1
   

Old Story, may have some teeth after all! Check this out!

 
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:16 am
Gee, I wonder why Chirac was so against removing the tyrant?

Washington Times wrote:
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.


Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,440 • Replies: 124
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:20 am
"Saddam bribed Chirac"

Does it not bother you in the least that this is not true? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:26 am
Of course it would. Why do you say that?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:28 am
I say that because it's not true and you are posting it. I wondered if it bothered you to be posting a blatant lie. I suspect you did not know it was a lie.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:32 am
Craven, I also posted the source, and the title is the title of the story. I also heard it on CNN. What makes you think it is untrue? I wouldn't intentionally post a blatant lie.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:44 am
Read the article you posted Bill, nowhere does it mention Chirac being "bribed" outside of the sensationalist title. The reason for this is because there's not a single shred of evidence to support the claim.

Charles Pasqua is named in the Iraqi documents I have read but he has been estranged from Chirac since endorsing Chirac's opponent in a 1995 election so even if that were true the connection to Chirac is still nowehere to be found.

Here's a pro-Bush blog criticizing the misleading headline:

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/000522.html

Furthermore, the rest of the "evidence" is based on documents whose veracity has not been established and several similar "revelations" have been found to be outright forgeries.

The "evidence" also indicts liberals such as Jimmy Carter. You do realize that if proven true, there would be charges of treason? Or at least violation of US laws since Iraqi trade was forbidden by sanctions?

What you posted is that someone found a list of names. And said list both did not include Chirac and its veracity is not established. The implication that the bribery occured is simply that, an unproven implication.

This is similar to the story about the Roland missles. The initial release of unverified allegations is released and people start parroting it all over the web, but don't bother to note that verification of the claim is still absent.

Note the threats to "prosecute". Where is the prosecution? Probably in the same place where the verification of these claims is.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:02 am
...well....this thread was over before it began....
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:10 am
It's an old story, from January. The verification of the implied claims never materialized.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:14 am
I'll agree with the blogger that the headline was premature... and I'll change the title to a question. Posting an as-of-yet not substantiated newspaper article is hardly grounds to accuse me of posting a blatant lie. Chill dude. Time will tell if there is truth in the tale or not.
Ps. I saw you weren't feeling good... feel better.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:16 am
How unobservant of me. Sorry... I'll try to kill it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:30 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Posting an as-of-yet not substantiated newspaper article is hardly grounds to accuse me of posting a blatant lie. Chill dude.


Sorry Bill, that sounds like I have offended you and didn't mean to.

I do consider the claim that Chirac was bribed to be a blatant lie but don't fault you for that (though I do think the Washington Times practiced some very shoddy sensationalist journalism).

Heck, I've even posted urban legends, reposting a falsehood can happen to anyone and I sure as hell don't want you to feel bad about it.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:33 am
Anybody know if the Times ever officially disavowed or apologized for publishing the article?

Its hard to fault Bill - he posted an article from a legitimate website, as opposed to the Weekly Standard or Intellectual Conservative.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:37 am
As far as I know they haven't. Many other agencies such as CNN (as Bill notes) and ABC ran it, but careful reading will reveal that the actual articles are usually not inherently false (except for things like the headline).

What they are reporting is that some document with names was found, with unamed persons making anonymous quote and implications.

A couple of named persons threaten prosecution and the admin is allegedly aware of it.

Nothing has happened wither way (that I am aware), neither verification or definitive debunking.

Personally I think there won't be much more either way (establishing it as true or definitively false).

But the damage is done, people in debates everywhere are claiming that France was bribed using these documents as the basis for the claim.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:42 am
Embarrassed It's cool dude. I deserved that slap. I feel pretty stupid for not noticing the date. Oh well. I have done stupider things and no doubt will again.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:44 am
But it so wasn't a slap at you, 'twas a slap at a headline that you are not responsible for.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:54 am
Okay, I understood your first explanation... but I still deserve a slap. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 05:06 am
Bill, I think you are trying to circumvent my clearly posted price for such services.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 07:20 am
Bill, never take personally Craven's (or anyone else's) refuting something masquerading as the truth published in the Washington Times.
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 08:43 am
Two points here:

1. The 'bribe' angle is taken directly from OxyCotin Limbaugh's talking points;

2. Does anyone in their right mind believe anything from the Moonie-owned Washington Times?

Case closed.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 12:53 pm
Does this re-open this discussion with a more credible source?

New York Times wrote:

(My thanks to McG for digging this up)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Old Story, may have some teeth after all! Check this out!
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/23/2019 at 07:10:05