That was an awesome speech! Problem is he has little credibility and he and Putin appear to be on the take with Sadaam. But good speech nonetheless.
then why is pooty-poot dubya’s friend?
I think saying they are friends is a stretch. I think it is more like cordial and they play nice in order to maintain some semblance of an amicable relationship. I think they call it diplomacy.
then why isn’t the same treatment afforded galloway given that he’s a brit after all?
My that is awfully absolute. To indict every US lawmaker like that is a bit over the top don’t you think. Credibility suffers when individuals are so indiscrimanently expansive in their characterizations. I still find your Anti-war MP a bit incredulous when you take into account his extremist assertions. But that is just me I guess.
Yeah he is a Brit and the Brits are our best freinds; most deservingly so. They have suffered and fought galliantly along side the US and I have nothing but the deepest admiration for them. The problem is Galloway does not wield the same size stick as Putin, and clearly is not in the same league on the diplomatic front.
leaving aside galloway and his testimony for a moment, what do you make of the guardian article referencing a senate report that shows u.s. companies profited extensively from the food for oil scandal?
and getting back to galloway for a moment, recognizing the conflicts of interest associated with his role in ffo and that he isn’t an a+ individual, does that mean everything he said can be summarily dismissed?
You know what my brother, your are objective as you recognize that your guy is flawed. If the US companies may have gained minimally, is that that worse than the French and the Russians, and Annan’s son for that matter, profiting substantially? Or is it just that they are USA firms that is bugaaboo?
well, according to the senate report, bayoil, to name one u.s. company, profited more than a little. my problem is that the admin pinned it solely on outside sources. they also used ffo as a prime example of un corruption and why the sanctions against iraq would ultimately fail without recognizing some u.s. complicity in the problem.
Another difference is it is our own Senate investigation turning this up. Do you think Russia, France or the UN would investigate themselves AND publish the results like we have? Its like everyone wanting to blame the militarey and indict all US soldiers because of a few bad apples. Are we, the US, infallable? Certainly not. Wehave corrupt politicians, greedy companies and bad soldiers. What makes us different is we as a free country do not allow wrong doings to go unpunished. SO go ahead and point to all of our flaws. That is your right. But do not lump the US in withclearly corrupt people.
… But do not lump the US in withclearly corrupt people.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
If there was money to be stolen, I would certainly expect some in the US to figure out how to cut themselves in for a portion. The point is that in France, Russia, China, and to a lesser extent the UK and Germany, the people stealing the money are high government officials. In the first three cases, the corruption goes right up to the highest elected office in the country.
If someone at Bayoil, whatever that is, broke our laws, then let’s prosecute if we can get the evidence.
Comparing Bayoil officials to top aides to Chirac is laughable.
(disclaimer: Plagiarized from another source. Why try to improve on the perfect turn of phrase?)
Y’all know what I like about all them Limeys? Even when they tell you to go eat shit and bark at the moon, it sounds so civilized.
but what about if the u.s. gov’t knows about illegal deals by u.s. companies and does nothing? no it’s not the same as a gov’t official receiving bribes, but it’s not as if the deals were unknown…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html
I am sure the US Government knows about illegal deals by US companies all the time, and that the government deals with it at a time and place of their own choosing according to their own priorities. It looks like the US never will catch up with Bobby Fischer for example.
It is pretty hard to argue the US government did nothing. There was the little matter of the Iraq invasion and the current issue of exhaustive investigations.
so now the u.s. went into iraq because of the illegal oil deals by u.s. companies and the u.s. gov’t’s inaction? that’s news to me.
look, if the bush admin wants to argue that sanctions were destined to fail then they need to make sure their own house is in order before lumping all the blame on the un and others. or, conversely, the admin needs to recognize that even u.s. companies couldn’t keep their fingers out of the pie and thus it provides more evidence that the sanctions would fail because not even the u.s. could enforce them correctly. they aren’t doing either.
and if you can’t see the hypocrisy involved in the admin’s stance towards ffo when it appears that the lion’s share of the deals involved u.s. interests, then i can’t help.
Your question is spot on, “What if…” The problem is the “if” and the source of the allegation; “…released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee.”
.
the guardian article i linked indicates that the investigation has “documentary evidence”. and by the way, this is far from the first person to make similar allegations regarding the u.s. not going after illegal oil deals involving u.s. interests.
I guess I don’t get your point. Of course sanctions not supported by the international community were destined to fail, and they did fail. No mystery there. Had they been supported by France, Russia and company there would likely never have been an Iraq War. I also don’t understand your contention that the administration thought they were able to enforce sanctions. Of course they were not; that is why we had a war.
I don’t understand what “lion’s share” you are referring to. I have never seen anything other than trivial American crooks compared to the French, Russian and Chinese crooks. From what I can tell, American crooks didn’t manage to steal anywhere near their fair share. Sure, Scott Ritter got a few hundred thousand for his “documentary.” The only guy that seems to have made out big time is pardoned fugative Marc Rich. What good is that? He can’t even spend his money here except through his “exwife” and her political contributions. All we have to show for that is a library in Little Rock.
My calendar says the Iraq War stated mobilization not much more than one year after the administration took office. I am not seeing much hypocrisy here. Seems like this administration stopped it all, and is now dedicating substantial resources to investigating and hopefully prosecuting those involved.