The UN Oil for Food scandal, and corruption of our French 'allies'

Over at, there is a great write-up on the UN Oil for Food scandal and the outrageous corruption of the French. Click over here for the full article, but here is a highlight:

So let's look back to 2003 and the actions of France and others in the U.N.

In an Wall Street Journal article from 2003:

...regardless of who runs Iraq today, tomorrow or next week, Iraq is still under sanctions until the U.N. Security Council lifts them. The oil-for-food program, unless extended by the said Council, also expires on June 3, 2003. A slight modification of this program was recently approved to allow the U.N. to supply a variety of previously restricted goods according to more flexible delivery schedules. This alone required much negotiating, "as France and Russia disputed language that could impute legitimacy to the U.S.-led invasion and opposed provisions that might endanger contracts between Iraq and suppliers in those nations". And, in a now familiar pattern, "The French have been threatening to veto resolutions [on Iraqi reconstruction] before they've even been circulated," one council diplomat said."

No wonder France was threatening a veto supporting an invasion... even before the draft resolution had been circulated. They were not going to support ANY resolution... ever! And it wasn't because of anything George W. Bush did. It was plain and simply because France had been bribed by Iraq and they were going to fight like hell to save Iraq.... they were going to do what they'd been paid to do.

All in all, a scandal of epic proportions. But what can be made of it? Well, a number of things:

For one, it's a devastating blow to John Kerry's much-ballyhooed "plan" to end the war in Iraq by holding an international conference of nations ˜ including France, Russia and China ˜ to decide Iraq's future. Given what we know of those nations' complicity with Saddam's murderous regime, that's no longer an option.

Kerry wants to deal with those paid by the enemy to oppose us? That says a lot.

Also shattered is Kerry's assertion that patient diplomacy might have disarmed Iraq and brought Saddam to heel. French, Russian and Chinese efforts to subvert U.S. actions against Iraq show they would have opposed us no matter what. They were merely providing the service they were paid for.

Kerry wants to pin this on Bush... he HAS to pin it on Bush. Otherwise, Kerry can't win with the truth, because the real truth is that the supposed "allies" John Kerry demands we work with, those 'judges of a global test' were on Saddam's payroll to oppose us. It would be like John Kerry saying we needed permission from Saddam to invade Iraq.

TrackBack URL for this post:


What do you think?

Comment Policy

<< Home