Kofi tries to cover his ass

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050415-113059-8408r.htm

 

WTF? Someone needs to b****-slap this idiot.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Well they did know that there was huge exports going to Turkey and Jordan (if these exports were stopped, it would have destroyed a lot of the economy of Turkey/Jordan)

 

Yes, the corruption is bad -- however, the US can't say it had no f***ing clue and play like it had its head up its ass for so many years.

[KipWellsFan]

however, the US can't say it had no f***ing clue and play like it had its head up its ass for so many years.

 

 

They can and they will and so will everyone else. It will all result in a further delegitimization of the UN.

[EvilMonkey]

Well they did know that there was huge exports going to Turkey and Jordan (if these exports were stopped, it would have destroyed a lot of the economy of Turkey/Jordan)

 

Yes, the corruption is bad -- however, the US can't say it had no f***ing clue and play like it had its head up its ass for so many years.

Ok, here is the telling part of that story.

According to Mr. Annan's latest account, most of the money pocketed by Saddam "came out of smuggling outside the oil-for-food program, and it was on the American and British watch."

"Possibly, they were the ones who knew exactly what was going on and that the countries themselves decided to close their eyes to smuggling to Turkey and Jordan, because they were allies."

 

Notice he offers no proof, just the word, "Possibly". Exemptions for those two countries to recieve oil was granted by the U.N., so they can't say they didn't know they were getting oil. PLus, what watch? The U.N. was the group that was supposed to be monitoring that as well. Simply because those two countries are our allies, he tries to paint this as a sign of US involvement in the corruption, when the truth is that the U.N. pretty much sucks at just about everything they do, except for trying to pass the blame onto the US. Or Isreal.

[Rex Kickass]

The Volcker report has said that less than one third of the total money that saddam hussein has supposedly illegally extorted through kickback, illegal oil sales, etc. came from OFFP.

 

That would leave over TWO THIRDS of the 25+ billion dollars. The US and UK were responsible for enforcing the embargo. And you're neglecting to mention that American citizen traders are now being indicted to help perpetuate some of this fraud, both through OFFP and outside of it.

[TheBigHurt35]

The Volcker report has said that less than one third of the total money that saddam hussein has supposedly illegally extorted through kickback, illegal oil sales, etc. came from OFFP.

 

That would leave over TWO THIRDS of the 25+ billion dollars. The US and UK were responsible for enforcing the embargo. And you're neglecting to mention that American citizen traders are now being indicted to help perpetuate some of this fraud, both through OFFP and outside of it.

 

And without the embargo, Saddam would've made even more money off of oil sales. Is it the fault of the US and UK that people will try to take advantage of the embargo?

 

If anything, this argument further supports the notion that sanctions and the OFFP were not viable solutions to dealing with Saddam. Overthrowing him was.

[southsider2k5]

Well they did know that there was huge exports going to Turkey and Jordan (if these exports were stopped, it would have destroyed a lot of the economy of Turkey/Jordan)

 

Yes, the corruption is bad -- however, the US can't say it had no f***ing clue and play like it had its head up its ass for so many years.

 

Which is a funny statement because who is actually persuing and procecuting people who broke these laws... I'll give you a hint, it isn't Turkey, Jordan or the UN.

[Rex Kickass]

And without the embargo, Saddam would've made even more money off of oil sales.  Is it the fault of the US and UK that people will try to take advantage of the embargo?

 

If anything, this argument further supports the notion that sanctions and the OFFP were not viable solutions to dealing with Saddam.  Overthrowing him was.

 

Question: Name the famous American lobbying for an end to Iraqi sanctions in 1999.

[Mplssoxfan]

Question: Name the famous American lobbying for an end to Iraqi sanctions in 1999.

 

I'm going to have to guess... Richard Cheney?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Which is a funny statement because who is actually persuing and procecuting people who broke these laws... I'll give you a hint, it isn't Turkey, Jordan or the UN.

 

Yes, they are going after them -- which makes me wonder if its out of political expediency (well, I'm almost sure it is) since this will further cement the "See, we don't need the rest of the world's opinion!" mentality that is very rampant in the United States and make the current policy much easier to implement. There was some knowledge of what was going on -- and it was a lack of enforcement. I'm hesitant to believe that the world's greatest superpower had no f***ing clue that this was going on, especially when (to quote Hawk) it had a "cat bird seat" to all the events transpiring.

 

And BigHurt, choosing between "lax enforcement" or "protracted multi-year military overthrow and restructuring" is a false choice. Perhaps a more stringent enforcement could have worked as a solution?

[Rex Kickass]

Wait, you mean there's a middle ground between doing nothing and invading a country?

[TheBigHurt35]

Question: Name the famous American lobbying for an end to Iraqi sanctions in 1999.

 

You mean that it took until 1999 for Americans to realize sanctions on Saddam weren't working?

[Rex Kickass]

No I mean name the famous Bush administration member who actively lobbied for an end to sanctions to Iraq in 1999.

[TheBigHurt35]

No I mean name the famous Bush administration member who actively lobbied for an end to sanctions to Iraq in 1999.

 

Of course, you forgot the part about France, Russia, and Germany lobbying the UN to allow an increase in Iraq's oil output from 700k to 2 million barrels/day and the name of the (Republican-controlled) country that opposed it.

Edited April 18, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Of course, you forgot the part about France, Russia, and Germany lobbying the UN to allow an increase in Iraq's oil output from 700k to 2 million barrels/day and the name of the (Republican-controlled) country that opposed it.

 

 

Yeah and all the while France and Russia were selling them weapons in direct violation of UN sanctions but since they opposed the war nobody calls em out on it. I guess they wanted Saddam to get some more cash so he could buy more hardware from them. :rolly

 

Had it been the US selling them weapons all of you on the left would be jumping up and down and screaming for justice.

[Rex Kickass]

Of course, you forgot the part about France, Russia, and Germany lobbying the UN to allow an increase in Iraq's oil output from 700k to 2 million barrels/day and the name of the (Republican-controlled) country that opposed it.

 

Don't deflect. Answer the question.

 

Who was it?

 

It's already been answered for you. The Vice President. Dick Cheney. And the country that opposed it would be the United States, under the Clinton administration.

[TheBigHurt35]

Don't deflect. Answer the question.

 

It was answered before I even read your post.

 

And the country that opposed it would be the United States, under the Clinton administration.

 

Um, yeah, the mighty Clinton administration managed to get around the all-powerful Dick Cheney (who worked in the private sector at the time), despite the fact that Cheney's Republican cohorts had supported very stiff sanctions against Iraq since the Persian Gulf War. And even if Cheney did represent a threat to "Clinton's" sanctions, Clinton's clout was next to nothing in 1999 after being impeached. Why you even brought Clinton into this is beyond me.

Edited April 19, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Rex Kickass]

Funny you should mention that, when there was a period of time when there was a perceived threat from Iraq that was more realistic than the one we were fed two years ago, Clinton wanted to act in Iraq.

 

But Republicans were literally more concerned about who was blowing the President rather than the possibility of getting blown up. When it comes to foreign policy these days, responsibilty lies in both houses (President and Congress) more often than not, especially in situations of action rather than diplomacy.

 

And all I'm saying about Dick Cheney is that if the flip flop fits...

[southsider2k5]

Funny you should mention that, when there was a period of time when there was a perceived threat from Iraq that was more realistic than the one we were fed two years ago, Clinton wanted to act in Iraq.

 

But Republicans were literally more concerned about who was blowing the President rather than the possibility of getting blown up. When it comes to foreign policy these days, responsibilty lies in both houses (President and Congress) more often than not, especially in situations of action rather than diplomacy.

 

And all I'm saying about Dick Cheney is that if the flip flop fits...

 

But I thought changing your mind was good and a sign of intelligence? Damn I need a scorecard to keep up.

[TheBigHurt35]

Funny you should mention that, when there was a period of time when there was a perceived threat from Iraq that was more realistic than the one we were fed two years ago, Clinton wanted to act in Iraq.

 

Clinton did nothing but beat his chest like a tough guy and drop a few bombs on Baghdad after Saddam would kick out weapons inspectors. His "strategy" of dealing with Saddam did absolutely nothing to "contain" Saddam, in contrast to our current President's plan.

 

But Republicans were literally more concerned about who was blowing the President rather than the possibility of getting blown up.

 

You mean that they were more concerned about Clinton committing perjury, a federal crime. Or is that just a "technicality" to you?

 

If Clinton hadn't lied under oath and disgraced the Presidency, he wouldn't have had those problems. It was HIS fault, not that of the "vast Right Wing conspiracy." :rolly

 

When it comes to foreign policy these days, responsibilty lies in both houses (President and Congress) more often than not, especially in situations of action rather than diplomacy.

 

Of course, Congress is usually needed to appropriate funding for military action. Too bad Billy Boy lost all of his political clout by making an ass out of himself.

 

And all I'm saying about Dick Cheney is that if the flip flop fits...

 

If going from working as the CEO of an energy-contracting company to Vice President of the United States makes one a "flip-flopper," I suppose that Mr. Cheney would take it as a compliment. He had an obligation to Haliburton and Haliburton stockholders in 1999 to procure as many oil contracts as possible. As Vice President, his obligations clearly needed to change.

[Rex Kickass]

Clinton did nothing but beat his chest like a tough guy and drop a few bombs on Baghdad after Saddam would kick out weapons inspectors.  His "strategy" of dealing with Saddam did absolutely nothing to "contain" Saddam, in contrast to our current President's plan.

You mean that they were more concerned about Clinton committing perjury, a federal crime.  Or is that just a "technicality" to you?

 

If Clinton hadn't lied under oath and disgraced the Presidency, he wouldn't have had those problems.  It was HIS fault, not that of the "vast Right Wing conspiracy." :rolly

Roll your eyes all you want, but he was tried for this "perjury" and found not guilty by a jury of his peers (the United States Senate.) If he had been a regular citizen, this would not have met the criteria for prosecution of perjury, by the way.

 

And at least Bill Clinton took an oath to testify. Bush and Cheney refused to do such at every opportunity, even to the 9/11 Commission.

 

Of course, Congress is usually needed to appropriate funding for military action.  Too bad Billy Boy lost all of his political clout by making an ass out of himself.

If going from working as the CEO of an energy-contracting company to Vice President of the United States makes one a "flip-flopper," I suppose that Mr. Cheney would take it as a compliment.  He had an obligation to Haliburton and Haliburton stockholders in 1999 to procure as many oil contracts as possible.  As Vice President, his obligations clearly needed to change.

 

Sure, he should be proud of himself. I guess its absolutely appropriate to subjugate what you believe in for a few million dollars. And sell out your own country too. I have a huge problem with someone willing to do business like that, and I certainly wouldn't trust them with the keys to my government.

 

But hey, I guess your civic duty stops at the bank. Fair enough.

[TheBigHurt35]

Roll your eyes all you want, but he was tried for this "perjury" and found not guilty by a jury of his peers (the United States Senate.)

 

What a load of crap. The Senate is about as unbiased as OJ's jury was. Clinton was let off by the Senate because enough Dems voted along party lines.

 

If he had been a regular citizen, this would not have met the criteria for prosecution of perjury, by the way.

 

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

Sure, he should be proud of himself. I guess its absolutely appropriate to subjugate what you believe in for a few million dollars. And sell out your own country too. I have a huge problem with someone willing to do business like that, and I certainly wouldn't trust them with the keys to my government.

 

But hey, I guess your civic duty stops at the bank. Fair enough.

 

Funny, I remember liberals complaining in the mid '90s that the sanctions on Iraq were causing poverty. Talk about flip-flopping...

[Rex Kickass]

Hey, all I'm saying if the Sanctions were so freaking important to our vice president in January 2001, it should have been important to our vice president in May 2000.

 

I'm talking about his position - not anyone else's.