Who lied?

It must have been something of a shock to the bureaucrats at the UN when cowboy Bush insisted on rounding up a posse to go after Saddam Hussein. They hemmed and hawed and then took a sanctimonious stand against his ‘reckless’ endeavors. Turns out they were a gittin’ paid by Saddam the whole time. Back in the old west such corruption was met with a standard phrase, “Get a rope.”

Who lied in the run up to the war in Iraq? Turns out it wasn't Bush but the UN. Allegations of lying in the run up to the war in Iraq generally seems to run in one direction, that is, toward the Bush Administration. The evidence is clear, however, that Bush did not lie. The UN did.

Oil-industry experts told Security Council members and Secretary-General Kofi Annan's staff that Iraq was demanding under-the-table payoffs from its oil buyers. The British mission distributed a background paper to council members outlining what it called "the systematic abuse of the program" and described how Iraq was shaking down its oil customers and suppliers of goods for kickbacks.

When the report landed in the United Nations' Iraq sanctions committee, the clearinghouse for contracts with Iraq, it caused few ripples of consternation. There was no action, diplomats said, not even a formal meeting on the allegations. theledger

Kerry, the internationalist, is claiming that if elected he will make Iraq Europe's problem rather than ours. He criticizes Bush for having no allies in the war on Iraq, for waging a war on false premises and failing to put the majority of the burden of war on our allies.

It's merely convenient for Kerry that the UN was complicit in corruption and France had long standing ties with Saddam, both economic and self serving, which they put above their ties with us. However, it is the idea that Kerry will make our allies pay a higher cost once he is president that is the most ludicrous.

First of all the UN had no reason to do what's right in this case because they were in bed with Saddam. Why were they not interested in evidence of 'systematic abuse of the program'? They already had intimate knowledge of it.

April 20 - At least three senior United Nations officials are suspected of taking multimillion-dollar bribes from the Saddam Hussein regime, U.S. and European intelligence sources tell ABCNEWS. abcnews.go.com

The U.N. Undersecretary general, who was in charge of the Oil for Food program, himself is named in Iraqi government documents detailing kickbacks for illicit trades. In addition it appears that Saddam gave lucrative oil contracts in exchange for political support in order to end the sanctions and/or stop the war.

The second page of the letter contains a table titled "Quantity of Oil Allocated and Given to Mr. Benon Sevan." The table lists a total of 7.3 million barrels of oil as the "quantity executed" an amount that, if true, would have generated an illegal profit of as much as $3.5 million.

"Somebody who is running the Oil-for-Food program for the United Nations should not be receiving any benefit of any kind from a rogue dictator who was perpetuating terror in his country," said Hankes-Drielsma.

...He [the UN Undersecretary] declined to answer questions when ABCNEWS found him last week staying at a luxury casino resort. abcnews.com

This is the paragon of virtue and world peace that George W. Bush had trouble convincing to liberate 25 million Iraqi's from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein? Is it any wonder that they had trouble doing the right thing when they were using the sanctions and the Oil-for-food program to enrich themselves?

Posted by Eric Simonson at August 15, 2004 4:15 AM