Normy runs out of gas, while the Bushies stare into the headlights
British legislator George Galloway ran Norm Coleman around in circles Thursday. Gallowway spared no one, especially are very own Normy, who could only muster a squirmy smile in the face of such a barrage. At least someone put the lie to Coleman's stupid posturing. Coleman obviously picked on the wrong guy to shore up his transparent attempt to advance his career by pounding the UN-is-a-bogeyman drum. A Galloway sampling:
"I met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him," Mr Galloway went on. "The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns, and to give him maps the better to target those guns.
Now, I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice.
"I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong.
Of course Powerline immediately started to whine about the treatement Norm Coleman recieved on Hardball. Oh, did little Normy have a hard time on a TV show? Well maybe it's because he's wrong.
You'd think those guys, and in fact every American would be jumping up and down over the revelations that the United States, and specifically cronies of the Bush administration, helped line Saddam's pockets in numbers that frankly dwarf the the oil for food "scandal."
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
If true, this makes Watergate kind of look like a cub scout meeting. Why again did we invade Iraq? Why did citizens of this country sacrifice soldiers? Why did tens of thousands of Iraqi's have to die? I am further from understanding this now than I have ever been.
None of this should be surprising. We would not find ourselves so divided, or at war in Iraq, or considering privatizing social security, or listening to US legislators threaten judges, or listening to dominionists spout visions of God-inspired government without a fantastic degree of hubris. Hubris in the seat of power always results in corruption and scandal. It isn't coming anymore, it's here. That's not a good thing. It's the course Bush set for us.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 1:51 AM |
| 
24 Comments:
Wow.
Here's a bit of video from the hearing.
First of all, Norm is part of a bipartisan commitee who have investigated this oil for food program.As a commitee this is the evidence that they have found. But hey, wouldn't expect anything different from you Chris, you are quite predictable, but always entertaining. It amazes me that you will align yourself with this scumbag to further your agenda. Laughable at best!!!!
Scott K
Chris,
This must be your brain on Koolaid overdose.
No offense, but I have to ask: Did you watch/read the actual questioning from Coleman and Levin? I mean, *any* of it? Or did you just get the rundown from Kos?
Because the scenario you describe has only the most superficial relationship - names and places, basically - with what happened yesterday.
Galloway looked like an evasive weasel. He sounded just about as bad. Coleman is going to nancy him silly.
Mitch and Scott,
Apparently the substance of the hearing is only as important as the quality of sound bites, at least according to Chris.
I had not heard anywhere up until now a defense of the UN in the oil for food scandal, even my die hard DFL friend said, "Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and again."
You post is just silly.
-Censored
Defensive much?
Me thinks somebody's party is losing their touch when they can't even execute a classic gambit like bashing the UN.
Perhaps the people who are so worked up about the oil-for-food scandal can explain to me why they aren't just as worked up about misappropriation of tax payer money in Iraq with private contractors? Why aren't you up in arms about the Downing Street Memo if you're so whipped up about evidence?
Circle the wagons, if you must.
Tom, I can't understand why your response is to bring up topics that have nothing to do with this post.
See Tom, not all conservatives are bible thumpers, and certainly not as stupid as you would believe. When I read something as biased as this crap I have to point it out. :)
I think the headline should have read "I hate Norm Coleman" Instead of trying to give the impression that he (Chris) cares about the truth.
Scott K
Tom
Classic, you're not suggesting that there is no oil for food scandal, just that the GOP isn't doing a good job of exploiting it?
Are you serious?
-Censored
Censored/Swiftee, I expect to see you loudly demanding investigations into the US oil companies who accounted for 52% of the kickbacks - many with knowledge and help from the White House.
Scott,
You're right, I view this with more amusement than a legitimate issue deserves, but frankly I find it hard not to. Galloway is an opportunistic cad and Coleman is banging this drum for purely self-serving reasons. In bringing up the Downing Street Memo and the misappropriations of war funds I was attempting to highlight the fact there are more prescient issues, which further contributes to why I think this is a joke.
If you can tell me why I should give a rip about this I'll be happy to give Norm a second chance, but until then I'll continue to view this as Norm's preemptive foray into comedy.
They found evidence - but not against Galloway. Norm's posturing is sickening. He is, as ever, an opportunist of the highest order.
He has consistently been in the press implicating ahead of the facts.
Mitch - did you watch any of it? or just get the rundown on FR? Because I don't know how you can watch it, read about it or read the transcript and draw a different conclusion. Calling Galloway a weasel, implicating Anan, the UN when the US is responsible for a more sanction-busting than the rest of the world put together is ludicrous.
I've said it before I'll say it again - if Kofi and Co. can be definitievely proven to be responsible for the Oil for Food then they deserve to lose their jobs and if warranted, go to jail. so let' have the trial. But if we are going to have a trial, let's have a trial on the whole sordid mess. Let's clear the timber from our own eyes before we go and pick the sliver from someone else's.
So what was Saddam using this ill begotten money on? To build weapons of mass destruction?
Not only is it a joke, its a funny one too.
Tom, I would agree that this does seem petty compared to the other problems we face.
I like normy, and it makes me sad when others make fun of him.:)-
Scott K
Thank goodness for Newsweek and permit-to-carry, else the MN rightie-tighties wouldn't have anything to bray about this week. Their silence on this is deafening; one imagines them perched eagerly at their keyboards awaiting sweet vindication of their toothsome hero, only to be treated to the sound of, as Wolcott put it, an empty suit walking into a propellor.
Chris:
"Mitch - did you watch any of it? or just get the rundown on FR?"
Oooh! I've been Freepered! Buuuuuurn!
Dunno that I've *ever* read FR; too Kos-like for my taste. But I heard a fair chunk of the testimony, stuff that the mainstream news media didn't broadcast, yep. (I know stuff). But Galloway got his ears pinned back over his relationship with the guy from Mariam (the "leukemia charity" that was allegedly one of his shells), and, as a general rule, when he had a choice between answering a question and skittering away behind a cloud of "Abu Ghraibs" and "Halliburtons", he skittered.
" Because I don't know how you can watch it, read about it or read the transcript and draw a different conclusion."
Well, sheesh. All conservatives are idiots. Didn't you read Kos?
" Calling Galloway a weasel, implicating Anan, the UN when the US is responsible for a more sanction-busting than the rest of the world put together is ludicrous."
Y'see, you've learned something from Galloway already - changing the subject. Who says it's a waste?
"I've said it before I'll say it again - if Kofi and Co. can be definitievely proven to be responsible for the Oil for Food then they deserve to lose their jobs and if warranted, go to jail. so let' have the trial."
Er - that's more or less what Coleman is trying to do. Naturally, I fully expect the pro-UN faction (the left) to change the definition of "definitive proof" as much as it takes to keep the UN sacrosanct - but if you've read Claudia Rosette (which I'm *sure* you have), you'd have to wonder how innocent the UN and others could be.
The problem, of course, is that so many people (almost all on the left) see the UN as some sort of moral authority, when history shows that the UN is perhaps one of the most sordid bodies on earth. The legacy of Dag Hammarskjold was untold misery in sub-saharan Africa (untold, natch, because to tell it would be to impugn the UN!), and the vast majority of their activities since have been either in active connivance with the world's tinpot dictators, or turning a blind eye to their depredations.
Y'know. Kinda like you're doing with this post.
" But if we are going to have a trial, let's have a trial on the whole sordid mess. Let's clear the timber from our own eyes before we go and pick the sliver from someone else's."
The "Mote" quote is the new Godwin.
Tom:
"So what was Saddam using this ill begotten money on? To build weapons of mass destruction?"
To buy influence, especially with - ta daa - the UN. At least, that's the theory of merit. The UN is the place where tinhorn despots get more than their fair share of grace; it's a natural.
Oh, and to buy people like Galloway...
Tim,
Thank goodness for Newsweek and permit-to-carry, else the MN rightie-tighties wouldn't have anything to bray about this week."
Righty-tighties? Cicero weeps.
" Their silence on this is deafening;"
Huh?
Most of the better conservative blogs have been writing about Oil for Food for weeks. I interviewed Coleman on the Hewitt show a few weeks ago about this exact issue, among others.
Silent. Hm.
"one imagines them perched eagerly at their keyboards awaiting sweet vindication of their toothsome hero, only to be treated to the sound of, as Wolcott put it, an empty suit walking into a propellor."
Heh. You used "Wolcott" and "empty suit" in the same sentence. Heh heh.
Mitch, please. Beat another dead horse.
The UN isn't a moral authority. It's a practical way to raise money and administrate projects that are in the world's and oh by the way, the US's, interests. It's also a practical forum to negotiate difficult agreements. Recent history has shown that it's easier to win agreement in that forum than it is to go it alone.
The right acts as if someone, the proverbial scapegoated liberal perhaps, has said the UN is a moral authority. But no one in a leadership position has. The right acts as if the Security Council is the totality of the UN when it represents a fraction of its business. The real difference in our views of the UN is that we on the left believe it represents a viable tool in in our diplomatic kit and accomplishes real work in the world while, the right just sees it as a political football, one to kick or catch as it suits their purposes.
The "vast majority of their activities since have been either in active connivance with the world's tinpot dictators, or turning a blind eye to their depredations." Really? What "vast majority of UN activities" are you talking about Mitch? UNICEF (Children's Fund)? UNHCR (Refugee Administration)? UNISDR (Disaster Reduction)? The World Bank? The IMF? The IFAD (Agricultural Dev Fund)? The UNDP (Dev. Project)? The World Food Program? the WHO (World Health Organization)? Perhaps you'd care to share how these organizations are in league with the world's tinpot dictators? What exactly are you talking about? You don't know and can't prove squat beyond the OFF scandal, and that is frankly peanuts.
And the mote quote the new godwin? Are you kidding me? I hope you don't live your life that way. I don't want my country to behave that way. Why should Normy go after the UN for pennies when information comes to light that our very own president, or military, or congress critters are 10 times as bad? But Normy doesn't really care.
Why do you care at all about the Oil for Food Scandal? Is it because it has the letters "U" and "N" in the title or is it because some assholes in power used money from common people like you and me, kept some and gave the rest to Saddam? Well, if you care about the latter, then, um, yes, take the sequoia out of your own eye before plucking the sliver from the eye of your enemy. The US's collusion dwarfs the UN's and always has. Let's have a look at that. It's a little closer to home and more to the point, don't you think?
Finally, I don't have a problem with the investigation. I have a problem with the lack of restraint Coleman has displayed. He has shot off his big mouth well ahead of the facts and proven that he cares more about his career than he does the facts. That much is clear.
"The UN isn't a moral authority. It's a practical way to raise money and administrate projects that are in the world's and oh by the way, the US's, interests."
Practical in what way? Theory? The tsunami was just the latest of many disasters in UN humanitarian work (which is supposed to be their strong suit). The mainstream media have barely scratched the surface of the scandal with UN "troops" in Africa trading sex for food aid. The only two UN expeditions that have worked in recent memory - East Timor and the Balkans - worked *purely* because the major military partners, Australia and the US respectively, told the UN to shut up and back off and let the grownups handle it.
So in what was is the UN a "practical" benefit to anyone?
"The right acts as if someone, the proverbial scapegoated liberal perhaps, has said the UN is a moral authority.
But no one in a leadership position has."
Nobody like...John Kerry?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/804suggy.asp
Kerry's not a leader? Not prominent? Pfft. Kerry is/was to the UN as Britney is to Kevin.
" The right acts as if the Security Council is the totality of the UN when it represents a fraction of its business."
In the same way that Congress represents a fraction of the US' business. You're right! But just as you can divine the odd bit about the US government from Congress' activities, the Security Council is somewhat indicative of the gestalt of the UN's activity.
"The real difference in our views of the UN is that we on the left believe it represents a viable tool in in our diplomatic kit and accomplishes real work in the world while, the right just sees it as a political football, one to kick or catch as it suits their purposes."
Generally, kick.
"The "vast majority of their activities since have been either in active connivance with the world's tinpot dictators, or turning a blind eye to their depredations." Really? What "vast majority of UN activities" are you talking about Mitch?"
Groooan. Security Council activities.
"And the mote quote the new godwin? Are you kidding me? I hope you don't live your life that way."
Huh? Pointing out that the web has been plagued with "Mote" references? It's becoming a cliche.
Do I live my life pointing out cliches? Well, there are worse missions...
" I don't want my country to behave that way. Why should Normy go after the UN for pennies"
Ten to twenty BILLION dollars that were supposed to feed the people of Iraq. Remember them? The ones that the left were cavilling about during the years of the embargo?
"when information comes to light that our very own president, or military, or congress critters are 10 times as bad? But Normy doesn't really care."
So get one of your own Senators to *produce some information* to that effect, and convince someone - the American people, a judge, someone of more credibility than, say, Oliver Willis or Kos - that we are "ten times worse". Get on it!
"Why do you care at all about the Oil for Food Scandal? Is it because it has the letters "U" and "N" in the title or is it because some assholes in power used money from common people like you and me,"
Actually, from Iraqis...
" kept some and gave the rest to Saddam?"
It doesnt seem that complicated, I guess. The UN - an organ that significant parts of the American left would defer to on matters of foreign policy and security - was allegedly actively complicit with a genocidal dictator in skimming money that was supposed to feed the Iraqi people, in order to buy influence and weapons, and line his pockets. Claudia Rosette has been writing about this story constantly for the past year; try reading some of her stuff.
"Well, if you care about the latter, then, um, yes, take the sequoia out of your own eye before plucking the sliver from the eye of your enemy. The US's collusion dwarfs the UN's and always has. Let's have a look at that. It's a little closer to home and more to the point, don't you think?"
Then bring a credible case!
And in any case, even if you DO bring that credible case (note: the rantings of the KosSacks doesn't constitute a credible case), even IF you're right (and you're not), it logically takes NOTHING away from Coleman's case against the UN. The 2x4 stud in their eye has nothing to do with the 2x4 stud in your own.
"Finally, I don't have a problem with the investigation. I have a problem with the lack of restraint Coleman has displayed."
In other words, the investigation is fine, you just have a problem with Coleman personally.
" He has shot off his big mouth well ahead of the facts and proven that he cares more about his career than he does the facts. That much is clear."
No such thing is clear. Coleman was a prosecutor; he knows a thing or two about playing the media game around a case. You don't have to like it, but it's how it's done.
Hey Chris - give up. If you hadn't noticed you're getting your ass kicked.
-Censored.
Mitch, since your brother in arms Censored/Swiftee ignored it, I'll direct my comment your way:
I expect to see you loudly demanding investigations into the US oil companies who accounted for 52% of the kickbacks - many with knowledge and help from the White House.
Afterall, you care so much about the poor Iraqi children. Also, you said, "get one of your own Senators to *produce some information* to that effect, and convince someone...."
The information has been produced, by the Senate in fact:
"'The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions,' the [Senate] report said. 'On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.'"
Mitch - You need to educate yourself on how the UN works.
The UN doesn't have any troops. They have troops on loan from member countries. The US and Australia didn't tell the UN to "shut up." They commanded a successful operation on behalf of the UN. Only two recent UN missions have worked? What about the WHO? what about the IMF? What about the World Bank? What about UNICEF?
Regarding the Sex for food scandal, it's indefensibile. US military conduct at Abu Grahib is indefensible. But you aren't considering dismantling the US Military, are you? According to the standard, The U.N. Mission in Congo (MONUC) employs about 10,800 peacekeepers from 50 countries, in addition to many civilian staff. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp?pg=1). That makes the peacekeeping operation as good as the troops, as corrupt as the assigned leaders. Even given an unwieldy leadership structure, the successes outnumber the failures. And anyway, we need a forumn for conducting international peacekeeping operations. What's the alternative, unless you are suggesting the US just take it all on its sohoulders and go broke trying to tame the world...nah, didn't think so. By the way, it was a UN report that broke the story.
Your assertion that the "Vast majority of UN activities...blah, blah, blah" is entirely bogus. You do what you accuse me of doing, you avoid the subject. List all of the activities of all of the divisions of the UN and list how they serve the world's tinpot dictators. As I have said before, you can't because it isn't true. The vast majority of UN programs benefit us, help the US keep the peace and aren't connected in any way to the public scandals.
Regarding the "Moral Authority" canard: Is that the best you can do? Kerry's global test? "Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support." OOOOOH! Kerry believes that we should attack other countries with allied support! Shock! He still doesn't say the UN has "Moral Authority" over the US. Nobody says that...except a small fraction on either wing, the .00025% of those on the left who actually believe it, and the GOP who seems to want to paint moderate, capitalist, patriots into the socialist corner for wanting to preserve a neutral international forum.
Finally, the case has been brought. It's credible. So what do you say about it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html
This is like watching a kung fu movie.
The NP'rs attack in swarms and are systematically beaten by the heros.
Then after getting spanked, they attack again, with the predictable results.
Dykstra-san: "Your kung fu is no match for my DNC talking points memo!"
Get's humilated.
Dystra-san: "Not bad, but what about my Daily-Kos monkey style!"
Beaten to a pulp.
Dykstra-san: "Curses! I'll be back!"
Reginald - you don't even earn villian status. You are nothing but a ninja extra. By your reckoning Enron customers are at fault for what Enron did.
-Censored (not to be confused with Swiftee who was banned by the free speech crowd here.)
Chris,
I don't have a lot of time before work today, but I figured I'd toss this in. Your post was a figurative shooting gallery, but I only have time for this:
"Mitch - You need to educate yourself on how the UN works.
The UN doesn't have any troops."
Chris, you don't know me, so I'll forgive the condescension. I'm VERY aware of how the UN military works. They take contributions of troops from member countries, and (per SOP) put them under the command of an an officer (and staff) selected by the UN bureaucracy. Hence, most UN military operations come off like any military operation run by committee; viz the Congo in the sixties, Srebrenica, South Lebanon throughout the seventies, and the Congo again today, among many other fiascoes.
So when you say:
" The US and Australia didn't tell the UN to "shut up." They commanded a successful operation on behalf of the UN."
The UN originally tried to assert its "authority" over both the Kosovo (US) and East Timor (Oz) operations. The US and Oz both said "No, we'll let the grownups handle the parts with the guns". The UN squawked mightily, but the US and Oz carried off both operations with great success. Unlike EVERY UN-commanded operation.
" Only two recent UN missions have worked?"
I was referring to military missions.
One other quick note: Before I read your response, Chris, I silently bet myself $50,000 dollars that if you mentioned the Sex for Food scandal, you'd bring up Abu Ghraib in the next, if not same, sentence. I won! There is no rational comparison between Abu Ghraib and the Sex for Food scandal. For starters, Abu Ghraib has been *investigated and prosecuted*, while the UN is (shocking!) stonewalling.
More, perhaps, later.
I silently bet myself $50,000 you wouldn't agree with me...I won!
Oh Mitch, are you saying the Bushies were Forthcoming on Abu Grahib? It was UN report that broke the Sex for Food Scandal. It's comparable, obviously, because they both represent small subsections of large organizations doing really bad things. Though I have to say, in some ways the Sex for Food thing represents that argument better. There isn't documents from the very top of the UN saying that trading food for sex is ok. There are docs from the top of the US Gov. that pave the way to torture.
A close relative of mine ran UN refugee camps in SE Asia for 20 years. She led the construction of every school in Cambodia (for one example), post Pol Pot. That mission was successful. In no small part, her work is why there is enduring peace in that region. Point is, she isn't uncommon. UN employees go into really bad situations and are expected to prevail. For the most part they do.
So now we have gone from "A vast majority of UN activities" to "only military missions." That's a more reasonable frame and one where I think you have valid points.
That system is seriously flawed. Not worth scrapping. But flawed.
"He is, as ever, an opportunist of the highest order."
As someone who has watched Norm flip flop throughout his career, I'd say this comment is dead on, though alot of us Minnesotans would probably have used the phrase, "weasel of the highest order". His opinions are as predictable as last weeks news and his only real concern is whether the President ever thinks about him during sex with his wife.
I'd have to agree with you anonymous... please do us two favors, though:
1. Please don't mention presidential sexual encounters. The thought of the current or past Presidents having sex is, as a whole, pretty gross.
2. Sign your posts with something. See our "rules of engagement" at right.
Post a Comment
<< Home