muddysmind.com

*gasp* Say it isn't so!

*yawn* tell me something I don't know.

hehe..

I'm pretty sure nobody is shocked by this.

Actually I was wondering how DF would defend this. I would like to open the bidding at $5.00 with 'Its just media propaganda'.

Any takers?

hahaha.....actually, doesn't DF have a problem with his government too? I'm going to put 5 bucks on "...at least the French gov. are not murdering innocent Iraqis.". Or probably something like that.

hmmmm.

Well played, Mrs Muddy. Well played.

this is huge, why the hell is it NOT the front page of cnn, msnbc, fox, wash post and the nyt???

The sad part is buried deep on bbc pages it says "Allegations that French officials were offered bribes by Saddam Hussein are unverified, France has said."

So they don't even deny it COULD happen? They just can't verify it happened.... this story is sooo being missed.

missed? Try ignored.

Purposely ignored.

Well, they *did* have it on Fox and Friends this morning.:-)

This is old news. WE'eve known for a year that he was doing this via Oil-For-Food...not to mention 30 other nations and Kofi Annan.

We'll see if this last allegation turns true ...
It does not shock me however that Iraq tried to give money to those who could help it get out of the sanctions...

The part where cwilli has it wrong is : you don't pay people so they end up on your side. That would cost far too much. You pay people already on your side so they do more for you. Russia and France were long lasting allies of Iraq.

In italy the prime minister controls 80% of the television networks ... He sent troops in Iraq. Yet 70% of the italian population was against the war and want the troops bacK... I don't think cwilli would turn into a socialist even for 1 million dollar.

Basically the all thing is that the US are allied to Israel want to dominate islamic countries and rule over oil. Europe has been forced out of the arab world, knows it has to move out of the oil economy and has a clear idea of the dangers of waging religiours wars ... That's the reason the US were all for the war. And european against the war

France Had long asked for a lift of UN sanctions. And the US were the only to really oppose it.

WHat cwilli seems to have forgotten is the main point of that duelfen report : THERE WERE NO WMD. And the reason was : the sanctions worked.
So they should have been lifted. And corruption would have stopped ...

The funny part in the report is that when a foreign company or foreign name is involved : the name is released. (and the person or company is not asked for his version)
When a US name or company is involved ... The name is not given. For privacy reasons ...
Double standards ...

Actually, the report said he had no stockpiles in Iraq. The report did say that it is possible that he moved such stockpiles to other countries, specifically naming syria. It also said he had the assets and the intent to resume production of both chemical and nuclear weapons. He was working towards getting the sanctions lifted so that he could resume these programs.

You're right, it is a double standard. The US government is not all that concrned with protecting foreigners. Frankly, they don't need to be unless they are on our soil.

The fact that bribery might have stopped doesn't mean corruption stops. Once you accept a bribe, you're corrupt. Period. End of discussion. Not to mention that then, those same leaders no longer become people who are accepting bribes, they become people who are blackmailing saddam, telling him "If you don't keep paying us, we'll tell everyone how you paid us to lift sanctions so that you could resume your weapons programs."

This is all not mentioning that Saddam's agreement was to prove to the satisfaction of all UN member states that he had disarmed. If he did not do this, any member state could initiate action. After kicking weapons inspectors out, playing cat and mouse games with them, I'd say he hardly proved his disarmament to anyone's satisfaction.

By the way, how does one even define the term stockpile? Is that 2 weapons? 1000? 1 billion? Come on.

Name one country where oil contracts is not related to bribery ...
Even in the western democratic countries oil companies are prone to scandals ... Anytime a western oil company (or a weapon company for that matter) does business with a third world country it typically bribes ... And bribes go different ways. Bribes to the local government and bribes heading home to finance political parties, directly or indirectly (a 100 dollar contract for halliburton is about the same thing as a 1 dollar cash for the republican party).

The bigger the contracts, the bigger the bribes.
If you go to your local car retailer, you are not surprised if you negociate 10% less, some pay even less if they pay part of the sum in cash ...
Well if you handle a contract worth 100 billions, where's the problem if one billion gets lost in different "gifts" that can help the deal...
That's how the economy goes. That's why it is so important to limit the size of corporations. If you don't they end up controling democracy.

Saddam wasn't just bribing with contracts, he was bribing with cold hard cash too.

Dont miss 'Breaking Point' on Fox News Sunday night at 9. They will replay the story of the the corruption in the Oil for food program. You can clearly see how Frances UN vote was totally bought and paid for.