# Oil for Food scandal: What effect on the UN? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584 "2004-12-01T22:22:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/1 "2004-12-01T22:22:51Z")
The investigations into the Oil for Food program are still in process of course, so we can merely speculate as to what eventually be found. Preliminary evidence though seems to indicate that Saddam and Iraq seriously abused the program to the tune of several billion dollars…and lots of companies were directly involved. In addition, as the UN was supposed to be monitoring the program, they seem to have dropped the ball to some extent. Now, I don’t want to get into any speculation right now about other countries who may or may not have been involved in the corruption (or officials from other countries I should say), nor talk about what effect this may or may not have played in the UN and the SC’s decision’s reguarding Iraq…I think its way to early to even talk about all that, and there isn’t any solid evidence at this point (if I’m wrong about that, please cite your sources…don’t hijack the thread with mere speculation). What I want to talk about is the effect just what we know so far will have on the UN…especially here in the US, but also throughout the world. Should Kofi Annan resign? And from a purely theoretical perspective, if Annan was involved directly in the corruption could he be prosecuted? If so, who would prosecute him? What kind of penalties could be imposed? (FWIW I actually don’t know if he was involved directly or not…I’m just asking because I’m curious about what legally could be done to him IF he were guilty). Finally, does the UN have the right to block the US’s independant investigation because they are investigating it internally? SHOULD they, even if they do have the right? How independant will their own internal investigation be? How reputable will its results be? Should the US be independantly investigating this at all? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/2 "2004-12-02T04:47:07Z")
It’s the classic pot calling the kettle black situation. Neither side can actually DO anything but bitch. But now, it’s our turn to bitch . . . ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/3 "2004-12-02T08:27:40Z")
I heard that the French bank Paribas, was involved in this scandal. Supposedly, Saddam transferred cash to his cronies, via this bank. So those millions of starving Iraqi children (hat Al-Jazeera always raved about) starved because Saddam Hussein stole the money intended to pay for food imports? C’est la vie! ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/4 "2004-12-02T12:25:46Z")
Would these be his cronies like George Galloway, Ralph? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/5 "2004-12-02T13:38:21Z")
Last I heard, our old buddy Ahmed Chalabi had all of the oil-for-food documents from Saddam’s government. Has that changed? I could be wrong, but my understanding was that that fact was holding up any credible investigation into the program. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/6 "2004-12-02T14:21:31Z")
Like everything else, your view of the OP will depend on your politics. If you view the UN as the great hope of mankind, you will play down the issue and point at individuals instead of the institution. If you see the UN as an ineffective collection of anti-American countries, you will condemn it as a whole. Annan should at the very least remove himself from authority while the investigation is ongoing. If he doesn’t, the result will have no credibility. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/7 "2004-12-02T17:21:06Z")
Well, I have to admit I was hoping for some more substantial answers to the OP…but I suppose it does break down as a partisan issue. > [@Si Amigo](#): > > It’s the classic pot calling the kettle black situation. Neither side can actually DO anything but bitch. But now, it’s our turn to bitch . . . Er…I’m not sure I’m following you here. Are you saying that the US is the pot calling the UN (kettle) black?? Could you elaborate some on that? Why do you think the US is as black as the UN on this issue (if I’m reading what you said correctly)? > [@ralph124c](#): > > I heard that the French bank Paribas, was involved in this scandal. Supposedly, Saddam transferred cash to his cronies, via this bank. > So those millions of starving Iraqi children (hat Al-Jazeera always raved about) starved because Saddam Hussein stole the money intended to pay for food imports? C’est la vie! Afaik there is no proof of any of that yet. Nor, if its true, would it necessarily mean much of anything except that a French bank was subverted. Its all pure speculation at this point. I’d kind of like to focus on what we know for sure right now and debate what, if anything, it will mean about the UN both here in the US and in the world. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Last I heard, our old buddy Ahmed Chalabi had all of the oil-for-food documents from Saddam’s government. Has that changed? I could be wrong, but my understanding was that that fact was holding up any credible investigation into the program. My understanding is that the UN is with holding key internal audit information as well as other key data because they are doing their own internal investigation and don’t want it corrupt (though I’m unsure how giving copies of said documents to the currently US investigation would corrupt their own investigation). I don’t know anything about what you are talking about and haven’t heard anything on that line as far as why the investigation is stalled. If you have info I’d be more than interested in looking it over though. > [@Evil One](#): > > Annan should at the very least remove himself from authority while the investigation is ongoing. If he doesn’t, the result will have no credibility. Thanks for answering at least part of the OP. 🙂 I happen to agree…I think he should step aside and out of the way while the investigation is conducted. I also think the UN shouldn’t be auditing itself on this thing but that an outside agency should do it…less chance of a whitewash then. I’m not necessarily saying it should be the US mind you, though I’m not really sure WHO it should be to be honest…just that it shouldn’t be the UN doing it internally. -XT ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/8 "2004-12-02T20:15:25Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Preliminary evidence though seems to indicate that Saddam and Iraq seriously abused the program to the tune of several billion dollars…and lots of companies were directly involved. In addition, as the UN was supposed to be monitoring the program, they seem to have dropped the ball to some extent. Well, one question would be who exactly it was who dropped the ball. I’ll admit that I haven’t been following this story that closely so I don’t claim to have much knowledge, but [here](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041206&s=gordon) is a piece in _The Nation_ that argues that Security Council members in general, and the U.S. in particular, may be to blame for the lack of effective oversight: > [@](#): > > For example, the CIA report says that the bulk of the illicit transactions were “government to government agreements” between Iraq and a few other countries, for trade outside the OFF program. According to the report, they resulted in income to Iraq of $7.5 billion. > > The largest of these arrangements was with Jordan–revenue from which totaled about $4.5 billion. This trade arrangement was the single largest source of Iraqi income outside the OFF program. From 1990 until the OFF program began in late 1996, “Jordan was the key to Iraq’s financial survival,” according to the report. Why didn’t “the UN” do something about it? Because the Security Council–where the United States was by far the single most influential member–decided in May 1991 that no action would be taken to interfere in Iraq’s trade with Jordan, America’s closest ally in the Arab world. > > Likewise, the maritime smuggling that took place under the nose of “the UN” in fact took place under the nose of something called the Multinational Interception Force, a group of member nations that responded to the general invitation of the Security Council for nations to interdict Iraqi smuggling. The “UN” Multinational Interception Force turns out to have consisted almost entirely of the US Navy. The commander of the MIF was at every point, from 1991 to 2003, a rear admiral or vice admiral from the US Fifth Fleet. The United States contributed the overwhelming majority of ships–hundreds in fact. Britain provided the deputy commander and some naval forces and other countries contributed a few ships. The UN itself provided no forces or commanders. “The UN” failure to interdict Saddam’s tankers of illicit oil turns out, in nearly every regard, to have been a US naval operation. > > The much-vaunted kickbacks on import contracts also turn out to be not quite as advertised. Saddam, the claim goes, inflated the price of import contracts by 5 to 10 percent, then received the difference in cash from the contractors. Thousands of contracts, stretching over years, were involved; how could the UN have been so incompetent as not to notice? In fact, prices inflated by only 5 or 10 percent were difficult to detect precisely because the amounts were so small and often within the normal range of market prices. **But when pricing irregularities were large enough that they might have indicated kickbacks, the UN staff did notice. On more than seventy occasions, the staff brought these to the attention of the 661 Committee, the Security Council body charged with implementing the sanctions. On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring.** Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts–$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002–it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented. (Bolding mine.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/9 "2004-12-02T20:36:39Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, one question would be who exactly it was who dropped the ball. I’ll admit that I haven’t been following this story that closely so I don’t claim to have much knowledge, but here is a piece in The Nation that argues that Security Council members in general, and the **U.S. in particular** , may be to blame for the lack of effective oversight: Why the US in particular? We are only one nation after all…and it seems none of the OTHER nations seem to have blocked kickbacks either. From your cite: > [@](#): > > But when pricing irregularities were large enough that they might have indicated kickbacks, the UN staff did notice. On more than seventy occasions, the staff brought these to the **attention of the 661 Committee** , the Security Council body charged with implementing the sanctions. On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring. Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts–$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002–it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented. Also, it seems the US did block some contracts…just not supposedly to stop kickbacks (and appearently under the Bush administration if it was in 2002…or maybe it was just on hold until them, I’m not sure exactly what that part was saying). From this cite anyway. I’ll need to do some digging into exactly why the Clinton administration (and perhaps later the Bush administration), with supposed full knowledge of kickbacks, choose not to block or delay those specifically targetted contracts…I’m a bit skeptical that they did, or that there wasn’t some good reason for it. So, its your contention that the UN is fairly well innocent then of this…in an overall sense? Thats kind of the way I read the article, that the US tried to bring it up but that the other nations weren’t interested in doing anything about it so they just let it slide. Would you say then (to get to the OP) that this will have no effect on the UN’s perception in The World™? How about in the US? -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/10 "2004-12-02T20:39:17Z")
> [@XT](#): > > So, its your contention that the UN is fairly well innocent then of this…in an overall sense? Thats kind of the way I read the article, that the **US** tried to bring it up but that the other nations weren’t interested in doing anything about it so they just let it slide. Would you say then (to get to the OP) that this will have no effect on the UN’s perception in The World™? How about in the US? :smack: That should have been that the UN, not the US, tried to bring it up. -XT ---
**Author:** ![ladyfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/779978/32.png) [@ladyfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfish)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/11 "2004-12-02T21:14:15Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Should Kofi Annan resign? And from a purely theoretical perspective, if Annan was involved directly in the corruption could he be prosecuted? If so, who would prosecute him? What kind of penalties could be imposed? > > _…snip…_ > > Does the UN have the right to block the US’s independant investigation because they are investigating it internally? SHOULD they, even if they do have the right? How independant will their own internal investigation be? How reputable will its results be? Should the US be independantly investigating this at all? > > -XT Kofi Anan should NOT resign…yet. The nature and depth of this mis-management should determine that. If he is determined to be directly involved, then he should resign, forthwith. There should be absolutely NO prosecution, because the Oil for Food setup, U.N. Resolution 661, the U.N. 661 Comittee, the Office of Iraq Programmes and all other related programs that punished the Iraqi civilians for the crimes of their NON-elected leaders were criminal in their inception. The U.N. does have the right to block any individual countriy’s independent investigation on the grounds that this is a U.N. internal issue and it should BRING TOGETHER the invesigative scrutiny of ALL of it’s Security Council members so that any result can not be miscontrued as being [enter U.N.S.C. permanent member name] biased. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/12 "2004-12-02T21:47:11Z")
Kofi Annan’s son was found to have profitted from the kickbacks (built into the oil-for-food scam)? Would this be grounds for Annan to resign? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/13 "2004-12-02T21:55:55Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > My understanding is that the UN is with holding key internal audit information as well as other key data because they are doing their own internal investigation and don’t want it corrupt (though I’m unsure how giving copies of said documents to the currently US investigation would corrupt their own investigation). I don’t know anything about what you are talking about and haven’t heard anything on that line as far as why the investigation is stalled. If you have info I’d be more than interested in looking it over though. Josh Marshall has been following this since the spring. It looks as if there have been no reports of anyone being able to authenticate the documents in Chalabi’s possession, plus the guy who had doing the investigating (don’t know if new people have taken over this role or not) was a longtime pal of Chalabi’s. [On May 2, he posted:](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_02.php#002904) > [@](#): > > In its current issue The Economist states: “Nothing, so far, has been proved, certainly not as far as the UN is concerned. His evidence and nearly all the other allegations against the UN have so far been based on documents found in Iraqi government archives. But no one, other than he and the GC’s 25 members, has seen or authenticated the documents.” > > That point about the twenty-five members of the Interim Governing Council probably overstates the matter. The documents are in the charge of the Finance Committee of the IGC. And the Finance Committee is controlled by Ahmed Chalabi. The Chalabi-controlled investigation is being headed up by a man named Claude Hankes-Drielsma. He’s the ‘he’ referred to in the quotation above. The Economist calls him, “a British financial adviser who was appointed by his old friend, Mr Chalabi, who chairs the finance committee of the GC in Iraq, to advise it on its investigations into the affair.” > > At the moment, there is a tug-of-war between Hankes-Drielsma and Chalabi on the one hand and Paul Bremer and the CPA on the other. The CPA wants to run an investigation out of the hands of ‘politicians’ (read: Chalabi) whose involvement might taint the results. But thus far, Hankes-Drielsma and Chalabi have resisted turning over the relevant documents to either the investigators at the CPA or the Volcker Commission which was appointed by Kofi Annan to investigate the matter on behalf of the UN. > > This issue of the custody of the documents came up in congressional testimony on April 21st. > > Let me reprint a portion of it in which Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) was questioning Hankes-Drielsma … > > > [@](#): > > > > REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Is that true that no papers documenting the allegations that you’ve made today have been given to the United Nations? > > > > MR. HANKES-DRIELSMA: No, that’s true. And [on October 7, Marshall posted this followup](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_03.php#003616): > [@](#): > > But, as I’ve noted repeatedly before, I remain skeptical [of the specific oil-for-food charges] since the documents incriminating these individuals came right out of the Chalabi operation in Baghdad. And, quite suspiciously, he and his assigns have repeatedly refused to hand those documents over to independent investigative authorities to authenticate them. Again and again, silly or nonsensical excuses were proferred for not doing so. > > Needless to say, with Mr. Chalabi, ascertaining whether these documents are forgeries or not is hardly an academic exercise. > > The story has again resurfaced now – in large part because the charges are included in the Duelfer Report on Iraqi WMD. Not surprisingly, Vice President Cheney pounced on the story yesterday on the campaign trail. And in a virtual tour de force of inanity, President Bush today suggested that the invasion may well have been justified by Iraq’s abuse of the oil-for-food program. > > But has any independent observer – most notably the Volcker Commission – gotten access to those documents yet? As recently as August 10th, Judith Miller reported in the Times that Volcker still had not been allowed access to the original documents to ascertain whether or not they were forgeries. > > This passage in an article in the AP suggests that hasn’t happened … > > > [@](#): > > > > The lists, parts of which had been published previously, were compiled from 13 secret files maintained by former Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan and the former oil minister, Amir Rashid. > > > > But there was no independent verification. There are links to supporting articles in the posts themselves. Also, searching the site’s archives for “Chalabi AND food” will net you a few more posts. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/14 "2004-12-02T21:55:56Z")
The US is in a unique position to conduct this investigation. (Since obvously, the UN’s internal investigation is going to be worthless, not to mention bizarrely secretive.) It sits on our land, which could change, and a quarter of their funding comes from us, which could also change. It seems apparent that the UN is in full cover-up mode, so we can hold those two swords over their heads if need be to get our investigation done. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/15 "2004-12-02T22:07:51Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Why the US in particular? We are only one nation after all…and it seems none of the OTHER nations seem to have blocked kickbacks either. Well, the U.S. in particular part would refer not so much to the kickbacks part but the whole thing with Jordan and also with the Multinational Interception Force. > [@](#): > > So, its your contention that the UN is fairly well innocent then of this…in an overall sense? Thats kind of the way I read the article, that the US tried to bring it up but that the other nations weren’t interested in doing anything about it so they just let it slide. Well, like I said in my post, I really haven’t followed this story closely enough to have my own contention. I posted that article because it provides an interesting point-of-view that one doesn’t seem to be hearing in the U.S. press on the subject. But, I agree that more research would be needed to determine how accurate the article’s contentions are. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/16 "2004-12-02T22:16:12Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The US is in a unique position to conduct this investigation. Yeah, because anyone except credulous Bush supporters eager to lap up whatever puss oozes out of the teat of this administration will believe anything a US investigation has to say about the matter. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > (Since obvously, the UN’s internal investigation is going to be worthless, not to mention bizarrely secretive.) I’m sure the US investigation will be completely out in the open. That has been the MO of this administration, after all. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It sits on our land, which could change, and a quarter of their funding comes from us, which could also change. Has the US paid up it’s debt to the UN yet? If not, I can’t imagine that the UN is going to be too afraid of the the US withholding funds it does not pay. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/17 "2004-12-02T22:28:09Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Yeah, because anyone except credulous Bush supporters eager to lap up whatever puss oozes out of the teat of this administration will believe anything a US investigation has to say about the matter. Well, I’m no ‘credulous Bush supporter’ ‘eager to lap up whatever puss oozes out of the teat of this administration’, but ya…I’d trust more what the US (NOT the Administration…you seem to be confusing the two concepts which are actually quite separate) finds than what the UN finds in an internal and closed investigation. Just call me unreasonable, but whenever an organization audits itself behind closed doors I’m a bit skeptical of what findings they will make. > [@Neurotik](#): > > I’m sure the US investigation will be completely out in the open. That has been the MO of this administration, after all. Er…I don’t think The Administration™ is doing the investigation Neurotik. If I remember correctly the Senate is doing it…and its a bipartisan effort. Also, it HAS been pretty out in the open, with them releasing findings as they go along. But, don’t let any of this get in the way of a good rant! > [@Neurotik](#): > > Has the US paid up it’s debt to the UN yet? If not, I can’t imagine that the UN is going to be too afraid of the the US withholding funds it does not pay. Er…what debt do we owe to the UN? I thought we owed the World Bank some money…but thats separate from the UN…no? Or do we owe the UN some other debt I’m unaware of (certainly possible). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/18 "2004-12-02T22:42:24Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I’m no ‘credulous Bush supporter’ ‘eager to lap up whatever puss oozes out of the teat of this administration’, No, you are not - at least in my experience. > [@](#): > > but ya…I’d trust more what the US (NOT the Administration…you seem to be confusing the two concepts which are actually quite separate) finds than what the UN finds in an internal and closed investigation. Considering most of the evidence for this so far has come from the CIA and CIA-paid stooges, I don’t think that there’s much of a difference at this time. > [@](#): > > Just call me unreasonable, but whenever an organization audits itself behind closed doors I’m a bit skeptical of what findings they will make. Very true, but I’d trust the UN behind closed doors before I’d trust the US Senate in the open at this point. > [@](#): > > Er…I don’t think The Administration™ is doing the investigation Neurotik. If I remember correctly the Senate is doing it…and its a bipartisan effort. Also, it HAS been pretty out in the open, with them releasing findings as they go along. But, don’t let any of this get in the way of a good rant! As far as I’m aware, so far it sounds like the Senate is doing it’s investigation much like it investigated WMD claims before the war. Swallowing whatever evidence the CIA feeds them whole. > [@](#): > > Er…what debt do we owe to the UN? I thought we owed the World Bank some money…but thats separate from the UN…no? Or do we owe the UN some other debt I’m unaware of (certainly possible). The US had not paid its dues for several years during the 90s, with arrears nearing a billion dollars. There was some talk a while back of paying it off, but I’m not sure that it ever happened. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/19 "2004-12-02T22:47:45Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Yeah, because anyone except credulous Bush supporters eager to lap up whatever puss oozes out of the teat of this administration will believe anything a US investigation has to say about the matter. :rolleyes: Done trying to throw a smokescreen up for ol’ Kofi? Your pathetic attitude, should it prevail, will just ensure that the UN remains a corrupt body. I wonder why some of you are so damned willing to just sweep this matter under the rug? 20+ billion dollars gone towards bribery, and the best you guys have is some moronic quip about Bush. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584/20 "2004-12-02T22:51:11Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Considering most of the evidence for this so far has come from the CIA and CIA-paid stooges, I don’t think that there’s much of a difference at this time. > [@Neurotik](#): > > Very true, but I’d trust the UN behind closed doors before I’d trust the US Senate in the open at this point. Ok, I suppose I see your point. I don’t agree, but I see where you are coming from. But why trust the UN to do the investigation right? Even if you have a gut level distrust of all things the Senate or Congress does, I don’t see how that gives you confidence in an internal UN investigation. > [@Neurotik](#): > > The US had not paid its dues for several years during the 90s, with arrears nearing a billion dollars. There was some talk a while back of paying it off, but I’m not sure that it ever happened. I never heard that before. Must have totally missed it. Was there a reason why we didn’t pay our dues (presumably) under Clinton? And its nearing a billion dollars?? Just how much ARE these dues? Gods. -XT [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-for-food-scandal-what-effect-on-the-un/277584.md?page=2)