UN Food for Oil Scanal: Briefing

Cross post from Blogs for Bush:

A recent article in Investor's Business Daily highlights why the U.N. Oil For Food Scandal is more than a simple corruption of some foreign political body. IBD shows how the unravelling Oil For Food scandal lies directly at the heart of the battle over the Iraq war.

It shows that despite John Kerry's assertions that George W. Bush failed to build international coalitions because he's a cowboy or because he 'rushed to war', the real reason a coalition with the likes of France, Russia and China could've never been built (yes, even with a 'President Kerry') is because those so-called "allies" were working with Saddam Hussein and guaranteeing him they'd protect him against a U.S. invasion... to protect their business contracts.

That is right. The entire international rift over the Iraq war has to do with France, Russia and China's illegal dealings with Iraq - not some "unilateral" action by the U.S.

A great debate has raged over why so many of the world's major countries suddenly went all weak in the knees when the U.S. went after Saddam Hussein. A new CIA report makes the reason clear, and it isn't pretty.

The report by Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, sketches out in plain language what could be the biggest bribery scandal of the last century ˜ one that reaches into the highest political circles. It makes for shocking reading.

It shows how Saddam evaded U.N. sanctions from 1997 to 2003 by illicitly selling oil through other countries and bribing world leaders, up-and-coming politicians, journalists, businesses, even the U.N. itself. In the process he cleared $11 billion in illegal profits.

The report names names. Anyone who could help him regain weapons of mass destruction was a target. He settled on Russia, France and China ˜ three of the five U.N. Security Council members that, with the stroke of a veto pen, could stop the U.N. from going to war or end economic sanctions against his country.

Even more stunning than the fact of the bribery is its scope and depth. The list of those who helped Saddam cheat and got paid for it is long and depressing.

This thing went so deep and so wide that no American President could've built a coalition to stop Saddam. And as the Duelfer report showed, Saddam was working to end the sanctions so he could resume building WMDs. This means it wasn't an "if" so much as it was a "when" Saddam would have the weapons we all fear.

It shows that George W. Bush has the clarity, the vision and the determination to take the right action in the interests of the United States of America and that John Kerry's "global test" and desire to be popular in Europe would've led us to an Iraq with destructive WMDs. (Think "North Korea")

It includes Charles Pasqua, France's former interior minister; Megawati Sukarnoputri, president of Indonesia; and Benon Sevan, former head of the U.N.'s Iraq sanctions program. Also named are a large number of Russian government officials and fixers and the governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt and China.

And that's just a few. The list is hundreds of names long.

And John Kerry keeps demanding we should've played nice with these folks.

Saddam's strategy was simple: keep the U.S. off his back. American and British planes were buzzing over Iraq's "no-fly" zones since the 1991 end of the Gulf War, and Saddam was forced to suspend his WMD program due to U.N. inspections.

To get his way, Saddam gave, in the words of the report, "preferential treatment to Russian and French companies hoping for Russian and French support on the UN Security Council."

That is, he bribed them. He wanted U.N. sanctions ended so he could go back to making chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

And according to the Duelfer report, he was "eroding a lot of sanctions". Again, it was a matter of "when", not "if".

AND THEN, THE BOMBSHELL:

Still, a member of the French Parliament, according to a memo sent to Saddam in May 2002, "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the U.N. Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq." That is, once bribed, France would stay bribed.

There you have it. France had assured Iraq they would use a veto against the U.S. resolution to attack Iraq. Essentially, because of bribery and illegal dealings with Saddam, France would never have supported an invasion....EVER.

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.

If Kerry acknowledges the truth, he's done. Essentially, he'll have to admit that George W. Bush had the resolve and determination to see through on of the largest international scandals known, to build a coalition of true allies and take decisive action against a gathering threat.

We commend the Duelfer report to your attention. It shows clearly we were right to get rid of Saddam. Perhaps more important, it shows just as clearly whom we can still call friends.

Now would someone please call John Kerry and let him know that we don't want to hear anymore about "Bush's failure to build a grand coalition" or how America must pass a "global test".

John Kerry has proven that he doesn't have the ability to lead our country... if he would rather coddle countries conspiring against us, than recognize the efforts of countries helping us keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists- then he doesn't have the judgment to be President of the United States.

If John Kerry would've had his way, we would've continued down a road of meaningless sanctions from a world body that was so corrupted by the very target of the sanctions that we would've awaken some time in the near future to the realization that Saddam was armed to the hilt and we'd been suckered by "allies" who were on the take.

Wrong war? Wrong time? Wrong, Kerry!

Thank God for George W. Bush.