Oil For Food Program?

[DawnCt1]

We have learned that France, Russia and Germany have been on the take, and the oil for food program may be the largest coruption scandal ever. The sanctions on Iraq were having little effect, the weapons were getting there anyway and when the sanctions disappeared, Saddam was poised to resume his nuclear plans. Where is Kerry's statement on this? Doesn't this repudiate his "plan" for involving the "rest" of Europe? Rather than worry about President Bush's plan to involved the "coerced" he has to worry about his plan to involve the bribed. This to me demonstrates that President Bush was correct all along, and again, Kerry is on the wrong side of history.

 

[monkeyboy]

well I had greasy fries at lunch..does that count?

 

[monkeyboy]

well I had greasy fries at lunch..does that count?

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by monkeyboy
well I had greasy fries at lunch..does that count?

I guess you didn't read the report but that's okay, neither did John Kerry. www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200410072250.asp

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
We have learned that France, Russia and Germany have been on the take, and the oil for food program may be the largest coruption scandal ever. The sanctions on Iraq were having little effect, the weapons were getting there anyway and when the sanctions disappeared, Saddam was poised to resume his nuclear plans. Where is Kerry's statement on this? Doesn't this repudiate his "plan" for involving the "rest" of Europe? Rather than worry about President Bush's plan to involved the "coerced" he has to worry about his plan to involve the bribed. This to me demonstrates that President Bush was correct all along, and again, Kerry is on the wrong side of history.

Sounds like Kerry is the one that wants to form a coalition of the bribed and coerced.

 

[mikeymars]

Dawn again elegantly forces the left into a corner they can't get out of. Their (and all of the media expect Fox News) silence on this issue is deafening

 

[Geoff_M]

Dawn,

I appreciate your efforts, but I think you're just pounding sand here. The media and political commentary is almost totally fixated on the "No WMD stockpiles" portion of the report. The parts that point to the fact that Saddam had managed to negate the UN sanctions against him, that the UN inspectors appear to have been breeched by his intelligence network, that he was actively bribing other member nations of the Security Council in the way that would help lift sanctions and remove the likelihood that ANY US President could get a resolution authorizing force against him (read: "global test"), and that he was prepared to start producing chemical weapons within weeks after the sanctions were lifted.... these parts are of report are only footnotes in the debate over Iraq. The manta of "No WMD!" and "He lied!" will all that we will be likely to hear in the next three weeks.... and it angers and depresses the heck out of me.

 

[KarenC]

Dawn, I really shouldn't let you bait me into these discussions.

I am having a very angry news day. Mostly over the fact that someone my daughter held in high esteem has been found guilty of possessing child pornography. But the second thing is that now that the final report identifies that there was no WMD program in Iraq the administration is using corruption in the oil for food program to justify the war. It's absurd, particularly since all the allegations and documentation for this scandal come from the now-discredited Ahmed Chalabi (who tipped off Iranian intelligence to our plans, among other things) and he refuses to share the documentation with anyone.

If UN members and US companies were paying kickbacks to Iraq, they should be dealt with. But for us to go to war, that will cost the American taxpayers $200 billion and counting, because of this is nuts. Iraq is now the most unstable country on the planet. Even the Green Zone is becoming unsafe. We did not plan for urban warfare.

We went because we thought Saddam was an imminent threat. We were wrong. Instead of making up new, previously undisclosed reasons to justify our actions, we should admit it and more on.

A majority of the country thinks we're heading in the wrong direction. Our president won't admit we've made mistakes and hasn't held anyone accountable. The CM at the Hall of Presidents once pointed out to the group waiting for the next show that the American people always make the right choices. They already know we're on the wrong track. They'll know what to do about that on November 2.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by KarenC
We went because we thought Saddam was an imminent threat. We were wrong. Instead of making up new, previously undisclosed reasons to justify our actions, we should admit it and more on.

A rogue nation that can reconstitute their WMD's program in the blink of an eye (when the sanctions were lifted) is INDEED A THREAT! Move on means to set the "exit strategy" at VICTORY.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by KarenC
Dawn, I really shouldn't let you bait me into these discussions.

I am having a very angry news day. Mostly over the fact that someone my daughter held in high esteem has been found guilty of possessing child pornography. But the second thing is that now that the final report identifies that there was no WMD program in Iraq the administration is using corruption in the oil for food program to justify the war. It's absurd, particularly since all the allegations and documentation for this scandal come from the now-discredited Ahmed Chalabi (who tipped off Iranian intelligence to our plans, among other things) and he refuses to share the documentation with anyone.

If UN members and US companies were paying kickbacks to Iraq, they should be dealt with. But for us to go to war, that will cost the American taxpayers $200 billion and counting, because of this is nuts. Iraq is now the most unstable country on the planet. Even the Green Zone is becoming unsafe. We did not plan for urban warfare.

We went because we thought Saddam was an imminent threat. We were wrong. Instead of making up new, previously undisclosed reasons to justify our actions, we should admit it and more on.

A majority of the country thinks we're heading in the wrong direction. Our president won't admit we've made mistakes and hasn't held anyone accountable. The CM at the Hall of Presidents once pointed out to the group waiting for the next show that the American people always make the right choices. They already know we're on the wrong track. They'll know what to do about that on November 2.

Karen, I think you're gonna get piled on but I agree completely. Bush supporters HAVE to spin this so they can keep on keepin on! We've now heard three different reasons why our military was sent to war against Iraq. Wonder what the next reason will be?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by KarenC
We went because we thought Saddam was an imminent threat. We were wrong. Instead of making up new, previously undisclosed reasons to justify our actions, we should admit it and more on.

Good grief! Someone PLEASE produce the quote where ANYONE in the adminstration said Saddam was an IMMINENT threat. You can't!!! We went BEFORE he became an imminent threat. You DO understand the difference, right? Of course we were wrong about there being stockpiles of WMD. So what? I mean, good god!, if I knew the powerball numbers when I bought my powerball tickets imagine how much better off I would be. But, given the information I had, I had to go with the numbers I chose! Would you have preferred Saddam continue down his path of thumbing his nose at the world, bribing France and Russia so he could secrectly start producing weapons and wait until they were launched against Israel or Kuwait? In restrostect we absolutely made the right decision. And we now see why France was so opposed and why they still won't play. Much to Kerry's disappointment.

A majority of the country thinks we're heading in the wrong direction. Our president won't admit we've made mistakes and hasn't held anyone accountable. The CM at the Hall of Presidents once pointed out to the group waiting for the next show that the American people always make the right choices. They already know we're on the wrong track. They'll know what to do about that on November 2.

There is no data that supports you contention that the MAJORITY of the country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Karen, I think you're gonna get piled on but I agree completely. Bush supporters HAVE to spin this so they can keep on keepin on! We've now heard three different reasons why our military was sent to war against Iraq. Wonder what the next reason will be?

So we should have let the bribing continue? Bribing we didn't know was going on. Talk knowing then what we know now.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Karen, I think you're gonna get piled on but I agree completely. Bush supporters HAVE to spin this so they can keep on keepin on! We've now heard three different reasons why our military was sent to war against Iraq. Wonder what the next reason will be?

How many reasons do you need? Have no fear however, Kerry has a plan. Its the Magic Eight Ball plan. You shake the magic eight ball and the answer is revealed. "I don't know what I will find there Jan 20, 2005 but I have a plan" He doesn't know what that plan is, the Magic Eight Ball hasn't told him yet, but its there.

 

[jrydberg]

First, there were always a multitude of reasons to go to war in Iraq. The rationale hasn't shifted. The part that gets emphasized certainly has.

Second, it's not spin to say that David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq was a more dangerous place than we thought. The report concludes that Iraq was working hard to circumvent UN sanctions and reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were eased.

Third, the information and documentation does not come from Ahmed Chalabi, but rather documentation obtained in Iraq from companies involved in the transactions.

Fourth, the war in Iraq has cost approximately $120 billion to date, not $200 billion. The $200 billion figure includes budget items for the coming year and items for Afghanistan.

 

[Geoff_M]

But the second thing is that now that the final report identifies that there was no WMD program in Iraq the administration is using corruption in the oil for food program to justify the war.

Since Kerry is enjoying the position of being able to "Monday-morning quaterback" Iraq I don't see the problem of using the report to highlight the fact that the direction and strategies those opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq would have, in all likelihood, been doomed to failure. Sanctions were having little or no effect with Saddam, plus he was stacking the deck with the UN inspectors and with "veto" members of the Security Council. He was trying to play out the clock in the hopes that the inspectors would give up and say their job was "done", sanctions would be lifted so he could dust off the weapons programs and start chruning out chemical weapons again in short order. All of this is lost in the current campaign rethoric coming from the Bush-haters/Kerry-supporters.

It's absurd, particularly since all the allegations and documentation for this scandal come from the now-discredited Ahmed Chalabi (who tipped off Iranian intelligence to our plans, among other things) and he refuses to share the documentation with anyone.

I doubt the notion that Chalabi was the singular source of info on Saddam.... also the charges against Chalabi were dropped for lack of evidence.

We went because we thought Saddam was an imminent threat.

Let's stop the "imminent" urban legend. The claim was we needed to stop him before he became so.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by dmadman43


Good grief! Someone PLEASE produce the quote where ANYONE in the adminstration said Saddam was an IMMINENT threat. You can't!!!

Dmad, I can't believe you're still banging this drum. How many times do I have to post the link of GWB himself saying, before the war, that Iraq was a "clear and present danger"? Oh no sorry, I forgot, "imminent threat" and "clear and present danger", don't mean the same in your language do they.

 

[mikeymars]

Kerry, campaigning in 2004: " I have a plan to end the war - but we can't dwell on substantive details until after I'm elected."

I could have swore I'd heard this somewhere before.

And I was right:

Richard M. Nixon, campaigning in 1968: "I have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam."

It smelled of "no substance" then, and it smells the same now --
just worse.

 

[Geoff_M]

"Iraq Amnesia"... I like the concept:

Iraq Amnesia
The real "coalition of the bribed" was at the U.N.

Friday, October 8, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Judging from the current Iraq debate, you might think Saddam Hussein didn't use poison gas on the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. Or that 500,000 American troops hadn't been sent to the Gulf in 1990-91 to reverse his invasion of Kuwait. Or that Saddam hadn't tried to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in 1993, or long harbored one of the bombers who attacked the World Trade Center that year.

It might also be easy to forget that Saddam never came clean about his weapons of mass destruction, resulting in Bill Clinton's Desert Fox bombing of 1998 and the ejection of U.N. inspectors. Or that he necessitated a huge U.S. troop presence in the region, which Osama bin Laden cited in his 1998 fatwa as one of his primary grievances against America.

It's clear why John Kerry doesn't want to talk about these things, having decided for now that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Count us a bit mystified, however, that the incumbent hasn't done a better job putting his Iraq policy in this context. Fortunately for President Bush, Congressional Oil for Food hearings and Charles Duelfer's final weapons inspections report for the CIA have come along this week to remind us all that the "containment" of Saddam was neither as blissful as certain partisans remember it, nor even sustainable.

"By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," Mr. Duelfer writes. "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."

We realize that some of our media friends think the salient news here is the old news: that Saddam did not possess large stockpiles of WMDs when Coalition forces invaded in March 2003. But Mr. Duelfer explicitly rejects the facile conclusion that therefore sanctions were working. Among his other findings, based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and other senior regime figures:

• Saddam believed weapons of mass destruction were essential to the preservation of his power, especially during the Iran-Iraq and 1991 Gulf wars.

• He engaged in strategic deception intended to suggest that he retained WMD.

• He fully intended to resume real WMD production after the expected lifting of U.N. sanctions, and he maintained weapons programs that put him in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions including 1441.

• And he instituted an epic bribery scheme aimed primarily at three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, with the intent of having them help lift those sanctions.

"Saddam personally approved and removed all names of voucher recipients," under the Oil for Food program, Mr. Duelfer writes. Alleged beneficiaries of such bribes include individuals in China, as well as some with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac.

As Congressmen Chris Shays's House International Relations Committee heard in testimony on Tuesday, France, Russia and China did in fact work hard to help Saddam skirt and escape sanctions. One Iraqi intelligence report uncovered by Mr. Duelfer says that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its U.N. veto against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq--as indeed France later threatened to do.

Evidence also continues to mount that U.N. Oil for Food Program director Benon Sevan was among those on Saddam's payroll. (He denies it.) And contrary to earlier claims that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son Kojo severed connections with the Swiss-based firm Cotecna prior to it winning its Oil for Food inspections contract, we now know that Kojo was kept on the company payroll for another year. We eagerly await the promised interim report from the U.N.'s Paul Volcker-led Oil for Food review panel, and hope in the interests of an informed electorate that it can be delivered soon.

But there are already plenty of facts on the table to support one conclusion. To wit: Even if one accepts the desirability of some kind of "global test" before America acts militarily, U.N. Security Council approval can't be it. There was never any chance that this "coalition of the bribed" was going to explicitly endorse regime change, or the presumed alternative of another 12 years of economic sanctions. "Politically," writes Mr. Duelfer, "the Iraqis were losing their stigma" by 2001.

The sanctions-were-working crowd also ignores that Saddam never would have readmitted weapons inspectors without the kind of U.S. troop mobilization that isn't feasible with any frequency. For President Bush to have backed off in 2003 without unambiguous disarmament would have meant the end once and for all of any real threat of force behind "containment."

Senator John McCain summed it up well at the Republican Convention: "Those who criticize that decision [to go to war in Iraq] would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone." Supporters of his Iraq policy are hoping that Mr. Bush finds a similar voice tonight.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005728

 

[Galahad]

I thought this one was interesting:

"I can't tell you what I'm going to find so I can't tell you what I'll do. But I will tell you that I have a plan." - JFK - 10/7/04

 

[Geoff_M]

Galahad,

I pray to heaven that someone, some time soon, asks Kerry the following question: "Knowning what we do now about Saddam's ability to get around the UN sanctions, his mis-use of the "Oil For Food" program, and his bribing of persons within the governments of influental members of the Security Council, and his continued determination to develop chemical and nuclear weapons... What plan of action do you think would have been succesful against the Saddam's regime?"

But I ain't getting my hopes up...