Kofi Annan just says he isn't aware of UN/Iraq refusing extra security!

[KoKo]

He said "when you live in a city you don't ask for or refuse the protection of the police, do you? Its' assumed it's there." (this is a loose quote but what I heard).


He just said that in his press conference live. He also said "Mistakes have been made on both sides" in the invasion. When asked to clarify who made the mistakes......he repeated "both sides."

He said the UN will maintain their presence in Iraq, but it's too soon for him to announce deMello's replacement.

He said there needs to be more troops in Iraq to keep the peace....."but, you won't be seeing any Blue Helmets, there.." he emphasized.

So, he's not expecting or planning on UN troops being there .......he wants us to get our ownselves out of this mess.

He says UN Security Council will be meeting about the security issues this afternoon.

[ewagner]

1. Kyra Phillips contradicted him

She said (as soon as he was off the air) that an aid had told the CNN correspondent that the UN had rejected at least some security measures because they wanted the public to have access to the building.

I can't make up my mind whether this is good reporting or an attempt to color the story.

[Maple]

2. Since they were holding or about to hold

a press conference in a war zone, it would seem likely they'd want security. Extra security in fact.

[papau]

3. Some Security rejected means what? - a red telephone?

Sure is a large backdown from this morning's "UN rejected US security" (implying "so it is their fault, not ours")

[Paschall]

4. "some security measures"

What's that? Pretty vague. Does that mean body searches (of women)? If the reporter had details, they should have been provided.

[KoKo]

5. Thanks for posting that....I saw the CNN reporter say that.....but I don't

watch CNN enough to know the anchor names. I didn't have enough info to post it but was curious myself as to who is correct. Should we believe Annan or an "unidentified aid" working for CNN?

Things have gotten really bad when one doesn't know whom to believe anymore. Annan's statement that I quoted could be viewed as ambiguous...it that he implied it was "taken for granted" that UN would have extra security....

So he doesn't come right out and say specifically that they "asked or didn't ask" for the security.....but that he assumed it would be there. So who knows......some low level aid made an assumption, told the CNN reporter and it gets to be news as fact.

:shrug:

[lebkuchen]

6. Doesn't Bush want peace in Iraq like the UN does?

Bush talks "peace" all the time. The UN's purpose is to prevent future generations from suffering the scourges of war (as per its preamble). It is wonderful that both sides want the same thing: peace.

However, Bush now appears to be saying that it is not in the US's interest to provide security to the UN, no matter its mission of peace. If so, then Bush's business in Iraq never was for peaceful purposes, and clearly, he has no need for the UN's presence there, despite the US military's having to resort to its exhausted reserves just to stay afloat because the Chimpster refuses UN help to make the peace.

[QuietStorm]

7. anybody for a game of golf

fore.........................

and it begins the who really bombed the UN.

[QuietStorm]

8. Mission Accomplished as Kofi says,

"but, you won't be seeing any Blue Helmets" Good bye UN reporting, human watch, reports on violations, talk of resolutions, or potential war crime investigation. Goodbye America.

[KoKo]

9. kick for Kofi Light!

:kick:

[Cha]

10. Kick!

:kick:

[Gin]

11. He also said....it is not a decision for the UN people to say no to

more protection...it's up to the occupying force to protect them and make those decisions for them. He is angry and we will be hearing more.

[tlb]

12. Kofi's bureaucratic backround is asserting itself.

Play dumb and pass the buck for mistakes. It served him well in escaping any responsibility in the Rawanda massacre response and likey will work now also.

By SAMEER N. YACOUB
Associated Press Writer

Except for the recently built concrete wall, U.N. officials at the headquarters refused heavy security because the United Nations ``did not want a large American presence outside,'' said Salim Lone, the U.N. spokesman in Baghdad.

The United Nations went into postwar Iraq with trepidation. Relations with Washington were at an all-time low and the strains led the U.N. Security Council to authorize a loosely defined mission forced to work with the U.S.-led occupation.

But U.N. officials in Iraq, trying to maintain an image of neutrality which has long allowed them to operate in some of the most hostile environments, deliberately decided to forgo tighter security measures which the U.S. military could have provided.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/coxnet/iraq/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V5225.AP-Iraq.html