Annan Rejects Calls for His Resignation

[Rose Siding]

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) on Tuesday rejected calls from several U.S. lawmakers for his resignation, saying he will "carry on" at the helm of the United Nations (news - web sites) for the next two years.

Five Republicans in the House of Representative on Monday backed a call last week by a GOP senator for Annan to resign amid allegations of corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program. But outside the United States, there is no clamor for the secretary-general's resignation, and he has picked up support from many of the 191 U.N. member states.
..........
"I have quite a lot of work to do and I'm carrying on with my work," Annan said when asked when he would respond to those calling for his resignation. "We have a major agenda next year, and the year ahead, trying to reform this organization. So we'll carry on."

Asked if he was definitely saying he would not resign, Annan replied: "I think you heard my answer."
...........
At a news conference Monday, Rep. Scott Garrett (news, bio, voting record), R-N.J., said the question shouldn't be whether Annan remains in charge. "The question is whether he should be in jail," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=1276&e=1&u=/ap/20041207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_annan

[Catherine Vincent]

1. YOU GO BOY!

Stand tough and give the repukes in America a big FU gesture!

[Florida_Geek]

2. Five Repugs and this is a major crisis

Why should the world have to support Annan just because five Repug say bad thing about him.

[Rose Siding]

6. The DLC threw in with them

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253050

[Benhurst]

13. Gosh, the DLC threw in with the fascist Republicans. Will wonders

never cease? Perhaps The Rapture is at hand.

[funnymanpants]

23. Gut the democratic party

This article sounds like it could have been written by a neo-conservative. It confuses and accusation with fact.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

26. they printed a correction

(CORRECTION: the original sub-headline of this New Dem Daily mistakenly summarized the piece as calling for Kofi Annan's resignation. Actually, in calling for the secretary general to "step aside," we simply meant to convey that he should remove himself from any involvement in the oil-for-food investigation, and let Paul Volcker, a man of unquestioned integrity and ability, conduct it independently and publicly release his findings. We deeply regret this error.)

But when you read the editorial, I don't know how else you can take it except that they are indeed calling for him to resign.

Got to get these sleazy opportunists out of power. The DLC, not Kofi.

[Rose Siding]

28. Interesting. thanks

But I agree- it is still hard to see it as anything but participation in the pile-on.

I wonder if that "correction" is the result of disgusted feedback.

[Walt Starr]

3. They are pulling a Lewinsky on Annan!

Man this rightwing bullshit is so transparent!

[BOSSHOG]

4. Good for him

If bush can step to the microphone and can't think of any mistakes he has made as President then fuck a bunch of republicans. If bush can desert his military unit to avoid a drug test; and not be held accountable for anything his whole worthless life then Annan can remain at the UN. Yo, Garrett, you American hating fascist, The same question applies to the leader of the gop. Its not whether bush should remain in charge, its whether he should be in jail.

[latteromden]

5. What do you have to say now, Norm?

You really have no power or any respect among, well, anyone, for that matter, when will you realize it?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

8. and CatWoman is calling for Bush's "resignation"

[flordehinojos]

10. i SECOND CAT WOMAN'S CALL FOR BUSH'S RESIGNATION!

[Bridget Burke]

12. What's your personal opinion on the matter?

Which major Canadian newspaper?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Enjoy your extremely short stay.

My, I've been saying that a lot lately.

[maddezmom]

21. and what is your opinion on Norm??

[maddezmom]

14. huh? well so far it's the majority of countries for Annan and 1 against

who gives a hoot what the papers are calling for at this point.

[Minstrel Boy]

16. And that Canadian paper wouldn't be - oh my; yes it is -

The National Post.

The Post is Canada's neocon house organ and monkey grinder. George Bush hasn't smirked a smirk it hasn't gone ga-ga over.

It doesn't do much for your credibility, citing such a right wing source.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. I see a slab of concrete flying by. Where is it gonna land? (nt)

[daleo]

20. Which one?

If it the National Post, it is germane to let folks know that it is quite far out of the mainstream of Canadian opinion (very conservative, by Canadian standards).

[flordehinojos]

9. STAY THE COURSE MR. ANNAN!

DON'T LET THEM HAVE THE UPPER HAND.

[maddezmom]

11. excellent editorial: "What about the log in your eye. Congress?"

~snip~

The United States and Britain, along with the other members of the UN Security Council, designed and oversaw the oil-for-food program. The United States alone had 60 professionals review each of the 36,000 contracts awarded - more than twice the size of the UN oil-for-food office's professional staff. America and Britain held up 5,000 contracts, sometimes for months, to ensure that no technology was getting through that Saddam could use for weapons purposes. But they held up none - not a single solitary one - on the grounds of pricing irregularities, even when alerted by UN staff.

What does this suggest about American and British motives? Were they toothless and unwilling to crack down on Saddam, as some now argue that Annan was? Or were these decisions the product of competing priorities - trying to sustain French, Russian and others' support for sanctions that prevented Saddam (successfully, it turned out) from acquiring weapons of mass destruction?

Similarly, three successive U.S. administrations looked the other way while Saddam illegally sold oil to Jordan and Turkey - about $5.1 billion worth, according to the Duelfer report. American fighter planes patrolled the skies, U.S. satellites took photos of the parade of trucks making daily trips and the nightly news covered the story. This was entirely unrelated to the oil-for-food program. It represented U.S. efforts to shore up two allies that played a central role in containing Saddam but were adversely affected by the sanctions. Indeed, doing so required the secretary of state to certify to Congress that these illegal sales were in the national security interest of the United States.

Another line of inquiry for Congress concerns American firms that used overseas subsidiaries, including in France, to do oil-for-food business to the tune of at least half a billion dollars. They included Halliburton, Ingersoll-Rand and General Electric. The U.S. government reportedly never objected.

~snip~

(John G. Ruggie, a former UN assistant secretary general, is professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.)

more: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/07/opinion/edruggie.html

[Lone_Star_Dem]

27. That is a very well written editorial.

It shines the light where it should be pointed.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Haven't these Repugs ever heard of a little thing called...

...EVIDENCE?

[daleo]

22. They want to investigate this so-called oil for food scandal

Until they find out if Annan has had a mistress. Then, it's curtains for the U.N. in the U.S., as far as they're concerned.

[maddezmom]

25. yeah, too bad Ken Starr isn't available for the investigation

;)

[funnymanpants]

24. Artificial hype

5 Republicans call for his resignation. The world does not.

So who makes the headlines? The five Republicans, who know who to work the news like maestro with his piano.

This story is all smoke and no fire.

The US was on the security council and was responsible for the corruption as much as any country.

What is so infuriating about this is that the UN was proven so right about the Iraq war. But the critics are getting the spotlight as if they are right.

I wonder if the propaganda will again determine the action.

Where are the defenders of the UN? I haven't seen any good editorials blasting this nonsense.

(Woops! Just saw the article posted above, which is excellent.)

edited for correction