Oil for Fraud

[John Dunn]

It's very interesting to me that there aren't more people up in arms about the scandal at the U.N. I vaguely recall one or two people mentioning that the U.S. should have worked with the U.N. instead of acting on its own. NOW I understand what they meant...

[Max Habibi]

To all of those who will be jumping into this discussion: please argue on the facts, and keep things civil: so far, the title doesn't look promising.
thanks,
M

[John Dunn]

MH: and keep things civil:
I usually do. I don't get involved in the my-dad-is-bigger-than-your-dad arguments, which why my post/visit ration is pretty low.
I will respectfully challenge those that have aggressively demonized the USA and GWB to stand tall and admit it, if the scandal comes out. (The scandal's starting to pop up in the NYC papers and my guess is that the GOP will probably try to expose it by the convention.)
Remember Bush "broke international laws" by NOT dealing with the U.N. after Colin Powell went back a few times with resolutions. Maybe Bush did the right thing. Civil disobedience. Stayed tuned, we'll know soon enough.
Kofi threw the inspectors out and now he finds himself defending his own integrity in the court of public opinion. Interesting...
The U.N. split very soon after the being attacked. (Maybe Kofi, knows that the folks bombing the U.N. knew of the shady deals and he didn't want blood on his hands...)
Kerry has argued that we should have been working with the U.N. all along. This will be his downfall.
This scandal could be a real gift for Bush. Maybe those WMD were found in the file cabinets of Bagdad offices!!!
I can't keep from laughing when I think that Bush who is supposed to be so stupid, may very well ending up making his mark in history and surpassing one of the most brilliant presidents we ever had.

[John Dunn]

Google: "Oil for Food" + scandal
It was in the papers a bit hear in NYC, because there's talk of having Rudy G. be the UN ambassador, and clean up the mess there. Of course it wouldn't help his presidential ambitions to pick up some foreign policy credentials. (btw, NYT is too left-wing and anti-GWB for this story.)

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Eugene claims he knows the real rules.

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

You're the new guy around here Max. Everybody knows the rules.

I've actually been a lurker in MD for quite a while, and I have to disagree with you. The fact that we've had to close down several threads lately indicates that not everyone does know the new rules, nor the new level of enforcement.
MD is no longer a political forum, though it will tolerate political discussion as long as they're civil and 'nice'.
I'm stating this for the benefit of the people who are participating in this thread, because I don't want to moderate this discussion. If there's something to be gained here, and it's gained while everyone stays 'nice', then all's well.
But if it turns into the Right bashing the Middle, or the Middle bashing the Left, or anysuch nonsense, then I'll have to work, which I'm vigorously trying to avoid. I would really appreciate your help in achieving said avoidance.
Thanks,
M

[Tony Alicea]

"I would really appreciate your help in achieving said avoidance."
And I am walking right behind you Max... just in case. The more opened eyes, the better...

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
"I would really appreciate your help in achieving said avoidance."
And I am walking right behind you Max... just in case. The more opened eyes, the better...

Well, if you're really on my wavelength, you'll be lounging right behind me, sipping a beer
M

[Tony Alicea]

So are you psychic too? (not to be confused with psychotic! Ha!)

[Michael Ernest]

John -
If you'd like to be more specific about what "demonizers" of the Bush Administration have to be sorry about, I'd like to read those thoughts.
There are of course, several takes on the whole schmeer, including this one. The key points to me:
- The corruption itself isn't news; the depth of it is.
- The US complained about it when stories first emerged; however, the US did not use evidence of corrutpion in the oil-for-food program as a major pretext for choosing to operate unilaterally (more or less) against Iraq.
- Hussein and company found ways to undermine the program and profit from it: shocker. I commented to a couple economist friends of mine back in 1998 that for such a big-dollar program, people seemed awfully quiet about it. They just shrugged. Being quiet still remains the most effective strategy for deceit there is. It's just amazing how well say nothing works.
- So the oil-for-food program was an intermediate step to world sanctions (which certain nations sitting on the Security Council were privately thumbing their noses at anyway -- helloooo France! heya China! wow, Russia! so surprised to see countries fighting for economic survival in this mess!). So people decided how to make the whole thing work to their advantage (we can talk about Cheney, Halliburton, and the privatization of Iraqi supply, logistics, and occupational security on that score if you like). This just isn't news.
- I am sorry the UN couldn't show up a little better than taking a moral position against war when clearly so many of its important representatives were shaking the money tree. That's embarrassing. Still, the problem wasn't UN corruption, was it? It was the obstinacy of a member nation like France refusing to support multilateral action, and in that case it was pretty obvious why. As long as those believed-but-not-to-be-seen WMDs aren't pointed at France, $50 billion is $50 billion.
- I'm sure it was political expedience that Bush agreed to photo ops with Miterrand. He probably had little choice in the matter. That's too bad. Coping with French international politics will drive anyone nuts.
- The US' recent "cosying up to the UN," as the link I gave phrases it makes it clear to me the Bush Administration's antipathy for the UN isn't on ideological grounds. We need the UN's help to pull out of Iraq, and it's looking like they dropped their pants at a bad time.
None of this, in my mind, justifies Bush's pre-emptive decision to invade Iraq, as none of it is evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat, a haven for terrorists, storing WMDs. Who demanded the program be dismantled? This, to me, would have been a principled response. If the bleating demonizers among us had decried US attempts to 'lay siege' to Iraq by refusing humanitarian aid, I could cause to toe the dirt after the fact.
Anyway, that's my predictive rebuttal to what footlike rhetoric Bush detractors might have to remove from their mouths: I don't see it just yet, John.
[ April 24, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Warren Dew]

I'm not John, but I'll take a crack at it.
Some people have exactly one big problem with Bush's Iraq policy - that while the war was okay, Bush should have worked harder with the U.N. and gotten U.N. approval before going into Iraq. I've heard this opinion from a friend as recently as Tuesday. I think the line of reasoning goes that after all, his dad got U.N. approval, why couldn't he?
Now it seems that the French, who have veto power on the Security Council, may have been paid off by Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions - so there was no point to trying harder to get U.N. involvement, since France would have vetoed anything anyway. If this is true, my friend's argument is blown out of the water. (He even admitted this might be the case when I mentioned this news to him.)
And if I were far enough to the right of center to see everyone to the left of center as one homogeneous bloc, I might think that my friend's opinion was the position of everyone in 'the left'. And then I might think 'the left' hasn't a leg to stand on any more.
I'm not that far right of center (to the extent that unidirectional 'right' and 'left' mean anything, anyway), though, so I recognize that there are other reasons one could have for opposing Bush's Iraq policy. To me, it seems that the most valid reason for opposing it is if one believed that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq last year in the first place, with or without U.N. blessing. And that reason would still be as valid as ever, irrespective of the U.N. issue.
As for whether this has anything to do with "U.N. corruption", I guess that depends on how much one includes the member nations as part of the "U.N." If one does, then the fact that veto wielding members were willing to violate U.N. policies they agreed to probably points up some problems with the U.N. If one doesn't - for example, if one thinks of the U.N. as just the people who work directly for the U.N. - then it might not. I would note that the U.S. seemed perfectly happy a month or two ago not to pursue this investigation, and as far as I can tell it's more Kofi Annan who wants to get everything out into the open - to his credit, in my opinion.
[ April 24, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]

[John Dunn]

Michael, the article from the Economist was interesting to me. There are two things going on. We need the UN to help us, yet Bush is getting criticized by Kerry for not working with the UN, (when in fact the UN was taking bribes). So Bush needs the UN to succeed for Iraq but needs to see them taken down a notch to combat Kerry. Very Interesting... I'm curious to see how this will pan out. Will Rudy G. actually become the UN Ambassador where he'll make the UN accountable, but also help add integrity?? If so, could Bush be seen as "fixing" the UN??? How ironic would that be??
As for whether of not we should have acted on our own in Iraq, I must point out that we did indeed work with the UN, but now it seems that the folks who kept asking for resolutions were benefitting financially from the delay.
Sometimes I don't think folks give the US Administration enough leeway on its difficult decisions. Think of this: Condi Rice gets attacked for "not doing enough". But Bush gets attacked for doing "too much". Would anyone have complained if we had a pre-emptive attack on Afganistan?? (A country btw that did not have windows in its capital!) The had no nukes, no threatening army, and no war plan against the US.
Putting Kerry in the White House won't make the above situations any easier, and a would-be Kerry president, will still need to do things that will piss many people off. It goes with the territory.

[k.p thottam]

The Saddam regime is gone , the Bush regime is in , yet when I go to the gas pump I pay $1.79 and up , why ???
[ Random inflammatory statements removed -- EJFH]
[ April 25, 2004: Message edited by: Ernest Friedman-Hill ]

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by k .p.thottam:
The Saddam regime is gone , the Bush regime is in , yet when I go to the gas pump I pay $1.79 and up , why ???

Well, because Sadaam and Iraq didn't have anything to do with gasoline prices. Next question?

[Michael Ernest]

JD: We need the UN to help us, yet Bush is getting criticized by Kerry for not working with the UN, (when in fact the UN was taking bribes). So Bush needs the UN to succeed for Iraq but needs to see them taken down a notch to combat Kerry.
ME: I haven't followed Kerry at all, so I didn't know that. But it would seem to me good domestic (and typical election-year) politics for the challenging party to say nothing is going right. That's what I most enjoy about watching Questions for the Prime Minister as it's shown here. The difference seems to be everyone there knows it's a cockfight and enjoys the sparring. I suspect that this process serves the major purposes they should: these sessions instruct and they entertain.
JD: Will Rudy G. actually become the UN Ambassador where he'll make the UN accountable, but also help add integrity?? If so, could Bush be seen as "fixing" the UN??? How ironic would that be??
ME: Never happen. Five bucks says so.
JD: As for whether of not we should have acted on our own in Iraq, I must point out that we did indeed work with the UN, but now it seems that the folks who kept asking for resolutions were benefitting financially from the delay.
ME: You think?
JD: Sometimes I don't think folks give the US Administration enough leeway on its difficult decisions.
ME: It's the US Administration's job to account for their actions to the people. That's the manner of democracy we're led to believe we will inherit at legal voting age. Nothing in the Constitution says all people shall be fair-minded at all times. We have interests that sometimes run into each other. Folks win, folks lose on those issues. 'Nuff said.
JD: Think of this: Condi Rice gets attacked for "not doing enough". But Bush gets attacked for doing "too much".
ME: "Too much?" I have to say, John, if I were a Republican speechwriter in charge of deriding the party opposite, this is exactly what I would say: they want it all ways at once. I think I've heard both Major and Blair say as much at various points.
JD: Would anyone have complained if we had a pre-emptive attack on Afganistan?? (A country btw that did not have windows in its capital!) The had no nukes, no threatening army, and no war plan against the US.
ME: I am not seeing the connection that makes this question an example of your point.
JD: Putting Kerry in the White House won't make the above situations any easier, and a would-be Kerry president, will still need to do things that will piss many people off. It goes with the territory.
ME Yes! Yes, absolutely! Unanimity in American politics is beyond rare, and it used to be an example of cases where demonstrating national resolve was extremely important, or the issue so clear that dissent was meaningless. A running joke about candidates pandering for votes is that they've come out with a position against cancer. No one running for office would ever say cancer is an affliction, not a political issue, for fear of being misunderstood. Same reason no one ever actually says "we need higher taxes!"
In the late 90's we seem to take a wrong turn, polarizing virtually every issue. We can all take our potshots at who-started-it-all, but the facts remain: you saw more political careers sacrificed for no apparent gain in a few short years than since I don't know when.
Now we get the more of the consequences of that: no one is ever right about anything ever, depending on who you talk to.

[John Dunn]

JD: Would anyone have complained if we had a pre-emptive attack on Afganistan?? (A country btw that did not have windows in its capital!) The had no nukes, no threatening army, and no war plan against the US.

ME: I am not seeing the connection that makes this question an example of your point.

My statement was in regards to Bush's justification for going into Iraq. Had we gone into ~Afganistan~ earlier, (even though they posed no threat to us), then maybe we'd still have a WTC. But would anyone have believed Bush if he said they were capable of taking down the WTC?? Critics would call him insane and try to impeach him.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by John Dunn:

But would anyone have believed Bush if he said they were capable of taking down the WTC?? Critics would call him insane and try to impeach him.

Oh, we don't need insanity to impeach a president. We have a much lower threshold.
It isn't the first time someone tried to destroy the towers, by the way. From what I remember, if they had positioned the vans with the explosives correctly, down they would have come.
In that case, we sought the perpetrators and tried them. Yousef is in prison, We relied on a great deal of international cooperation to bring all the known conspirators to justice. In this case, we went straight to outrage. We promised, in diplomatic terms, an all-expenses-paid ass-kicking of the first order. We've told North Korea publicly to shove it (privately we negotiate); invaded Afghanistan and Iraq; and created international resentment for telling the world to get behind us or move out of the way.
Along the way, it seems to me we've lost valuable political leverage against the Chinese, Russians and French for getting caught red-handed in their dealings with Iraq. Diplomacy doesn't work like bicameral politics; it's only the threat of embarrassment on the world stage that gives you muscle. In our case, we chose to point fingers and demand cooperation, which gives no one a way out. You just don't tell a another superpower to knuckle under -- it buys you nothing.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
My statement was in regards to Bush's justification for going into Iraq. Had we gone into ~Afganistan~ earlier, (even though they posed no threat to us), then maybe we'd still have a WTC. But would anyone have believed Bush if he said they were capable of taking down the WTC?? Critics would call him insane and try to impeach him.

Not quite. That operation was in progress well before the 2000/2001 presidential elections.
The operatives were in place for their strike (quite likely with instructions to strike unless recalled) by the time President Bush took office.
Had we gone after OBL in Afghanistan after the embassy bombings and the USS Cole, maybe.
Now, no.
[removed political side-swipes MH]
[ April 26, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[John Dunn]

JW: Not quite. That operation was in progress well before the 2000/2001 presidential elections.
The operatives were in place for their strike (quite likely with instructions to strike unless recalled) by the time President Bush took office.

Were you referring to the attempted impeachment of Clinton or an attack on OBL?
======
All kidding aside, we did not have an in-place plan ready to topple the Taliban. Clinton was dealing with them to try to get an oil-line built. It was the Women's groups here in the USA that put the pressure on him to stop dealing with the Taliban. How do you think it would have sounded to the US Public if Clinton, Bush or EVEN CONDI RICE!!! said they were going to attack the Taliban!!!
I read a book on the Taliban in August of '01, (just a couple of weeks before the WTC attack), and very few people I encountered knew or cared about the Taliban. Of course that would change in a couple of weeks, but let's not forget the context of my claim. Who would have been supportive if we were attacking the Taliban before the WTC?? Now ask yourselves did Condi Rice do enough? Would you have understood Condi Rice if she did?

[John Dunn]

ME: Along the way, it seems to me we've lost valuable political leverage against the Chinese, Russians and French for getting caught red-handed in their dealings with Iraq. Diplomacy doesn't work like bicameral politics; it's only the threat of embarrassment on the world stage that gives you muscle.
I wonder though if we may get more support from the countries who were originally coerced or pressured by China, Russia, & France into NOT helping us. Or will some countries change their minds?? Will some countries realize the danger the US faced by sitting back and doing nothing while a UN backed set-up gave billions to Saddam and nothing to the Iraqi people, all as Saddam blamed the USA for the Iraqi peoples' suffering.
My guess, (sadly enough), is that Al Queda will unwittingly mess up and do something more heinous then they intended and countries will come to the aid of the US. But hopefully I'm wrong about the heinous part.

[Jeroen Wenting]

John, Bill Clinton knew the Taliban was hiding and aiding OBL and knew OBL was behind the prior attacks against US interests.
I agree it would have been harder to mount support at home for a fullscale invasion, but that's where special forces teams come in.
My guess is they could possibly have grabbed OBL (or at least eliminated him) using spec-ops as the Afghans would never have seen them coming (nor, given the Clinton policies) expected a reaction to be like that).
I doubt the senator from Texas could have done so on his own. Mrs Rice AFAIK didn't hold an office to influence affairs at the time.

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

- The US complained about it when stories first emerged; however, the US did not use evidence of corrutpion in the oil-for-food program as a major pretext for choosing to operate unilaterally (more or less) against Iraq.

There wasn't an overwhelming case at that point, just rumors. The evidence was in Iraq under lock and key. So it couldn't be used to discredit the French and Russian stand in the UN Security Council last year.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
-
- I am sorry the UN couldn't show up a little better than taking a moral position against war when clearly so many of its important representatives were shaking the money tree. That's embarrassing. Still, the problem wasn't UN corruption, was it? It was the obstinacy of a member nation like France refusing to support multilateral action, and in that case it was pretty obvious why. As long as those believed-but-not-to-be-seen WMDs aren't pointed at France, $50 billion is $50 billion.

The problem seems to be a combination of two or three permanent members of the SC pursuing profits through their actions on the SC combined with the personal corruption of some very high-ranking UN beaurecrats. A Deputy Secretary General is almost certainly implicated and it is possible that the corruption includes Mr. Annan himself (his son was involved). The UN recieved more than $1 billion in commissions from Oil for Food, money which has been ill-accounted for, so the rot may be far more pervasive than we can see today.
What seems to be clear is that the extreme opposition to the war in the UN was fuelled by corruption both within the organization itself and nations sitting on the Security Council.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
None of this, in my mind, justifies Bush's pre-emptive decision to invade Iraq, as none of it is evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat, a haven for terrorists, storing WMDs. Who demanded the program be dismantled? This, to me, would have been a principled response. If the bleating demonizers among us had decried US attempts to 'lay siege' to Iraq by refusing humanitarian aid, I could cause to toe the dirt after the fact.

In theory the UN (and particularly the Security Council) are supposed to provide a checkpoint on nations going to war. During the cold war era this didn't work because one side or the other would veto anything the other side wished to do. So they went ahead anyway without UN approval.
After the collapse of the USSR this was supposed to change. Unfortunately this presupposes that neither the UN nor the members of the Security Council behave corruptly, that they act as honest brokers and neutral inculocators in any dispute. They did not in this case, which is a perfect explanation for the vehemence of the opposition to the war and the unwillingness to support the alternative (sanctions with real bite) in 1998 and afterward. France, Russia, and China saw a large profit, took it, and then acted to protect both their profits and their good names by vetoing US action against Iraq.
The problem is that their actions will be suspect for many years afterward even if their behavior from now on is perfect. When they oppose or support something in the UN will it be because they honestly believe it, or because they have been bought?

[John Dunn]

JW: I doubt the senator from Texas could have done so on his own. Mrs Rice AFAIK didn't hold an office to influence affairs at the time.
Hmmm... I think you may have meant Governor, and perhaps Miss Rice. She held office long enough to get reamed by a partisan commision on 9/11. Commission felt she didn't do enough. But now she's doing too much???
Boys are dying, while these kind Senators are playing politics. I feel that this is going to hurt the Democrats. Every time the Dems try to slam Bush, Kerry's ratings go down.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
Every time the Dems try to slam Bush, Kerry's ratings go down

Its amazing how often this happens in politics - politician A slates politician B but ends up looking just as bad.
Not long after I became 18 (therefore being able to vote in the UK) I decided that I would take a look through all of the literature sent through the post by the various political parties, and would vote according to what I read. I wanted to ignore any previous assumptions and just go with what they promised (yes, I was very naive ). When it came to election time, 3 rain forests worth of election leaflets came through my door, but somehow they contained no policies at all. The Tories moaned about Labour. Labour slated the Tories. The Lib Dems complained about both. All of the parties covered their leaflets in complaints about the other parties, but not one of them mentioned a single policy. In the end I didn't vote. The parties complain that not enough young people have an interest in politics, but back then I did have an interest, but it was the complete lack of any policies of coherent view point by any party which put me off.
Since then I tend to ignore any pre-election crud that comes through my door, and do more research into the policies that the parties give. I think of myself as being someone who is fairly interested in politics, and understand most of the issues, but despite that I find it hard to get a clear picture of what the politicians want. This is why there is such a low turnout in UK politics. It seems from what I read on here that there is a similar thing in US politics - too much attacking the other side, and not enough clearly thought out manifestoes.

[Jeroen Wenting]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
And that's possibly one reason why people are leaving the *** camp.
They're sick and tired of the constant mudslinging by *** and associates without any real policy ideas (except, "they do it like this so we do it different") to back it up.
Another reason of course is that *** is being uncovered for the non-entity rich boy he is (especially his abusing ***).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[political side swipes removed -MH].
Jeroen, I'm being nice here: be nice back.
M
[ April 27, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[Jim Yingst]

Hmmm... I think you may have meant Governor, and perhaps Miss Rice.
Perhaps you meant Dr. Rice.

[Don Stadler]

Max, I thought we were free to abuse **** as much as we ****ing wanted to, as long as **** isn't a ****ing member of Javaranch? What the **** is going on here?

[John Dunn]

JY: Perhaps you meant Dr. Rice.
Nope. I meant Miss as opposed to Mrs. Now that she's shown us her political skills I think she be a prime candidate to take on Hillary. Damn,
we could end up with a first man, after the fact!!!

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Max, I thought we were free to abuse **** as much as we ****ing wanted to, as long as **** isn't a ****ing member of Javaranch? What the **** is going on here?

Yes, well, I happen to know that **** is a member of the ranch
We want to keep the peace here, and avoid having the sort of ****storms that would force a moderator to close down threads. Posts like the one in question tend to attract like minded posts from the other side, which isn't good for the 'Ranch.
So, I get to play the **hole, and, um, moderate the discussion.
M

[Don Stadler]

Senator ***** is a member of the Ranch?!!!
Isn't that a violation of the naming policy, unless he is able to prove who he is? I would have thought he'd be too busy to come and blow smoke on MD. Perhaps that's what he's been up to the past month!

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Senator ***** is a member of the Ranch?!!!
Isn't that a violation of the naming policy, unless he is able to prove who he is? I would have thought he'd be too busy to come and blow smoke on MD. Perhaps that's what he's been up to the past month!

How do you know we're talking about a Senator? Let's just say that if we told you any more, we'd have ta kill you, and leave it at that.
M

[Don Stadler]

Oops! Shhhhh, don't tell Paul. I don't want to wind up on the icky-list!
[ April 27, 2004: Message edited by: Don Stadler ]

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Its amazing how often this happens in politics - politician A slates politician B but ends up looking just as bad.
The Tories moaned about Labour. Labour slated the Tories.

Is 'slating' a British slang for mud-slinging?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

Is 'slating' a British slang for mud-slinging?

Pretty much. If you "slate" someone, you are saying bad things about them, but not necessarily about a specific issues as often happens in "mud-slinging". I hadn't realised that its just a British term though.
:roll:
[ April 27, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

Max, all I do is mention the name of the political group in question. Didn't know that that name was offensive (though I can imagine why people would think it is ).

[Max Habibi]

Jeroen,
I'm on to you and your casual political one-sides, you wiseacre, you . Please keep it to a minimum in here, and I'll buy you a beer the next time I speak @ www.cttm.nl (if they bring back their Java track). Deal?
M

[Jeroen Wenting]

maybe when Sun gets enough cash to outbid Microsoft as main sponsor they'll resurrect Java.
Entire thing reads a bit weird, especially CAVO as a main topic of the conference when the language is marginal to say the least.
Maybe the fact that CA does a good bit of product development on CAVO in the Netherlands has something to do with it...
P.S. I'm not one-sided, just trying to provide a counterweight to your reactionist views here
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: Jeroen Wenting ]