Something's been bothering me here for a while, and to sooth my own mind, I'm gonna request a bit of a rewind. Way back
Here,
Sofia wrote:
The Case Against the UN re Iraq
I don't think any of us can continue to act as though the UN was an honest player in the decision to back away from the Iraq War.
When those making the decisions have been paid off, it has to color their veracity ...
. which she followed up with
This and
This.
Responding, in apparent intended rebuttal, though in mistaken apprehension of current events,
Steve (as 4100) wrote: ... Sofia, Galloway successfully sued the CSM and British newspapers that reprinted the story. He was stitched up by CIA and SIS dirty tricks department for political reasons. Being the litigous sort, be careful, he might sue you too.
while a
Bit Further On, in apparent additional intended, but mistaken, refutation and rebuttal of Sofia's point,
CdK wrote:What Sofia doesn't say is that the list she is posting has not been confirmed as authentic at all and that the US was a part of the sanctions committee that approved all contracts.
to which I
Responded:
Quote: ... Galloway's
2003 Libel Suit, in which he ultimately was
Victorious, predates and is wholly separate from the Oil For Food Scandal.
A Wall Street Journal Article brought major US press attention to focus on The Oil For Food Scandal back in February, a couple months after the story first began making the rounds, having originated with an article published in the Arabic Language paper Al-Madi (
English Translation Here ) on January 25 of this year. The scandal involves not legitimate contracts, but kickbacks and under-the-table dealings designed to subvert the contract process. Galloway, among others equally and more notable, is very much on the hook for this current flap.
Independent Investigations lend credence to the allegations raised by the Al Madi article.
The Financial Times wrote:A three-month investigation by Il Sole 24 Ore and the Financial Times has established that Mr Giangrandi was one actor in an international charade that helped Mr Hussein's regime divert hundreds of millions of dollars from the United Nations oil-for-food programme to its own ends. Officially, all Iraq's oil revenues went through a UN escrow account, which was then used to pay for the import of goods to Iraq. But the price at which Baghdad sold its oil was below the price at which the purchaser could subsequently resell it. The margin created could be used to generate funds for the regime, or compensate friends, away from prying UN eyes.
.
Now, though perhaps its nitpicking, but as that pretty much is standard proceedure in this sort of discussion, I'd like to revist these points. It is my contention, congruent with that expressed Sofia, that, in light of the facts as currently reported:
1) The objectivity of the UN in its opposition to US intentions re Saddam's Iraq, given which nations were the key proponents of that opposition, is at the very least rendered suspect
2) Steve (as 4100)'s citations re Galloway, etc, did not address the matter at hand but rather concerned a previous issue not pertinent to the current scandal
3) CdK's dismissal-by-implication through mention of US participation in the contract approval process fails to take into account the very nature of the alledged misconduct, which was designed, and practiced, specifically in such manner as to criminally bypass established contract controls shielding the activities ... kickbacks, illegal undercharges, and outright bribery ... from legitimate oversight. Further, as evidenced by the Financial Times article I referrenced, as well as another mentioned in
This Article, among a number of other recent exposés, independent investigations, based on independently obtained documentation and testimony, lend corroboration to the assertions put forth in the original Al-Mada article. I would add, contrary to CdK's assertion, that the veracity and provenance of the documents Al-Mada referrenced is subject to no credible challenge, not even from
The UN Itself.
Apart from any debate concerning justification, motivation, or legality of US actions precipitating the recent and current Iraq Flap, I question the foundation, as exemplified by general UN and specific UN Security Council Member State conduct, of opposition to US activites. I will not discount that there well may have been some principled, honorable moral, ethical, and legal objection, but it is my contention that such idealistic, and perfectly legitimate, complaint was of far less practical and pragmatic concern and effect than was simple graft and corruption, and in substantial practice was used blatantly to cloak the reality of greed and self interest in a costume of good intention and noble sounding but thoroughly obfuscatory pronouncements.
Should the current Oil For Food corruption investigation disclose proven culpability on the part of senior UN and UN Member State officials, such finding would not, of course, vindicate US action. Such finding, however, certainly would invalidate much claim to legitimacy of intent posed by those who were in opposition to The US, and by extension, call to question the overall legitimacy of The UN, as a body, itself. In closing this rant, I'll echo Sofia's initial point,
Quote: ... I don't think any of us can continue to act as though the UN was an honest player in the decision to back away from the Iraq War.
and say it appears, at the very least, to have been a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
You just supported my argument 
] I suggest that you spend a couple of minutes reading up on straw men and why that sophomoric debate fallacy is intellectually bankrupt.
