The Iraq/UN "Oil for Food" Scandal

Click here to read more about it

The more I hear about this program the more twisted and corrupt it sounds. I guess it was just another failure in policy where good ol' Saddam is concerned. Sad really.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the subject.

EDIT: It's also interesting to read, "Zhirinovsky and other foreign officials and political figures implicated in the scandal so far -- mostly from Russia, France and China -- deny any wrongdoing."

Isn't it curious to read this knowing that these countries strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq? Hmmmm...

EDITS: Markup codes and spelling corrections.

 

Interesting also that this investigation was led by an American group - the country which actually led the war on Iraq. And the same country that told us there were active weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Forgive me if I don't believe a single word they say.

 

Turning a blind eye to a problem seems to be something that the UN is getting to be pretty good at. Do you honestly think the UN would admit to such a scandalous act?

 

Since Saddam had left everyone alone, and had no WMD...does it really matter if he was skimping some sanctions...

Does it matter that the UN was skimping some sanctions?

Is the Bush administration making money off of Haliburtun? Does it really matter?

Capitalism breeds curruption even in the greatest of things. Who cares if someone gets rich as long as the program is working.

I hate it, but unless you've got money like Bill Gates, you can't fight it. The Bush administration wants to do the same thing with the UN that it did with the Kyoto protocols.

Colin Powell admitted that the WMD case against Saddam was wrong and knowingly exagerated. If they (the Bushes) lied to us about that, why should we believe them on this. Conservatives have gone to far to the right. We are going back to might is right and nation building, and we all know where that will lead us.

So what if France and Germany and Russia makes some extra cash. Everyone does, and until we hold our own people accountable, we can't really point any fingers.

 

BigGAME said...Colin Powell admitted that the WMD case against Saddam was wrong and knowingly exagerated

I've not seen where Powell said the WMD case was knowingly exagerated. Care to post this quote or retract your claim?

And the scandel ain't about gettin' rich.

It's about bribery to end the sanctions that were "working" and stockpilling money to restart his weapons programs once the sanctions were lifted. Read the Duelfer Report.

 

So are you saying that it's wrong for the US to go into Iraq to get money in oil, but it's OK for the UN to protect a ruthless dictator for money?

 

Are you refurring to me?

'Cause that is not what I was saying.

 

No the one before you sorry.

 

Yeah, just figured it out.

Good question, BYW!

 

You guys realize that there's already this thread that deals with essentially the same subject?

I might add that if you're looking for some good ol' half-witted conservative U.N./France-bashing, this is the place to be.

 

It's funny that you say it like that, considering you had always said the truth matters to you more..

Here's another story, which pretty much supports the growing claims of illegality with the oil for food program:

HERE

Now, if the progam was filled with corruption, and the sanctions themselves killed anywhere from 800,000 to 1.2 million Iraqs, wouldn't you want to get to the bottom of it?

 

Let me guess-

No because the only person that we like to bash that kills Iraqis is President Bush.

 

The way I see it, the Oil-For-Food program is just another example of how the UN policies for dealing with Saddam were absolutely not working.

 

This was from Meet the Press with Tim Russet...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558

For the full article...notice how the censors for Powell tried to dodge the question the was coming...


Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Powell: Not off.

Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell: He's still asking me questions. Tim.

Emily: He was not...

Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell: We really...

Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell: Emily, get out of the way.

Emily: OK.

Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.

Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today.

Powell: Thanks, Tim.

Russert: And that was an unedited interview with the secretary of state taped earlier this morning from Jordan. We appreciate Secretary Powell's willingness to overrule his press aide's attempt to abruptly cut off our discussion as I began to ask my final question.


Sorry, I said exageratted, but I guess the exact term was "the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Now what about that...that's from the mouth of Colin Powell. The only sane voice of peace and reason in Bush's cabinet...funny he's resigning. I would have asked him to stay on if I were President. Now we're getting Condi...she won't say anything she isn't supposed to.

 

posted earlier...
So are you saying that it's wrong for the US to go into Iraq to get money in oil, but it's OK for the UN to protect a ruthless dictator for money?

no, but it's wrong to say we can and they can't...that's awful hypocritical if you ask me...

we should hold ourselves acountable first...especially if we are a Christian nation above the rest, and are going to be arrogant about that (and we are very arrogant).

We should do right even when others do wrong. We should lead by example. Who are we to throw rocks when we live in such a glass house?

 

Dath_BigGAME, Bush has said as Powell is saying about the faulty intelligence. Bush is not in denial, as far as I've seen, about being misled here. Powell said that at the time, and with the information available, they made the best decision possible. Bush has said the same thing.

In any case, this issue is not best discussed in this thread. The Iraq War thread is probably a better location for it.

 

"the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."

deliberately misleading
deliberately misleading
deliberately misleading
deliberately misleading
deliberately misleading
deliberately misleading

that = lie

 

Yeah, what's your point? If you are saying that the CIA had some misleading sources, or flat out lying sources, then I agree with you. It's comforting to know that the CIA has been going through a shakeup as a result, wouldn't you say?

 

Confused about what we're discussing here...let's try to minimize the red herrings, ok?


I'm dissappointed about your argument, BigGame. Saying 'it doesn't matter' is a cop-out, and it is the opposite of arguing against what you perceive to be corruption in the US. Failing to point fingers at corruption, especially in a multinational organisation, will only serve to increase acceptence of it elsewhere, which is exactly the opposite of what you should be supporting.



YES, it does matter that this corruption and circumvention of the sanctions occurred, and it is important to get to the bottom of the UN-Iraq legacy of the past decade.

YES, it matters that Saddam was circumventing sanctions...the implications of that should be obvious to everyone, even to people who deliberately wish to change the subject.

YES, it matters that the UN was complicit, even enabling, for this fraud to occurr. The raison d'tat of the UN and multilateral institutions is to allow good governance and effective implementation at a trans-national level. Violations of trust or spirit throw doubt and ineffectiveness upon such institutions. The UN can be a very effective means to work through conflict resolution and international cooperation on numerous issues...but only if Governments and the people that democratically empower their Governments have faith in these multilateral institutions. Individuals involved in corruption, nation-states complicit, and breakdowns of governence need to be exposed and reformed, before the international community can trust the UN for such a massive project again. Surely, the implication of that is obvious to everyone, especially those who wish Nation-states to pursue their foreign policy through the UN, and who hope sanctions can be a viable alternative to conflict?


YES, it matters if officials in the US Government are corrupt. Evidence that this is ocurring should be shared with the rest of us, so that the public and the law can decide if the evidence is true, so that action can be taken. Allegations without support are no more than a windbag's hot air.









Finally, Captialism does not inherently breed corruption. Capital, in a preference for rule of law and protection of property, tends to flow toward nations and industries where good governence and rule of law are respected. Capitalism without good governence does breed corruption...as does any economic philosophy that suffers from lack of legal protection against corruption or supporting property rights, etc.

And what, pray tell, did the Bush administration *do* to Kyoto, that 98 Senators didn't already achieve in 1998?

 

/\/\

Good points.

 

BigGAME said..."the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."

This was a very old quote. I've seen the video many times. And it meant our source was misleading, not that the administration mislead anybody. BTW: Emily was fired over that debackle.

 

Chalabi was central to this...

didn't Chalabi work for the US and the administration? I believe the administration played a central role in misleading, and that is why they have tried to silence Powell.

 

I believe the administration played a central role in misleading

You'll have to take that up with the 9/11 Commision as they unanimously and bi-partisianly agreed that the Bush Administration did not lie.

 

Mr44:
It's funny that you say it like that, considering you had always said the truth matters to you more..

Here's another story, which pretty much supports the growing claims of illegality with the oil for food program:

HERE

Now, if the progam was filled with corruption, and the sanctions themselves killed anywhere from 800,000 to 1.2 million Iraqs, wouldn't you want to get to the bottom of it?

Are you talking to me here?

If so, I called the U.N. thread what it was because instead of being a thoughtful discussion on the U.N. (which it apparently was never meant to be, judging by the semi-coherent rant that passes as its first post) it instead became the Senate Floor's equivalent of an international kangaroo court.

And yes, I'm well aware of the Oil-For-Food corruption. However, I am a firm believer in mending skyhooks rather than crashing them. Judging by the twisted logic of some of the anti-U.N. conservatives on the various threads, if a person caught a disease that person would be physically "corrupt" and would have to be sentenced to death.

 

Endgame......maybe.

I Call for a Vote of No-Confidence in Chancellor Annan's Leadership