Return to Sender

Canada's conservative newspaper, the National Post, firmly supports the liberation of Turtle Bay:

Over the decade-long run of the oil-for-food program, the UN and several member states looked on as Saddam Hussein siphoned off at least 20% of its $100-billion revenues for his personal use. Hundreds of millions went to rebuilding the Iraqi army; more was paid out in kickbacks to Western politicians, governments, political parties, journalists and UN officials who looked the other way. Tens of millions funded terrorist training and operations around the world, particularly among Palestinians. The grandiose, sprawling palaces U.S. troops discovered when they liberated Baghdad and other Iraqi cities were constructed by Saddam and his family with the proceeds from oil sales meant to pay for food and medicines for ordinary Iraqis. Critics of the American- and British-backed sanctions against Iraq that were in place from the early 1990s until the 2003 invasion claimed they were responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis per year through malnutrition and disease. But we now know it was Saddam's lust for gold plumbing fixtures and weapons that caused the lion's share of Iraqi hardship.

Under Mr. Annan's leadership, the UN feigned blindness to all this. To make matters worse, it recently became clear that Mr. Annan's son Kojo was a beneficiary of oil-for-food largesse. . . .

Given all this, it is amazing to think that Mr. Annan was once thought to be a man who could help reform the United Nations. Indeed, he was originally the Americans' choice for his position (mostly because they were keen to prevent the even more inept Boutros Boutros-Ghali from winning a second term in 1996). But whether or not he was the wrong choice from the get-go, or a good man whose leadership came to progressively resemble the stunning dysfunctionality of the organization he was picked to run, there is no doubt that his tenure as the United Nations' leader should end as soon as possible.

Today's Washington Times goes further to tag Annan for the failure of consensus surrounding the invasion of Iraq:

U.S. taxpayers provide 22 percent of the United Nations operating budget. And what do they get in return? More often than not, failure. By last year, for example, it had become obvious that diplomatic inducements were not going to be able to persuade Saddam to comply with myriad Security Council disarmament resolutions he had flouted. But the council was unable to agree to the use of force against his regime, due at least in part to the fact that prominent political figures in countries like France and Russia were receiving bribes through the oil-for-food program. So the United States was forced to go outside the United Nations in order to put together a coalition against Saddam.

Claudia Rosett first broke the "oil-for-palaces" story in the National Review and the Wall Street Journal a year ago. Apart from Ms Rosett, the mainstream media largely ignored the issue--careful to preserve Kerry's "global test" during the election. So blogs kept the theme alive.

Were it to occur, Kofi Annan's resignation would be the third (after Trent Lott and Dan Rather) prompted by the chaotic, pajama-clad amateurs of the blogosphere. Right now, I'd guess Kofi stays, protected by the anti-Americanism-trumps-any-other-value sickness already common among Democrats.

Still, imagine if Kofi quit. The left already considers the U.N. the template for global government--so forcing Annan's resignation would be akin to the impeachment and conviction of the world's President. That would make the scandal bigger than Watergate, and Annan worse than Nixon! Quite a trophy for Ms Rosett--and for blogs.

(via Instapundit)