Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Anyhow people, we won the war in Iraq. We're still working on rebuilding it. But we've been at it for how long now? It took a decade to rebuild Germany and Japan. Let's allow a reasonable time before we pronounce failure here.

And we have 35 countries with troops on the ground and others providing financial aid. I simply fail to see how we have alienated anybody but the ignorant and/or the bad guys.

The war is not over. The death of terrorism is the goal. (in theory)People, including our own young soldiers and civilians are being horribly killed and mutilated daily. Is there less terror today or more going on than pre 9/11?

The war is not over. The death of terrorism is the goal. (in theory)People, including our won are being horribly killed and mutilated daily. Is there less terror today or more going on than pre 9/11?

You sound like an echo of the whitehouse press secretary. What percentage of the troops on the ground belong to those 35 countries, and what percent of the cost of the Iraq blunder is being born by other countries? You consider France & Germany ignorant or bad guys in the war on terror?

Well done Phoenix. I've voted 3rd Party in the last 3 elections due to dissatisfaction with my choices. This time around; a clear willingness to attack murderers takes top billing, and the bumbling Bush has shown that. He'll get my vote and the Dozen or so votes that I'm usually able to sway.

Ps I too, love the sig quote! :wink:

Yeah, what Bill just said.

Mesquite wrote:


Well Mesquite, I could say that you sound like you are quoting the talking point of the week from the Democrat National Committee playbook, but would that be respectful to you or give you credit for having your own opinion about something? I think not.

What difference do percentages make. Our allies are there, supporting the cause with their blood and treasure. To say we have alienated everybody is simply not the case. The U.S. is by far the biggest, best financed, and most blessed of all nations and from he who has the most will the most be required.

And yes, I absolutely see France and Germany as ignorant or at least disingenuous in this matter. They have been unwilling to invest their blood and treasure in the fight against terrorism, but they sure as hell wanted those lucrative contracts to help in the rebuilding process once most of the danger was over. Sort of like those who didn't want to help bake it, but wanted to share in the Little Red Hen's bread once it was baked.

What's French for "kickback"?
Follow-Up to Kofigate
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: March 29, 2004

WASHINGTON ?- Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.

At least $5 billion in kickbacks went from corrupt contractors ?- mainly French and Russian ?- into the pockets of Saddam and his thugs. Some went to pay off his protectors in foreign governments and media, and we may soon see how much stuck to the fingers of U.N. bureaucrats as well.

Responding to a harangue in this space on March 17, the spokesman for Kofi Annan confirmed that the secretary general's soft-spoken son, Kojo, was on the payroll of Cotecna Inspections of Switzerland until December 1998. In that very month, the U.N. awarded Cotecna the contract to monitor and authenticate the goods shipped to Iraq.

Prices were inflated to allow for 10 percent kickbacks, and the goods were often shoddy and unusable. As the lax Cotecna made a lot of corporate friends, Iraqi children suffered from rotted food and diluted medicines.

The U.N. press agent also revealed that Benon Sevan, Annan's longtime right-hand man in charge of the flow of billions, was advised by U.N. lawyers that the names of companies receiving the contracts were "privileged commercial information, which could not be made public." Mr. Sevan had stonewalling help.

To shift responsibility for the see-no-evil oversight, the U.N. spokesman noted that "details of all contracts were made available to the governments of all 15 Security Council members." All the details, including the regular 10 percent kickback to the tune of $5 billion in illegal surcharges? We'll see.

To calm the belated uproar, Annan felt compelled to seek an "independent high-level inquiry," empowered by a Security Council resolution, as some of us called for.

Nothing doing, said France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sablière. The money for the huge heist known as the Iraq-U.N. account passed exclusively through BNP Paribas. French companies led all the rest (what's French for "kickback"?), though Vladimir Putin's favorite Russian oligarchs insisted on sharing the wealth. That explains why Paris and Moscow were Saddam's main prewar defenders, and why their politicians and executives now want no inquiry they cannot control.

Nor are the White House and State Department so eager for a real investigation, because as the truth emerges, the U.N. may use the furor as cover for refusal to confer its blessing on the new Iraq. Our present and former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. would have to take issue with Annan if he tried to hide under their wing. Peter Burleigh and Andrew Hillman, our frequent representatives on the "661 committee" ?- so named for a sanctions resolution ?- are not about to be the U.N.'s scapegoats.

If the secretary general appoints a Franco-Russian Whitewash Team, to whom can the world turn?

1. The Iraqi government-in-formation. Spurred by Kurds who have been blowing the whistle on this superscam for five years, free Iraq has hired accountants and lawyers to sift through captured bills and contracts in Baghdad. Former spooks are freelancing usefully. Paul Bremer, our man in Baghdad, has placed a trove of additional half-corrupted tapes and damaged and damaging documents under seal to be turned over after June 30, Sovereignty Day.

2. The House International Relations Committee's chairman, Henry Hyde, whose interviewers are in New York today, will hold initial hearings on April 21. Congress's investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, will testify about the scope of the chicanery that it estimates at $10 billion (including Saddam's clandestine oil smuggling to Syria and Jordan). It's a start that should awaken Senate Foreign Relations as well as Justice.

3. The press, stimulated by U.N. stonewalling, is on the trail.

Al Mada led the way. Already denying the feisty Iraq newspaper's findings are a former French interior minister, a pro-Saddam member of Britain's Parliament, Arab writers and a financier reportedly behind a Scott Ritter film. The Times, Wall Street Journal and Sunday Telegraph have been exposing the outline of what Newsday admits is "the most underreported story of the year." Among magazines, National Review is out front with no interest shown by The New Yorker and Newsweek.

All of us need an embittered whistleblower. If an ex-U.N. type named Shaukat Fareed reads this ?- call me.

Thank you McG! I had accidentally posted an old story about this as new the other day only to have it blown out of the water as never followed up on. This New York Times article goes a long way to remove my embarrassment! I've re-opened the thread Here.

NP. I was actually thinking of your thread when I posted this.

The difference is about a billion dollars a week that has been diverted from the war an terrorism (militant Islamic fundamentalists). The war in Iraq has not weakened them, it has provided a new cause and training ground.
France, Germany and Spain were among the first countries to start making arrests after 9/11. The Spanish government joined us in Iraq against the will of 90% of the population. Once again the war on terror is against militant Islamic fundamentalism. This administration came into office with plans to invade Iraq and has not wavered.

I, for one, am still awaiting proof of your allegations regarding the plans for Iraq. All you have is hearsay and innuendo, but no proof.

Please McG, from the PNAC papers to top insiders such as O'neill and Clark, the evidence is obvious.

Then it should be easy to reproduce. Show me where it is and explain to me how it proves the Bush administration came into office with plans to invade Iraq and has not wavered.

So would I, in my heart of hearts. I really doubt though that any libertarian or Libertarian presidential candidate would be viable in the forseeable future. Many people in the US are too dependent on big daddy government to supply their needs. The era of the rugged individualist, the kind of people who made this country great, sadly, has been taken over by a nation of "what have you done for me lately"!

Nor do I. So it becomes a question of, "who will screw me the least"?



I couldn't agree more, and it plaques both sides of the aisle. We need the government to protect us from ourselves.

It didn't become so recently; that's been the choice since the advent of political choice.

That's pretty much what government is all about ... more or less from the beginning of the concept. What we have to be thankful for, however, is that we have our Constitution to protect us from our Government. Other folks justifiably can say the same, to be sure, but an awful lot of folks on this planet simply cannot enjoy that claim.

Perhaps timber, but I would think there was a time when the person you voted for was actually a person you wanted to vote for, not the person who you dislike the least.



Only if "We the People" make the government adhere to the Constitution.

ConstantlyQuestioning - Exactly- As the political parties stand today, there never is ANYONE that would satisfy me completely. The kind of government that would be ideal for me, would be focused on two major issues............security within, and security without. I don't want the government in our citizens' bedrooms, or raiding their pocket books.

I don't want the government appropriating money that their citizens have earned, only to hand it over to those who have not earned it, while pumping up the coffers of the bureaucrats. There is a place for care of the truly needy, and a compassionate country takes care of their most vulnerable citizens. For the rest, THAT is the job of religious and non-profit agencies, who depend on the goodwill of private individuals and companies to fund their projects.

I want scientists to be free to expand their knowledge wherever their intellect guides them, without being hamstrung by high government officials attempting to superimpose their own religious agenda on its citizens.

So you see, there is no one from the major political parties who can lead this country in a manner that I deem appropriate. Because of this, when I choose to vote, I need to get my priorities in order. IMO, the most important priority of the government is security. So when we are in a war, which we are at this time, we need a president who can stay the course, and root out terrorism, before it becomes strong enough to destroy us.

This is not the time for negotiations. One does not negotiate with evil, or evil wins. This is not the time for a "show of hands" across the world. This is the time to destroy those who would destroy us.

Precisely right! I find comfort in the fact that one as wise and level headed as you agrees with me on this point. :wink: