Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Government
A Proper Contempt for the UN
2016-11-25
[COMMENTARYMAGAZINE] The United Nations
...an organization originally established to war on dictatorships which was promptly infiltrated by dictatorships and is now held in thrall to dictatorships...
has become a cesspit of contemptible anti-Americanism that serves only to give the authoritarian nations undue influence over the course of global affairs. Its legations rewrite history so as to edit Jews out of Jerusalem. Its human rights
When they're defined by the state or an NGO they don't mean much...
commission elects by secret ballot human-rights violators like Muammar Qadaffy
...The late megalomaniac dictator of Libya, admired everywhere for his garish costumes, funny hats, harem of cutie bodyguards, and incoherent ravings. As far as is known, he is the only person who's ever declared jihad on Switzerland...
’s Libya and Soddy Arabia
...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face...
to lead. It is the font of scandals, including abuse of the Iraqi Oil for Food program and the allegations that the UN covered up the sexual abuse of minors by peacekeepers in war zones. The United Nations regularly infringes on U.S. illusory sovereignty by imposing on it climate regulations, restrictions on maritime navigation rights, and attacks on American freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

Will Nikki Haley
...first woman to serve as Governor of South Carolina, and the second Indian-American governor in the country, after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. At the age of 39, Haley is the youngest current governor in the U.S., a distinction formerly held by Jindal. She is a Republican, which really grates on the Dems...
make a good ambassador to the United Nations, whatever that means? It’s difficult to say. She will, however, be a welcome departure from a corrupting culture and an important voice advising President Donald Trump
...New York real estate developer, described by Dems as illiterate, racist, misogynistic, and what ever other unpleasant descriptions they can think of, elected by the rest of us as 45th President of the United States...
Link


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Hamas, Terror Tunnels and Timing?
2014-08-14
by Claudia Rosett

[PJMedia]
In which Ms Rosett, who broke the Oil for Food story among others, all tenaciously followed, goes beneath the surface of reports of the planned Hamas Rosh Hashanah tunnel massacre.
Link


International-UN-NGOs
UN to Get Its First Facelift
2010-09-22
After years of intense preparation, the 17-acre U.N. campus is undergoing its first major renovation since it was erected along the East River shortly after World War Two. The sweeping renovation won't come cheap, at $1.87 billion, with the cost to be split among all 192 member nations.
Probably 90% by one nation and the remainder from the other 191 according to their ability.
That's about exactly right; we're the 'host' nation and are expected to bear most of the cost.
The goal is to give the Secretariat's upper stories brighter, more open layouts -- ceilings by windows will be raised while internal, non-structural walls on each of the building's 40 floors will be removed. Indeed, 2,400 separate offices will dwindle to just 500, resulting in larger, more flexible spaces that can easily host impromptu meetings.
No need to schedule a back-room for meetings anymore.
They'll keep some of the small rooms; handy when handing over the bribes Oil for Food money and counting the boodle peacekeeping costs ...
"The U.N. has been very mission-oriented, and any money they got, they usually spent on food, peacekeeping, and disease," he says. "Now, they are finally getting around to fixing their house."
Harry Canyon: "The U.N. Building. What a joke! They turned it into low rent housing. It's a dump."
I didn't see anything about the dining facilities.
Link


Economy
Hold your wallets, Obama to name panel to Rebalance Tax System
2009-03-25
President Barack Obama plans to name a task force to review and overhaul the U.S. tax code, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget said today.

Obama will ask the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, led by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, for a top- to-bottom review of the 96-year-old law in an effort to "rebalance the federal tax code," spokesman Tom Gavin said in an interview.
That makes me feel good after the way he handled that UN Oil for Food scandal.
"The goal is a tax system that works better for the American people," Gavin said. "The president's going to ask the board that they find ways to simplify the tax code, protect progressivity in the revenue base, close tax loopholes and find ways to reduce tax evasion and that they reduce corporate welfare."

Austan Goolsbee, the president's senior economic adviser, will be named staff director of the tax-review panel. Members of the panel will include Harvard's Martin Feldstein, former chief economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; Laura D'Andrea Tyson, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton; Roger Ferguson, chief executive of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve; and William Donaldson, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Martin Feldstein is a token that will be thrown off immediateley - As a member of the board of AIG Financial Products, Feldstein was one of those who had oversight of the division of the international insurer that contributed to the company's crisis in September, 2008.
A date for the formation of the task force hasn't been decided, Gavin said.

Obama plans to ask Volcker, Goolsbee and the panel for a package of recommendations to be on his desk Dec. 4. That would leave enough time for decisions to be made and included as proposals in the White House budget for fiscal 2011, to be submitted to Congress in February 2010.

There will be two restrictions imposed on the tax review task force, Gavin said. There should be no increase in taxes on families earning less than $250,000 per year, and taxes should not be increased in 2009 or 2010, he said.

Continuing the tax cut beyond 2010 "remains a major pillar of the president's budget," Gavin said. The review panel will be charged with consulting "a pretty wide range of tax-policy experts and other public voices" before recommendations are made to the president, Gavin said.

The tax-review plan comes as Obama faces opposition in his own party as he pushes for approval of a $3.6 trillion budget that Republican critics say would pile a mountain of debt on taxpayers for years to come.

The president scheduled a meeting with congressional leaders on Capitol Hill today to persuade them to back his long- range plans for an overhaul of health care, energy programs and education to revive the U.S. economy.

House and Senate lawmakers are struggling to work on the 2010 non-binding spending blueprint amid a worsening deficit. Lawmakers are tentatively scaling back on some domestic programs, including curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who heads the Budget Committee, has drafted a spending plan to generate a smaller deficit than Obama's plan, with next year's shortfall totaling $1.2 trillion. Obama's budget would generate a $1.4 trillion deficit next year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Conrad's plan deletes an Obama budget proposal that called for $250 billion to aid the banking industry. His plan pledges to reduce the deficit from a forecast $1.7 trillion this year to $508 billion in 2014.

Tax credits, under the "Making Work Pay" program, which lead to $400 tax cuts for most workers and $800 to couples, would expire at the end of 2010.
Link


International-UN-NGOs
With A Grain of Salt! : Those frogs have a better Middle East foreign policy than the ross-bifs
2007-10-20
So here we have a country which was considered to be a colonial enterprise in the Middle East, hated with a vengeance, totally imperialistic, only interested in its own culture and shoving its language down the native throats, only interested in the natives' oil and in return selling arms to repressive regimes. And then thirty years later, it has suddenly become a close friend of the very same people who previously thought of them as an enemy. Yes, Sir, I am referring to France, the same cheese eating surrendering monkeys who have successfully managed to turn their foreign policy dramatically upside down, inside out, and to turn enemies into friends. Compare that to the USA and UK, which are still embroiled in that hell-hole called as the Middle East. What happened there? Any lessons to be learnt?

Frankly, up and until 1967, France was considered as the mortal enemy of the Middle East. The majority of the crusades were staffed, funded and originated in the French kingdoms. The name Franks relates to the French. Most of the massacres during the crusades, whether in Byzantine lands, Constantinople, Levant, Jerusalem or in Egypt were carried out by the Frenchmen. While the Brits think that they exerted most of the influence in the Ottoman Empire, it was actually the French who can arguably be said to have the greatest influence. French troops were present when the Turks were turned back at the gates of Vienna. Do you remember the battle of Lepanto? French capital, lots of French ships. Charles Martell? How about the huge French backing, funding, people and tactics which were involved in the roll-back of the Arab/Berber Empire of Granada in Spain? Or Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, the carve out of the Ottoman Empire – the French got the best parts of the carcass if you ask me - ranging from Algeria to Syria / Lebanon, etc. France sold weapons gaily to everybody and their dogs. And then came the disaster that was the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, followed by the strong French support for Israel (and the huge arms deals!) Think about the biggest military defeat for the Arabs, the 1967 war. It was almost completely due to French military equipment for the air force, army and the tiny naval fleet. Who can forget the long brutal colonisation of Algeria followed by the devastatingly brutal gradual retreat and final independence for Algeria with millions killed, injured, hurt, imprisoned and made destitute.

You ask about oil? Well, after World War I, the carcass of the Ottoman Empire and the German colonies were subdivided, and France got a share of the Turkish Petroleum Company - an Anglo-German dominated company - as part of the repatriations emanating from the Versailles treaty. This company was the seed leading to the Compagnie Française des Pétrole in1924 and in turn became TOTAL in 1954. TOTAL was a very heavy investor in Iraq during the middle part of the century, right up to the point when the Iraqi oil fields were nationalised. Unlike the USA and UK, France does not have local domestic sources of Oil, which made it very single minded in pursuit of stable, secure and most importantly long term supply of oil.

So a country which clearly wants oil and has had a very long history of anti-Arab / anti-Muslim actions is now, in the beginning part of this century, a very close and trusted friend of the Arabs! France deploys troops in Lebanon and not even a single squeak. France wags her fingers at Arab potentates and not even a single murmur of protest. Terrorist gangs are generally quiet about France. France negotiated the release of the nurses held for over ten years in Libya. Everyone loves France. It's not just the Arabs, but the Iranian Shia love it too. Remember the long hosting of Ayatollah Khomeini during his exile in France? (His house there is now apparently a pilgrimage site!) But this support has faded because France supported Iraq in the Iraq Iran War. Even the current sabre rattling against Iran is part of the same design, this puts them firmly in the Sunni Arab camp. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,506396,00.html)

So what did France do? Starting from the 1960’s onwards, it started to redress its balance to Israel and started supporting Arabs a bit more. This was a master stroke. France imposed an embargo on arms sales on both sides before the 1967 war. Since most of Israel’s weaponry was French, Israel was hit proportionally harder. And paradoxically, since Israel won so handsomely using French arms, the Arabs junked their clunky Soviet equipment and went for more French arms. And the cherry on the cake, was that after the war, France managed to sell more parts and equipment to Israel, funded by the Americans. So, at a masterstroke, France gained public congratulations from the Arabs, ended up earning loads of brownie points from the Arabs, and sold more to both sides.

Guess who supplied Iraq with its Osirak Nuclear Reactor, which the Israelis destroyed? Guess who was supplying Iraq with huge amounts of weaponry during the Iraq Iran War? Guess who helped to broker the agreement which ended Lebanon’s civil war? Who do you think was the biggest opposer of Iraqi sanctions before the Gulf War I? And when it became clear that Saddam Hussein would not repay the debts owed to France for arms sales, who do you think was the fourth largest contributor to the coalition after USA, UK and Saudi Arabia (well, you can quibble whether Saudi Arabia really was a contributor, but that is detracting from the point)? Guess who positioned themselves very well for the post Gulf War I period? Do you remember the corruption allegations and accusations relating to the Iraqi Oil for Food programme against a gentleman called as Charles Pasqua and the BNP Paribas bank? Which western country fought the hardest against Gulf War II? No prizes for guessing!

So how it is that France has a great reputation (despite having the most atrocious reputation amongst its own domestic Arab minority population)? What can the UK and USA learn from France's foreign policy? UK and USA are the Great and Smaller Satan at this moment on the Arab Street and in its basement. You are almost guaranteed to have the effigies of Brown and Blair and/or the flags of the two countries burnt during every Arab street demonstration.

Well, the first and foremost bit is that its national interest (oil) is aligned to its foreign policy. For almost a century, the state was aligned with going after external oil with the exception of some war years. So the policy is stable. It learnt from its colonial experience in Algeria and has decided not to get involved in colonial endeavours. It supports the ex-colony governments, ties them together in a very tight francophone web of culture, language, politics, diplomatic, military and government contacts. When was the last time you heard France going to war or beating the war drums because a French ex-colony’s government has been beastly to its citizens? Do you seriously think that France gives a rat’s behind about democracy, equality, liberty and fraternity of those oppressed people?

All elements of its intelligentsia subscribe to France’s foreign policy, so it does not alter given changes of its president or prime minister. Whether we are talking De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Chirac, Jospin and now Sarkozy, the foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for almost half a century. This is because the elite of French society are drawn from a tight circle and the think tanks and intellectuals, are all bought into this national interest, national ethos and foreign policy.

It is also remarkably consistent in its secularism, which paradoxically is very appealing to its Arab Muslim client states. They like knowing that the French State will follow its own national interest and that it will have nothing to do with anti-Islam, Islamophobia or what have you. It is also remarkably hypocrisy-free in terms of its arms sales these days. No questions asked, you want arms, you want technology, you want engineering products, show me the money and the stuff is yours. Whether we are talking food processing, engineering, petrochemical, shipping, France is your woman (if you pardon the pun, France is a woman, and don’t you know? Unlike Germany which is masculine!) Why is it that French products were never hit with the boycott calls after the infamous Mohammad cartoons row blew up, despite French newspapers and magazines publishing the very same ones? While UK, despite not publishing them, was panned left, right and centre?

The solution is simple! If the UK and USA want to go down the route of France They need to drop the governmental support for Israel, stop banging on about democracy, freedom, free speech, etc. They need to divorce foreign policy from trade policy and be ready to sell anything / everything to anybody who has money. Be discreet but consistent about supporting autocratic rulers, who will in turn support trade, industrial and defence industries. They need not worry about their populace, but have to make sure that the intelligentsia will march to the same tune of the national interest of UK and USA being the most important issue. The rest follow much later if at all. There you go - simple answer.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!
Link


Europe
Italy: Probe unearths $40 million "black channel" Iraq arms deal
2007-08-12
Jordanians, Iraqi Interior Ministry officials, Italian anti-Mafia prosecutors, Bulgarian arms merchants ...

Much more at the link

In a hidden corner of Rome's busy Fiumicino Airport, police dug quietly through a traveler's checked baggage, looking for smuggled drugs. What they found instead was a catalog of weapons, a clue to something bigger.

Their discovery led anti-Mafia investigators down a monthslong trail of telephone and e-mail intercepts, into the midst of a huge black-market transaction, as Iraqi and Italian partners haggled over shipping more than 100,000 Russian-made automatic weapons into the bloodbath of Iraq.

As the secretive, $40 million deal neared completion, Italian authorities moved in, making arrests and breaking it up. But key questions remain unanswered.

For one thing, The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command — a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.

Why these officials resorted to "black" channels and where the weapons were headed is unclear.

The purchase would merely have been the most spectacular example of how Iraq has become a magnet for arms traffickers and a place of vanishing weapons stockpiles and uncontrolled gun markets since the 2003 U.S. invasion and the onset of civil war.

Some guns the U.S. bought for Iraq's police and army are unaccounted for, possibly fallen into the hands of insurgents or sectarian militias. Meanwhile, the planned replacement of the army's AK-47s with U.S.-made M-16s may throw more assault rifles onto the black market. And the weapons free-for-all apparently is spilling over borders: Turkey and Iran complain U.S.-supplied guns are flowing from Iraq to anti-government militants on their soil.

Iraqi middlemen in the Italian deal, in intercepted e-mails, claimed the arrangement had official American approval. A U.S. spokesman in Baghdad denied that.

"Iraqi officials did not make MNSTC-I aware that they were making purchases," Lt. Col. Daniel Williams of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I), which oversees arming and training of the Iraqi police and army, told the AP.

Operation Parabellum, the investigation led by Dario Razzi, anti-Mafia prosecutor in this central Italian city, began in 2005 as a routine investigation into drug trafficking by organized-crime figures, branched out into an inquiry into arms dealing with Libya, and then widened to Iraq.

Court documents obtained by the AP show that Razzi's break came early last year when police monitoring one of the drug suspects covertly opened his luggage as he left on a flight to Libya. Instead of the expected drugs, they found helmets, bulletproof vests and the weapons catalog.

Tapping telephones, monitoring e-mails, Razzi's investigators followed the trail to a group of Italian businessmen, otherwise unrelated to the drug probe, who were working to sell arms to Libya and, by late 2006, to Iraq as well, through offshore companies they set up in Malta and Cyprus.

Four Italians have been arrested and are awaiting court indictment for allegedly creating a criminal association and alleged arms trafficking — trading in weapons without a government license. A fifth Italian is being sought in Africa. In addition, 13 other Italians were arrested on drug charges.

Al-Handal's operations have caught investigators' notice before. In 1996-2003, the company was involved as a broker in the kickback scandal known as Oil for Food, the CIA says.
Link


Britain
Galloway may face criminal charges
2007-07-19
Scotland yard is to take the first steps toward a possible criminal investigation against George Galloway, who faces an 18-day suspension from the Commons over his financial links to Saddam Hussein's regime, The Daily Telegraph can disclose today.

Detectives are to seek documents from the Serious Fraud Office, which carried out a previous investigation, to establish whether there are grounds to prosecute Mr Galloway. The police may seek his bank accounts after a report by Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Standards Commisioner, concluded yesterday that Mr Galloway's Mariam Appeal charity received large sums from Saddam's manipulation of the United Nations oil-for-food programme.

Sir Philip said: "Mr Galloway has consistently denied, prevaricated and fudged in relation to the now undeniable evidence that the Mariam Appeal, and he indirectly through it, received money derived, via the Oil for Food programme, from the Iraqi regime."

He added: "Mr Galloway through his controlling position in the appeal, benefited from those monies, in terms of furtherance of his political objectives." He went on: "He [Mr Galloway] had received such support at least recklessly or negligently, and probably knowingly." But Sir Philip said there was no evidence that Mr Galloway had benefited personally from the programme or that any funds had entered his personal bank account.

The 181-page report said that the Respect MP had "consistently failed to live up to the expectation of openness and straightforwardness".

The investigation was triggered by The Daily Telegraph in April 2003 when David Blair, a foreign correspondent, discovered documents purporting to be about Mr Galloway in the Iraqi foreign ministry in Baghdad shortly after Saddam's overthrow. The papers claimed to show that he received funds from Saddam's regime for the Mariam Appeal. The committee report demands that Mr Galloway apologise to David Blair, who he accused of perjury, and to the Commons. In December 2004 The Daily Telegraph lost a libel action brought by Mr Galloway who was paid £150,000 in damages.

Detectives are studying the section of the report where Sir Philip referred to Mr Galloway's bank accounts which he had not seen. The report said: "I have not pressed for access to bank accounts . . . primarily because I believe that embarking on such action could take me into matters more properly within the jurisdiction of other agencies."
Link


Britain
Galloway suspended from House of Commons
2007-07-17
Garin Hovannisian & Alec Mouhibian, The Weekly Standard

EARLY THIS MORNING, a committee of the British House of Commons suspended the flamboyant* George Galloway, member from Bethnal Green and Bow, for 18 days for concealing the Iraqi funding of his "charity," the Mariam Appeal. Founded in the late 1990s to bring attention to the suffering of Iraqis under U.N. sanctions, the Appeal was the platform from which Galloway pursued his anti-West campaign. The committee found that

the Oil for Food Programme was used by the Iraqi government, with Mr. Galloway's connivance, to fund the campaigning activities of the Mariam Appeal. In acting as he did, Mr. Galloway breached the advocacy rule and damaged the reputation of the House.

Galloway was courting Saddam Hussein well before the dictator fell out of power and into fashion in radical leftist circles. "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability," Galloway told the tyrant in 1994. "And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem." . . .


*Remember the catsuit photos? "Flamboyant" ain't the half of it!
Link


International-UN-NGOs
A Whistleblower's Tale
2007-07-08
Remember Oil for Food? Here's the story of how the U.N. propped up Pyongyang.
Link


International-UN-NGOs
Too Strong for comfort, OR Whither Maurice Strong?
2007-06-06
From the woman who wrote Privilege Means Responsibility, posted by Mike earlier. An old piece, dated March 23 2007, but still interesting I think.

Paranoia, says my dear clever brother Bruce, "is the family disease." "Well, ok then" I said to myself, "let's take that bad boy out for a walk." China announced this week that it was bumping its defence budget by 17%. I suspect one of our so-called great men is behind that monstrous threat: Maurice Strong.

While we all watch Conrad Black being taken apart by the Yanks, one of Canada's most dubious characters is hiding out in China, still fomenting trouble at the age of 77. When history comes to write his story, it will be one of extraordinary back room deals that curiously make him rich, while decreasing the self-determination of others. Strong's true talents lie in behind-the-scenes manipulations of the political process. He is reputed to be very, very wealthy, despite being a self-confessed, life-long socialist.

Socialism for everyone else, apparently. As godfather of Kyoto, he is responsible for the virulant anti-capitalist stance of the enviro movement (now thankfully acknowledging sanity when it shows up on the playing field). Strong was the UN official who was chief co-ordinator of re-forms that set up the Iraq Office, which oversaw the Oil for Food program. In fact, he resigned from the U.N., when a $1,000,000 cheque was found to have been delivered to him, endorsed by him and cashed, that came from Saddam Hussein's UN sanctioned regime.

While Strong protests innocence, he vanished to China soon after and returns seldom. Particularly since, following right after the Oil for Food indictments in New York this fall, revelations of pay-outs that propped up North Korea's nuclear community were found to have come winding through various UN outfits which Strong, as special envoy to Kofi Annan for the Korean peninsula from 2003-2005, controlled.

But it is in Strong's machinations for "global governance" that he is most terrifying. Global governance is UN speak for "give us money and go away while we run the world." One of his most flesh-crawling recommendations was that the U.N. take a .5% tax on foreign-exchange transactions, raising, by the estimate of economist James Tobin, $1.5 trillion annually for a supra-government, which answers to no voter in no country. Not only that, under his aegis, at the same time, a two-stage system revoking veto power by the five members of the Security council was recommended.

No wonder he's pitched up in China, the only functional Stalinist state left with nuclear ambitions. Is he, I wonder, about to trigger another Cold War? This one in the name of someone, anyone, standing up to the evil American Empire? I suspect he's going to try. That, and hiding out from any indictments that might come down from his fiddling with the massive budgets he supervised and spent, under the aegis of the U.N.

There is nothing wrong with the U.N., except for this one small thing. Its structure, and lack of oversight by the democracies of the world, has made it a snakes' nest for international manipulators who work against freedom and self-determination of ordinary men and women, in the service of an ideology that is the most murderous and destructive in human history. We need to rescue it – and soon.

Women's Post claims to be read by more mid to high income professional women in Toronto than their versions of the NY Times. Kinda like the Wall Street Journal, I guess, being read by those who actually do run things. ;-)
Link


Home Front: WoT
The Left's Iraq Muddle
2007-05-22
By Bob Kerrey

At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.

But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force."

What troubled me about this statement--a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq--is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.
Link


Home Front Economy
Soros Behind Anti-Wolfowitz Coup Attempt At World Bank
2007-05-09
Mark Malloch Brown spoke Monday to a crowded auditorium at the World Bank's headquarters, warning that the bank's mission was "hugely at risk" as long as Paul Wolfowitz remained its president. Only hours earlier, news leaked that a special committee investigating Mr. Wolfowitz had accused him of violating conflict-of-interest rules. A coincidence? We doubt it.

Mr. Malloch Brown, remember, was until last year Kofi Annan's deputy at the United Nations. In that position, he distinguished himself by spinning away the $100 billion Oil for Food scandal as little more than a blip in the U.N.'s good work, and one that had little to do with Mr. Annan himself. Last week, Mr. Malloch Brown was named vice president of the Quantum Fund, the hedge fund run by his billionaire friend George Soros. A former World Bank official himself and ally of soon-to-be British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Mr. Malloch Brown would almost surely be a leading candidate to replace Mr. Wolfowitz should he step down. Not surprisingly, Gordon Brown cold-shouldered Mr. Wolfowitz at a recent meeting in Brussels.
No way in hell Dubya would nominate Mr. Brown to head the World Bank.
The bank presidency would be a neat coup for Sir Mark, and not just because the post has heretofore gone to an American. He also stands for everything Mr. Wolfowitz opposes, beginning with the issue of corruption. Consider Mr. Malloch Brown's defense of the U.N.'s procurement practices.

"Not a penny was lost from the organization," he insisted last year, following an audit of the U.N.'s peacekeeping procurement by its Office of Internal Oversight Services. In fact, the office found that $7 million had been lost from overpayment; $50 million worth of contracts showed indications of bid rigging; $61 million had bypassed U.N. rules; $82 million had been lost to mismanagement; and $110 million had "insufficient" justification. That's $310 million out of a budget of $1.6 billion, and who knows what the auditors missed.

Mr. Malloch Brown also made curious use of English by insisting that Paul Volcker's investigation into Oil for Food had "fully exonerated" Mr. Annan. In fact, Mr. Volcker's report made an "adverse finding" against the then-Secretary-General. Among other details, the final report noted that Mr. Annan was "aware of [Saddam's] kickback scheme at least as early as February 2001," yet never reported it to the U.N. Security Council, much less the public, a clear breach of his fiduciary responsibilities as the U.N.'s chief administrative officer. Mr. Malloch Brown described the idea that Mr. Annan might resign as "inappropriate political assassination"--a standard he apparently doesn't apply to political enemies like Mr. Wolfowitz.

Mr. Malloch Brown never made any serious attempt to reform the U.N. beyond the cosmetic, while doing everything he could to block the real reforms proposed by Americans Christopher Burnham and former Ambassador John Bolton. He was, however, energetic when it came to lecturing Americans about what they owed the U.N., such as joining the "reformed" Human Rights Council (whose only achievement to date has been to castigate Israel), pursuing a "new multilateral national security," and otherwise empowering the likes of Mr. Malloch Brown, his multilateral mates and their tax-free salaries.

Views like these help explain why Mr. Malloch Brown is in such favor with Mr. Soros, who has publicly suggested the U.S. will need a "de-Nazification" program to erase the taint of the Bush Administration. So close are the two that Mr. Malloch Brown lives in a suburban New York home owned by Mr. Soros. Mr. Malloch Brown says he pays market rent, though reporting by the New York Sun's Benny Avni disputes that. In any case, it's safe to assume that Mr. Soros's widely published views are close to Mr. Malloch Brown's somewhat more guarded ones.

So it's not surprising that many on the World Bank staff would cheer Mr. Malloch Brown: He's perfect for an institutional culture in which "progressive" thinking goes hand-in-glove with a tolerance for corruption. That culture has been on vivid display in the Euro-coup against Mr. Wolfowitz. This weekend the committee investigating the claims dropped 600 pages in the president's lap and told him he had 48 hours to respond--in direct violation of World Bank staff rule 8.01, 4.09, which states that "the amount of time allowed a staff member to comment [on an investigative report] . . . will not be less than 5 business days." Following protests from Mr. Wolfowitz's lawyer, the committee gave him 72 hours.

This is the same kangaroo court that last month leaked its guilty verdict to the Washington Post before Mr. Wolfowitz even had a chance to plead his case. Our sources who have seen the committee's report tell us it is especially critical of Mr. Wolfowitz for daring to object publicly to the committee's methods and thereby bringing the bank's name into disrepute. The Europeans running this Red Queen proceeding prefer that they be able to smear with selective leaks without rebuttal.

Mr. Malloch Brown warned on Monday that, if Mr. Wolfowitz stayed as president, European countries might withhold funding from the next financing round for the bank's International Development Association. We hope he's right, though we know few European finance ministers who aren't eager to throw good money after bad. Still, it's a remarkable bit of chutzpah for the man who downplayed corruption at the U.N. to seek the ouster of the man who has fought to reduce corruption at the World Bank.

If the Bush Administration now abandons Mr. Wolfowitz as he faces a decision from the bank's board of governors, it will not only betray a friend but hand the biggest victory yet to its audacious enemies in the George Soros axis.
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More