no seriously, you have much more experience in the area, let me know if the NYT article smashing Annan's kid to bits has some fallacies - otherwise, that's a pretty strong indictment of that particular part of the UN.

I'm saying, let the investigation led by Paul Volcker go on its course before passing judgement. I have confidence on Paul Volcker, Justice Richard Goldstone, and Prof. Mark Pieth will give us the answer to the Food for Oil scandal.

The evidence is being presented to us as we proceed, correct?

-Rudey

Yes, but I'm waiting for the final report to be given. I enourage everybody to wait until the three gentlemen gets done with their job. They are nowhere near being done. They have list names of firms who were involved in the Oil for Food. However, this does not mean that they were involved in the scam.

They don't just have a list of names who participated in Oil for Food, they have more if you look at the thread I created.

And I have full confidence that every US administration, including the Bush administration would pressure the UN report not to be scathing and to leave certain people off the hook.

-Rudey

I agree with you. I think the three gentlemen will not leave anything to change. If they are being blocked, they will say so. If it's not going according to their liking, they will resign. I've met Goldstone and he is one of the most brilliant jurist in the world, he led the Rwanda tribunal. Volcker is the former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Prof. Mark Pieth, who is an expert in money laundering.

ETA: The Commission has recently announced the Russia is profited the most from the Oil for Food Programm.

No I think you misinterpreted. I think even the 9/11 report was watered down. I think this report will be too. Anyway, every time I come across articles on this and the blood money profits I put it in that thread.

-Rudey

If they have released the names and everything is transparent, how will they watered it down?

I don't think they will release everything if it means that the UN will be insulted at a time when they need the UN's help in Iraq. I also don't think everything is transparent, and I'm not alone.

-Rudey

Ah, I see now. We are talking about two different commissions. There are two commissions that is investigating the Oil for Food, one is run by congress, and the other one by the UN.

Real American support of the UN.... that's great!

The congressional investigation (is that what it's called?) was created as a response to the fears of the UN investigation being fiddled with. And it's funny because even the congressional investigation would suffer from the Bush administrations forceful hand.

-Rudey

I do have some misgiving about the way Volcker is handling the his commission. Personally, I think it is not transparent enough. We don't even know who his staff are. But like I said, I will withold judgement until the final result are out. You can always tell a watered down report when you read one.

I'm not really sure what they officially called the congressional investigations. I do know that the investigation, just like most investigations, is now investigating more then the oil for food and has started investigating how the Bush administration has handled the post war programs.

anyways... back on thread topic:
I think Clinton would fit in with the UN- after all, as president of the US he sat by and did nothing during the genocide in Rwanda- just like the UN!

I don't like the idea of America being the world's police already and then also having an American as Sec Gen of the UN....especially Bill Clinton.

ETA: I think Joscka Fischer should take a stab at the job.