Don't believe there's a double standard, both in the left-liberal media and the (inter)national judicial/political system in this country?

1. "Judge orders Berger to pay $50,000 fine for taking classified material."

"Under the deal, Berger avoids prison time but he must surrender access to classified government materials for three years."

The San Diego Union-Tribune published the entire AP article, all 235 words of it. My own left-leaning newspaper gave only the first paragraph--63 words--the paltry barest mention, buried on the second page of the second section.

Berger at first had said it was an "honest mistake," then pleaded guilty.

So he lied and he covered it up while he could.

True, he didn't bug or break into anyone's property, or "destroy a candidate of the other party."

But in stealing what was illegal to take, he was attempting to do the latter, whether admitting to it or not.

He just got caught before he could do anything with it, really, unlike Liddy, McCord, Segretti, Haldeman, Ehrlichman et. al.

"GOP security aide" vs. "Clinton National Security Adviser."

Not exactly the same stories, not exactly the same results. One got caught too soon to wreak the havoc the other wrought. One is no better than the other. Yet only one gets a $50,000 slap on the wrist and accelerated rehabilitation, walking a free, employable man to regain his classified access in three years.



2. How much "enough" is enough?

"In his address to the Security Council Wednesday, Annan said neither his office nor the Security Council as a whole knew enough about the distress Oil-for-Food was in and the corruption going on."

Sooo, that means he knew "some."

Yet according to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Annan's own official U.N. biography states that before becoming secretary-general, he "led the first United Nations team negotiating with Iraq on the sale of oil to fund purchases of humanitarian aid"--and that implies a certain familiarity with the origins of Oil for Food.

While the commission found no "smoking gun," their report did state, "Neither the Security Council nor the Secretariat leadership was clearly in command."

Hmmmm. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is the leader of the Secretariat. And he refuses to resign in spite of the commission's findings that "top U.N. management" isn't doing their jobs.

I heard the investigation Commission Chairman Paul Volcker on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer two nights ago. The transcript of that interview is worth reading. You'll never get this kind of depth with the "6:30 news buffets."

RAY SUAREZ: Did you find that this corruption touched the secretary-general himself?

PAUL VOLCKER: No, not directly in terms of the secretary-general being paid off or anything like that. But there was this complication that his son was at least marginally involved in helping a group that employed him -- Cotecna -- to get a contract for inspection involving the program.

We did not conclude that the secretary-general knew about that situation. But his son was involved and later we did, have now criticized the secretary-general for not conducting anything like an adequate investigation when his son's involvement became known.

Hmmmm. Nixon failed to "adequately investigate" his own men, too...prompting an independent investigative committee as well...

RAY SUAREZ: What about his general oversight of the United Nations as secretary-general, and his involvement in the Security Council as secretary-general in overseeing the operation of the program? You seem to be pretty tough on him in those regards.

PAUL VOLCKER: Yes, well, it fell short of the standards that I think we should expect from the United Nations. I think he should be tested against a high standard and he is the head of the secretariat. And the secretariat fell short of I think effective administration of the program, the kind of thing that should have been expected. Now that is partly the responsibility of how the Security Council defined the program and retained some administrative and operational controls themselves. But nonetheless, the administration secretariat and not just the secretary-general but others have to bear the responsibility.

...RAY SUAREZ: Well now, given what you know about the institution and how you have had this intimate look at it, briefly, do you think the United Nations is capable of making the kind of changes you brought forward?

PAUL VOLCKER: That is the acid test. There is a lot of lip service being paid now to the need for reform. You saw that in the Security Council meeting this morning. But whether all that pledge for reform is converted into reality is the acid test.

NRO had what I believe is the first big expose on this back on March 10, 2004, by Claudia Rosett, senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Powerline also had many links to news and blog stories about this, from November 17, 2004 forward.

So the awareness of this corruption has been increasing for the past 18 months, and yet the U.N. still feels it is immune and untouchable.

And yet, this is the same U.N. that tried and failed to impose sanctions on Hussein and to prevent the war he invited by allowing the entire world to think that he really had WMDs and intent to use them.

This is the U.N. we're supposed to trust with global policy, just because it's not just made up of one country or one President so it can't possibly be compromised or corrupted, oh, no.

This is the same U.N. who just today is deciding, after over two and a half years of being pushed and bullied into "an attempt to recognize abortion as an international human right," that they will probably do. just. that.

Sure, this is the same U.N. that said "we don't war in Iraq, we don't want to risk the deaths of innocent civilans" yet they're all for the death of tens of millions more innocent lives of babies and women from the abortions they support.

Give me a break, for the love of God.