14 May 2004 @ 11:38PM >> Jose Ramos-Horta won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996. In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, he had some interesting comments on the justified use of force and Iraq:

Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early ’80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed “Emperor” Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened—without a U.N. mandate—to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world’s most barbaric regimes.

So why do some think Iraq should be any different?

[...]

Saddam’s overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That’s why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes—from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.

[...]

If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington’s vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women’s advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.

[...]

The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.

[...]

It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.

5 May 2004 @ 7:46PM >> UNSCAM, the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, may turn out to be the single biggest financial scandal in the history of mankind, not that you’d know it given the scant media coverage.

Nevertheless, the story continues to develop thanks in large part to the efforts of investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. In today’s Wall Street Journal, she reports that the stonewalling of the investigation goes right to the top of the U.N.:

[I]n the interval between March 19, when Mr. Annan finally conceded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the program might after all need investigating by independent experts, and April 21, when former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker was appointed to head to the investigation, Mr. Annan’s office explicitly reminded these two crucial contractors, which worked for the Secretariat’s Oil for Food program checking the imports and exports involved in more than $100 billion worth of Saddam’s oil sales and relief imports, to keep quiet.

Even before this scandal erupted, I had serious doubts about the efficacy of the U.N. Its problems are structural, and this scandal is yet another sign of how deep the rot goes.

In the Chicago Sun-Times, John O’Sullivan argues that the scandal has robbed the U.N. of its pretense of legitimacy:

More worrying is what the Oil for Food scandal tells us about the political attitudes of the U.N. bureaucracy and the political elites of Europe. None of them was seriously hostile to Saddam or his brutal state — they struck attitudes in public that their private actions belied. None of them was even slightly concerned about the Iraqi people despite their crocodile tears about the impact of sanctions — they colluded in denying the promised humanitarian aid to them. None wanted to see U.N. resolutions enforced despite their sanctimonious rhetoric about the U.N. being the fount of legitimacy. All of them were mainly concerned with obstructing the Anglo-Americans in their campaign to enforce those resolutions and oust Saddam.

The corruption of the Oil-for-Food program may turn out to be the primary reason the U.S. faced such stiff opposition among the larger players in the U.N. If so, the corruption is also one of the reasons why we aren’t getting more international help in Iraq today. In other words, there is a very real possibility that the U.N. scam led to more American casualties in Iraq than would have occurred if other governments were more generous in augmenting the coalition’s troop strength. Historically, the U.N. has done little to fulfill the goals outlined in its own charter. And now we know that the U.N. is a fraud on other levels as well.

The U.N. occupies extremely valuable land in Manhattan. Americans could do more with that land than the back-stabbing diplomats who take our money to run the U.N. and then use it to prop up Saddam Hussein. If you ask me, we’d all be better off if the U.N. headquarters were moved to Brussels, where the organization could be even more attentive to its European masters.

26 April 2004 @ 7:40PM >> Traditional media outlets are finally covering the bombshell U.N. scandal that many web sites—including this one—started reporting back in February.

Dubbed UNSCAM, the scandal involves the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, which Saddam Hussein subverted to reward people connected to the governments that most strongly opposed military action against him. Many billions of dollars in pay-offs occurred, and it now appears that the U.N.—if it didn’t actively facilitate this scam—certainly looked the other way. But claims of innocence at the U.N. sound a little hollow, considering who benefitted.

ABC News reports that “[a]t least three senior United Nations officials are suspected of taking multimillion-dollar bribes from the Saddam Hussein regime” and that “[m]ost prominent among those accused in the scandal is Benon Sevan, the Cyprus-born U.N. undersecretary general who ran the program for six years.”

If the accusations prove true, Sevan’s alleged activities “would have generated an illegal profit of as much as $3.5 million.” And that was just for him. The U.N. itself collected over $1 billion in commissions on the sales of Iraqi oil.

According to Michael Soussan, a former U.N. Oil-for-Food program coordinator one estimate says “Saddam Hussein used the U.N. operation to extort $4.4 billion in kickbacks from Iraq’s international trading partners.” Another report claims over $10 billion in fraud.

As London’s The Telegraph reported, “The list is an extraordinary collection of names, stretching from Paris to Moscow, from the Vatican to the Far East.”

So now we know. Higher-ups at the U.N. had a vested financial interest in keeping Hussein in power, as did affiliates of French and Russian government officials. They were doing billions in business with Saddam. No wonder he felt safe ignoring each and every U.N. resolution passed against his regime. Threats of force issued by the U.N. were completely meaningless to Hussein, because the people who were supposed to be enforcing them were on his payroll, profiting from his oil. Gives a whole new meaning to the slogan no war for oil, doesn’t it?

This story should have implications for our election, which may explain why it still isn’t getting the coverage it deserves. John Kerry wants to give the United Nations a veto over our national security decisions. Does that really sound like such a good idea?

8 April 2004 >> Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission made for riveting listening. The political fireworks were on full display when the Democrats on the panel pressed Rice, asking why President Bush had not developed a pre-September 11th plan to preemptively attack Afghanistan and disrupt al Qaeda. These questions, of course, come from the same folks who criticize Bush administration for acting preemptively against Iraq.

The inconsistencies of the Democratic arguments against the Bush Administration make it impossible for them to put forth any alternate vision, because anything they propose will conflict with some of their previous criticisms. Even that they’ll deny, though; they’ll sweeten their waffles with the syrup of nuance, the word they use to cover up the fact that they’re holding several completely contradictory stances simultaneously.

According to principles of quantum mechanics, it is possible for a subatomic particle to occupy multiple positions at the same time. Perhaps the Democrats hope to become the quantum party. If so, it explains why John Kerry, the consummate Quantum Candidate, is the perfect person to head the Democratic ticket this fall. More >>

17 February 2004 >> United Press International recently reported the discovery of documents from Saddam Hussein’s oil ministry that show the Iraqi dictator “used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.” And according to ABC News, allies of Saddam Hussein profited by pocketing the difference between the price of oil under the U.N.’s “Oil for Food” program and the price of oil on the open market. Some of these allies included “a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac”, “Russian political figures” including “the Russian ambassador to Baghdad” and “officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin”, “George Galloway, a British member of Parliament”, and even some—gasp!—”prominent journalists”. So why haven’t you heard about this story yet? More >>

25 July 2003 >> Some in this country still want our intelligence analysts to err on the side of caution, because doing so could thwart future attacks and would therefore save lives. Others believe that no action should ever be taken unless every scrap of intelligence data is unimpeachable and unambiguous. But if you complain that the administration wasn’t vigilant enough in interpreting pre-September 11th intelligence, you can’t credibly claim that the administration was too vigilant in interpreting the data pertaining to Iraq. More >>

12 June 2003 >> Saddam and Osama must not exist. Why? Because they cannot be found. And, as we all know from witnessing the recent hyperventilation about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, if something can’t be found, it must not exist. More >>

4 May 2003 >> Hollywood free-speech advocates shut down website critical of Hollywood free-speech advocates / U.N. worries over looting in Baghdad, then does a little looting of its own / The tip of the iceberg? Iraqi documents discovered in Baghdad reveal al Qaeda ties, more evidence of the French selling us out to Saddam Hussein, and that a prominent anti-war British MP was apparently taking bribes from Saddam’s regime / 7 steps to stable, long-term freedom for Iraq / Slim Shady Saddam / Blair, Bush, Clinton in bizarre love triangle / Why it’s not possible to target more tax cuts towards lower incomes More >>

10 February 2003 >> “We, the free people of the world, in recognition of the fact that freedom is a gift given to us through the selfless sacrifice of our ancestors, and in agreement on the belief that it is our moral obligation to share this gift with those who were not fortunate enough to be born into it, declare ourselves united in an Alliance of Liberty, whose purpose is to secure the freedom of every human everywhere.” More >>

29 January 2003 >> “Sometimes, there is no choice but to meet danger with force. To resort to war is not the sign of ultimate failure, as some argue, it’s just the sign of diplomacy’s failure. But we shouldn’t let failed diplomacy fester while stealthy enemies strengthen and scheme. Now that we’ve seen how easily terrorists can bring death to our door, we must prevent them from acquiring weapons from thugs like Saddam Hussein. The best way is to make sure there aren’t any thugs like Saddam Hussein.” More >>

23 January 2003 >> Hans Blix decides against using U.S. equipment to aid his search for Iraqi weaponry. Why? To avoid appearing biased. Meanwhile, important sites await inspection by an impotent U.N. More >>

9 September 2002 >> “Whether to accumulate power and prestige or to avoid losing it, there usually comes a time when a tyrant resorts to war. You don’t have to study world affairs very long to realize that repressive regimes are the cause of nearly all the world’s conflict. Only when full freedom penetrates every part of the globe will there be any real possibility of peaceful planet. And if the United States were to lead the way in lifting the veil of repression that still darkens a frighteningly large portion of the globe, then perhaps more people around the world would have a reason to love—or at least respect—our great nation.” More >>

15 April 2002 >> “After suffering the attacks of September 11th, I could have understood an American wanting to participate in a rowdy demonstration where enemy leaders were burned in effigy. Instead, it is the people supporting our attackers who routinely hold violent demonstrations, demonstrations where the participants burn our flag while they pray for, plan for, and attempt to execute our country’s complete annihilation. And yet, for some reason, despite only a handful of revenge crimes nationwide, we still must endure lecturing from the Left about tolerance.” More >>