iraqi gov't. papers: saddam bribed chirac

[AR182]

is anybody surprised by this. and people criticize others who think that the u.n. is useless.

this article is from the washington times.



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.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

AR What made my day yesterday was the liberal heads rolling at BBC----hope its contagious

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../20040129/ap_on_re_eu/britain_weapons_adviser

 

[AR182]

dtb,

i'm glad to see what happened to the bbc. somebody should also review the ny & la times. i have read articles where they seemed to stretch the truth to slant it towards their point of view.
for that matter all of the media should be taken to task if they report any knowingly wrong info.

 

[DCPlayer]

I agree, AR, no one should be surprised by this.

No matter what France's reason for opposing the war was however, shouldn't change the fact that our government's main reason for waging war in Iraq was the threat of Saddam's phantom WMD stockpiles.

I'm not trying to come in your thread and talk smack on you, cuz I'm not even sure of your opinion on this matter. I'm just saying that France taking bribes is no surprise to me, and if it were proven that our government knowingly lied or exaggerated details on a WMD program in Iraq to gain support for a war, it wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[IntenseOperator]

DTB

DTB

2 things stick out here....

Tony Blair taking the high road

and the "top" official resigning conditionally, (like a little kid)

I hate to see these stories

 

[djv]

That is dead wrong when countries bribe other countries. Im glad we didn't offer any deals for those countries to join us. Chit I was not to let the cat out of the bag. I forgot we offer many aid with reduced dept and food shipments. We tryed to dam near give Turkey half the U S A. Turkey still took the high road and said no.
I believe a bribe is a bribe. One is not any better then the other.
I guess what really surprise me that any of you guys act like this is a surprise. Goes on all the time. Why would this be any differant. Except you will say it's ok for us to bribe but no one else should. Not in the real world men.

 

[DCPlayer]

You got that right DJV.

I think it's safe to put the $billions$ we openly give Egypt every year, in the bribe category. Of course, publicly it goes in the "aid" category. Thanks to all that "aid" Egypt see's fit to keep out of the Israeli/Palestinian situation? Isn't "aid" convenient when it works for us on so many levels??

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Some more issues in media today if you look---won't find it in moveon.org however.

Syria will return money Suddam hid there to Iraq's

Yemen holds captured terrorist for U.S.

Pakistan nearer to proving elements in gov that sold nuke secrets to Iran ad N Korea

Iran considering vists from U.S. delegations

Some pretty big steps in one day that you will not see much probably in main stream media but all in all, certainly promising news unless your a liberal or terrorist.

 

[Turfgrass]

Or both.

 

[djv]

DTB shocking you would mention liberials with terroist. I remember more liberials by my side that consevatives in nam. Mind you many thougth we were being led a stray. And 10/20 years later you find out for the most part we were. Only differance with Iraq were finding we were BS's early in the battle. In fact with WWII cant remember any consevatives in in the white house. I can remember Truman telling N K to go to hell. The missle crises. Thank god Kenney had those liberal balls to stand down Russia. In fact I cant remember that last consevative that had any of these strengths. But we have one now of course. Invades a country with out any right to do so. Soemthing our proud country had never did before with out being asked or attacked. And iraq had not attacked us. So ya those liberals step up to the plate. And bribes I think we know how real world works we had apart in teaching the art.

 

[StevieD]

DTB your rhetoric knows no boundries. I wouldn't label McVie a liberal.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I have to agree on that Stevie and I would agree that those far radical right wingers are much more dangerous because that take actions. Luckily there are very few of them in comparison and they hate all forms of government left or right for most part.

DJV the more you speak of Viet Nam the the more it puts doubts in my head if you were there are at least remotely involved in combat. I can guarantee you I didn't know the party affiliation anyone I was around and didn't care. For most part no one wanted to be there(when Johnson or Nixon was president) but the majority knew it wasn't their call and made the best of it and tried to get themselves and their buddys back home.

But since you mentioned it I have a question for you and all the "predominantly liberals" ,as you say, that were over there.

When you got back and stepped off the plane did you all go over and high five your liberals friends on the other side of the fence that were carrying the signs baby killers ect and trying to spit on you through the fence???????? This answer should be interesting!

cause they are ran like rabbitts when we got on other side of fence.

--and there in lies my beef with liberals----
I don't mind their protest on war which they were entiled to and may have done some good--- however to diss the soilders in military that gives them and to this day preserves their rights to do it is fcking sick.
---and the same shit goes on now. You have huge segmant of population that aids and abets the very enemy we fight.

To this day I have no animousity against the Vietnemese as I understand they were soilders doing what they were told but the Jane Fondas and Michael Moores and their followers are a different story. It is just fortunate that those here only talk the talk and could never muster the courage to walk the walk.

---and on a side note I'm putting a little cheese that Kerry don't don't get nomination--just think mainstream dems will not go for Dukaka's ex Lt Gov and think his flip flop on issues catches up with him like these---
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ashpost/20040131/ts_washpost/a64727_2004jan30

Wager is on Dem Primary

Selections
Event Date Event Selections Odds E/W Terms Result
1 07/06/2004 2004 US Presidential Election
(Election Candidate) John Edwards
+250 None To Run
Risk: 50.00 To Win: 125.00 Returns:

 

[djv]

DTB I was there much earlier then you. In fact I was told I was not there the first 6 months I was. And was told when we left the first time not to talk about it. If I remember right the second place I was sent to we were asked to stay still about it for 5 years. And yes your point about just as many liberals being there. At the time I was still a full consevative to the bone. But then Nixon had not help change me yet. I say we talked a lot and many were just that. But it was a differant time and our heads were full of the commies were going to get us. They were trying to take over the world. In the end it was a civil war that we were never going to change. Not with one hand tied behind our back. So yes as time dragged on our country fell into some shamfull days. I remember some of the later fellows coming home to some nasty signs. I aslo remember some of the welcome home parties. But I would never just say liberals ended up aginst that war. In any case some of our best leaders were liberal. Maybe thats what helped me move from right to center. At least in the center I can see both sides more clearly. And will take shots at both sides when I think they are going nuts. Right now Bush is going nuts. Spending like he needs to win a second term. War with Iraq if you care to call it that. More like invade make a mess and watch GI's get killed each week. Oh but it's all worth it becuse were all so much safer now. And since you heard that back in Nam. You know just how nuts that saying is. Nothing we did in Iraq makes us any safer here. I will stick up for any Prez but only when not being BS's to. We got the full load of BS for Iraq. And it somehow brings back the same BS we ended up getting about Nam. Only diffearnce it took 6/8 years to show for Nam. Iraq anyone could figuer it out the week before it started.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I believe Iraq was was won in just about a week.--of course you will have terrorist "and others" to contend with for a while--sure not the 100+ deaths a week ave.
Hell the cold front attributed to 50 plus deaths up north in U.S. last week--whose going to get blamed for those deaths.
I didn't know what a lib or cons was in service. Didn't care.did what was expected of me and tried to make best of bad situation as most did.
regardless of how or why it was done you'll find the invasion of Afgan and Iraq as a historical blow to terrorism that had ran rampant in past decade --and unabated by most including U.S
Now many countries are joining the fight and yes some out of fear that their next--but I say good as most should know by now terrorist play by no rules and are hard enough to fight without "others" making it more difficult. The same people that whine about enough precautions weren't taken prior to 911 now whine about the laws they try to enact later to eliminate prior mistakes. Hell one judge just ruled its unconstitutional to disallow U.S. citizens to donate to known terrorist org and it's headed to or mighty liberal 9th district next and you can bet your ass they say same thing till Supreme Court knocks it out.

Only thing I ask is if you can't back your country and don't have the stomach for what has to be done, get under the covers but let those willing to risk their lives do their job with out all the interference. Our soiders die because you give the terrorist hope that if they hang on just a little longer the bleeding heart liberals will win out here. I know that is not your intent but make one of your daily readings the Aljezerra paper and you'll see what I mean---and you can add Bush Sr, Swartzkoff and Slick to list of main culprits who are responsible.

 

[djv]

I think i'll put this one to bed with Amen DTB. You are right im not happy about all, but not angry about all either. Afgan I would have went did what was asked. Iraq sure I would have went. But felt just a little BS'd. Am I concern about are fellow to be Vets. You bet.