Allegedly, more proof is forthcoming
The explanation is not fantastic, I concede.
Variable value makes something look like a real option. However, no potential downside makes any option a faux option, or mere compensation.
Well, it appears that the Iraqis have asked KPMG to come in and audit these documents.
Other people from within the oil ministry are saying that the initial list of 270 people is just the tip of the iceberg, and much more information will be forthcoming.
And the former head of the oil ministry under Saddam has looked at the documents and says they are legitimate.
I’ll bet there are a lot of nervous people around the world right now. And if I were George Galloway, I’d be thinking about packing my bags and moving somewhere else. Staying one step ahead of the indictment, y’know.
I note that Scott Ritter’s producer is listed as well.
Now that we’re all being so open minded about the possibility that these documents are forgeries, I wonder if the anti-war side will be similarly open-minded? If it turns out that members of the U.N. security council were bought and paid for by Saddam, will it change the attitudes of you “don’t do anything without UN approval” folks? These documents indicate that billions of dollars were flowing into the governments of France and Russia, and hundreds of millions into the anti-war opposition in Britain and elsewhere. Does that change anyone’s mind about the nature of the opposition to the war?
Sam, Beagle:
those on the anti-war side know of the heavy investments Russia and France made to the Sadaam infrastructure, civilian and military.
What the ‘rah-rah’ media doesn’t tell us is that China would have voted no to a war resolution as well, and they don’t have the investments in iraq the other two does. So all this France-thumping should be moot.
So… If you know that China would have voted NO, does that mean that all this talk about ‘giving the international process more time’ or ‘working harder to get security council approval’ is just a smokescreen for saying you didn’t EVER want to go after Saddam no matter what?
Maybe it was simply a genuine plea to let Hans Blix and his crew do what they were doing. Finding those WMD. 
But pre-empting the legal process was what happened. What China, France, and others would have done is a smokescreen.
Now imagine all that bribery was paid to people on the right of the political spectrum to go to war. Then, CERTAINLY, it would not only be bribery, but the causus belli. Bribing morally clean personnages, like those that dealt with Saddam through money-laundering French banks, given their anti-war stances is only natural. After all, they are pure of heart and motive, just as Saddam was.
This is one of the biggest scandals I could imagine. Practically the whole UNSC was bought off. Leftist reaction: “yawn.” Halliburton is NOTHING compared to this.
The argument is complete nonsense and skirts around the fact, now established, that the US had determined to invade Iraq no matter what occurred at the UN.
Particpation there was no more than bad faith & PR by the US for a decision made in September, at the latest.
Of course, the total financial, ethical, and moral corruption of the UN is a fantastic argument for doing just that – ignoring the UN. Ignoring the UN would have produced the exact same result that dealing with a corrupt UN did, going to war without Saddam’s allies.
The reality is that history will judge this war over the coming decades. This obvious UN corruption just makes the decision to go to war that much more critical. It was obvious that the Oil-For-Food Program was not providing any food to the average Iraqi. The program was being used to bribe officials that might be instrumental in getting the sanctions lifted – with Saddam still in power. Then Saddam could have revived his stored programs with no international interference.
In ten years we could have been facing a Kim Jong Il situation with Saddam – any war would kill millions. The “imminent threat” test was conceived before most modern WMD technology. Every single day that North Korea adds another nuke to its arsenal, that’s an “imminent threat.” Of course, now it’s too late to do anything about the most prolific mass murderer in my lifetime (other than Saddam) – without killing millions more.
Waiting until a WMD madman threat is imminent is pretty stupid. What does that mean? Do we need intel that the finger is on the button, or should we wait until Seoul goes poof?
Bumping this to note that George Galloway has just been vindicated in the British courts by winning his libel case against the Daily Telegraph pertaining to the allegations of Iraqi kickbacks against him.
This doesn’t mean everyone else is innocent, but Galloway certainly is. Fair play to him for fighting to clear his name.
Of course, to make the analogy more accurate to the actual facts of the case, we would have to have it be that it turned out that the pollution hadn’t occurred in the first place…or that it had already been cleaned up.
OOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRR…the US could actually have evidence that was conclusive enough to convince people to go to war. You know, instead of peddling completely incorrect, and in some cases fraudulent, intelligence?
Isn’t that a better idea? Hmmmm?
It’s so crazy, it just might work!
France didn’t need to be bribed. It was, with Russia, already one of the largest traders with Iraq in terms of volume. They knew that an American invasion would do away that trade relationship, as it has happened.
Good on him. He supported a monstrous dictator for entirely pure motives.
Yeah, furt, it’s much better to do what you do for selfish and dishonest reasons. I’m glad your moral compass is still working. :smack:
Well, how about Rumsfeld and the Reagan Administration in general?? Did they support the monstrous dictator for pure or impure motives?
Nonsense. Everybody knew that the USA were going to invade anyway, and going to win. Siding with the losing side wouldn’t make sense. If they wanted to get trade agreements, juicy contracts and sell stuff, they should have backed the US. Actually that’s exactly the kind of lobbying that went around at this time. The french bussiness world wanted Chirac to be more compliant with the US. They didn’t want to lose markets (either in the USA or in the to-be-rebuild Irak).
There might have been some particular individuals who had ties with the Iraki admnistration and had something to loose personnally (like people in this list, for instance), but in the great scheme of things, that was irrelevant. And they weren’t going to prevent the war anyway, so even for them, sticking with Saddam would have been pointless.
None of the french individual listed (From what I read here and there, I do not doubt that a number of people actually received this kind of gifts from Irak. Which doesn’t mean that this specific list is complete and/or genuine) is particularily well known or influential. Excepted Pasqua, who had not been in charge for a long time, since he led an opposition movement against Chirac within Chirac’s own party (great way to convince him latter to vote against an UN revolution) and besides has had justice chasing him for a long time for his involvments in many shaddy issues.
Finally, it’s known that a number of american citizens appeared on the list and that these names still haven’t been published. The existence of bribed americans would similarily explain why the USA was so opposed to the war?
There was half a million perfectly good (or bad, depending on your point of view) and rather obvious reasons for France to be opposed to this invasion. Why do people have to search for obscure conspiracies to explain it?
Please cite where he supported Hussein.
So, uh, any reason why we aren’t going with the obvious explanation for France’s vote: that the French people were overwhelmingly against the war?
Wouldn’t it be more interesting to look at why the leaders of some countries approved of the war in spite of their populace being completely against it?
More than trade, France and Russia were major lendors to Saddam’s government. Something on the order of $8-9b each (weaponry, power plants, etc). So if the regime was removed, their chances of recovering this debt would be slim to none. That in itself is a reasonable explanation as to why certain countries were against invasion, losing $8-9b worth of debt-servicing interest and repayments is not in the best interests of your citizens, if you are a lender country.
True. And you now notice that when the US is trying to get debts forgiven, they (the anti-war countries) are digging in their heels.