Kofi Annan -- time to go???

A couple of people are covering this story. Roger L. Simon writes about it here and links to an article in the Wall Street Journal Roger writes: bq. Will Annan Last? Pressure for the United Nations Secretary General to resign has been ratcheted up by Senator Norm Coleman in an oped in tomorrow's WSJ with the blunt title Kofi Annan Must Go. Coleman, chairman of the U. S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, pulls no punches: From the WSJ article: bq. While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose. The Big Trunk and Hindrocket at PowerLine also weigh in -- Hindrocket also links to this Washington Times article: bq. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday he was disappointed in his son for accepting payments from a key contractor in the oil-for-food program for more than four years longer than had been previously acknowledged. bq. Kojo Annan, 31, had been employed from 1995 to 1997 at Cotecna Inspection SA, a Geneva-based firm that had been inspecting humanitarian goods imported by Iraq with U.N.-administered proceeds from its oil sales. He served briefly as a consultant until 1998. bq. But the younger Mr. Annan continued to receive as much as $2,500 a month from Cotecna until February 2003 as part of a "no compete" agreement, according to chagrined U.N. officials, who have said for years that the payments ended in late 1998. bq. "Naturally, I was very disappointed and surprised, yes," the secretary general told reporters yesterday morning. "I understand the perception problem for the U.N., or the perception of a conflict of interest and wrongdoing." yeah right... Real Sorry!!! Didn't Know!!! Finally, The Big Trunk at Power Line links to another story, this one at National Review Online The Big Trunk: bq. Anti-semitism and the Augean stables At NRO, Anne Bayefsky demonstrates in painful detail why the United Nations is a contemporary version of the Augean stables and suggests why the removal of Kofi Annan from the premises barely begins the Herculean task of cleanup: "Fatal failure." And she doesn't even directly address the institution's absurd governance. From Anne's report: bq. Fatal Failure The U.N. won�t recognize the connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. bq. Last June, the United Nations held its first-ever conference on anti-Semitism. Though the organization's very raison d'etre rises from the ruins of Auschwitz and Belsen, it has never produced a single resolution dedicated to combating anti-Semitism or a report devoted to this devastating global phenomenon. For those who saw light at the end of the tunnel, this week the prospect of enlightenment at the General Assembly came to an inglorious conclusion. One mention of "anti-Semitism" made it into one paragraph of a general resolution on religious intolerance. Fifty-four U.N. states � of the 153 members that cast votes � refused to support even that. bq. What's going on? Let's connect the dots. Immediately before voting against concern for anti-Semitism, the same countries refused to support a call for governments "to ensure effective protection of the right to life...and to investigate...all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation." Anti-Semitism and killing people because of their sexual orientation are acceptable to almost every one of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). bq. The resolution involving killing homosexuals is only one of many U.N. human-rights resolutions in which the OIC stands with the violator, not the victim. The real question is: How do they get away with it, let alone pass themselves off as seriously interested in human rights, including those of Palestinians? bq. Arab and Muslim states unabashedly take the offensive, hijacking the medium of human rights to serve a political agenda aimed at denying Jewish self-determination and destroying the Jewish state � the ultimate form of anti-Semitism. The willing vehicle for such a heist is the United Nations. The U.N.'s June anti-Semitism conference served to invigorate their well-versed two-track approach: Put the Jews on one side, Israel on the other, and divide and conquer. The Religion of Peace rears its head again...