France, Bought and Paid For by Hussein?!! The Hell You Say!

[Overpaid Slacker]

Yeah, we needed to wait for France to OK our actions, to join what only then would've become a "valid" coalition. Gee, I hope Kerry can convince them to help out now that their oil and money spigots have been turned off...

I wonder if it was Iraqi Oil/Blood money France was using to bribe other (temporary) Security Council members not to support the US/UK.

Lifted from Glenn Reynolds' InstaPundit:

UNSCAM UPDATE: Is this a surprise? From The Scotsman

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. . . .

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

I'm shocked, shocked. But wait, there's more: From the Telegraph

Focusing his attention in particular on France and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, Saddam awarded oil exploration contracts and financial inducements to individuals.

The bribes were at first funded by the Iraqi government, but later derived from Saddam's illegal misuse of the oil-for-food programme, which was supposed to provide food for the poor and medicine for the sick.

Some US estimates have suggested that the Iraqis siphoned off $10 billion (£5.6 billion) from the scheme.

"He [Saddam] targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq, or held pro-Iraq policies," said the report.

Of course, the story that's getting big play is the WMD angle:

But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

So this is perhaps something less than a complete vindication for Saddam. Me, I'll just quote something that a prominent Kerry supporter said back in the day:

[W]e don't know for certain whether the reports of defectors are completely true and our satellites cannot determine with complete accuracy whether new buildings and construction are designed to build weapons of mass destruction. So the question becomes: who gets the benefit of the doubt? A dictator who has used such weapons and declared the United States as an enemy or a democratic country that has already experienced terrorist catastrophe?

Personally, I find it hard to fault the Bush Administration for thinking this way. And had they failed to engage Saddam, we'd be hearing -- from many of the same critics of the war -- that their failure to do so was evidence of ineptitude ("How could you leave such a vicious dictator free to cause us trouble, smack in the middle of the mideast?") along, probably, with claims that it was somehow a way of enriching Halliburton.

UPDATE: Reader Terry Gain emails: "So how do you pass the Global Test when those marking the test have been bribed to give you a failing mark?"

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Nathan Lanier emails:

It's truly remarkable. The Duelfer Report seems to make the most compelling case yet that war was the necessary and last option at the time of invasion last March. But somehow the mainstream media feels it's necessary to put the fact that no WMD's were found as the headline for the 487th time. Hopefully the general public gets the full picture this time. Hopefully.

yeah... I'm not holding my breath... too many media experts are too invested in the anti-W skeins they've woven out of thin air to let this word get too far out.

JP

[red ufo]

Is that illegal? We bought and bribed Turkey, and most of the so-called coliation

[Overpaid Slacker]

red ufo -- No, it's not illegal to use dollar diplomacy. Yes, it is illegal to do so under the auspices of the UN Oil-for-Food, essentially robbing your country for your personal gain. Hussein was not Iraq, he was its dictator. He did not have personal title to the oil fields but used them to bolster his own regime and purchase influence. He stole from his country; he has no more right to use Iraqi oil and its proceeds to keep his personal dynasty in power than W does to seize all the oil in the US and put it to use for his personal gain.

At the end of the day, that's not the point I'm particularly concerned with, however -- it's those jaw-droppingly naive fools who would've had the US not act b/c of the censure of France -- who was essentially bought by Iraq. Sounds like you might be one of them, since more than 30 nations is not a "coalition" to you w/o France.

"The US shouldn't act w/o a 'real' or 'valid' coalition" -- all that crap meant, essentially, was we could not act without France (and to a lesser extent Germany) agreeing with us. France was not about to agree with us, whatever the stakes were, b/c they'd been bought, so it may well be the most stupid tenet of anti-Iraq war folks ever. And they should have to stare it in the face, admit they were duped and so offbase they were not even wrong!

And then, maybe next time one of these globalist, multi-culti big thinkers has an opinion like this, they can STFU for once.

JP

[tabs]

Welll OPS you told another epic tale on the scale of War and Peace...however it comes to mind that the only thing your epic tale has in common with the famed novel is that they both involve the French.... i don't know anybody who has the time to read War and Peace anymore perhaps next time you could give us the Readers Digest version ....

[red ufo]

First Saddam was not a dictator he was elected by a landslide, our leader is the one with a faulty track record to office.

2nd why is it illegal for Saddam to sell off his oil? After all the oil is Iraq's to sell right? So he violated the UN program, BUT WAIT. The neoCONs and repubs say the UN is worthless anyway and they are a BS operation. So isn't Saddam just doing (10 years in advance of the neocons) the samething endorsed today by the neocons in regard to UN sanctions?

You can't have it both ways, by slamming the UN left and right, but then saying we invaded based on 1441. Then slamming then again, but later *****ing because Saddam was double dealing the UN political chiefs. Either way the neocons painted themself into a corner with the UN and how/when to chastise it.

3rd, this list was produced by the CIA and the timing if its release at the sametime of no WMD repot in Iraq is suspect to say the least. The CIA list is credible? Since when has the CIA gained there credibility back after 911, being a fall guy for Bush's WMD lies, and a laundry list of bad things the CIA has done since its inception (3 months after the Roswell crash BTW).

The list is a CIA only validated. So are gonna take the CIA word on that?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Tabby, I love you, man. Just rent the movie, though.

[tabs]

Originally posted by red ufo
First Saddam was not a dictator he was elected by a landslide, our leader is the one with a faulty track record to office.

bad things the CIA has done since its inception (3 months after the Roswell crash BTW).

Ouuuu the BAD things the CIA has done....since Roswell.... Ummmm Hmmmm...TIN FOIL HATS ON EVERYBODY....

[island911]

another excellent post, JP.

Bush was ballsey to PUSH forward a coalition, after recognizing that France was just trying to play us.

Originally posted by red ufo
First Saddam was not a dictator he was elected by a landslide, our leader is the one with a faulty track record to office.
. . ..bla bla bla . . .lets change the subject. . .pay no attention to the security of the US . . .bla bla bla ...

LOL, red.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Red -- You're still calling it "his" oil. Obviously you're impervious to the distinction. And you call what happened in Iraq an "election"? That's got to be the most surreal use of that term since the USSR. The UN is morally bankrupt and w/o any efficacy to enforce its will -- that was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the events of the last dozen years. And yes, I can slam it for passing resolutions that it had no intention of backing up and then abetting Hussein's crimes. I see no corner. If you want to insist on "perfect" intelligence from the CIA or anybody else, try being intelligent yourself first.

JP

[Overpaid Slacker]

Better title to the thread this time?

[island911]

oh yeah.

[RickM]

Curious Red...the only posts I've seen from you push blind liberal vomit. Let's see, here since July, 122 posts......interesting.

[tabs]

Yeah... as if the movie War & Peace is as close to the truth as the movie JFK is to the truth of the Kennedy assination.... It's no wonder how the Liberals get all their facts screwed up....at least with Readers Digest or even Cliffs Notes you get a condensed but accurate reading of the essential details...

[island911]

So where's the 'Now is not the tiiiimmmme' fan-club?

Cam? Aurel? . ...

[red ufo]

1. The CIA was created back in the summer of 1947 after the crash of the alien ships.

2. There is no valid proof the Iraqi elections of Saddam were rigged. Its just GOP talking points to smock at. In a recent poll where Saddam announced he is running for president. The poll showed Iraqi people wanted Saddam back by 43%. Thats almost as high approval rating as GW and Saddam is in prison and can't campaign or control the Iraqi media. So 43% still like Saddam and that indicates the 99% voting record from the past may have been accurate. When further truth appears to dispute that, I'll believe it when it comes.

Rick, I'm no fan of Clinton, Reno or the rest of the democrat criminals that hoard the party and shafted it into its current pathetic state its in.

[tabs]

Time for the Bush administration was the relection in 2004. They had to leave enough time or so they thought for Irwreck to stabilize before the elections...thats why March 2003...However what has happened must be the administrations worst nightmare with regards to the election...

If Bush looses the election he will go down in History as one of the dumbest SOB's ever to inhabit the WH...Thats not to say the worst inhabitent ever to occupy the WH....Clinton will come in closer to the bottom...if U want to talk about poential squandered Clinton is the King of the Hill....But Bill always does let the little head dictate to the big head...

[island911]

Originally posted by red ufo
. ... The poll showed Iraqi people wanted Saddam back by 43%. Thats almost as high approval rating as GW . . .

Ya mean; Thats a higher approval rating than John Kerry.

[CamB]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13313-2004Oct6.html

What I really want to know is if you see this as credible evidence that perhaps Hans Blix was right, and that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to do their job.

I seem to remember Iraq throwing out a massive pile of evidence they had destroyed their WMD, and the US/UK saying "no you haven't".

Yes they have.

If you want to wage pre-emptive war you have to take the consequences. Seems that the criticism now is one of those consequences, as is the cost, the death toll, etc...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Red -- The CIA was "created" as the OSS during the early part of WWII. Read up on Wild Bill Donovan and the OSS and then tell me if you really believe the CIA was "created" in response to aliens. C'mon.

The "valid" proof comes from speaking to Iraqis. Check out any of the Iraqi blogs for what life was like under Hussein. Do you honestly believe that a man who tried to exterminate the Kurds in the north, wiped out the Marsh Arabs in the south, had tens of thousands tortured, raped and murdered and used WMDs on his own people enjoyed a "legitimate" 99% approval rating? Jeez, man.

Though I'd be interested to see what I will loosely call the "methodology" of this poll to which you refer. I have no doubt I'd tear through it faster than I tear through a sleeve of Oreos.

JP

[island911]

Hans Blix !?

Hans Blix had/has only one agenda -- getting Hans Blix more work.