Oil for Food

[_BiB_]

There is a lot of this out there, I suggest it as required reading for those who want to turn things over to the UN.

 

UN Scandal to the tune of 110 Billion dollars

[OnTheRocks]

this story is going to be all we hear about for the next 6 months.

 

what are the chances of the bad guys paying for thier crimes?

[_BiB_]

this story is going to be all we hear about for the next 6 months.

 

what are the chances of the bad guys paying for thier crimes?

48392[/snapback]

 

I've been following this through "different" channels for awhile. Probably slim to none, unless it gets hot enough for the need for a sacrificial goat. I keep thinking back to those who condemned us (including this board) because France, Germany, Russia and a few others wouldn't come on board with the invasion resolution.

 

Wanna know why?

 

And Khofi's kid is hip deep.

 

Yeah. The UN is going to save the day. Right.

[Rich in Ohio]

I've been following this through "different" channels for awhile. Probably slim to none, unless it gets hot enough for the need for a sacrificial goat. I keep thinking back to those who condemned us (including this board) because France, Germany, Russia and a few others wouldn't come on board with the invasion resolution.

 

Wanna know why?

 

And Khofi's kid is hip deep.

 

Yeah. The UN is going to save the day. Right.

48413[/snapback]

 

 

maybe the punishment should be that kofi has to go door to door in iraq and say that he is sorry to every family who lost a mother, father , son, or daughter to stravation, or worse yet, fell under the knife of saddam and his wacky kids. I wonder how long hiw crap for words would float with these folks.

[_BiB_]

maybe the punishment should be that kofi has to go door to door in iraq and say that he is sorry to every family who lost a mother, father , son, or daughter to stravation, or worse yet, fell under the knife of saddam and his wacky kids. I wonder how long hiw crap for words would float with these folks.

48469[/snapback]

 

Oh, just wait until the money trail going back to Al Queda comes out. Tenny, RCow, Debbie will all be saying nay, can't be. Bush propoganda..but sorry, you are all going to see. In effect, the UN has been funding AQ for years. Much of it through Iraqi middlemen.

[GG]

Oh, just wait until the money trail going back to Al Queda comes out. Tenny, RCow, Debbie will all be saying nay, can't be. Bush propoganda..but sorry, you are all going to see. In effect, the UN has been funding AQ for years. Much of it through Iraqi middlemen.

48475[/snapback]

 

Now you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theory nut.

 

I thought this war was to help out Bush cronies in Riyadh.

[_BiB_]

Now you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theory nut.

 

I thought this war was to help out Bush cronies in Riyadh.

48542[/snapback]

 

Man, there's so much stevestojan that goes on you wouldn't believe. Certain folks can go on believing whatever they want. I've said many a time I'm not an intell guy, but I do operational planning based on intell. It doesn't take a stroke of genius to connect dots when you are handed objectives for an operations or conceptual contingency plan. Fortunately or unfortunately for me, I have to live in the real world.

[Willyville Guy]

Thanks for passing this along, BiB. It seems to me that Rosett's primary charge against the UN here is not the in-fact corruption that existed within the Oil-for-Food framework, but rather the UN's insistence on privilege and secrecy that made the corruption possible, and an honest evaluation of the program by the public impossible. For example, Rosett testifies:

 

Which brings me to the single most important reform that needs to come out of all this: An end to UN secrecy. The UN is an institution entrusted with fostering a peaceful, freer world. That mission has no chance as long as closet deals can be done with tyrants, and the records shrouded from public view. Had the UN been required to disclose the inner workings of Oil-for-Food from the start, there might have been no need for this hearing.

 

The Bush administration is subject to almost identical criticism. From the secrecy of Cheney's energy policy commission, to the stonewalling of the 9/11 commission, including Rice's attempted invocation of a made-up privilege, to the refusal to answer questions regard the Plamne investigation, and so many others, a hallmark of this administration has been its liberal use of executive privilege to hide its processes. Disclosure is a critical element in combating corruption-- it’s like exposing a vampire to sunlight. Reading this testimony reinforces my belief that the UN is without identity or direction at this point in history, and it needs a lot of help. I believe that our own country needs a lot of help as well.

 

John Kerry may not be perfect, but I get the sense that he'll at least play it above the board for the most part, and that goes a long way with me.

[OGTEleven]

John Kerry may not be perfect, but I get the sense that he'll at least play it above the board for the most part, and that goes a long way with me.

49205[/snapback]

 

What gives you that sense?

[Willyville Guy]

What gives you that sense?

49227[/snapback]

 

It's an instinctive read on his personality.

[GG]

It's an instinctive read on his personality.

49325[/snapback]

 

Is that why he won't release Teresa's tax returns?

[Willyville Guy]

Is that why he won't release Teresa's tax returns?

49378[/snapback]

 

 

Is what why he won't release Teresa's tax returns?

[MichFan]

but I get the sense that he'll at least play it above the board for the most part

 

Yeah, I can't wait for the news conference where Kerry says "I have just learned that UBL is hiding in the cave shown here in Pakistan. I am immediately dispatching the military to capture him."

 

Somethings are better left secret. Bush mentioned the need for secrecy in this war in his post 9/11 speech. He got 90% approval at the time. Quit yer crying.

[GG]

Is what why he won't release Teresa's tax returns?

49401[/snapback]

 

Backing your claim that an instinctive read of Kerry's personality will have him be above board, while he's been very elusive in providing Teresa's tax returns and running around screaming about Two Americas?

[Willyville Guy]

Yeah, I can't wait for the news conference where Kerry says "I have just learned that UBL is hiding in the cave shown here in Pakistan.  I am immediately dispatching the military to capture him."

 

Somethings are better left secret.  Bush mentioned the need for secrecy in this war in his post 9/11 speech.  He got 90% approval at the time.  Quit yer crying.

49421[/snapback]

 

I believe that transparency of process is good for government and the people. There are, of course, exceptions, such as the need to keep certain military and intelligence information secret for national security purposes. My issue with Bush's secrecy is that he uses it a lot to protect himself from political embarrassment rather than to protect national security. I believe this behavior has had far reaching negative effects on the crucial trust that must exist between the people and the government (and within the government). Take my examples from above, for instance, rather than the one you just made up to refute my position.

 

And by the way, Michigan sucks.

[Willyville Guy]

Backing your claim that an instinctive read of Kerry's personality will have him be above board, while he's been very elusive in providing Teresa's tax returns and running around screaming about Two Americas?

49429[/snapback]

 

I'll admit that my instinctive reading on these two is completely subjective. On balance, I think that the stonewalling that the Bush administration has engaged in is far more significant than the ketchup queen's tax returns.

[GG]

I'll admit that my instinctive reading on these two is completely subjective.  On balance, I think that the stonewalling that the Bush administration has engaged in is far more significant than the ketchup queen's tax returns.

49474[/snapback]

 

[MichFan]

And by the way, Michigan sucks. 

 

Hey now, hey now, we can have a respectful disagreement about issues of politics but that just went too far. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[Alaska Darin]

I'll admit that my instinctive reading on these two is completely subjective.  On balance, I think that the stonewalling that the Bush administration has engaged in is far more significant than the ketchup queen's tax returns.

49474[/snapback]

Yeah, because Mr. Kerry as a politician has always been above reproach.

[Willyville Guy]

Yeah, because Mr. Kerry as a politician has always been above reproach. 

49813[/snapback]

 

Who said that?

[OnTheRocks]

I believe that transparency of process is good for government and the people.  There are, of course, exceptions, such as the need to keep certain military and intelligence information secret for national security purposes.  My issue with Bush's secrecy is that he uses it a lot to protect himself from political embarrassment rather than to protect national security.

49471[/snapback]

 

 

if he has been keeping certain information secret how do you know he is doing it to protect himself? i mean if it is a secret and all?

[Willyville Guy]

if he has been keeping certain information secret how do you know he is doing it to protect himself?  i mean if it is a secret and all?   

49962[/snapback]

 

The Cheney energy policy committee issue and the Plamne investigation come to mind. Why not allow questions and answer them? The conditions regarding his 9/11-commission involvement (private, w/ Cheney and not under oath) also turned me off. This leaves me with a general sense that he often invokes some type of executive privilege (and if there’s none available he just makes one up) for purposes other than national security-- although it seems some think any news that may undermine the credibility of the president threatens national security.

[MichFan]

I believe that transparency of process is good for government and the people.  There are, of course, exceptions, such as the need to keep certain military and intelligence information secret for national security purposes.  My issue with Bush's secrecy is that he uses it a lot to protect himself from political embarrassment rather than to protect national security.

 

I don't hold any of the examples you cited against the President because the Executive Branch, just like other branches, is afforded shelters from transparency and Bush's position was that he was standing up for the rights of the Executive Branch. Bush yielded on the Rice testimony after it was clear he had made his point in this regards. The energy policy is pretty easy to figure out on your own -- if the tree huggers say they weren't at the table then obviously they weren't at the table. That's fairly transparent.

 

If you want to talk about failure to be transparent, then consider the following:

- Kerry won't sign a release to make all of his military records available. (Bush has)

- Kerry is actively suppressing availability of a book he wrote in the early 70's critical of the military.

- Kerry has not been open about the nature of his talks with the N. Vietnamese when the war was still being waged.

- Kerry has not been forthright regarding his attendance at Senate committee meetings.

- Kerry has not defined his positions on many of the critical issues by putting them in writing and submitting legislation to address them

- Just prior to the 2000 election, the Democrats felt that transparancy included revealing a conviction that had been exponged.

 

How does this give you any sense that Kerry and the Dems will be better? If anything it shows me that they have no respect for transparency and fail to understand the appropriate use of it.

[Willyville Guy]

I don't hold any of the examples you cited against the President because the Executive Branch, just like other branches, is afforded shelters from transparency and Bush's position was that he was standing up for the rights of the Executive Branch.  Bush yielded on the Rice testimony after it was clear he had made his point in this regards.  The energy policy is pretty easy to figure out on your own -- if the tree huggers say they weren't at the table then obviously they weren't at the table.  That's fairly transparent.

 

If you want to talk about failure to be transparent, then consider the following:

- Kerry won't sign a release to make all of his military records available. (Bush has)

- Kerry is actively suppressing availability of a book he wrote in the early 70's critical of the military.

- Kerry has not been open about the nature of his talks with the N. Vietnamese when the war was still being waged.

- Kerry has not been forthright regarding his attendance at Senate committee meetings.

- Kerry has not defined his positions on many of the critical issues by putting them in writing and submitting legislation to address them

- Just prior to the 2000 election, the Democrats felt that transparancy included revealing a conviction that had been exponged.

 

How does this give you any sense that Kerry and the Dems will be better?  If anything it shows me that they have no respect for transparency and fail to understand the appropriate use of it.

50055[/snapback]

 

I'm responding from my handheld on my way to the airport-- I think we have different understandings of what transparency means. Let's pick this back up on Monday when I get back.

[GG]

I'm responding from my handheld on my way to the airport--  I think we have different understandings of what transparency means.  Let's pick this back up on Monday when I get back.

50094[/snapback]

 

Sorry that won't do. We'll be celebrating the Bills victory on Monday.

[DC Tom]

Sorry that won't do.  We'll be celebrating the Bills victory on Monday.

50274[/snapback]

 

I think he was talking about this coming Monday...not 2005...

[GG]

I think he was talking about this coming Monday...not 2005...

50347[/snapback]

 

I'll bet you a six pack of Zima, Bills win this Sunday.

 

(That is if Zima comes in a six pack)

[DC Tom]

I'll bet you a six pack of Zima, Bills win this Sunday.

 

(That is if Zima comes in a six pack)

50352[/snapback]

 

I wouldn't know. Ask T-Bone.

 

And if you want to bet Zima, you've already had too much to drink...

[_BiB_]

I wouldn't know.  Ask T-Bone.

 

And if you want to bet Zima, you've already had too much to drink...

50353[/snapback]

 

I tried that stuff. Man, that stevestojan will give you heartburn.

[Willyville Guy]

OK-- flew in from London on Monday and just dug myself out of the pile of paper that accumulated on my desk at work. Here’s my response to your post.

 

I don't hold any of the examples you cited against the President because the Executive Branch, just like other branches, is afforded shelters from transparency and Bush's position was that he was standing up for the rights of the Executive Branch.

 

This is exactly where I differ with the president. I do not believe “shelters from transparency” are appropriate at any level of government, with very few, very limited exceptions. Shelters from transparency breed deception and fraud. Exhibit A is the UN Oil-for-Food program. In my opinion, Bush has used the limited executive privilege not to protect future administrations, but to avoid immediate political embarrassment. To that end, he has adopted a broad view of the privilege, which is something I consider very dangerous and unhealthy for democracy.

 

Bush yielded on the Rice testimony after it was clear he had made his point in this regards.

 

I disagree. Bush yielded on the Rice testimony only after it was universally agreed upon that the privilege he was asserting, and the precedent that he cited, was entirely made up.

 

The energy policy is pretty easy to figure out on your own -- if the tree huggers say they weren't at the table then obviously they weren't at the table. That's fairly transparent.

 

Transparency does not mean refusing to disclose which parties participated in the vice president’s commission to determine the national energy policy, even where the likely parties and the inherent conflicts of interest are so blatant that even the tree huggers can figure it out.

 

If you want to talk about failure to be transparent, then consider the following:

- Kerry won't sign a release to make all of his military records available. (Bush has)

 

His military records are irrelevant in my opinion; as are Bush’s. Nevertheless, I agree that he should release them.

 

- Kerry is actively suppressing availability of a book he wrote in the early 70's critical of the military.

 

Kerry burns books? That’s a new one on me. As I said earlier, the Vietnam issue is irrelevant to this election (I know he’s the one who made it an issue). I need more information to evaluate this assertion and how it could help us understand Kerry’s view of the executive privilege.

 

- Kerry has not been open about the nature of his talks with the N. Vietnamese when the war was still being waged.

 

See above.

 

- Kerry has not been forthright regarding his attendance at Senate committee meetings.

 

Ah, see, this is a matter of record and not transparency. Attendance at Senate committee meetings is publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

- Kerry has not defined his positions on many of the critical issues by putting them in writing and submitting legislation to address them.

 

While I agree with this criticism to some extent, this is not a process transparency issue.

 

- Just prior to the 2000 election, the Democrats felt that transparancy included revealing a conviction that had been exponged.

 

Life in the political jungle-- but not a process transparency issue.

 

How does this give you any sense that Kerry and the Dems will be better? If anything it shows me that they have no respect for transparency and fail to understand the appropriate use of it.

 

It doesn’t. Frankly, I don’t know where Kerry stands on executive privilege. All I know is that I don’t like it, and that Bush invokes it an awful lot. As I said before, my gut instinct is that a Kerry administration won’t be as secretive as this administration, which by some accounts is among the most secretive in our nation’s history.

[Captain America]

Man, there's so much stevestojan that goes on you wouldn't believe. Certain folks can go on believing whatever they want. I've said many a time I'm not an intell guy, but I do operational planning based on intell. It doesn't take a stroke of genius to connect dots when you are handed objectives for an operations or conceptual contingency plan. Fortunately or unfortunately for me, I have to live in the real world.

48553[/snapback]

You should know that the liberals do not live in the real world. Their real world is what the see and hear on TV from the liberal press.

[Mark VI]

Bush is on live right now on CNN, talking about the Oil For Food corruption.