The Third Airplane
Paul Volcker says what many guessed. The sanctions put in place by the International Community to cage Saddam were circumvented by anyone who had a mind to. The caged beast was ordering for home delivery from a list of providers all too eager to serve him.
More than 2,200 companies, including major concerns like DaimlerChrysler, Siemens and Volvo, made illicit payments totalling $US1.8 billion ... to Saddam Hussein's government during the UN oil-for food program, a report says.
... this was far less than the nearly $US11 billion Saddam made in smuggled oil sales ... The report blamed UN officials for a lack of oversight and said Security Council members took little action when UN oil experts passed on their concerns. In addition, the BNP-Paribas bank, which held the escrow account for the program, did not disclose evidence of corruption in its possession, the report said. Preferential treatment was given to companies in France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the Security Council, who were more favourable to lifting the 1990 sanctions compared to the United States, Britain and Japan. Among those named in the report as receiving oil vouchers ... were British lawmaker George Galloway, former French UN Ambassador Jean-Bernard Merimee, former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and Russian ultranationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
Even the Australian Wheat Board, hardly a household name throughout the world, paid "$US221.7 million to a Jordan-based collection agent for the Iraqi government under the program, the report said."
Commentary
The fundamental argument against international military action is the supposition that effective alternatives exist to contain rogue states and tyrants. But what if it does not? The Volcker Report essentially describes the history of the decade-long diplomatic battle to proscribe the movements of Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War. It is an account of the unmitigated defeat of the "international community" at the hands of Saddam; not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender. And although the surrender had already taken place, the world was told categorically by the capitulators themselves that they were fighting and winning the good fight against the forces of lawlessness. The problem with September 11 was not that it happened, but that it happened where it could not be ignored; this fact was the virtual third aircraft that crashed into Manhattan that day, striking somewhere in the vicinity of Turtle Bay.
Update
While on this subject, readers may wish to visit this New York Times link, The Many Streams That Fed the River of Graft to Hussein, a heading that has a certain B-Movie quality about it, like 'The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao' or the 'Many Faces of Hercules'. That atmosphere suits the Times' description of how Oil For Food money flowed into the pockets of the so-called advocates for international peace. Some snippets:
Claude Kaspereit, a businessman and son of a French member of Parliament, flew French men and women opposed to penalties on Baghdad and expressed solidarity with Mr. Hussein, and afterwards received allocations ... Mr. Aziz was also the contact point for Father Benjamin, an antiwar activist who founded the Benjamin Committee for Iraq in 1999. ... The priest received what he called a donation of $140,000, and the committee said his Vatican bank account showed a $90,000 deposit the same day. ... Mr. Aziz also worked with George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, who was accused of receiving more than 18 million barrels of oil in his name or the name of a Jordanian associate, Fawaz Abdullah Zureikat.
And those are just the small fry. Also punting down the 'many streams' were respectable statesmen like Vladimir Zhirinovsky of Russia, and Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister. Some very large corporations, among them DaimlerChrysler and Volvo paid sums of money for contracts with the former regime in Iraq. Who could have known?
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/27/2005 02:57:00 PM
55 Comments:
Wretchard,
This is the report that should be trumpeted and the reason that I find the Senate action of trumpeting Galloway's indiscretions so shallow. Even in this story Galloway does not deserve equal billing with Merrime and Pasqua.
I also find it laughable that Volcker seems to be trying to set up a "they all do it" explanation by tossing out the fact that 2,200 companies were involved. Paribas handled all the money and Total/Fina handled much of the oil.
Let's hope that the actual report focuses more tightly on the 20% of the firms that had to have paid 80% of the bribes.
So the postmodernist replacement for the Emperor, designed in fact to replace all current and future Emperors, is revealed to have been wearing no clothes!
Plus ca change, etc., etc.
So are those within the Turtle Bay ediface ... the Walking Dead?
Not much coming out which should be a surprise. And to think back 30-40 years ago and believe the John Birchers were completely nuts. At least not on the 'Get Out of the U.N. mantra.
As I grow older, I understand much more of the Libertarian within my Father.
Wretchard said: "It is an account of the unmitigated defeat of the "international community" at the hands of Saddam; not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender. And although the surrender had already taken place, the world was told categorically by the capitulators themselves that they were fighting and winning the good fight against the forces of lawlessness."
I completely disagree. In order for there to be a defeat or surrender, there must be a struggle between two. In this case there was not. Only greed, corruption and lawlessness in spades. Neither "side" was ever in oppsoition to the other as was supposed by naive US.
This demonstrates the reasons for never entrusting power to an international group of diplomats to dictate to soveregn states. They cannot, it seems, be held to accountability.
Enscout,
Certainly not when the diplomats have such an obvious conflict of interest. Which is, of course, the problem with anyone hoping for anything real from the U.N., other than as a forum for airing grievances. It's very makeup will forever keep it from having any effectiveness at all.
Saddam was a master at bribery. The report revealed how easily Saddam bought-off these "principled" members of the UN. Just imagine how easy it would be for Saddam to buy-off some not so ethical members of the MSM. I would not be surprise to find out that certain members of the MSM are enjoying some of the $1 billion that Saddam looted from the Iraqi central bank. Beware of "news" from the MSM.
As a neoconservative, I can only say that while I am saddened (not surprised) by the UN malfeasance. I sincerely hope that someday we can have a global institution which is not a global embarrassment.
On the plus side, the total failure of the United Nations makes it possible to create a new framework which will address the systemic ills of the UN system. The village must be destroyed so we can save it.
you mean fifth airplane.
Heather, we've noticed.
If and when we get the Mexicans beat into submission to stop the inflowing tide and stationary on their side of the border, that loud creaking rumbling sound you hear will be our laser-like attention and resentment swiveling in a northerly direction.
Ask the French what happens economically when Americans get annoyed with an entire country. Not to mention emotionally when the most powerful group of people on the planet spend each and every day deriding you, all you stand for, and everything you've ever (not) done.
Trust me. It'll be fun.
Prison.
A tight noose.
THE END!
AK,
Your first post stated: “If sanctions were "not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender" then stopped Saddam from developing his WMD capacity? Why was his nuclear program apparently shelved in 1994?”
Here is the United Nations official documentation regarding UNSCOM…
After your date of compliance:
8 Aug 1995: Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon.
Sep 1997: Iraq provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme. An international panel of experts is convened in New York to discuss Iraq’s declaration. The panel unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.
Oct 1997: UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX.
8 Apr 1998: The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.
9 Sep 1998: Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.
31 Oct 1998: Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM.
4 Nov 1998: The Executive Chairman informs the Council (S/1998/1032) that, as a result of Iraq’s actions, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to reestablish proscribed activities.
16 Dec 1998: The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq.
When you talk about ‘Containing Iraq’ and ‘Keeping Saddam in a Box’ (not your quotes – but your concept) I would recommend that you review the official United Nations webpage chronology regarding the topic on which you place so much confidence. Try using the find feature to look for such phases as: ‘denies access’, ‘Final and Complete Disclosure’, and ‘nuclear’. In it’s 7 ½ years of existence we had five ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ of biological weapons, three ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ of chemical weapons, and three ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ of illegal missile development. All those ‘Final and Complete Disclosures’ were deemed false. We found a rather robust – if temporarily hidden and dormant – nuclear program. And finally, with the Oil-For-Food revelations noted in Wretchard’s post we have both a bypass of the Saddam in a Box strategy and an aggressive bribing of security council members to drop those sanctions on which your concept rests. Look back in the large newspapers even as late as early 2003 to review the positions of France, Russia, and Germany regarding the sanctions that both apparently (not really) kept Saddam contained and starved the children of Iraq.
I, personally, was not confident in those measures then, and I would be very distrustful of a Saddam popped out of the box now…
AK,
If the sanctions were weakened (Oil For Food) or removed as France, Germany, Russia, and China were proposing than Saddam would have quickly broken out of the containment.
The UN chronology I linked to ended in 1999 with the UN having NO confidence in Saddam's repeated 'Final and Complete Disclosures'. There were no UN personnel in Iraq till December 2003. That would be 5 years. In March 2003 President Hussein once again filed a false 'Final and Complete Disclosure'. Two weeks later the UN found seventy odd long range missiles. They made a big deal of squishing them.
Please remind yourself that it was Iraq's duty to bring these weapons forward - it was not the UNs duty to search for the weaponry over the span of a decade.
Were you as confident then as you are now?
How long does it take to reconstitute technology when you have already built the items in question?
Would you have been in favor of an unsanctioned Iraq using its oil wealth under the guidance of Saddam?
Australian PM defends wheat board against Saddam kickback claims:
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has backed the country's monopoly wheat exporter after a UN report found it ignored warning signs that its funds were providing kickbacks for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"My dealings with the people in the AWB in the past have always been such that I've found them a very straight up and down group of people and I can't imagine for a moment that they would have knowingly been involved in anything improper."
An 18-month investigation by former US central bank chief Paul Volker named AWB as one of more than 2,200 firms that provided kickbacks to the Iraqi government under the UN's oil-for-food program that ran from 1996 to 2003, allowing sanction-hit Iraq to export oil and import humanitarian goods.
AWB managing director Andrew Lindberg denied the company was involved in corruption and said it had been duped.
http://www.forextelevision.com/FT/AFX/ShowStory.jsp?seq=8008
- makes me wonder what was really going on when the UN headquarters building in Iraq got blown up -
Unfortunately, there is a fairly obvious approach that would address the basic issue Wretchard brings up.
If there are non-state actors who are willing to commit acts of a form of war as a way to further their aims, then the current U.N. philosophy would be to give them a seat at the table.
Al Queda would have a representative at the U.N., as would the IRA, Hesbolah, Haamas, the Paletinian Authority, the American Indian Tribes, the Japanese Red Army, the Bader-Meinhoff gang, the Nazis who supposedly fled to Antarctica in fleet of advanced U-boats, etc. The list would go on and on, and when done all of the major religions would have to be represented as well as probably each of the trade unions, the Mafia, and the National Rifle Association (the latter I would insist upon).
This would be utter chaos - but it would be in keeping with the U.N. approach and the philosophy of "Jaw Jaw is better than War War."
ak
The lack of a "real" need. His neighboring countries, KSA, Jordon and Eygpt all believed that Iraq had the WMD, as per General Franks reporting.
As long as the Intel agencies and the Leaders of the world thought that Saddam had the capacity, he, for almost all intents and purposes, did. Perception having a great deal to do with reality.
As many Iraqis said, in the aftermath of the invasion, Saddam, himself, was a weapon of mass destruction.
Under sanctions, Saddam and his well compensated leftist friends in the west got richer, and the Iraqis got sicker and poorer.
Leftist journalists celebrate every IED, every coalition death, every car bombing of innocent Iraqis. How did the left grow so decadent and corrupt?
The answer is clear and simple. Visit the university. Sit in on classes ranging from philosophy to political science to history to studies of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. Virtually every class is oriented around the "evil west" and the wisdom of cultural equivalence (except the west which is evil). The post modern left is vacuous, and in control of the academy, journalism, and europe.
Thank you, Mr. Gramsci.
Phillip of Macedon, Alexander's father, conquered many towns with the one-donkey strategy.
He quipped, "I can take any town if I can get one donkey into it carrying a load of gold."
This report's implications in the international arena suggest that many, many people and organizations are apolitical with respect to the normal standards of individual rights and personal liberties.
Witness Yahoo and Cisco's commitments to help China crack down on individuals exercising liberties which are protected in the West, but denied in the East.
The actions of Yahoo/Cisco coupled with the Volcker report imply that many, many firms collude to support and enhance dictatorships around the world - AND that dictatorships manipulate politicians, press, and global firms to ensure they are not overthrown nor that their actions see the light of day.
Saddam was a bit player in the long term sweep of history. China is not a bit player - and for this reason - the amorality of many on the international stage sets a headwind that those who seek to be free must tack against.
Latest word is that fugative financer Mark Rich received money under the Oil for Food program.
And Rich contributed heavily to the Clinton Library - and was pardoned by Bill Clinton.
The spread of this conspiracy is breathtaking....
Verc, I think in this case you're confusing the peaceniks and one-worlders, with realists - which I believe AK is an example of. I don't think he'd say it was wrong or illegal to get rid of Hussein, but the wrong decision so far as US interests were concerned.
Correct me if I'm wrong, AK? Or do you buy into this internationalist, please everybody, crap?
I don't think he'd say it was morally wrong or illegal...
Papa Bear,
P. J. O'Rourke.
There is a difference between circumventing sanctions to buy all sorts of sh&t, and circumventing sanctions to acquire WMD. All the hyperbole in the world about "third airplanes" doesn't change the underlying question of whether or not going to war was necessary to stop an imminent threat to US security. The answer remains that it wasn't, although there were a number of other grounds upon which the war may have been justifiable.
daniel nexon
Read the
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
No where does the Joint Resolution is it stated that there was an "imminent threat" from Iraq. Rather Iraq is described as a "continuing threat". Which of course, it was.
The case for taking down Saddam is made in the Joint Resolution. Mostly we acted to enforce UN Resolutions.
Daniel Nexon,
The question is, and should always have been, was it reasonable to believe that Saddam had WMD, or was relatively close to getting them, and would said WMD (either by transfer to some terrorist group or from Saddam himslef) be a significant threat to the U.S., in a post-9/11 world. And I don't see how anyone can take an honest look at what was known at the time, and at Saddam's history, and honestly say that that was an unreasonable conclusion to reach.
The great weakness of the United States and the West.
David Warren is scorching with " Bush in London ".
Here's the warm-up uppercut:
Kraemer grasped that it takes more than superior man- and firepower to defeat an enemy that is ideologically driven; that geostrategic contests are determined as much by irrational and immaterial factors. He grasped that the great weakness of the United States and the West, after the defeat of Nazism, was identical with the great weakness of Germany that had allowed the rise of Hitler.
.In each case, it is the existence of an intellectual elite who think about abstractions instead of realities, and whose instinct to appease a mortal enemy is founded in a lazy, cowardly, and conceited moral relativism. Kraemer was father to the phrase, "provocative weakness" -- in two words, the reason why the West is under attack today from such terror networks as Al Qaeda
Off Thread:
Seems to me the Blogosphere has failed to produce a much needed storm to force the TRUTH about
Wilson Plame into the general public's consciousness, ala Rathergate et al.
Sometimes the MSM Govt Bureaucracy Cabal still wins.
(at least for now)
I've been away a lot so may have missed it, but it seems the older right
(NRO, Weekly Standard, Limbaugh, etc)
have done a better job so far than the blogospere.
Mistakenly thought a reference to my source was included in my 12:50 PM post.
Hat tip to one of our posters here:
"We The Free"
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious" -- George Orwell
MSM Govt Bureaucracy Cabal MoneyQuote :
"Libby's indictment is a political embarrassment for the president, paving the way for a possible trial renewing the focus on the administration's faulty rationale for going to war against Iraq _ the erroneous assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction."
Peter, you mean the Joos?
The Previous Jaw Dropper"I was stunned to learn the story of Haj Mohammad Amin al-Hussein, which I tell at great length in Preachers of Hate. Not only did he meet with Hitler in Berlin in 1941: he became the Arabic voice of Nazi Germany in all their broadcasts to the Arab world, exhorting Muslims to murder Jews and enact Hitler’s final solution. Not by coincidence, one of his greatest students is Yasser Arafat, who in moments of weakness claims (wrongly, I believe) that he is Haj Mohammad Amin’s nephew." -- see it here .
---
Muslim theology does not "acknowledge the Prophets" of others religions as the founders of Islam, rather it consider these particular Prophets as Muslims and therefore consider those other groups as non-capable of understanding that perception. For example Abraham is considered as a Muslim Prophet, and Jesus is considered as a Prophet not as a Messiah. So, it is not about accepting the beliefs of other communities through honoring their Prophets...
The Last Jaw Dropper"When my grandfather left Europe in 1937, the graffiti on the walls read,
'Jews go to Palestine'.
Today the graffiti reads,
'Jews out of Palestine'.
How soon Europe forgets." -- See this .
"We The Free"
Off topic:
Was it only a year ago that the Talking Tree and his crew were bemoaning the worst economy since Herbert Hoover? I expect their clinically depressed attitude toward Iraq will be similarly demolished as delusional by this time next year.
"Growth in the U.S. economy has exceeded 3 percent for 10 straight quarters, the longest string since the 13 three-month periods that ended in March 1986 and the best performance among nations in the Group of Seven industrialized nations, which includes the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., France, Canada and Italy.
The U.S. economy grew 3.6 percent in the 12 months ended in September. By comparison, only the economies of Japan and Canada exceeded 2 percent growth during the 12 months ended in June, according to the latest available data."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a2Bc42y4q1e8&refer=top_world_news#
The sanctions regime has to stand the test: What did we get for what we paid.
The US and Britain maintained no-fly zones at staggering expense.
Iraqi trade collapsed towards Saddam & Co. Its private sector went on life support. The regime now had total commercial control. Saddam’s victims were enslaved more than ever.
The UN was revealed headline by headline to be a rubber chicken; its diplomats absorbed in their own kabuki-vaudeville routine. ( The endings are always tragic-farce. )
All of this because Colin Powell couldn’t endure the visuals from the ‘highway of death’ running north out of Kuwait. He shied away from the prosecution of victory at the apex of Desert Storm and set in train all that has followed.
Saddam’s entourage would have very likely assassinated him upon the approach of the Coalition in 1991. Bush I would have been well pleased to leave the country in the hands of the repressive Sunnis with a modicum of stipulations.
The need to pursue the Republican Guards to the outskirts of Baghdad would have been explained away as necessary to find the rest of his newly revealed atomic program. ( It was surrendering Iraqi troops and technicians who revealed that he even had such a program; and only at the very end of the campaign.)
Running away from necessity only results in the imperative pursuing you.
Nice post, Blert.
Half the people in this country are clamoring the repeat that exact mistake, at even this late date.
We have three years, at least, it should be enough to firmly establish the benefits of an active defense.
Blert:
You sound like one of the small Cabal that was running everything.
(Duly elected and appointed officials like Cheney and Rummy)
SHAME!
Don't you know that Colin and his Dept are eternally blessed and empowered?
Thanks, Larry.
.Lawrence B. Wilkerson
"It takes firm leadership to preside over the bureaucracy. But it also takes a willingness to listen to dissenting opinions.
It requires leaders who can analyze, synthesize, ponder and decide.
The administration's performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell's damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it.
And he did — everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary's constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war.
It wasn't enough, of course, but it helped."
I really like this analysis by Roger Simon of the whole issue of WMD and how it's a red herring so let's just quit yammering about whether or not there were:
As the for the run-up to the war, in looking back I think it was a big game of charades that everybody understood. Despite what was said, the obvious US motivation was geo-political. We wanted the despot Saddam out of the Middle East and replaced by a democracy. The French and the Russians - never particularly interested in democracy in the first place - desperately wanted to keep their cash cow in office.
Everybody knew this, so the dreaded WMDs had to be emphasized in front of the UN. Never mind that whether Saddam had nuclear and other such weapons now or later was essentially irrelevant as long as he was in power and able to use them, never mind the supposedly missing weapons could be hidden at this moment in Syria, Lebanon or Iran (or even Iraq of course), never mind that there actually is a fledgling democracy in Iraq seemingly applauded by a vast majority of Iraqis, the weapons have been pronounced non-existent and the war a mistake.
Of course the real mistake was this emphasis on WMDs instead of a more honest declaration of the what the war was really about - democracy. On that score it hasn't fared that badly, all things considered. But still the focus must be kept on missing WMDs. The story behind the story is the forged Niger documents, which are currently under FBI investigation. Who knows where that will lead or how it will be spun?
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/10/at_the_valerie.php
Superhawk - it's a form of Conservative.
Superhawks first and foremost protect and preserve America, in the world-loving belief that we represent the best chance for freedom for everybody.
Geek note: I can't find anything relevant on Google to 'superhawk' except motorcycles. I know it's not my imagination - when you look up a Conservative concept on Google these days, most of the Top Hits are Liberal disses of the Conservative Idea you are trying to look up.
Tony,
Probably just a momentary corruption of the "database."
One moment can lead to another.
Friend in college had the original (for US) SuperHawk 305cc.
Why I did not kill myself on that thing, no one knows.
Doug - it's more than a momentary corruption.
Google: "superhawk, Conservative"
Tell me if you get what you are searching for.
You get the opposite. See - now, that's not fair, that's a blatant offense against the fair flow and access of truth.
Sure is a great business model though.
Hope someone comes up with a better "Desktop Search" and I'll take it immediately -
their bias keeps getting worse.
...new Desktop Search is much more invasive also, probably will auto update mine as soon as it gets out of beta.
Seriously, check it out.
It's a World Class Pity that Google is this compromised!
Google Search: superhawk, Conservative
That is all probably true Verc. On the other hand, even though I sympathize with the frustration of fighting the same academic arguments over and over again, I still hesitate to lump all the opposition in one group, conflating their arguments. Because the same people are going to show up in the future, and their motivations are important. A realist, whose interests are in line with mine but disagrees with my methods, is someone I can work with. Now if they don't agree with my objectives, that's usually a different manner entirely.
ugh "matter entirely..."
Tony,
I posted a neat clip of Bush kidding reporters about breakfast in Texas.
Classic Bush Humor,
But like you, I just tried
"Bush breakfast texas reporters"
and got a bunch of negative garbage.
WHAT SEARCH SITE DO YOU SUGGEST?
(I hate all the kid's stuff at Yahoo)
Will clik your hawk, wish me luck.
Tony,
I've said it before, but the "search this site" is now useless compared to perfect before.
...
Thus instead of contacting ex-dem somewhere else, I will make another off topic post. Sorry all.
---
Ex-Democrat,
If you're out there, check out this post on the Libby Indictment.
Sure you'd have something to contribute to the discussion.
Truepeers, Irons, Ballard and others contribute.
Wretchard,
I just tried "Search This Blog"
at another site and it worked just like it used to here.
---
Any Idea why it might not be working here?
...hasn't for months,
for me at least.
A caller today on Limbaugh mentioned that the pardoned Marc Rich profited on OFF.
His speculation:
...and promptly funneled some more money to Hillary.
"The report also sharply criticizes BNP-Paribas, a Paris-based bank that managed billions of dollars in funds for the U.N. program, saying it had divided its ``loyalties'' by representing many of Iraq's major traders. The bank often disguised the role of its clients, including Marc Rich & Co. Investment, by using shell companies to trade with Iraq, according to the report.
The company, founded by Marc Rich, the billionaire oil trader who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2000, allegedly paid kickbacks. The company has denied paying such bribes.
The Volcker report also says anti-sanctions activists and U.N. bureaucrats, including the former humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Hans Von Sponeck, made money from the program."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13018989.htm
verc
it is always tomorrow or yesterday, somewhere.
JFKerry is the first of the Major Players to announce that the Iraq War WAS an error, in his judgement, and that after the December Election, in Iraq, we should begin to withdraw.
He does not have to fortitude to declare that we have met our operational goals and should depart with banners flying in Victory, bet he is leaving that stance to be taken by Ms Hillary.
Funny, I posted that this would be the Dems play, back in April, I believe.
Victor D Hanson has written another short piece about the General State of Affairs, both in the US and abroad. He sums up the situation this way...
"... The odd thing is that so far the conventional advice to the president — keep the discussion on Iraq only to U.S. national security, not the upheaval of the existing corrupt order; reach out to the Democratic Senate; curb your idealistic rhetoric with Syria or Iran; ignore shrill enemies; nominate someone that the opposition will not seriously object to — has only emboldened critics here and abroad. It is time to go back on the offensive, both for the idealistic legacy of the Bush presidency and the immediate future of his ideas in the upcoming 2006 elections. The American people, both pro and con, are more than ready for a great debate to settle these issues one way or another. ..."
VDH Private Papers
Again, a wise man articulates my thoughts. Lucky for me.
I think that withdrawl comes with Victory. That will be achieved with the Elections. The Whereas's of the Authorization, fulfilled.
The level of internal violence in Iraq is an Iraqi matter, not one requiring major US activity.
The number of "outside" agitators in Iraq is very minimal, well under 10,000, closer I think to 5,000. They do not require a major US presence to combat, but are better dealt with by the Iraqis, themselves.
I hear no calls for a US military presence in India, although aQ struck New Dehli with three coordinated satchel charge attacks, earlier today.
It could be an interesting political debate, as VDH says, both sides favor withdrawl, one while claiming Defeat while the other will be announcing "Mission Accomplished".
Whose Goal Posts will the US Public choose?
My bet is on the "Strong Horse"
BTW where oh where is Osama, today?
I will make another off topic post. Sorry all.
If you are honestly sorry, you won't do it again.
Why do I think you'll do it again?
The timing of the New Delhi attacks is probably meant as a message to the Hindus. They're celebrating Deepavali, or Divali, "Festival of Lights" in two days.
The story behind that festival is fascinating. Would that more tyrants be as enlightened as Narakasura at the end...
And I have no doubt that with the attacks, the leftists will stop their bleating cries of "Why do they hate us?"
/sarcasm
Post a Comment
<< Home