September 7, 2005
THE YEAR SADDAM LOST THE PENNANT:
Oil-for-food deal condemned as a compact with the devil (James Bone, 9/08/05, Times of London)
THE United Nations inquiry into the oil-for-food scandal revealed yesterday that Kofi Annan’s son had, despite earlier denials, intervened repeatedly to win a UN contract in Iraq.The disclosure was made in a blistering report that contains devastating criticism of the UN Secretary-General, his deputy and the UN Security Council for allowing Saddam Hussein to obtain more than $10 billion (£5.45 billion) illegally.
The $64 billion oil-for-food programme, which allowed Saddam to sell oil to buy food and medicine, “was a compact with the devil and a devil had means for manipulating the programme to his ends”, Paul Volcker, the former US Federal Reserve Chairman who led the inquiry, found.
Those who opposed the war apparently had found bedding down with Satan quite to their liking. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 7, 2005 10:46 PM
So those South Park guys were right after all!
Posted by: Randall Voth at September 7, 2005 11:42 PMYeah, the Nixon, Carter, and Reagon administration sure liked being in bed with him, too. Hey, weren't they buddy-buddy with him even before he came to power (well, at least the CIA under Bush Sr.), and while he was brutalizing his countrymen for the crimes we are currently putting him on trial for? And while over a dozen US firms were selling him the WMD's that we later accused him of having (even though we actually knew he didnt have them)?
The lies around this administration get so thick I get confused sometimes. Who was Saddam's friend again? And don't somebody get up and start posting about France and the former Soviet Union, unless you can somehow dismiss my previous three points that the fact that Saddam was murderer meant very little the the US goverment who helped put him into power and kept supporting him until the Gulf War.
And while over a dozen US firms were selling him the WMD's that we later accused him of having (even though we actually knew he didnt have them)?
Someone try to parse this sentence for me.
Posted by: at September 8, 2005 9:52 AMJake:
Nixon left office in August 1974. Was Saddam in power then?
Carter helped Saddam? Do what - shoot all his rivals personally 1n 1979?
Reagan gave Saddam diplomatic cover and some satellite pictures. In retrospect, not the best thing to do. But the whole issue had more to do with Saudi anxiety than with our "love" for Saddam. Besides, as OJ has written, we have gone back and made it right.
With respect to the French and the Russians, are you afraid that their honor will be impugned? Do you think they will attack the US if we point out the truth? I'm confused.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 8, 2005 10:04 AMSince Saddam killed at least 10,000 Iranians and injured at least 90,000 more by using poisonous gasses during the Iran/Iraq war, it would be very hard to believe that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD - which is why every intelligence agency in the world believed that he had them.
Likewise, not talking about the Soviets when speaking of Saddam would be foolish, since they supplied over 80% of Saddam's ordnance until the mid-80s.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 8, 2005 10:43 AM
Jake, my only issue with you is your use of the word "sometimes." I'd venture the expression should have been: most of the time.
Posted by: Genecis at September 8, 2005 11:59 AMAnd, for what it's worth, the US had nothing to do with Saddam grabbing power in Iraq.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 8, 2005 6:54 PM