Bush Administration Backed Illegal Oil For Food Deals

if there are two sides here, why do they have to be republican and democrat, or Conservative and Liberal, or apologista and denialista? it seems the senate in in unity, and seems this "debate" as america against the oil-for-food scandal. too bad the bbs couldn't see it that way too.

 

Morning basso

Again, as Galloway stated yesterday, the main reason for this witch-hunt was to deflect the gross failures of this administration and the failures of the Senate to hold anyone accountable for the utter disaster that is iRaq.

I think he did a masterful job. Evidenced by the fact that the subcommittee had no answer for his charges.

 

In England, this WAS being civilized. Afterall, England sets the standard for western civility.

But seriously, that's the difference in British politics and American politics. In England, politicians speak candedly and confront issues directly. In America we only invite supporters to our town-hall meetings to ensure everybody is happy-happy joy-joy.

Try watching CSPAN. Every now and then, they broadcast British parlimentary sessions. I have to say, it is sooooo refreshing to hear their politicians actually debating real issues in an unrestrained fashion. They don't meter and whitewash every statement like we do. I envy that. I hate how American politicians simplify every message so us common folk can understand.

 

Democrats and the GOP are both at fault for what has happened regarding Iraq. Galloway should tell it like it is to both sides.

Or rather Galloway did the right thing in telling it like it is to both sides.

 

Well, it is my understanding that the current round of aligations coming from America were initiated by Republicans and were specifically asking for Kofi Anan's resignation due to his part in the Oil-4-Food scandal.

This is not to say Democrates come out looking good because, while not sponsoring it, they voted FOR much of the agenda. But it is definately the GOP pushing this. And frankly, they should have left it alone because they are getting, well, b**** slapped on this issue.

 

FB and McM,

the senate hearings are looking into ways participants in the oil-for-food scandal helped Saddam evade UN sanctions, support for which were US policy long before GWB. in fact, Saddam's willfull disregard for those sanctions and the fact that they were failing miserable is a principal reason regime change became official US policy in 1998, the war ultimately became inevitable. as such it is in every american's interest to investigate those responsible, and expose their role. check the transcripts, read the scotsman article (which you both conveniently ignored), and you'll see that democrats on the committee are just as critical of galloway as republicans. your continued triumphalist crowing over Galloway's "performance" only lends credence to charges you don't really have america's interests at heart here.

 

I didn't ignore the article, and I haven't denied Dems are being just as critical.

I also understand that they are looking into the oil for food scandal. I do have America's interest at heart, and when the truth is painful about our nation, I look at it as a chance to improve, and right the wrongs of the past for our nation.

The reason why I appreciate Galloway's peformance is that America is pulling the splinter from other people's eye without removing the plank from their own first. Galloway made it more difficult for the congress to do that in his testimony. What I want is for America is correct itself, and move on, better than before, upholding the ideals that this country was founded on, and have made it great.

 

then don't neglect why galloway is appearing before the committee, and what he is charged with.

 

I understand what he is charged with. It hasn't been determined if he is guilty or just being targeted for his contrarian views. Either way he spoke well, and made valid points, which the Senate despite all their bluster couldn't answer.

 

this thread started as an indictment of the bushies as regards the O for F program. galloway's testimony adds fuel to the fire and underlines some obvious congressional hypocrisy as far as issuing blame. people have pointed that out, how is that un-american? galloway is innocent until otherwise proven and he spoke strongly on his own behalf. our current administration will not even answer such charges.

 

Galloway's testimony is blsutery blather, it doesn't unlines anything other that his evasion of the questions and the size of his ego. i'm surprised you place more stock in his opinions than in the bi-partisan findings of the senate.

 

"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
--Hermann Goerring during his trial at Nuremberg.

i don't put any "stock" in his "opinion." the man was defending himself. i just am sick and tired of this administrations tactics of "you're either with us or against us." challenging bi-partisan or partisan leadership is not unpatriotic, it's called giving a damn. this administration has made many mistakes, owning up to them would be patriotic.

 

Your criticism of the Bush admin is valid. But i agree with basso that Galloway's comments are being heralded a little to enthusiastically given the charges against him.

 

this isn't the admin talking, it's the senate, and it's members from both sides of the aisle. it's a facile and specious application of goerring's statement and you're smart enough to know it--if i can indulge in a bit of batman-esque "i'm better than that, and i just told you how" bluster.

 

"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries. "


So the High Court in England and the Christian Science Monitor are also included in Galloway's scheme???

 

Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

this is what the thread is about and my posts reflect my distrust of our administrations agenda. blind patriotism is unconscionable.

 

Cool.

But lets not turn Galloway into some brave whistle-blower targetted by the big bad neocons.

 

as is blind faith in the guardian.

 

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the money’s gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...