May 20, 2004
*Traveling in a fried-out combie
On a hippie trail, head full of zombie
I met a strange lady, she made me nervous
She took me in and gave me breakfast
And she said, . . . *
--MEN AT WORK – “Down Under”, 1982
When the photos finally trickled out depicting alleged prison abuses by American soldiers in Iraq, the media and liberals almost broke their necks rushing to denounce Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and call for his immediate resignation. Out of 135,000 troops in Iraq, reports have nailed down seven as having committed “abuse” yet the accusation rages on that the crisis paints a broader picture of a problem within the Bush administration’s Defense Department leadership structure.
Contrast that with the airtime given the volcanic Oil-for-Food scandal and what you’ll uncover is an institution of elite media so biased it has yet to even spring a whistle on the U.N. story, much less give it the serious, in-depth coverage it deserves.
Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the U.N. and ultimately the man responsible for the more than $40 billion that has been drawn down to the Oil-for-Food account, has repeatedly claimed that he had no knowledge of what is now being investigated as a seven-year U.N. scam. “We had no mandate to stop oil smuggling,” Annan said at a news conference in April.
It’s also true that Sec. General Annan’s own son, Kojo Annan, worked for a company that was awarded a contract for the U.N. monitoring the shipments of Oil-for-food supplies into Iraq, one of more than 36,000 contracts awarded through the $100 billion program.
When peering at these events through liberal bong-filled political glasses, and judging by Democrats’ own standards when assessing guilt, the world, the media and liberals alike should be calling – in psychedelic unison -- for Annan’s head and demanding his resignation. After all, he needs to be held accountable. Like Rummy?
Think again. The quintessential double-standard is typical of the elite media and even more indicative of mainstream Bush-hating liberals; they’re only outraged if it serves them politically.
This whole ordeal is very simple: Annan either willfully let children starve and innocent people die from lack of food and medical supplies they desperately needed, or he didn’t know anything about the 270 former government officials, activists, journalists and U.N. officials from more than 46 countries that profited from the program. Either way, where is the outrage?
It was Annan’s leadership of the U.N. that failed to enforce U.N. Resolution 1441, a resolution unanimously passed by the U.N. Security Council which threatened “serious consequences” if Saddam Hussein didn’t disarm. But it was the Bush administration who was criticized for not waiting on Annan-&-company to get around to doing so.
Who can forget President Jacques Chirac of France telling the world, “Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no'” on giving Saddam Hussein a March 17 deadline to disarm. Even so, liberals are still, in 2004, insisting that Washington should have waited for U.N. approval to get a broader coalition.
No thanks to John Kerry and those left-field liberal Democrats, we’re now just beginning to scratch the surface as to why we couldn’t build that “broader coalition” in Iraq that once dominated the dialogue of clueless Democratic presidential hopefuls, and those who hung on their every outrageous word.
*This article is property of www.johnmmorgan.com and may be reprinted without permision, so long as publication credit is given to* www.johnmmorgan.com
|