The U.N. -- Redefining Dirty

Yeah, that independant panel definitely cleared Kofi Annan of wrongdoing...

Two senior investigators with the committee probing corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have resigned in protest, saying they believe a report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation was too soft on the secretary-general, a panel member confirmed Wednesday.

The investigators felt the Independent Inquiry Committee, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, played down findings critical of Annan when it released an interim report in late March related to his son, said Mark Pieth, one of three leaders of the committee.

"You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up," Pieth told The Associated Press, referring to the two top investigators who left. The committee "told the story" that the investigators presented, "but we made different conclusions than they would have."

The investigators were identified as Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan.

Parton, as the senior investigative counsel for oil-for-food, had a wide purview. He was responsible for investigations into the procurement of companies under the oil-for-food program and he was the lead investigator on issues pertaining to allegations of impropriety relating to the secretary-general and his son Kojo Annan. Duncan worked on Parton's team.

Parton, a lawyer and former FBI agent who has worked on a hostage-rescue team abroad, confirmed to AP on Wednesday that he resigned a week ago, but he declined further comment.

Duncan did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages left at the Rockefeller Family Fund, where she is a member of the board. She is a granddaughter of billionaire David Rockefeller.

It's always a good thing when the investigation starts looking like a whitewash. It wouldn't be the U.N. otherwise. Seriously, this is pathetic on any number of levels. And as Roger L. Simon notes, it all plays out while our Senators take turns acting like buffoons in failing to confirm President Bush's nominee for U.N. Ambassador because he yells at subordinates.

All of this leads me to one conclusion -- maybe the President shouldn't appoint a U.N. Ambassador at all. Would things really change for America? I mean, who really cares what a bunch of corrupt unelected bureaucrats have to say anyway?

Okay, yes, I see the need for a U.N. Ambassador to negotiate and vote on important issues, like vetoing the latest dumb resolution against Isreal. But if the Senate decides it wants to buck the President for such silly reasons, he should just decide to ignore the post. Or maybe appoint Robert Bork via recess appointment.