The incredible, mutable record...

[alexpgp]

The BeldarBlog quotes an August 20 Associated Press story in the Houston Chronicle that said:

U.N. officials at the headquarters had refused heavy security - aside from the recently built concrete wall - because the United Nations "did not want a large American presence outside," said Salim Lone, the U.N. spokesman in Baghdad.

Interestingly enough, a visit to the Chronicle site does not contain the quote, so either BeldarBlog is lying through his/her teeth (umm... not!), or we're experiencing a bit of historical editing that may not exactly be of the scope described, say, in 1984, but which is still disturbing.

A separate AP story also filed on August 20 (and whose URL may not be static) notes the following:

Annan said he was surprised to hear reports that the United Nations turned down an offer of security from U.S.-led coalition forces, stressing that security was the responsibility of the United States as the occupying power.

"I don't know if the U.N. did turn down offer for protection, but if it did, it was not correct and they should not have been allowed to turn it down," Annan said. "That kind of decision should not be left to the protected. It is those with responsibility for security and law and order, who have intelligence, which determines what action is taken."

Yeah. Right. I cannot begin to think what fun the newsies might have if the U.S. tried to make an offer of protection that could not be refused. "Bully" would be the kindest of epithets used, methinks.

Cheers...

Comments

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

I saw that UN dweeb in Baghdad being interviewed on TV and saying exactly that. I don't remember his name, though.