Saddam Bribed The French To Be Anti-war

[Membrane]

Now the truth comes out--old Saddam bribed 46 individuals, companies and organizations around the world to save his stinking hide!

From: washingtontimes.com:

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted."

Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment.

French diplomats have dismissed any suggestion their foreign policy was influenced by payments from Saddam, but some European diplomats have long suspected France's steadfast opposition to the war was less moral than monetary.

"Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam.

Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in

Egypt,

Jordan,

Syria,

the United Arab Emirates,

Turkey,

Sudan,

China,

Austria and

France,

as well as the Russian Orthodox Church,

the Russian Communist Party,

India's Congress Party and the

Palestine Liberation Organization.

So maybe that starts to explains how (apparently) "the whole world" was against the U.S. going into Iraq--and how the truth has been perverted and warped to the common lie that a lot of people now believe--the the U.S. went in to get the oil. (In case you're wondering, no the U.S. did not).

Just goes to show how rotten politics really is--and how gullible people can be!

[Khun ?]

The effiency of German bank accounts "money anywhere any time"

Iran, Iraq and Libya those french are some busy people.

[Boon Mee]

This shouldn't be such a startling revelation for those who have followed the lead-up to the war. It's been widely believed principally because that's the way the French have done things since the dawn of time. Oh well...

Boon Mee

[Georgie-Porgie]

Alright Membrane!

May the lying, back-stabbing French -and those who support them- smother in a vat of goose-livers infected with the Chicken-flu!

[clorox]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5491

(clorox):The French have some under the table business deal with Iraq for oil before the war, and suddenly it went down the drain, they lost some few $buck and start bla-bla-bla, sore looser.

so it is proven, what a shame, shame , shame

[the cynic]

Thank you Membrane for havind started this thread. But as you haven' read the original article published in the Iraqi newspaper AL MADA, I give you a more exhaustive list.

Officials from the folowing countries were ALLEGDLY bribed:

AMERICA

BRITAIN

SPAIN

ITALY

THAILAND

MALAYSA

FRANCE

SYRIA

YEMEN

CANADA

INDONESIA

HOLLAND

SWITZERLAND

AUSTRIA

HUNGARY

PANAMA

BRASIL

MORROCO

ALGERIA

TUNISIA

RUSSIA

BULGARY

KENYA

YOUGOSLAVIA

ROMANIA

SOUTH AFRICA

PHILLIPINES CHINA

JORDAN

PALESTINE

EGYPT

SAUDI ARABIA

LYBIA

IRELAND

NIGERIAN

I repeat : some officials from these countries were ALLEGDLY bribed. We have to wait before we condemn anyone. Those papers could be fake. Our American officials could be INNOCENT.

[the gentleman]

I thought there was a few missing from the list, thanks cynic for clearing that up.

I do love the Americans, they come out in force to back up posts - It will all come out one day and we will see.

[Boon Mee]

<<officials could be INNOCENT>>

Nobody is innocent...

[Guest chingy]

something don't look right, you say AMERICA took Bribed from Saddam and then go to war with them, to get rid of Saddam.

I don't quite understand, am i missing something here, or you're just BS

you also included that MALAYSA is one of the country, MALAYSA does not care for anything about US, they don not play with the American or take anything from American, if anything related to oil with Iraq it would consider real bussiness deal not a fake one, MALAYSA doesn't consider Iraq as an outsider, they are within the circle, you cannot say that MALAYSA took Bribed, they do not play the same game as the rest of the country, they are not part of the US circle, if they did get oil from Iraq it is a legit deal not Bribed. when you play the same game together you can't call it a bribed but a bussiness deal

[the cynic]

To Chingy,

I don't say anything. I've just read the original article in which an exhaustive list is given.

Officials from America and Malaysa are mentioned in the article. Nothing I can do about it.

The Washington Post should have be more honest. The list they've published is incomplete!!!!

[Khun ?]

ANSHALA and whatever else garbage you would like us common folk to believe.

We do not pawn our faults off on some religous belief do we.

[the cynic]

To Chingy,

I don't say anything. I've just read the original article in which an exhaustive list is given.

Officials from America and Malaysa are mentioned in the article. Nothing I can do about it.

The Washington Post should have be more honest. The list they've published is incomplete!!!!

[adjan jb]

Cynic, I've read the same list than you but you've forgotten to mention Chad. Otherwise you're right.

I do agree when you say that the W. Post is not honest. To avoid giving the complete list they've mentioned "... and other countries".

But strangely, I couldn't find anything about those so-called "Bagdad papers" in the NY Times, the Guardian and other mainstream newspapers. They all seem very cautious. Probably another BS.

Question: who controlls Al Mada ?

[Guest chingy]

my apologize to the cynic, i didn't mean to say (you), i meant the papper

[Membrane]

Thank you Membrane for havind started this thread. But as you haven' read the original article published in the Iraqi newspaper AL MADA,

[snip]

Well Cynic, you didn't provide a link either, so how can I tell if you're not just making this up?? Provide a link to the actual article--that way we can all see for ourselves what you are talking about and verify it!

[singa-traz]

So maybe that starts to explains how (apparently) "the whole world" was against the U.S. going into Iraq--and how the truth has been perverted and warped to the common lie that a lot of people now believe--the the U.S. went in to get the oil.  (In case you're wondering, no the U.S. did not).

Just goes to show how rotten politics really is--and how gullible people can be!

Sure, so the European "supported" Saddam because they would receive a few barrels of Oil ... but the US did not invade Iraq for it ? ... maybe you too believe in the more moral, more white, more fair country !

European, Russian and US have all interest in the 2nd oil reserve on earth.

I already pointed to you, to the US Energy Policy document, which clearly highlight the "Saddam" issue, which is basically he has oil, and our economies will need more of it in the next 15-20 years.

Maybe you need a 101 on Geopolitics ...

http://www.csis.org/pubs/geopolitics0011v1.pdf

Policy Contradictions

The greater need for oil in the future is at odds with current sanctions

on oil exporters Libya, Iraq, and Iran.

Interesting to note that Lybia has or is about to be cleared from the list of country supporting terrorism, interesting don't you think so ? Used to blow up passenger planes ... ah, that's ok ... we will forgive you ... because we need to !

Iraq ... US troops there ... and for a very long time.

Iran ... we will see what G.I Joe is preparing for them ... Summer 2005 ?

U.S. policy today contains a fundamental contradiction. Oil and gas exports from

Iran, Iraq, and Libya—three nations that have had sanctions imposed by the United

States or international organizations—are expected to play an increasingly important

role in meeting growing global demand, especially to avoid increasing

competition for energy with and within Asia. Where the United States imposes unilateral

sanctions (Iran and Libya), investments will take place without U.S.

participation. Iraq, subjected to multilateral sanctions, may be constrained from

building in a timely way the infrastructure necessary to meet the upward curve in

energy demand. If global oil demand estimated for 2020 is reasonably correct and is

to be satisfied, these three exporters should by then be producing at their full potential

if other supplies have not been developed.

History has demonstrated that unilateral sanctions seldom are successful in

persuading nations to alter their behavior. Multilateral sanctions provide a broader

front and a greater guarantee of success. Multilateral sanctions test the ability and

willingness of enforcing nations to hold together for the duration, however, while

both multilateral and unilateral sanctions are viewed as targets of opportunity for

the entrepreneurial trader.

So Membrane, please continue to amuse us with your childish bashing of French and European ... as well as claiming that Oil is not a factor in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The best part:

The United States, as the world’s only superpower, must accept its special

responsibilities for preserving worldwide energy supply.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

And FYI, because nobody apparently dared to answer this one ...

Condoleezza Rice was NOT working for Disneyland.

[SoCal]

Singa,

1) Without a doubt, France was looking at their wallet when they supported Sadam. There is no denying this, and it is quite shameful. I truly question if France has sold her soul, or ever had one to begin with.

2) No disrespect, but get it through your thick head. Iraq's oil is controlled by their state agency, and sold on the world market.

US gas companies shares are not up.

I'm paying the same for a gallon of gas, as I was last year at this time.

The American people have picked up a $100 billion dollar price tag.

Shut up about the oil, unless you can show me something tangebile, and not a quote from some dumb ass.

SoCal

[Membrane]

You're pretty funny when you get angry, singa-trez!

Sure, so the European "supported" Saddam because they would receive a few barrels of Oil ... but the US did not invade Iraq for it ? ...  maybe you too believe in the more moral, more white, more fair country!

It's funny when you are talking about the Europeans only wanting a "few barrels of oil", but when you talk about the Americans, you make it sound like we want it all. NOWHERE NEAR THE TRUTH. --But of course, you are so insecure, biggoted and narrow-mindedly prejudiced against the west, you are going to believe whatever you want anyway--and that's always going to include a seething hatred of anything American.

Interesting to note that Lybia has or is about to be cleared from the list of country supporting terrorism, interesting don't you think so ? Used to blow up passenger planes ... ah, that's ok ... we will forgive you ... because we need to !

It's funny that you apparently can't stand a rogue nation to try to make ammends with the U.S. and to change her ways. Your smug and sarcastic tone (above) only masks an utter ignorance of how things in the world work (maybe you need a 101 on world politics, eh singa)?

If you had even glanced at the web site you quoted in your post, you would have read that Libya has decided to "dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and to allow United Nations inspectors into the country, as well as its accepting responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and agreeing to pay $2.7 billion in compensation to the victims’ families". You will probably disagree, but to me, that sounds like a pretty good start to ammending her ways, don't you? That's the whole point with working with countries like Libya, Iran, or Iraq--we want them to cooperate with us and to stop their savage terrorist activities. Then we can peacefully engage in free trade between our nations: we can buy their oil, and they can buy our technology, goods and services. Everybody wins, everybody is happy.

Policy Contradictions

The greater need for oil in the future is at odds with current sanctions on oil exporters Libya, Iraq, and Iran.

So what? Do you need me to explain this to you? It's a clear business-like assessment of the situation in the world But if I have to s-p-e-l-l it out for you: all that is stating is that "it's too bad we have had to place sanctions on these extremist, terrorist-loving, antagonistic governments, because they have the ability to control energy reserves that affect the U.S. and the entire world". (It's funny how you try to twist and infer points that aren't there).

Singa, maybe you need a 101 on world politics.. allow me to quote from SoCal's recent post, (with the words that you need to pay attention to, made real big and bold, so you can't miss the point)!

No disrespect, but get it through your thick head.

Iraq's oil is controlled by their state agency, and sold on the world market.

The American people have picked up a $100 billion dollar price tag.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

Probably NOT, but please continue to amuse us with your silly little postings anyway!

[Georgie-Porgie]

Silly is the correct word!

[p_brownstone]

QUOTE

Jan. 29 — ABCNEWS has obtained an extraordinary list that contains the names of prominent people around the world who supported Saddam Hussein's regime and were given oil contracts as a result.

All of the contracts were awarded from late 1997 until the U.S.-led war in March 2003. They were conducted under the aegis of the United Nations' oil-for-food program, which was designed to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods.

The document was discovered several weeks ago in the files of the Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

According to a copy obtained by ABCNEWS, some 270 prominent individuals, political parties or corporations in 47 countries were on a list of those given Iraq oil contracts instantly worth millions of dollars.

Today, the U.S.Treasury Department said that any American citizens found to be illegally involved could face prosecution.

"You are looking at a political slush fund that was buying political support for the regime of Saddam Hussein for the last six or seven years," said financial investigator John Fawcett.

Investigators say none of the people involved would have actually taken possession of oil, but rather just the right to buy the oil at a discounted price, which could be resold to a legitimate broker or oil company, at an average profit of about 50 cents a barrel.

List Includes Prominent Names

Among those named: Indonesia President Megawati Sukarnoputri, an outspoken opponent of U.S.-Iraq policy, who received a contract for 10 million barrels of oil — about a $5 million profit.

The son of the Syrian defense minister received 6 million barrels, according to the document, worth about $3 million.

George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, was also on the list to receive 19 million barrels of oil, a $90.5 million profit. A vocal critic of the Iraq war, Galloway denied any involvement to ABCNEWS earlier this year.

UNQUOTE

Fullstory and a list of names http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investi...s_040129-1.html

[singa-traz]

US gas companies shares are not up.

I'm paying the same for a gallon of gas, as I was last year at this time.

The American people have picked up a $100 billion dollar price tag.

Shut up about the oil, unless you can show me something tangebile, and not a quote from some dumb ass.

SoCal

Hi SoCal,

The dumb ass you are referring to, are from your country:

- CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, formerly deputy secretary of defense

Here is the complete list of the members:

- http://csis.org/about/index.htm#4

Because you cannot see any short term change in the price of oil, you then quickly conclude that the US has no interest in Iraq oil, for its own usage.

In the document I linked, written by "Dumb Ass" ..., are they talking about short term benefits in changing the exiting Energy and associated Security Policy ?

No, geopolitic has a different timeframe, and in this case, they are talking about securing world oil supply, which would ensure we get all the necessary oil from those country ... at a good price.

If you find your price of gaz still expensive ... I suggest you fly to Europe and check the price.

Pls be free to provide counter argument, and not just how much you pay last time you went at the gaz station.

[singa-traz]

It's funny when you are talking about the Europeans only wanting a "few barrels of oil", but when you talk about the Americans, you make it sound like we want it all. NOWHERE NEAR THE TRUTH. --But of course, you are so insecure, biggoted and narrow-mindedly prejudiced against the west, you are going to believe whatever you want anyway--and that's always going to include a seething hatred of anything American.

Membrane,

I have argued with SoCal about the importance of Oil in this conflict, and provided many related documents, most of them written by people in the oil industry, and from your dear country.

You may consider this as "hatred of anything American" ... I see those documents, as supporting my view rather than yours.

Are you working for the US administration, maybe in so called "Inteligence community"? at least that would explain your blindness.

I don't really consider my views, againt the West.

As for your post ... do you know that imitation is highest form of flattery ?

[davidm]

So maybe that starts to explains how (apparently) "the whole world" was against the U.S. going into Iraq--and how the truth has been perverted and warped to the common lie that a lot of people now believe--the the U.S. went in to get the oil. (In case you're wondering, no the U.S. did not).

Just goes to show how rotten politics really is--and how gullible people can be!

Hear Hear! The French are to corruption what the Greeks are to sodomy and it never ceases to amaze me when people fall for a French politician taking a moral stance on an issue.

I can't understand why Saddam felt any need to bribe the PLO into opposing an invasion, but that's his problem. Americans almost certainly did receive bribes from the same source. This is the downside of the use of lobby groups. You can always find a few shyster layers, PR spinners and the like to represent you. The UK is in a similar position, so doubtless a few Brits got their grubbyb paws on some Iraqi cash.

BTW, a lot of oil shares have risen substantially over the past 12 months.

The bottom line is the invasion took place because the US Government has a programme for removing the threat of muslim terrorism from its country and interests. Regardless of what spin the politicians put on that programme, they felt Saddam's regime had to go because it threatened peace and stability in the Middle East, which is a major source and recruiting ground for that terrorism.

I'm aware of the argument that they could achieve more by increasing the pressure on Israel for concessions to the Palestinians, but that would be no better than Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Eventually, the Israelis and Palestinians will have to come to an agreement, but that can't happen while the latter is led by a corrupt terrorist and the latter responds by electing narrow minded ex-generals. The long term solution involves the elimination of hard core terrorists, removal of support bases and peace and prosperity in the region from where those terrorists are recruited. A democratic Iraq is a step in that direction, no matter how depressing some of the headlines might be right now.

[singa-traz]

Policy Contradictions

The greater need for oil in the future is at odds with current sanctions on oil exporters Libya, Iraq, and Iran.

So what? Do you need me to explain this to you? It's a clear business-like assessment of the situation in the world But if I have to s-p-e-l-l it out for you: all that is stating is that "it's too bad we have had to place sanctions on these extremist, terrorist-loving, antagonistic governments, because they have the ability to control energy reserves that affect the U.S. and the entire world". (It's funny how you try to twist and infer points that aren't there).

Well at least now for Iraq, the sanctions are no longer there.

What an unexpected side effect of the invasion of Iraq ...

Energy Reliability

In the early decades of the twenty-first century, because burgeoning energy demand must be met largely by a small number of oil and gas suppliers and because supply routes are lengthening, the risk posed by supply interruptions will be greater than it was at the end of the twentieth century.

Military conflict will remain a threat to most energy-producing regions, particularly

in the Middle East where almost two-thirds of the world’s oil resources are located. In addition, domestic turmoil within the key energy-producing countries Executive Summary xxi constitutes another threat to reliability of energy supplies. At least 10 of the 14 top oil-exporting countries run the risk of domestic instability in the near to middle term.

The United States should retain as far as possible its ability to defend open

access to energy supplies and international sea lanes. At a time when the administration faces myriad competing demands for military and peacekeeping

interventions, this mission should be considered a strategic priority and may call

for greater emphasis on, and increased investment in, appropriate military

capabilities.

...

I will believe this War really had nothing to do with Oil ... when:

- all the US troops would be back home

- and a non-pro US , Iraqi elected Governement would be in place

Some lefty extremists are suggesting that US troops will be there forever.

But if it does happen, then feel free to ask me to shut up, and surely I will.

[bartender100]

Err,sorry to be a spoil sport,but what has this got to do with a Thailand disscussion board.Go here or somwhere.

http://anythingforums.com/forums/index.php?act=idx

[SoCal]

Hey Singa,

I show you respect, so no need to ever take personal with me.

1) I have no doubt that we have plenty of dumb asses in America, as you in your respective country.

2) IT IS NOT ABOUT THE OIL. I'm not saying that it was never thought of, but it was not the compelling reason for going to war, nor the reason our boys are dying today.

If we merely wanted more supply on the world market, why didn't we support Blix and raise the sanctions? Why spend billions of dollars to get the same result?

Listen my friend, I have never told you that the war was the best idea, only stated facts. Try to see the bigger picture. I am not saying that you won't remain unimpressed with Bush, only that you will see things more clearly.

3) Our boys are still there, once again not for the oil, but because we have created a potential for disaster. It is not impossible that this place become another Afghanistan. Bush has grandiose ideas of making Iraq the Arab pillar of the Middle East. Now, I am not saying that it's going to work, but no way we can abbandon the mission. Bush owes this to the people of Iraq, and the world. That said, hopefully he will do so expeditiously.

4) I am well aware of the price of gas in Europe. I lived in France for many years. This is the result of socialist sytems that only sometimes work, and pass a very large bill to their people, but this is for another time.

SoCal

[Membrane]

Thanks p_brownstone, for posting the article. Here is the rest of the article (not posted above) and the complete list of names and countries involved in accepting bribes from Saddam--(pretty shocking, how far up the chain some of them are).

Hmm.... The only two "Americans" listed (Samir Vincent and Shakir Alkhalaji) are two IRAQI-AMERICANS.

Anyway, here is the list:

According to the document, France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.

Maugein, individually and through companies connected to him, received contracts for some 36 million barrels. Chirac's office said it was unaware of Maugein's deals, which Maugein told ABCNEWS are perfectly legal.

The single biggest set of contracts were given to the Russian government and Russian political figures, more than 1.3 billion barrels in all — including 92 million barrels to individual officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin.

Another 1 million barrels were contracted to the Russian ambassador to Baghdad, 137 million barrels of oil were given to the Russian Communist Party, and 5 million barrels were contracted to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Also on the list are the names of prominent journalists, two Iraqi-Americans, and a French priest who organized a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister.

The following are the names of some of those who, according to the document, received Iraqi oil contracts (amounts are in millions of barrels of oil):

Russia

The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million

The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million

The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (2 separate contracts)

Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million

The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million

France

Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million

Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million

Ibex: 47.2 million

Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million

Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million

Syria

Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey

Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million

Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia

Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain

Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia

The Socialist Party: 22 million

Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada

Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy

Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million

Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States

Samir Vincent: 7 million

Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom

George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million

Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa

Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan

Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million

The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million

Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million

Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon

The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt

Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million

Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories

The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million

Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million

Qatar

Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya

Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad

Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil

The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)

The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine

The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million

The Communist Party: 6 million

The Socialist Party: 2 million

The FTD oil company: 2 million

Now... with that much bribery, is it any wonder there was a "world-wide movement" to try to stop the U.S. from going in and removing Saddam? Is it any wonder they have tried to use a clever (but weak) argument that the U.S. is trying to steal all the oil? What utter nonsense! But some people are just gullible enough to believe it--either that, or they are already biased against the U.S. Plus, they ignore the fact that the U.S. has spent it's own blood and billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq's hospitals, schools, etc. Also keeping their eyes and ears closed to the fact, as SoCal pointed out, that Iraq's oil is controlled by their state agency, and sold on the world market.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the U.S. wanted to take the oil, we just would have. We wouldn't have bothered to rebuild schools, hospitals, etc. And we certainly would NOT have allowed the oil to be put up for sale on the world market!

How much clearer can that be?

[Georgie-Porgie]

Membrane, I think some of our local left-wing liars need reminding of this point:

Thanks p_brownstone, for posting the article.  Here is the rest of the article (not posted above) and the complete list of names and countries involved in accepting bribes from Saddam--(pretty shocking, how far up the chain some of them are).

Hmm.... The only two "Americans" listed (Samir Vincent and Shakir Alkhalaji) are two IRAQI-AMERICANS!

[Jeepz]

The list of recipients for Iraqi oil contracts is very interesting. It does seemingly taint a number of individuals that are (or were) vociferous critics of Bush's pre-emptive war on Iraq.

I do have to wonder about the Germans though. I don't remember seeing any Germans on the list, but they were very anti-war. The list doesn't explain all of the criticism we (USA) have received, even if it does seem to dampen some of it.

Now, in the USA, even supporters of Bush's war policies are being forced to consider the consequences of the failure to find any Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). I mentioned in another post about the PBS (Frontline) story concerning the search for WMD. They closed the program with a note saying it was expected that the head of the program at that time would be replaced (David Kay). He just resigned as we have seen on TV news. His comments call the WMD a failure on the part of the US intelligence community. Others have blamed it on the people that relayed the info up the chain.

Sort of "partial info says it may be 80% chance A (they are hiding them) or 20% chance B (they are bluffing)." But by the time it goes from Analysts to head of this to chief of that to Bush finally, it has a spin of "It is high probability they are hiding them."

But regardless, the effect is still very troubling to many American citizens (USA). Pre-emptive wars on faulty intelligence are not something we take lightly here. Yeah, Saddam was bad guy. Yes, we are happy to see him gone, regardless. Yes, we are willing to bear the bad news of young men and women coming home in coffins, when it has to be. But not if it is another "oops, we got it wrong, Gulf of Tonkin thing."

Regardless of your individual leaning (pro-Bush/anti-Bush) the lack of WMD is going to open a very large chink in his armour when he runs again. His best chance is if the Democrats nominate someone that can't win. They have done that quite often and may find a way to do it again.

Now my own view is that he's the head honcho, if his people (Tenet and so on) get us into a war that was factually necessary, he's going to have to go. Regardless of the things he did right concerning Sept 11 attack and Afghanistan. (People that whine about us whacking the Taliban can howl at the moon as far I am personally concerned.)

I don't know how this honestly fits in with Thailand. The chicken flu is going to have a much greater effect on Thailand than USA presdential elections, imho. The PM of Thailand is in much the same boat for his fibbing to public and even more so for fibbing to other countries about Thailand not having the flu. But I think both countries need a change if their leaders can't handle situations better than they have been showing so far.

Jeepz

[the cynic]

Membrane, I think some of our local left-wing liars need reminding of this point:

Thanks p_brownstone, for posting the article.  Here is the rest of the article (not posted above) and the complete list of names and countries involved in accepting bribes from Saddam--(pretty shocking, how far up the chain some of them are).

Hmm.... The only two "Americans" listed (Samir Vincent and Shakir Alkhalaji) are two IRAQI-AMERICANS!

Is an Iraqi-American less American than an Italian-American, an African-American or an Irish-American ?

Is everybody equal in the US or are some people more equal than others ?