« Orange County Catholic Settlement Tops Boston | Main | Washington Governor »

December 04, 2004

Star Tribune On Coleman

If you want to see a prime example of editorial writers with an intellectual hernia, read this Star-Tribune editorial on Sen. Norm Coleman's call for Kofi Annan's resignation:

Good old Norm; it appears there's nothing he won't do for a headline, or for his GOP masters. Minnesota's junior senator made quite a splash this week with his call for the resignation of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, a splendid public servant whom the city Sen. Norm Coleman once governed has considered a semi-native son since his years at Macalester College. Even if he had never set foot in St. Paul, Annan would deserve far better than the stuff Coleman is dishing out.

The ostensible reason for seeking Annan's resignation? It was on his watch that Saddam Hussein diverted billions from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program designed to relieve the humanitarian burden on Iraqis suffering as a consequence of U.N. sanctions.

Note that no one has the slightest whiff of proof that Annan knew about, condoned or profited from this scandal. Furthermore, when the scandal surfaced, Annan appointed former Fed chairman and man of impeccable honor Paul Volcker to thoroughly investigate the matter. Volcker's report, which both he and Annan have promised will be made public, is still a work in progress.

So why is Coleman so exercised, aside from the prospect of juicy publicity? Well, he says, Annan isn't cooperating very well with Coleman's Senate subcommittee, which also seeks to investigate the matter. The United Nations hasn't provided documents the subcommittee needs.

The sanctions were imposed by the U.N. Security Council, the food-for-oil program was initiated by the Security Council, and Annan works for the Security Council. He does not work for the U.S. Senate. Moreover, Volcker has told the Senate subcommittee that it can have the documents it seeks once he is finished with them -- most likely next month. That seems about right.

Readers also should know that this isn't a new issue, and it has very little to do with the oil-for-food program. For months before the election, the right-wing constellation of blogs and talk radio was alive with incendiary rhetoric about Annan and the oil-for-food scandal, not to mention accusations that the mainstream media were soft-peddling it to protect Annan. This is really all about Annan's refusal to toe the Bush line on Iraq and the administration's generally unilateral approach to foreign affairs. The right-wingers hate Annan and saw in the food-for-oil program a possible chink in his armor. They went after it with a venomous fury. Coleman seems only too eager to aid their cause.

Numerous Star Tribune readers have pointed out -- appropriately, in our view -- that if Coleman wants to investigate scandal, he need not go as far afield as the United Nations. He could start with those really nice contracts that Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm, Halliburton, got in Iraq. He could move on to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Just this week, for instance, came accusations from the International Red Cross that treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo amounted to torture. Then the Washington Post reported a secret memo from a Pentagon investigator, written before the Abu Ghraib scandal hit the front pages, that warned the brass of widespread abuses. What brass has been held accountable?

There is so much from the last four years that Coleman could find to keep himself busy. Just about every aspect of the Iraq misadventure smells to the high heavens. But of course investigating those things would be unpleasant for those Coleman so fawningly seeks to please. What an embarrassment.

The mention of the Haliburton contracts is right out of the Left-Wing Fever-Swamp, and summarily disqualifies the editorial from being a serious piece about Coleman's resignation call. Instead of seriously examining Coleman's statements, the Star Tribune acts like an adolescent trying to divert from the issue at hand. The Star Tribune then goes on, of course to mention Abu Ghraib, etc.

It seems to have escaped the writers of the editorial that Coleman has focused on Annan and the UN because the Oil-for-Food scandal is of monumental importance. There is real reason to believe that "allies" who attempted to thwart the enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq did so not because of principled opposition, but because they were being bribed. This happened right under Annan's nose and now it appears that his son had some involvement with one of the companies. He claims ignorance of this, of course.

Whether right-wing talk radio and blogs were on Annan's case months prior to the latest Oil-for-Food revelations is irrelevant to Coleman's latest statements with regard to Annan. Is the Star Tribune arguing that Coleman is disqualified from calling for Annan's resignation simply because right-wing talk radio and the blogosphere have been beating up on him? Maybe we have something worse going on with the writers of this editorial than a simple intellectual hernia.

The Star Tribune writers argue that Annan deserves a pass because there is no proof that he knew about the scandal. Did they argue the same about President Bush when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out? I'd like to find out. I searched their site, but couldn't find any relevant editorials.

I thought the Seattle Post Intelligencer was the worst newspaper I had ever seen. I am reassessing that position.

UPDATE: Powerline has a delicious post on the Star Trib editorial. Excerpts:

The Star's knowledge of the relevant "proof" is, of course, limited. The editorial fails to mention that Kofi's son Kojo received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from the chief firm that the U.N. paid to inspect "humanitarian" shipments, and then--along with the U.N.--lied about the money. Not to mention that a significant chunk of the stolen $21 billion, a figure never mentioned by the Strib, went to officials and journalists in France, Russia and China, all members of the Security Council. So Kofi could have been corrupt, or he could have been incompetent. Either way, it is hardly out of line to suggest that his tenure should come to an end. Needless to say, the Strib offers no support for its claim that Annan is a "splendid public servant."

In the Strib's view, there is only one kind of "scandal"--that is, scandal that brings Republicans, or the U.S. military, into disrepute. Nothing else need be inquired into. I haven't had time tonight to search the Strib's archives for its editorials on Abu Ghraib, but I'll lay a wager. I'll bet that the Strib didn't say that "no one has the slightest whiff of proof that [Don Rumsfeld] knew about, condoned or profited from this scandal." I'll bet he didn't call Rumsfeld a "splendid public servant," either.

The "embarrassment," of course, is not Norm Coleman, one of the brightest political stars of his generation. The embarrassment is the Star Tribune's editorial board.

Posted at 03:13 PM Pacific