Iraq becoming 'free fraud' zone?

Remove all ads!

Read an article oin the CSMonitor, titled: Iraq is becoming 'free fraud' zone - Corruption in Iraq under US-led CPA may dwarf UN oil-for-food scandal.

Duh.

 

And i wonder Ragusa what did you expect? The vultures not to visit the corpse? It is a natural consequence that some people will try and get the best profit out of this whole mess. In fact they will even try to get some profit, even if this means killing a large portion of the population.
I haven't though managed to learn what exactly was the mischief in the Oil for Food plan of the UN. I only read that Annan was found in a very difficult position due to this.

 

Oh, I didn't expect anything else. The lack of oversight had to produce such results.

Oil for food is a different thing entirely. The US right wing media especially make a big broo-haha about this 'scandalous' affair. They are steadily overlooking one tiny litte bit there: The US administrations knew it all along but chose to ignore it and let it happen.
If so incredibly scandalous, why didn't they cry out loud three, four of five years ago? Their surprise and their moralising is overtly dishonest.

IMO the fury about Annan and 'oil for food' is phony, to a good deal American revenge for his opposing stance against the Iraq war. They are just making cheap shots on Annan.

Annan's sin was and is that he stated that the Iraq war was illegal.

Let me just pick this example: When he said that openly in an interview, CNN's Lou Dobbs was outraged, calling it "another incredible outburst by Kofi Annan". When directly going in for ad-hominem attacks Dobbs and his CNN reporters neglected to pursue the most important aspect of the story: Was Annan right? I would think the journalistically important question would be whether or not Annan's comments accurately reflect international law.

For the record, Annan would certainly not be the first person to make such "outrageous" comments. For example, notorious neocon Richard Perle, and primary Iraq war cheerleader, openly agreed with Annan, saying: "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." Duh. 'Incredible outburst' Mr. Dobbs, eh?

Take two other examples:

International Atomic Energy head El Baradei can't find Iran guilty of violating the nonproliferation treaty - because they aren't (if there is interest I can line out why and how the Iranians are compliant) - and therefor Bolton and the neocons are on the headhunt to get rid of that silly dissenter from realityland. His renomination will be interesting to watch. The US will certainly oppose a third term for him.

Hans Blix said that Iraq was in compliance and had disarmed, and for that there was an unprecedented smear campaign against him. The image of 'Blix giving head to Saddam' could be described as the bottomline of the US press echo on the right.
For his persistent dissent, John Bolton wanted the CIA to invesatigate Blix, probably hoping to find something to either smear, blackmail or incriminate him. And he was reportedly very pissed off and incredulous when they didn't find anything. I can imagine that the thought of integrity in a high ranking official must be new to him as a D.C. veteran.

Annan, El Baradei, Blix - what do all these people in common? They were dead right where the US was dead wrong, and they were doing their job diligently. Worse still, they had a position of authority that made their claims undermine those of the US administration. And the Bush crew can't have that.
Managers and functionaries of international organisations get in trouble when they do their job rightly, yet their results don't match the agendas of the D.C. crowd.

[ April 14, 2005, 23:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]