Wednesday, January 05, 2005

The O'Reilly Factor - Interview - Transcript: Richard Holbrooke on Kofi Annan

FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Interview - Transcript: Richard Holbrooke on Kofi Annan

So, I turn on Fox News last night just in time to see O'Reilly interviewing Holbrooke about the 'Secret Meeting' in NYC with Kofi Anan.

Here's one of Holbrooke's statements: "Well, for two reasons. First of all, he's a friend, and, secondly, a good chunk of the attacks on him that call for his resignation are absolutely unfair and really designed to paralyze the U.N. -- The United States needs a strong U.N."

Get that Kofi is being wronged! And of course it's all whose fault?

Holbrooke: No, the -- the administration has tended to undermine it, and I know a lot of your viewers...

More: The -- in the tsunami [disaster relief efforts], in Iraq, the U.N. is doing essential things. The administration is utterly dependent on the outcome of that election in Baghdad at the end of this month.

Huh? Number one, the UN is doing essential things? What, more meetings to have meetings to meet for a meeting? Second, what does the election in Baghdad have to do with this?

Finally O'Reilly says something of substance: Yes, have me in there, and I'll -- but here's what I don't understand. I read your book, and everybody knows that you were involved in Bosnia, and you probably know Bosnia better than anybody, OK. Annan blew it in Bosnia. I mean, you know about the 7,000 Muslims who were slaughtered by the Serbs there. You know that the United Nations didn't help those people.

HOLBROOKE: Boutros Boutros-Ghali was secretary general.

O'REILLY: No, but Annan was in charge of the U.N. peacekeeping forces, as he was in Rwanda.


Hobrooke deflects and O'Reilly comes back with a good response.

O'REILLY: He blows it in Bosnia. He blows it in Iraq. He blows it in the oil-for-food scandal. Time -- it would be like me getting the ratings of MSNBC. Why would FOX keep me here? OK. You have to do something and succeed to gain credibility.

Another good point by O'Reilly. At this point I'm almost starting to respect O'Reilly. But of course, just give it time.

HOLBROOKE: He is not incompetent. He's got -- he has -- he and the U.N. have encountered a very bad year. The administration has not made enough of an effort to strengthen it, although Senator Danforth was a terrific ambassador. -- I'm sorry he's leaving.-- We need to make the U.N. better. Why? Because we need them in Iraq. Ask President Bush.

See, Holbrooke levels everything down to one year out for Kofi. He says we need them in Iraq, I don't think so. We've gotten along without the UN in Iraq for almost 2 years. What benefit could there be at this point? It's too late to help with the elections - that's less than 30 days away.

Ok - so now we the piece de resistance` (note: have no clue if this is spelt correctly). This is O'Reilly response on what we could do to better the UN:

O'REILLY: But he's not -- I want to remove him and put Clinton in there. I think Clinton would be a better U.N. chief, and the world likes Clinton. It would help our image.

At this point I'm ready to throw something at the tv at O'Reilly. But in fairness, President Bush brought this onto himself by bringing the master manipulator to promote donations for the Tsunami victims. Sometimes I just wonder who is actually advising the President. Why on earth would he do anything to promote Clinton. This will hurt Bush down the road since the Clintons have no conscience whatsoever and somehow all of this will be twisted to condemn Bush and the Republicans in the future. Hillary will be utilizing PR from this in her 2008 Campaign run....you get the picture.





WWW MyView