It happened under his watch. Just like many want to blame Bush for what U.S. troops do under his watch.

If the buck stops at the Presidents desk when it comes to US actions, then the buck stops at the Sec Gens desk when it comes to UN actions.

By anti-Semitic natives in the Prog movement, do you perhaps mean people like Pat Buchanan and David Duke?

You tool, robert. The Oil for Food scandal involved a whole bunch of US companies…yet you never blame them.

You can’t handle the US. The US handles you. Like a Rottweiler with big, moist puppy eyes. And fleas. Christian fleas.

> He certainly wasn’t a sequel to Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

S’true. Could have been a bit more forceful. Could have told Powell off immediately, too. Here’s The Economist’s judgement (Oct 5, 2006):

For one thing, the UN could sorely use a spot of fastidious administration just now. Mr Annan was not the venal incompetent that some of his critics in America tried to paint him as. But he has certainly been a weak manager. An investigation a year ago by Paul Volcker into the UN’s mishandling of the Iraqi oil-for-food arrangement in the 1990s concluded that the programme was riddled with waste and corruption, and that this reflected the absence of “a strong organisational ethic”. As the UN’s chief administrative officer, the man with ultimate responsibility was the secretary-general. Mr Annan was lucky to hold on to his job.

And there you have it.

Also, where *are* those billions that BOR is talking about? Isn’t the US still in arrears? Aren’t those billions being spent elsewhere? Inquiring minds want to know.

Honestly, I don’t think that that is what Bill offers at all, and I also think there is a fundamental difference between what many people from the “Con” side of the aisle and I think constitutes this “truth [and] honesty.”

I have noticed for a long time that there /appears/, anyway, to be a basic confusion of “gut feeling” and “common sense” among conservatives with whom I have argued. In my judgment, the absolute first thing to leap to your tongue from the bottom of your id may indeed NOT be “right.” It MIGHT indeed be a good thing for us to consider, and think, and research. It MIGHT be better to allow our more developed (e.g. not animal, not the lizard brain) cortex take precedence.

And this is exactly what O’Reilly and his brethren and sistren (?) so often fail to do. They speak the id and because so many people are /in their guts/ upset, angry, unsettled, he somehow speaks /to/ them and they equate this with his being ineluctably right. Which may not be the case.

O’Reilly as a human is not threatening. What is threatening is that someone gave him a job that allows him to affect a lot of other (apparently very gullible) people. O’Reilly as a human isn’t nearly as threatening as the sad (again, to me) fact that anybody considers him and what he says seriously. O’Reilly would wilt in the face of argument he was not permitted to interrupt and drown out with yelling.

My opinion. Listening exclusively to the id and calling it “honesty” is like /living by/ “in vino veritas/.

The UN hasn’t saved anyone or anything. It just wastes the people’s money.

The US set millions of people free from Islamofascists in Afghanistan and from a cruel dictator in Iraq. The liberal blowhards commenting on this article wouldn’t help anyone but themselves.

When a country like the US starts acting the way it is now, starts breaking its contracts for no reason (eg: The Non Proliferation Treaty and the India America nuclear tech deal) starts wars for no reason (Iraq) and refuses to listen to anyone else, much less the UN, what the heck is the UN supposed to do? Declare sanctions?

Because, in real terms, it was only in handling the US that Kofi was all that much of a failure. He certainly wasn’t a sequel to Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

All said.

I think that your 1) and 3) are a consequence of my 1) and your 2) its a consequence of my 2). Sort of.

I just finished it. Thanks, Walt.

Replace “Him” with “It”

REPLACE Annan with O’Reilly

REPLACE U.S. with Rupert Murdoch

REPLACE Billions with Millions

REPLACE Fancy Suits with Falafel

Sorry but you missed off three:

3: The Arabs. When OPEC formed it started trading in dollars, this means that the American dollar is basically hard currency, this means, thanks to the Arabs, America is the only country in the world which has a currency that is relatively predictable, further, thanks to that whole deal, America pays less for its oil then everyone else. I don’t think I need to explain what a massive advantage this is.

4: America’s massive and growing stockpile of patents.

5: America’s massively protectionist market place, coupled with its ability to insist on its trading partners dropping protectionist policies. America is not alone in this, the EU for example is urging its member states to up barriers against South Africa because we are too competitive for them, but it is a constant with first world countries that they expect the third world to give them open markets, yet refuse to return the favour.

Exactly. “She” protests too much, and has taken bait no attorney would rise to — even a bad one.