorists; or (ii) to call Saddam's bluff, and ensure that future U.N. resolutions and American ultimatums would be respected. Fortunately for future American Presidents and British Prime Ministers, indeed for all peace-loving people, they chose the former option. Moamar Qaddafi's U-turn on his WMD programs is simply one example of the value of credibility.
Clearly, the institution that is supposed to be the forum for international discussion on issues of importance, such as terrorism, weapons proliferation and enforcement of its own resolutions, was compromised by corruption and graft. For the U.N., it is simply another major blow to its already negligible integrity. For John Kerry, it raises the question of why Americans should submit questions about our security to the U.N. or to our "allies" for settlement and why we should invest in them the inordinate trust and moral authority he does. And for Annan, Chirac and Putin, it raises the question of when they will apologize to the loved ones of our fallen warriors for ensuring that no peaceful outcome would come about.
*******
Short version:
Nobody debates that Iraq violated U.N. resolutions unless confronted with credible threats of military force, which Resolution 1441 finally instituted. When they signed onto Saddam's payroll through Oil-for-Food, France, Russia and the U.N. undermined that threat by providing him with the confidence to dodge genuine compliance. The only options left to Bush and Blair in the face of Saddam's defiance were: (i) to back down, and irreparably damage American credibility and embolden other tyrants and terrorists; or (ii) to call Saddam's bluff, and ensure that future U.N. resolutions and American ultimatums would be respected.
Proving that the military threat had been rendered impotent, former Iraqi deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told a Congressional delegation that Saddam never believed the U.S.- and U.K.-led coalition would invade. By providing Saddam with what he regarded as immunity to enforcement, France, Russia and the U.N. itself all but ensured that a war would ensue.
4/21/2004 08:08:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
