Setting Annan straight. While the BBC employs its old Punch and Judy tactic regarding international disputes where it would rather not see moral clarity emerge, The Washington Times offers the critical US-UK responses to Annan's attempt to fling a little mud in the 'international community's' eyes.
'British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain was "consistently in the lead in seeking to enforce sanctions against Iraq" ... "There were no occasions, which we can recall, on which the United Nations made representations to the United Kingdom" regarding smuggling activities'
'exemptions from U.N. sanctions that were granted to Turkey and Jordan had been implemented with the full knowledge of the U.N. Sanctions Committee and other U.N. bodies and officials.'
You know, that's really game over, isn't it? I know of no real contradictory arguments. We would be left contemplating Koffi's moral/political failures.
So what do the Beeb consider the proper continuation of the fight Annan picked to coincide with the indictment of some of the few US connectors to Oil for Food?
Oh yes, Mr Punch, it's 'UN must reform or die, says Rice'
Not that I really disagree with the sentiments of Ms Rice, but it is the Beeb's habit to seek a mudslinging session when a clear view would see their chosen ones (and if ever there was a chosen one it was Koffi) deselected by history.