US distances itself from lawmaker's call Annan's resignation(what BS)

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States distanced itself from a call by a leading US lawmaker for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) to resign over the scandal-plagued Iraq (news - web sites) oil-for-food program but for the second time in three days declined to give the UN chief a full vote of confidence.



The State Department said Annan was "a valued interlocutor" who was working "positively and cooperatively" with inquiries into the scandal but would not directly reject Senator Norm Coleman's demand for Annan to step down.


"Look, Secretary Annan is a valued interlocutor and has been working, I think, positively and cooperatively in trying to get to the bottom of this oil-for-food program," deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said.


~snip~

However, Ereli would not respond to a barrage of questions about whether Washington agreed or disagreed with Coleman about Annan, who has tasked former US Federal Reserve (news - web sites) head Paul Volcker with heading an independent probe into the matter

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041201/pl_afp/us_un_iraq_food_annan&cid=1521&ncid=1473

I'd bet he's fully sanctioned by the * misadministration...just like the 2 guys holding up the CIA reform. More good cop, bad cop. :eyes:

[Massacure]

1. lol one more straw on the back of the Rethuglicans.

[natrat]

3. sick-norm coleman ripping kofi A. a new asshole on cnn

meanwhile *ushco cant account for billions of Iraq's money. What a world

[Chipper Chat]

14. I saw that interview......

Coleman looked like a horny teen-aged boy trying to suggest that his Dad's respectable whore fire her pimp because the pimp's son was making some extra cash selling rap CDs on the side.

[maddezmom]

2. Coleman on CNn now, saying we are walking down the path to withhold

funds from the UN. Hmmmm, how bout we wait for the full investigation of Oil for Food and how the US is implicated first. Me thinks Annan knows too much.

[stevedeshazer]

4. Another link, with pic

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/01/annan.coleman/



Which guy do YOU trust here?

[Lautremont]

9. Well, not the guy on the left.

He looks dead and stoned at the same time. Is that Norm Coleman, the anti-Wellstone?

[stevedeshazer]

10. He looks really bad

But his "pronouncement" was even worse. What a scumbag.

How does a guy like that get elected in Minnesota?

Whoops, nevermind.

[0007]

23. Norm has a mouth full of smegma.

How Minnesota elected him is beyond my wildest comprehension. I've always thought Minnesotans were smarter than that!

[trotsky]

29. Minnesota elected him because...

the Repukes succeeded in changing the election from being about who would make the best senator for Minnesota into a referendum on the "appropriateness" of the Wellstone memorial service.

I witnessed this with my own eyes - people bought the Repuke spin, and MANY decided to vote "against the Democrats" because of 2 minutes in a 2 hour touching memorial.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Bush doesn't want Annan to resign. They want him in their pocket. He is now

He should resign.

Don

[Laelth]

11. Absolutely.

Standard good cop/bad cop. Very effective strategy to make Annan more compliant.

Revolting. :puke:

-Laelth

[Guarionex]

6. Somebody's national chauvinism got carried away....

Coleman seems to be going out on a limb alone...the rest of the Republicans don't have the guts to voice the same hatred of the U.N.

By the way, did ayone see Coulter and Hannity display American national chauvinism at its worst? Republicans LOVE the Oil for Food scandal...yet forget how the United States has misspent Iraqi assets after the war. I wrote about it in my blog http://firebrandsbreath.blogspot.com.

[Chipper Chat]

15. The Oil-for-Food scandal is an obsession with Hannity...

He uses it as a comeback with every lib guest on his show . One of these days SOMEONE is going to whop him good.

[gratuitous]

7. In a country with a working Fourth Estate

Every Republican who appears on every talk show for the next week or so should be grilled about the Coleman gaffe: Do you disagree with Sen. Coleman? Was he talking out his ass? What sanction will the party impose on him? Why not?

[MSgt213]

8. This is the same game they played when they said Clinton trashed the WH

Make allegations but, refuse to clarify what it is your talking about.

[kc.ink]

16. that's what the * administration has always done. n/t

[hatrack]

12. Since when is Slimy Norm a "Leading US Lawmaker"?!?!?

That tired old philandering vacuum-bag couldn't lead a kindergarten class to an ice cream truck. :puke:

[Sideways]

27. I Love You Hatrack Smart And Funny Guys Rock

:loveya:

[high density]

13. That didn't stop NBC News from airing a segment

on Senator Idiot's comments during the evening news tonight.

[flying_blind]

17. Maybe they were worried about the DICK's little secret

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=3767#

...the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil. Since the oil-for-food program began, Iraq has sold $40 billion worth of oil. U.S. and European officials have long argued that the increase in Iraq's oil production also expanded Saddam's ability to use some of that money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq was skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program thanks to companies like Halliburton and former executives such as Cheney.

UN documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the UN's oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to UN documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al-Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of its foreign subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001.

The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, UN records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts – later blocked by the United States, according to the Post – to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War years earlier.

Cheney's hardline stance against Iraq on the campaign trail is hypocritical considering that during his tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, Cheney pushed the UN Security Council to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil-related equipment, to Iraq. Cheney has said sanctions against countries like Iraq unfairly punish U.S. companies.

[maddezmom]

18. kick

[flying_blind]

51. Dick did it

[G_j]

19. Probe endorsed, while sidestepping senator's demand

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002106804_annan02.html

Probe of U.N. oil-for-food cheating endorsed

By The Associated Press and Reuters



WASHINGTON — The State Department yesterday endorsed a Senate investigation into possible fraud in the United Nations oil-for-food program while sidestepping a senator's demand that Secretary-General Kofi Annan resign.

"That is not something, frankly, that is in front of us," agency deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said. "What is in front of us is ensuring that if there is wrongdoing, it is fully understood and that appropriate action be taken."

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that Annan should quit 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."

The oil-for-food program, which began in 1996, permitted Iraq to sell oil, provided that the revenue went for food, medicine and other necessities. At the time, Iraq under President Saddam Hussein was laboring under tough U.N. economic penalties.

..more..

[LynnTheDem]

20. WHAT oil for food "SCANDAL"??? As only Ahmed Chalabi has any "proof"

of any such "scandal", and he refuses to show these mystery documents of "proof" to ANYONE.

So I ask, WHAT "oil for food scandal"???

Can rightwingnuts REALLY be so stupid as to still believe anything the Iranian spy conman fugitive criminal Chalabi says???

Yup. They really are that stupid.

[byronm]

22. And

Wasn't Ahmed Chalabi idicted in absentia over millions in bank fraud as well?

[LynnTheDem]

24. Yes, and he's a fugitive

Wanted in 3 nations for crimes.

But sometimes he's bush's good buddy who sits next to Laura bush. bush likes criminals.

Sometimes tho Chalabi is someone bush has barely heard of...like when the US had an arrest warrant out for Chalabi's giving US top secret info to Iran.

[byronm]

21. I wrote about this idiot in my blog yesterday

http://www.progressiveamericans.org

If you dig around this guy is nothing but a rethug pony boy whos mission is to "cooperate with the Democrats of his state"

*sic*

[Hunting Deer]

25. It's called a squeeze play !

I think we have a "good cop, bad cop" play going on here. Norm Coleman never says or does much without checking with the White House first. I think the UN is getting sent a message; lets see some cooperation in investigating this scandel in exchange for the 24% of the UN budget the United States pays.

I am new here.

I have heard the DU forums contain a lot of very left people. I consider myself a moderate, pro gun, for limited abortion, and a believer in our maker.

It will be interesting!

[LynnTheDem]

26. 24% of the budget the US PAYS???

Yes, the US is very good at paying their share, aren't they.

*dripping with sarcasm*

[trotsky]

28. Utter B.S.

The US has been in arrears on our UN payments for years, thanks to the right-wing types.

By the way, MOST Democrats are also "believer(s) in our maker." I'm an atheist, but not all Democrats are.

[Hunting Deer]

33. Sorry, you are wrong

Despite the fact that news articles routinely discuss the U.S. debt to the United Nations, no such debt exists.

Assertions about this nonexistent debt ignore the billions of dollars of military and other assistance that has been provided to the world organization but neither properly credited nor reimbursed to the United States; they divert attention from United States policy of providing resources, personnel and equipment to the UN without the approval of Congress.

As far as our dues: we are current.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

35. "Despite the fact that news articles routinely discuss the U. S., debt..."

So in other words, you're saying that the numerous NEWS REPORTS that say the United States owes a ton of money to the United Nations are wrong becasue YOU SAY SO?
And you provide NO news sources to back up your link, yet you acknowledge that there are news articles saying the US is in debt to the UN.
That's rich.

[Hunting Deer]

38. read the US cost of the UN and weep.

For years, we've been paying 25 percent of the budget while being treated like a Third World nonentity. Sob stories about the UN's "financial crisis" deserve a belly laugh. The UN's cash shortage is caused by its corrupt and extravagant spending, not by a backsliding or penurious United States.

The general annual UN budget has expanded from $20 million and 1,500 employees in 1945, to $10 billion and 50,000 employees today. Of this, U.S. taxpayers are contributing an estimated $4 billion a year.

The United States is assessed 25 percent of the UN's general budget, double that of any other nation. Japan is assessed 12.45 percent, the United Kingdom 8.93 percent, and more than 90 countries only 0.01 percent each. The other UN countries even ganged up and voted the U.S. off of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions which makes up the UN budgets.

When he was Secretary General, Boutros-Ghali endorsed the notion that the UN should impose global taxes in order to relieve the UN of any accountability for contributions from its member nations. The first thing Madeleine Albright should do is demand that UN Secretary General Annan repudiate that impudent suggestion.

The UN "peacekeeping" budget has expanded from $700 million in 1990 to $3.5 billion today. The UN assesses the United States 31.7 percent of the "peacekeeping" budget (U.S. law now limits us to 25 percent), compared with 8.5 percent for Russia, 6.3 percent for the United Kingdom, and 7.6 percent for France, all of whom have more direct interest in the various UN expeditions than we have.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

40. You're not listening.

Anybody can type bullshit up.
I want a link.
To a legitimate news source.
Otherwise, it's all just bullshit.

[trotsky]

42. Here's his source - the Eagle Forum.

Nonpartisan font of wisdom, of course...

http://www.eagleforum.org/conglet/1997/97-01-07.html

[Just Me]

46. Oh, well. The Eagle Forum is a radical right-wing attack machine.

They hate progress and change, creativity and ideas, inclusivity and ingenuity, equality and problem-solving.

A very anti-democracy elitist group that wants to take the country back in time.

[trotsky]

41. HEY FOLKS, HERE'S HIS SOURCE:

http://www.eagleforum.org/conglet/1997/97-01-07.html

Yes, that's right, that ultra-liberal EAGLE FORUM.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

44. Oh, well then I BELEVE him.

:eyes:
Thanks, trotsky.

[maddezmom]

45. ah, yes that Phyllis Schlafly is such a moderate

:eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Gimme a B! Gimme an U! Gimme an S! Gimme a T! Gimme an E! Gimme a D!

B-U-S-T-E-D :evilgrin:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. May I ask you a question?

Why didn't you provide a LINK to your quote?

[trotsky]

36. Fascinating. I assume you have some actual FACTS to back that up?

Can't wait to hear them, if so!

[Hunting Deer]

39. I responded to the wrong post, sorry

For years, we've been paying 25 percent of the budget while being treated like a Third World nonentity. Sob stories about the UN's "financial crisis" deserve a belly laugh. The UN's cash shortage is caused by its corrupt and extravagant spending, not by a backsliding or penurious United States.

The general annual UN budget has expanded from $20 million and 1,500 employees in 1945, to $10 billion and 50,000 employees today. Of this, U.S. taxpayers are contributing an estimated $4 billion a year.

The United States is assessed 25 percent of the UN's general budget, double that of any other nation. Japan is assessed 12.45 percent, the United Kingdom 8.93 percent, and more than 90 countries only 0.01 percent each. The other UN countries even ganged up and voted the U.S. off of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions which makes up the UN budgets.

When he was Secretary General, Boutros-Ghali endorsed the notion that the UN should impose global taxes in order to relieve the UN of any accountability for contributions from its member nations. The first thing Madeleine Albright should do is demand that UN Secretary General Annan repudiate that impudent suggestion.

The UN "peacekeeping" budget has expanded from $700 million in 1990 to $3.5 billion today. The UN assesses the United States 31.7 percent of the "peacekeeping" budget (U.S. law now limits us to 25 percent), compared with 8.5 percent for Russia, 6.3 percent for the United Kingdom, and 7.6 percent for France, all of whom have more direct interest in the various UN expeditions than we have.

[maddezmom]

31. enjoy your stay

just a question...what do you consider very left??

[Just Me]

37. Only those who call "left" anything beyond radical right,...

,...characterize DU in such a way. So, as a moderate, you should find the diversity in discussions quite gratifying.

With respect to the Coleman thingy, I do agree that the character assasination of Annan is at least in part for purposes of manipulating the will of both Annan and the UN as a whole. However, this leadership has proven a pattern of "switch-n-bait" and "smoke-n-mirrors" behavior when damning stories about them are in the air.

[TahitiNut]

43. "our maker"?? Who's that? Stepford Industries, International?

(Strange absence of capitalization.)

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

48. I consider you "granite destiny" - you like that name?

[maddezmom]

50. it's perfect

:)

[Cocoa]

30. Coleman is a poor-man's Joe McCarthy

poor Paul Wellstone must be distraught as he looks down on this bastard trying to get ahead by taking down Annan.

[kentuck]

32. I don't want to break a story but.....

In my opinion, this is all a diversion for a much larger crime. When the First Gulf War ended, part of the settlement was to give 20-25% of oil revenues to Kuwait for reparations. This would amount to billions and billions of dollars - not millions and millions as suggested in the "food for oil" scandal. The real scandal is thatthe truth is not coming out about this. Who do you think is getting that money that was paid to Kuwait for reparations? Give me those answers and I will look at the Kofi Annan story more credibly.

[maddezmom]

34. here's a short list

But the UNCC's corporate handouts only accelerated. Here is a small sample of who has been getting "reparation" awards from Iraq: Halliburton ($18m), Bechtel ($7m), Mobil ($2.3m), Shell ($1.6m), Nestlé ($2.6m), Pepsi ($3.8m), Philip Morris ($1.3m), Sheraton ($11m), Kentucky Fried Chicken ($321,000) and Toys R Us ($189,449). In the vast majority of cases, these corporations did not claim that Saddam's forces damaged their property in Kuwait - only that they "lost profits" or, in the case of American Express, experienced a "decline in business" because of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. One of the biggest winners has been Texaco, which was awarded $505m in 1999. According to a UNCC spokesperson, only 12% of that reparation award has been paid, which means hundreds of millions more will have to come out of the coffers of post-Saddam Iraq.

The fact that Iraqis have been paying reparations to their occupiers is all the more shocking in the context of how little these countries have actually spent on aid in Iraq. Despite the $18.4bn of US tax dollars allocated for Iraq's reconstruction, the Washington Post estimates that only $29m has been spent on water, sanitation, health, roads, bridges, and public safety combined. And in July (the latest figure available), the Department of Defence estimated that only $4m had been spent compensating Iraqis who had been injured, or who lost family members or property as a direct result of the occupation - a fraction of what the US has collected from Iraq in reparations since its occupation began.

For years there have been complaints about the UNCC being used as a slush fund for multinationals and rich oil emirates - a backdoor way for corporations to collect the money they were prevented from making as a result of the sanctions against Iraq. During the Saddam years, these concerns received little attention, for obvious reasons.

But now Saddam is gone and the slush fund survives. And every dollar sent to Geneva is a dollar not spent on humanitarian aid and reconstruction Iraq. Furthermore, if post-Saddam Iraq had not been forced to pay these reparations, it could have avoided the $437m emergency loan that the International Monetary Fund approved on September 29.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1328888,00.html