Rumsfeld Extends Tours of Another 4000 Troops

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Must really suck to be in his army these days!

---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Army extends Iraq duty for 4,000
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - In a new sign of mounting strain from the war in Iraq, the Army has extended the combat tours of about 4,000 soldiers who would otherwise be returning home, defense officials said Monday.

The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, which is operating in the vicinity of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, will be kept in place for several weeks beyond its scheduled departure, the officials said. The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been formally announced by the Pentagon.

Also, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that "some units" are being sent to Iraq ahead of schedule, although he offered no details. Rumsfeld declined to discuss the case of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored, saying that as a general matter some units, "from time to time," are extended in Iraq.

The brigade's home base is in Germany. The soldiers' families were notified on Monday that instead of going home in early January as scheduled, the brigade would be kept in Iraq until February — an extension of about six weeks, one of the officials said. Army officials also have notified members of Congress.

The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in Iraq. They are not the first to be extended.

n late July the Army extended the Iraq tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker Brigade. About 300 soldiers from that unit had already returned home and were required to go back to Iraq. The brigade is now operating in Baghdad.

The reasons for these extensions are different, but they both reflect the fact that the Army is hard pressed now to maintain rotations for Iraq and
Afghanistan at the current pace. The 172nd was extended by four months in order to strengthen U.S. forces in Baghdad, where commanders are trying to avert a full-scale civil war.

The 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division was extended in order to allow its replacement unit, the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, a minimum 12 months between overseas tours, the official said. The 3rd Infantry has already served two tours in Iraq, including the initial invasion of the country in March 2003.

Last week, the top American commander in the region said the U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed.

CONT (http://tinyurl.com/jj4yc)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This in spite of the fact that the majority of the American people are against the war.

Same sh*t, different republican administration.

[spdirty]

A bunch of bull****. Way to crap on morale Rummy.

Man I hate when they do that ****.

[baja]

The Empire is running out of control.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/jh060917.gif

[TailgateNut]

Does this actually suprise anyone. Another shot for the troops' morale.
Just try to imagine looking forward to going back home to see your family, and then........! Total BS!

[Stuck In Texas]

Does this actually suprise anyone. Another shot for the troops' morale.
Just try to imagine looking forward to going back home to see your family, and then........! Total BS!

It doesn't surprise me. There haven't been enough troops to maintain the peace there since the end of the war. It's a shame for the guys that have to stay for another 1.5 months, but hopefully they're finally figuring out that if we're going to stay, we need more boots on the ground.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It doesn't surprise me. There haven't been enough troops to maintain the peace there since the end of the war. It's a shame for the guys that have to stay for another 1.5 months, but hopefully they're finally figuring out that if we're going to stay, we need more boots on the ground.

There hasn't been enough troops since this ill-advised misadventure was conceived.

If Bin Laden and his ilk want to bring America down, they need not lift a finger; they need only watch and wait while Bush's Iraq boondoggle bleeds America dry (both economically and militarily.)

[Stuck In Texas]

There hasn't been enough troops since this ill-advised misadventure was conceived.

I think there was enough for the invasion. The success of it speaks for itself, but I completely agree that we have needed many more since then.


If Bin Laden and his ilk want to bring America down, they need not lift a finger; they need only watch and wait while Bush's Iraq boondoggle bleeds America dry (both economically and militarily.)

Hopefully we can ultimately succeed there, but I think more troops is a step in the right direction. At least something is being done. Maybe it's time to pull the troops back out of the cities - let the militias go at it and go in and pick off the remnants of the winner. I still believe a great majority of the people there don't want us to leave yet. Of course, I'm not there and I'm not an Iraqi so I could be wrong.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think there was enough for the invasion. The success of it speaks for itself, but I completely agree that we have needed many more since then.

The Bush misadministration's failure to plan for everything that came after the initial "shock and awe" is the problem.

Hopefully we can ultimately succeed there, but I think more troops is a step in the right direction. At least something is being done. Maybe it's time to pull the troops back out of the cities - let the militias go at it and go in and pick off the remnants of the winner.

This sounds eerily familiar to the logic used by the proponents of "staying the course" in Vietnam. That war became a war of attrition too. Trouble is, the one thing the enemy doesn't have a shortage of is personnel.


I still believe a great majority of the people there don't want us to leave yet.

"A great majority" want us to stay?

The polls and availible data indicate just the opposite is true.

[Stuck In Texas]

The Bush misadministration's failure to plan for everything that came after the initial "shock and awe" is the problem.


I agree (not with the "misadministration" part, lol). It appears that not enough planning went into the post war occupation.


This sounds eerily familiar to the logic used by the proponents of "staying the course" in Vietnam. That war became a war of attrition too. Trouble is, the one thing the enemy doesn't have a shortage of is personnel.

Well, Vietnam would have been won had we been more aggressive there. In fact once President Nixon took the reins off with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II, the Vietnamese couldn't get to the bargaining table fast enough. I think with more troops, the U.S. could clamp down on security even more.

If it was up to me, I would ban all POVs from Baghdad and make everybody use public transportation for a while. Of course, NOBODY gets on the public transportation without a thorough search.


"A great majority" want us to stay?

The polls and availible data indicate just the opposite is true.

I was speaking about Iraqis. I should have made that more clear, but in an effort to link to some sources, I found quite a few polls that say the Iraqis want us out too. It's tough, but I'm just glad something is changing. I can't believe a country with our technological might, can't figure out a way to stop those IEDs which account for over half of our casualties.

Personally, I wonder if it's time for another branch of the military. The anti-insurgent/terrorist branch. All they would do is hunt down terrorists.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I agree (not with the "misadministration" part, lol). It appears that not enough planning went into the post war occupation.

Just curious: If you disagree with the "misadministration" characterization, can you point to one policy area of importance that BushCo hasn't royally screwed up?

Well, Vietnam would have been won had we been more aggressive there.

That's really just an assumption or speculation.

Also, you agreed with me awhile ago when I said that wars are won or lost in the political arena. Bottom line: America was on the wrong side of the politics of Vietnam; it was an immoral war, and eventually it became impossible for anyone (well, anyone but the redncek "love it or leave it" demographic, anyway) to deny this. Hence, the political will to win belonged to the communists.

I was speaking about Iraqis.

I know you were. So was I.

Personally, I wonder if it's time for another branch of the military. The anti-insurgent/terrorist branch. All they would do is hunt down terrorists.

That's a good point. The idea that there can be an exclusively military solution to the problem is just plain nuts. Above all, it requires good intelligence - particularly from Middle Eastern sources. We can't get this sort of good intelligence when Bush is trying his damndest to estrange our allies and to make enemies of practically everyone else on the face of the planet.

[Stuck In Texas]

Just curious: If you disagree with the "misadministration" characterization, can you point to one policy area of importance that BushCo hasn't royally screwed up?

Well, I believe his reaction to 9-11 was appropriate. I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and I was, and am, for deposing Saddam Hussein. I just wish the aftermath would have been handled better. Suffice to say there are many areas where I agree with the president, but there are quite a few where I disagree too - for instance, the environment and immigration.



That's really just an assumption or speculation.

Also, you agreed with me awhile ago when I said that wars are won or lost in the political arena. Bottom line: America was on the wrong side of the politics of Vietnam; it was an immoral war, and eventually it became impossible for anyone (well, anyone but the redncek "love it or leave it" demographic, anyway) to deny this. Hence, the political will to win belonged to the communists.

True, I can't prove this, but the North Vietnamese were on their last legs militarily and practically begged for peace talks. The Viet Cong had been decimated by the "'Tet Offensive" and the Vietnamese were finally learning what the U.S. could do if the gloves were off. The reason I think we would have ultimately prevailed is because the North Vietnamese were in no position to take over the south at that time and if the gloves would have stayed off they would have had no choice but to retreat. I believe once that happened casualty rates would have dropped along with the political pressure in this country. Like you said, it's all speculation though.


That's a good point. The idea that there can be an exclusively military solution to the problem is just plain nuts. Above all, it requires good intelligence - particularly from Middle Eastern sources. We can't get this sort of good intelligence when Bush is trying his damndest to estrange our allies and to make enemies of practically everyone else on the face of the planet.

People would just have to understand that these wouldn't be good guys. Their job would be elimination of the enemy. I'm beginning to think that's the only way to deal with these guys. The less the American public knows - the better. lol

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well, I believe his reaction to 9-11 was appropriate. I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and I was, and am, for deposing Saddam Hussein. I just wish the aftermath would have been handled better. Suffice to say there are many areas where I agree with the president, but there are quite a few where I disagree too - for instance, the environment and immigration.

Fair enough.

The Saddam issue is obviously a complex one.

No one likes the guy, and, therefore, no one is going to mind if he ends up swinging from a rope.

However, whether removing him was in America's best/long-term interests or not is another question.

True, I can't prove this, but the North Vietnamese were on their last legs militarily and practically begged for peace talks. The Viet Cong had been decimated by the "'Tet Offensive" and the Vietnamese were finally learning what the U.S. could do if the gloves were off. The reason I think we would have ultimately prevailed is because the North Vietnamese were in no position to take over the south at that time and if the gloves would have stayed off they would have had no choice but to retreat. I believe once that happened casualty rates would have dropped along with the political pressure in this country. Like you said, it's all speculation though.

I understand the point you're trying to make.

I remember those people in America who wanted to turn N. Vietnam into a glass-lined parking lot. But that's just another example of trying to win a war by attrition without winning the hearts and minds of the people and without winning in the political arena. It's doubtful that this sort of approach would have produced a lasting "victory" in this case.


People would just have to understand that these wouldn't be good guys. Their job would be elimination of the enemy. I'm beginning to think that's the only way to deal with these guys. The less the American public knows - the better. lol

IMO, the most important component in the struggle to end terrorism is draining the swamp. Unless we look long at hard at the conditions (and policies) that fuel terrorism, we're just going to continue to spin our wheels. These people will never run out of personnel or recruits, that's for sure.

[Stuck In Texas]

Fair enough.

The Saddam issue is obviously a complex one.

No one likes the guy, and, therefore, no one is going to mind if he ends up swinging from a rope.

However, whether removing him was in America's best/long-term interests or not is another question.



I understand the point you're trying to make.

I remember those people in America who wanted to turn N. Vietnam into a glass-lined parking lot. But that's just another example of trying to win a war by attrition without winning the hearts and minds of the people and without winning in the political arena. It's doubtful that this sort of approach would have produced a lasting "victory" in this case.



IMO, the most important component in the struggle to end terrorism is draining the swamp. Unless we look long at hard at the conditions (and policies) that fuel terrorism, we're just going to continue to spin our wheels. These people will never run out of personnel or recruits, that's for sure.

I can't argue with anything you say here. The thing that concerns me is that a lot of these radicals live under Muslim governments who oppress them and then blame the U.S. As far as I can tell, the U.S. has no way to change these attitudes except through regime change. It's kind of a catch-22.

I almost think if I was president, I would move us to a more isolationist position. Bring ALL troops home and use them to protect the borders. Beef up intelligence (throw all kinds of money at it), and tell world leaders that we will stay out of their affairs and they should stay out of ours. I would also tell them that I would not reduce the size of the military. They can solve their own problems and we'll continue to trade with them, etc. When it comes to conflicts they can handle it on their own... BUT, by continuing to have a powerful military and strong intelligence if I even got wind of an attack on the U.S. that was supported by a gov't... there would be hell to pay. Ok, off my soapbox now.

[mhgaffney]

Vietnam would have been won had we been more aggressive there.
.

Amidst a barrage of jingoistic statements, each one more insane than the next, where does one begin with this guy? Maybe with this one.

Stuck, FYI we dropped more tonnage on Viet Nam than in WW II. You think 1-2 million dead wasn't enuf????

Not to mention the herbicide that defoliated thousands of square miles of tropical rain forest -- essentialy committing eco cide -- a US war against the earth itself -- so that not even a frog was left with a place to hide.

Still not enuf for you???

Maybe we should have flat out nuked the place, hey, what? Erased the country from the map? Killed every last one of them no good gukes??? Every last mother and child.

Then we could have waited 20 years for the toxic cloud to disperse -- then colonized the place with McDonalds and Starbucks. Right.

Now there's a solution to be proud of. One for the Gipper.

[Stuck In Texas]

Amidst a barrage of jingoistic statements, each one more insane than the next, where does one begin with this guy? Maybe with this one.

First, let me find my dictionary! :D

Stuck, FYI we dropped more tonnage on Viet Nam than in WW II. You think 1-2 million dead wasn't enuf????

Not to mention the herbicide that defoliated thousands of square miles of tropical rain forest -- essentialy committing eco cide -- a US war against the earth itself -- so that not even a frog was left with a place to hide.

The problem was that the war was run from Washington. I wasn't there, but my dad was a chopper pilot there for 2 tours. You would be amazed at how many times we bombed empty fields or were told not to attack certain high value targets for what they assumed were "political" reasons.


Still not enuf for you???

Maybe we should have flat out nuked the place, hey, what? Erased the country from the map? Killed every last one of them no good gukes??? Every last mother and child.

Then we could have waited 20 years for the toxic cloud to disperse -- then colonized the place with McDonalds and Starbucks. Right.

Now there's a solution to be proud of. One for the Gipper.

I'm not for nuking the place, but unrestricted warfare would have most likely won the war. Take a look at how many times we directly attacked major North Vietnamese cities. It was rare. Don't forget, the U.S. never lost a "major" engagement in Vietnam. Militarily, the fight was no contest.

I'll pick this back up tomorrow if you want. I'm going to go to bed, but first I'm going to find that dictionary!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I can't argue with anything you say here. The thing that concerns me is that a lot of these radicals live under Muslim governments who oppress them and then blame the U.S. As far as I can tell, the U.S. has no way to change these attitudes except through regime change. It's kind of a catch-22.

It all boils down to our dependence on mid-east oil, doesn't it?

Were it not for this dependence, we could tell the Saudis (who gave us the 9/11 hijackers) to pound sand. We would also not have to pursue the sort of policies that fuel Muslim hatred of America.

I almost think if I was president, I would move us to a more isolationist position. Bring ALL troops home and use them to protect the borders. Beef up intelligence (throw all kinds of money at it), and tell world leaders that we will stay out of their affairs and they should stay out of ours. I would also tell them that I would not reduce the size of the military. They can solve their own problems and we'll continue to trade with them, etc. When it comes to conflicts they can handle it on their own... BUT, by continuing to have a powerful military and strong intelligence if I even got wind of an attack on the U.S. that was supported by a gov't... there would be hell to pay. Ok, off my soapbox now.

The one major problem with this scenario is that we no longer have anything to trade with, now that all of our manufacturing base and industries have been sent overseas. We have become a debtor nation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/coma-monkey906.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is there anyone in the military who still supports this pinhead?

(Other than those folks who are just trying to keep their jobs, that is?)

Anyway, cue SteveTensi with the usual "these generals are just liberal traitors who hate America and want the terrorist to win" stupidity.

Retired US generals demand Rumsfeld resign

Two retired army generals and a retired Marine colonel demanded that Rumsfeld resign, accusing him of incompetence, arrogance and determination to wage war in Iraq on the cheap.

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said retired major general John Batiste, a former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq, speaking to Congress on Monday. "He knows everything, except how to win."

Rumsfeld's "dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary American deaths," said Batiste.

Retired Marine colonel Thomas Hammes blasted the BFEE. "The critical issue is leadership," he said. Rumsfeld "has not acknowledged the numerous serious mistakes made to date," therefore, "I do not believe it is possible for him to provide the leadership necessary to succeed in Iraq."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060925/pl_afp/usiraqrumsfeld_060925212416

http://www.bartcop.com/rummy-peter-pace.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/comma-graveyard.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/wear-tear.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Betrayal of Our Military by the Bush Administration

Maj. General John Batiste’s testimony before Sen. Democratic Policy Committee

Army Major General John R.S. Batiste (retired)
September 25, 2006

My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican.

Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense’s leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities. This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/099

[clarker]

The Betrayal of Our Military by the Bush Administration

Maj. General John Batiste’s testimony before Sen. Democratic Policy Committee

Army Major General John R.S. Batiste (retired)
September 25, 2006

My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican.

Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense’s leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities. This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/099LABF you left off the best part.

Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except "how to win." He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build "his plan," which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today.-Major Gen. Batiste

Rummy and Bush's support of him is the biggest reason Iraq is the mess it is today. If you agreed about going into Iraq or not, I think it is clear after listening to retired General after retired general speak out against this clown they call a Sec. of Defense and the clown of a President who still supports him, that it didn't have to be the cluster f.ck it is.

[baja]

Wow Clarker this is quite a turn around for you. I am glad you have seen the truth and are man enough to change your position

[clarker]

Wow Clarker this is quite a turn around for you. I am glad you have seen the truth and are man enough to change your positionI still think going into Iraq was the right thing to do, but I believe that Rummsfeld's post invasion(or lack there of) plans and Bush's support of them made it a big freaking mess.

[baja]

I still think going into Iraq was the right thing to do, but I believe that Rummsfeld's post invasion(or lack there of) plans and Bush's support of them made it a big freaking mess.

Why do you think attacking Iraq was a good idea?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why do you think attacking Iraq was a good idea?

I was just about to ask him the same question. :D

How can anyone say attacking Iraq was a "good idea" given that:

1) Iraq did not attack us and had no part in 9/11

2) Iraq was not a threat to us (or to its neighbors)

3) No WMD

4) Iraq had no link to al Qaeda or Bin Laden

5) It's now clear that Bush used deliberately skewed, distorted, cherry-picked, and fabricated intelligence to sell his Iraq colonization to the American people.

[clarker]

Why do you think attacking Iraq was a good idea?One of the reasons is the same reason I caught flak from my Republican friends for supporting Clinton when he attacked Kosovo(S?) Saddamm was a mass murdering pyscho. He killed 300,000 of his own people.

Before some one says well what about Africa, I think its a crime that neither us or the U.N. have done next nothing in places like Sudan.

I think even if he never had WMD's he would have never stoped trying to get them. If he ever go them he would used them, we know this , because when he did have them he used them on his own people. And if he didn't use them himself he could sold them or gave them to terrorist. If not Bin Ladin then to anti- Isearl terrorist. He gave 25 grand to families of suicide bombers and say what you will about isearl one fact is clear, the will go to great lengths to defend themselves.

If anyone ever uses a WMD on them it should come as no shock that they would return in kind to those they believe did it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

One of the reasons is the same reason I caught flak from my Republican friends for supporting Clinton when he attacked Kosovo(S?) Saddamm was a mass murdering pyscho. He killed 300,000 of his own people.

No one is going to argue that Saddam wasn't all of those things.

However, the larger question is whether or not removing Saddam and invading/occupying Iraq was in America's long-term interests. When you weight the pros and the cons, the answer appears to be negative.


I think even if he never had WMD's he would have never stoped trying to get them. If he ever go them he would used them, we know this , because when he did have them he used them on his own people. .

But you can't use "he wanted to get WMD" as an excuse for invading and occupying a sovereign nation. By that logic, America would have to invade a lot of countries, overthrow their rulers, and occupy them indefinitely.

As for the WDM Hussein used on his own people, those weapons were supplied by Reagan and Bush 41 (who looked the other way and continued to do business with Saddam while he was committing these acts.)

[baja]

One of the reasons is the same reason I caught flak from my Republican friends for supporting Clinton when he attacked Kosovo(S?) Saddamm was a mass murdering pyscho. He killed 300,000 of his own people.

Before some one says well what about Africa, I think its a crime that neither us or the U.N. have done next nothing in places like Sudan.

I think even if he never had WMD's he would have never stoped trying to get them. If he ever go them he would used them, we know this , because when he did have them he used them on his own people. And if he didn't use them himself he could sold them or gave them to terrorist. If not Bin Ladin then to anti- Isearl terrorist. He gave 25 grand to families of suicide bombers and say what you will about isearl one fact is clear, the will go to great lengths to defend themselves.

If anyone ever uses a WMD on them it should come as no shock that they would return in kind to those they believe did it.

I believe America should not try to be the sole policeman for the world. I do agree we should support the growth of democracy around the world and be involved in police action when there is a coalition of our allies that feel action is necessary. Way few minds decided war was necessary in Iraq and way too many minds were against it for many very good reasons.

What if Bush wants to nuke Iran? He has the power to do that now.

[clarker]

No one is going to argue that Saddam wasn't all of those things.

However, the larger question is whether or not removing Saddam and invading/occupying Iraq was in America's long-term interests. When you weight the pros and the cons, the answer appears to be negative.



But you can't use "he wanted to get WMD" as an excuse for invading and occupying a sovereign nation. By that logic, America would have to invade a lot of countries, overthrow their rulers, and occupy them indefinitely.

As for the WDM Hussein used on his own people, those weapons were supplied by Reagan and Bush 41 (who looked the other way and continued to do business with Saddam while he was committing these acts.)Well I was trying to avoid the pointless(because we have went round and round on already) debate on if he had them and if Bush lied. Everyone thought he had them If i Bush did indeed hype the intell why didn't the Dems on the intelligence oversight commite ask intelligence agents about it and bring it to the American People. And don't say well them were not in power, because they were not in power when the Dubi Ports deal happened. The American People spoke and the deal fell through.

Yes Ron and Bush41 did give him those WMDs. But he used them on his one people in late 1991. After the first Gulf War so I don't think we were still doing buisness with him after he gassed the Kurds, unless Clinton had some side deal that you want to tell me about. And I don't that very much.

[clarker]

I believe America should not try to be the sole policeman for the world. I do agree we should support the growth of democracy around the world and be involved in police action when there is a coalition of our allies that feel action is necessary. Way few minds decided war was necessary in Iraq and way too many minds were against it for many very good reasons.I don't think the Germans, French and China's motatives were as pure in the driven snow.

[clarker]

I think we can all agree that if Bush and Rummy had did what they claim the did and listen to the military from the start it might not have been the mess it is.

[baja]

I don't think the Germans, French and China's motives were as pure in the driven snow.

No but Poland and Portugal do not make a coalition. You have to smell a rat when England is all you got agreeing with you. Not to mention Turkey turning down billions because they wanted their country not involved.

[baja]

Hell we couldn't even buy a coalition.

[clarker]

No but Poland and Portugal do not make a coalition. You have to smell a rat when England is all you got agreeing with you. Not to mention Turkey turning down billions because they wanted their country not involved.I think it is kind of foolish to minimize the sacrifce that soliders those countries made just because they are small.

Even if all they gave is a couple hundred million that is huge. It is a small amount to us because our country has so much damn money. And every life lost is just as vauable as the next.

Even if we would have had total backing from the U.N. we would have did the heavy lifting. We always do because we are the big boys on the block.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Everyone thought he had them

That's another false claim.

But, even if this was true, "everybody" didn't decide invading and occupying Iraq was the correct response.

If i Bush did indeed hype the intell why didn't the Dems on the intelligence oversight commite ask intelligence agents about it and bring it to the American People.

There you go trying to blame the Democrats for Bush's actions again.

In any case, the Dems didn't have access to the same intel Bush was looking at.

Yes Ron and Bush41 did give him those WMDs. But he used them on his one people in late 1991.

How does this excuse the fact that Red Ink and Poppy gave him the weapons?

[clarker]

That's another false claim.

But, even if this was true, "everybody" didn't decide invading and occupying Iraq was the correct response.



There you go trying to blame the Democrats for Bush's actions again.

In any case, the Dems didn't have access to the same intel Bush was looking at.



How does this excuse the fact that Red Ink and Poppy gave him the weapons? I agree that it was Bush's call and his fault for screwing it up, but...

If they were on the intelligence oversight committie(SP?) (I can't remember if it is in the house or senate or both) otherwise how were they to over see anything. How can you have the power of oversight if you can't have the same access to the same intel Bush was looking at. I don't buy that at all.

It is the duty of both Democrats and republicans to keep the President in check. Granted the Republicans were going to step in line and they did have the majority, but that doesn't give the Dems a exuse not scream at the top of their lungs if they felt invading Iraq was the right thing. Most of them voted for it.

But that is over and done with. Bush is President. It is under his watch that this turned into a cluster f.ck. History will not be kind to him.

Even if every Dem could say with a straight face that they knew it was a mistake from the start, it is past that point.

I am looking for leadership with real plans on how to either fix it or get out all together. I don't care what party they belong to. I don't care if I like them or not as a person. I don't really like Joe Biden but he seems to have some ideas on Iraq. I don't know if they will work or not, but he is at least offering a plan which is more than most people of either party seem to have. So right now until someone else comes up with something better he will get my vote in '08.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I agree that it was Bush's call and his fault for screwing it up, but...

If they were on the intelligence oversight committie(SP?) (I can't remember if it is in the house or senate or both) otherwise how were they to over see anything. How can you have the power of oversight if you can't have the same access to the same intel Bush was looking at. I don't buy that at all.

ROFL! Since when has this administration ever submitted to any sort of oversight by the other branches?

In any event, it's not true that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence briefings Bush did.

It is the duty of both Democrats and republicans to keep the President in check. Granted the Republicans were going to step in line and they did have the majority, but that doesn't give the Dems a exuse not scream at the top of their lungs if they felt invading Iraq was the right thing. Most of them voted for it.

This argument boils down to "shame on you, Dems, for trusting the president."

Sounds like sociopathic thinking to me.

[clarker]

ROFL! Since when has this administration ever submitted to any sort of oversight by the other branches?

In any event, it's not true that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence briefings Bush did.



This argument boils down to "shame on you, Dems, for trusting the president."

Sounds like sociopathic thinking to me.i agree that Bush ignores oversight and when the Dems take control in 39 days they will call him on it.

If they do not have the same intell how are they suppose to over see any President. That just doesn't make any sense.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If they do not have the same intell how are they suppose to over see any President. That just doesn't make any sense.

No argument there.

Your point is just further support for the argument that there should be an independent investigation into Bush's conduct during the selling of the war, IMO.

[clarker]

No argument there.

Your point is just further support for the argument that there should be an independent investigation into Bush's conduct during the selling of the war, IMO.I don't have a problem with that. It would settle it one way or the other. If a independent investigation says he never gave the Intelligence Committee all the intell or didn't have access to people in the intelligence field then fire him.

[baja]

I think it is kind of foolish to minimize the sacrifice that soliders those countries made just because they are small.

Even if all they gave is a couple hundred million that is huge. It is a small amount to us because our country has so much damn money. And every life lost is just as vauable as the next.

Even if we would have had total backing from the U.N. we would have did the heavy lifting. We always do because we are the big boys on the block.

I am not diminishing what they did, that is not my intent and I think you know that.

I am saying that if the WMD was the eminent problem we were told by bush and Powell than why could we get only a few secondary level countries to join us in saving the world from nuclear holocaust.

[clarker]

I am not diminishing what they did, that is not my intent and I think you know that.

I am saying that if the WMD was the eminent problem we were told by bush and Powell than why could we get only a few secondary level countries to join us in saving the world from nuclear holocaust.See U.N. Oil for Food Scam.

[baja]

See U.N. Oil for Food Scam.

Do you not think nuclear weapons in the hands of a mad man would override the sweetheart deal these countries had with Saddam. The reason we went to war was because of those sweetheart deals andmore to the point the future long range contracts being given out by Saddam for Iraqi oil.

It was Bush that rushed to war does that not speak volumes to you now that you there were no WMD.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

See U.N. Oil for Food Scam.

Oil for Food - US Involvement

When your freeper friends bring up the UN scandal with the Oil For Food program, in their psychotic need to punish France and Germany any chance they can, send them a copy of this page and remind them how deep the US was involved also.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm

U.S. Firms Aiding Iraqi Oil Industry

Commerce With Baghdad Grows Quietly as Washington Urges Regime Change

By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, February 20, 2000; Page A23

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 17—Four years ago, when he was director of central intelligence, John M. Deutch headed up American efforts to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Today, Deutch sits on the board of Schlumberger Ltd., a multinational company that is helping Baghdad service its oil rigs.

As secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War, Richard B. Cheney played a key role in the U.S.-led military coalition that forced Iraq to retreat from Kuwait. But as chief executive officer of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based maker of oil equipment, Cheney recently held a major stake in Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., two American players in the reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry. While the United States and Britain wage almost daily airstrikes against military installations in northern and southern Iraq, U.S. companies, executives and even some architects of American policy toward Iraq are doing business with Saddam Hussein's government and helping to rebuild its battered oil industry. Though perfectly legal, the growing U.S.-Iraqi commerce has been kept quiet by both sides because it seems to fly in the face of Washington's commitment to "regime change" in Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's claim to be defying the world's lone superpower. The United Nations also helps both countries avoid embarrassment by treating the business arrangements as confidential.

The trade is permitted under the "oil for food" deal, a humanitarianexemption from the U.N. trade embargo imposed on Iraq after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It allows Iraq to sell oil and use the proceeds, under U.N. supervision, to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian goods, as well as spare parts to keep the oil flowing.

Placing bids through overseas subsidiaries and affiliates, more than a dozen U.S. firms have signed millions of dollars in contracts with Baghdad for oil-related equipment since the summer of 1998, according to diplomats, industry officials and U.N. documents.

"The United States is the cradle of the international oil industry," said James Placke, who tracks Persian Gulf oil production for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "A lot of the equipment in Iraq's oil industry was originally made in America, and if you want spare parts, you go back to the original supplier."

Most U.S. oil companies have been prohibited by Baghdad from directly purchasing Iraqi crude since the United States bombed Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. But Iraq nevertheless has emerged in the past year as the fastest growing source of U.S. oil imports, according to Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation.

American companies, he said, now purchase about 700,000 of the 2 million barrels of oil exported daily by Iraq, mainly through foreign middlemen who load the Iraqi crude and transport it directly to American ports, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.

"The Chevrons and the Exxons of this world have to buy from the Russians, the French and the Chinese traders," said Goldstein. But, he added, "the U.S. spare parts industry is too dominant to ignore."

After approving the oil-for-food exemption in 1996, the U.N. Security Council gradually raised the amount of oil Iraq was allowed to sell, and on Dec. 17 it removed the ceiling.

In June 1998, the 15-nation Security Council voted to allow Iraq to buy up to $300 million in spare parts every six months. The council is considering a proposal to double that limit.

According to U.S. government figures, American firms account for only a tiny share of the nearly $10 billion in trade that has been conducted under the oil-for-food exemption. U.S. citizens have received licenses to export about $15 million of oil-related spare parts and $400 million of food, medicine and water treatment equipment to Iraq, according to the State Department.

But those figures do not count most products purchased by Iraq from American subsidiaries abroad. This indirect U.S.-Iraqi trade is tracked by the United Nations, which must approve all the contracts. But little information about it has been made public.

The U.N. humanitarian program for Iraq maintains a Web site that lists contracts by number, with a brief description of the goods involved and the country--but not the company--selling them to Iraq. According to this, the United States has been responsible for only 2 out of 2,080 contracts for oil spare parts submitted to the United Nations for approval. France, China and Russia, by contrast, submitted a total of 746 contracts.

America's real share of this trade, while unclear, is certainly far greater. Until recently, visitors to the Web site could search for a company name and then call up the contract numbers associated with that company, allowing cross-referencing between contracts and companies. The search engine was shut down last week after U.N. officials learned that The Washington Post had used it to investigate U.S. companies doing business with Iraq through foreign subsidiaries.

John Mills, spokesman for the U.N. Office of the Iraq Program, declined to comment on the extent of U.S. trade with Iraq, saying it was proprietary trade information.

According to diplomats and the Web site, American firms that have done business with Iraq, directly or through subsidiaries, include such petroleum industry giants as Halliburton, the world's largest oil field service company; Schlumberger, the second largest oil field servicer; the Fisher-Rosemount unit of Emerson Electric Co. in St. Louis; the Hamilton Sundstrand unit of United Technologies in Windsor Locks, Conn.; and Baker Hughes Inc. of Houston.

Deutch, the former CIA director who sits on the board of Schlumberger, and officials at the firm's New York headquarters did not respond to requests for comment on their dealings with Iraq. A Halliburton spokesman, Guy Marcus, confirmed that two of his firm's former joint ventures--Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump--conducted business with Baghdad. "The joint ventures sold spare parts to Iraq through European subsidiaries," he said.

Marcus added, however, that Halliburton's share of both joint ventures was sold in the last two months to Ingersoll-Rand of Woodcliff Lake, N.J., which now wholly owns them. He also said that Cheney, the former secretary of defense, "was not involved in the management of either joint venture and was not involved in the decision to make such sales" to Iraq.

According to one diplomat at the United Nations, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump signed $29 million in contracts for spare parts with Iraq through affiliates in Austria, France, Germany and Italy. Marcus said he did not know whether that figure was accurate.

Peg Hashem, a spokeswoman for Hamilton Sundstrand, confirmed that a French subsidiary, Dosapro Milton Roy, sold pumps for Iraqi water treatment plants in a contract worth "under $1 million." She said it was also possible that the firm had sold additional equipment to Iraq.

Spokesmen for Dresser-Rand, Dresser-Ingersoll Pump Co. and Baker Hughes did not respond to requests for comment on their ties to Iraq. But a Fisher-Rosemount spokesman, Walt Sharp, acknowledged that it has sold equipment to Iraq. Although he was not sure of the value of the contracts, he said, all the deals were approved by the Treasury Department and a U.N. Security Council sanctions committee.

[clarker]

Do you not think nuclear weapons in the hands of a mad man would override the sweetheart deal these countries had with Saddam. The reason we went to war was because of those sweetheart deals andmore to the point the future long range contracts being given out by Saddam for Iraqi oil.

It was Bush that rushed to war does that not speak volumes to you now that you there were no WMD.You believe that Bush is the only person in the world who would put their own selfish wants above the common good?

[baja]

Bush had to create urgency because without it he knows he probably does not get his war.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

See U.N. Oil for Food Scam.

Iraq and Oil-for-Food: The Real Story

What could you buy with the proceeds of what the right calls 'the biggest corruption scandal in recorded history'? (Hint: not a Ferrari.)

Routine distortions, exaggerations and unreported context about the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (OFF) makes it arguably one of the worst-covered stories of our times.

That's hardly an accident. The story confirms a cherished piece of the conservative worldview, namely that the U.N. is populated by corrupt, inept and hostile anti-American bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to constrain the United States from using its unrivalled -- but wholly benevolent -- power to influence world affairs.

Oil-for-Food has been used by critics of the U.N. not only to disparage the institution as a whole, as well as the idea of multilateral diplomacy, but also to explain away opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq as being motivated mostly by craven profit-seeking.

Sometimes it's offered as direct justification for the war in Iraq, such as when an editorial in Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times reported, "There are growing questions as to whether Saddam Hussein may have directed program revenues to terrorist organizations." Those "growing questions," as far as anyone can tell, were invented from whole cloth right there at the Washington Times.

But most importantly, OFF has been used as a way of changing the subject. We're supposed to focus on "corruption" at the U.N. and ignore both the actual corruption in the program -- almost all of which was between the regime of Saddam Hussein and international bankers, energy traders and other assorted hucksters, some connected to the Bush administration -- and the moral questions raised by a sanctions program that has been blamed for the deaths of as many as a million Iraqi children under the age of five.

On all counts, the diversion has been a success. For progressives, the most instructive part of the story is how a "scandal" conceived and cultivated by a small group of writers within a small circle of conservative publications has been so thoroughly embraced by the mainstream media. While most of the right's claims about the U.N.'s supposed perfidy are readily debunked, the mainstream press repeats them uncritically.

Although the mainstream media reported that Saddam Hussein was skimming illicit revenues from OFF as early as 1997, it became a "scandal" when a newspaper in Iraq published a list of recipients of Iraqi oil consignments under the program. The list included vocal opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The source of the list was somewhat dubious: the Baghdad paper credited close associates of Ahmed Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile who had been a driving force behind the U.S.-led invasion.

When the documents appeared on the scene, Chalabi -- who has twice been accused of forgery in the past -- was locked in a political catfight with U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. The lists -- supposedly from the oil ministry -- were not independently confirmed. Blogger Josh Marshall commented that Chalabi "apparently deemed [the documents] too important to let anyone outside his circle see [them]." According to Forbes, the issue of documentation was further muddied when the U.S. military and Iraqi police raided Chalabi's Baghdad home and, according to Chalabi, took documents related to OFF.

Generally, the right's narrative has one insurmountable problem: the scandal that they want the mainstream media to report has very little in common with what actually transpired in the OFF program.

That's a big problem. Several independent investigations, including one by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and another by the CIA's Charles Duelfer, have churned out thousands of pages of reports on OFF. The most recent is the comprehensive $35 million probe conducted by an independent investigative committee headed by the well-respected former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.

The Right's "Facts"

The OFF "scandal" is built on four easily documented and, in most cases, deliberate distortions. Once you understand how the story is spun, you'll see these "facts" repeated again and again; they're endemic to the reporting of OFF in the mainstream press as well as in the conservative media.

Distortion #1: Everything that went wrong with Iraq during the program's existence, regardless of who was responsible or where the problem occurred, is laid at the doorstep of the U.N. Secretariat (that is, the actual U.N. staff). Conversely, member states' (including the U.S. and U.K.) tolerance of -- and at times culpability in -- the Iraqi government's corrupt dealings is downplayed or simply not reported.

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial posited that OFF "is not about some isolated incidents of perceived or actual wrongdoing ... oil for food is a story about what the U.N. is."

To understand why this is false -- and how this bait-and-switch works – you have to have a handle on all the actors in this story. There was the Secretariat in New York, there were the member countries -- including the 15 on the Security Council and especially the five veto-wielding permanent members on the Council -- there were nine different U.N. agencies and there were U.N. contractors. There was also the Iraqi government and a host of foreign companies to which it sold oil.

All of Saddam Hussein's illicit revenues under the U.S.-led sanctions regime -- the so-called OFF "corruption" -- came from three sources: unauthorized Iraqi oil sales to neighboring states, dubious "inland transportation" and "post-sales service" fees, and outright kickbacks ("surcharges"). None of those funds -- which are touted as evidence of an enormous U.N. "scandal" -- ever actually touched the hands of United Nations personnel.

Most important, the American and British governments were the key players behind the highly flawed design that allowed Hussein to choose his contractors, and they oversaw and signed off on every bloated contract, with every bogus charge and kickback.

The right's U.N. scandal pimps take great pains to skirt that issue. They've created a U.N. scandal out of sanctions violations that didn't go through U.N. agencies, were widely reported at the time, and which the countries that have seats on the Security Council were in the best position to stop.

One person who is almost never quoted in OFF stories is Dennis Halliday, the Irish-American former U.N. Humanitarian Relief Coordinator. Despite his intimate knowledge of the program, he's rarely interviewed because he screws up the preferred narrative. As he told CNN:

The fact is, the scandal, if there is one, lies with the member states, not the Secretary. It's the member states who set up Oil-for-Food. They set up the conditions. They monitored. They ran the 661 Committee [which examined every sale]. They knew every damned contract.

French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte noted in the L.A. Times that the full contracts were only circulated to the United States and Britain, which had expressly asked to review them. American and British diplomats were concerned about "dual-use" materials that could be used to produce weapons, and they vetoed contracts on that basis.

According to Joy Gordon, writing in The Nation:

Rarely mentioned ... in the press coverage, was the fundamental distinction between the policies established by the Secretariat and the U.N. agencies and the ... highly politicized Security Council. For example, the [Duelfer] report says that the bulk of the illicit transactions were "government-to-government agreements" between Iraq and a few other countries, for trade outside the OFF program.

As for the surcharges and kickbacks, Newt Gingrich gave the right's perspective in a Washington Times op-ed, claiming that the regime "collected more than $10 billion in illegal cash kickbacks while U.N. officials apparently turned a blind eye."

As I'll explain shortly, that number is exaggerated 40-fold. But even if it were accurate, the fact is that everyone turned a blind eye. The Volcker report notes that there were "company complaints and media reports of demands for kickbacks" dating back to 1997. But it "was not until the first half of 2001 that the [Security Council] addressed ... kickbacks; even then, discussion was limited to a few meetings." The report adds, "No action was taken."

And while Gingrich is entitled to his opinion, the U.N. actually had little or no control over those transactions. As U.S. Attorney David Kelly said in announcing an OFF-related indictment against a Texas oil company:

Recipients of allocations of oil had to pay a secret surcharge to the Iraqi government. These secret payments ... were not made to the United Nations-monitored bank account from which humanitarian goods could be purchased for the Iraqi people, instead these secret payments were illegal kickbacks made ... to front companies and bank accounts designated and controlled by the Iraqi regime.

Distortion #2: The amount of corruption and mismanagement found on the U.N.'s watch is so exaggerated as to be unrecognizable when compared to the facts.

A recent editorial in a regional Pennsylvania paper said, "An investigative report released by Paul Volcker this week details the $100 billion fraud that the oil-for-food program became." The editors called it "the biggest corruption scam in history."

They were echoing a Wall Street Journal editorial that called OFF, "the largest fraud ever recorded in history." On Fox News, Fred Barnes agreed, it definitely was the "biggest scandal in human history." The Washington Times' Thomas Kilgannon said, simply, "The Oil-for-Food corruption is immense."

To date, evidence has shown that one U.N. official in New York -- OFF Coordinator Benon Sevan -- took four bribes totaling $150,000. That's the value of the biggest, most awesome, mother-of-all-corruption-scandals in history.

In the course of investigating Sevan, another U.N. official -- Russian procurement officer Alexander Yakovlev, was found to have received bribes as well -- but not related to OFF -- bringing the total number of corrupt United Nations personnel to two. To recap, that's $150,000 and two staffers, neither named Kofi Annan.

A Russian diplomat to the U.N. -- not a staffer -- has also been indicted for money laundering, perhaps in cahoots with Yakovlev. Kofi Annan quickly revoked diplomatic immunity for both Russians, causing even U.N. hyper-critic John Bolton to "praise Annan 'for his personal and very prompt decision,'" according to MSNBC.

The most commonly reported figure in OFF stories is $10 billion, the total value of all of the Hussein government's revenues from all sources during the six years the program was in effect. That's a fairly straightforward bait and switch: the GAO report, the Duelfer Report and the Volcker Report all agree that the majority of that figure -- Volcker has it at 82% -- came from smuggling, which has nothing to do with the U.N.

In fact, the Volcker Committee makes clear that U.N. staff were in no position to do anything about it:

By the programme's design, inspectors were charged only with the inspection of oil and goods that were financed under the programme. They had no directions or mandate to inspect or report on cargo smuggled ... outside the programme.

Sometimes, as in Newt Gingrich's piece, the $10 billion dollar figure stands alone. At other times, as I've noted elsewhere, the $10 billion figure is in the lead paragraph, and the facts are buried in the "jump," in paragraph 17.

The real amount that the Iraqi government skimmed from the OFF program was: $229 million in oil surcharges added to the value of contracts, $1.06 billion in "after-sales service fees," and $527 million in "inland transportation fees." And, again, those funds didn't pass through U.N.-controlled accounts.

That's $1.8 billion dollars over six years, or $300 million per year. Now, let's put that in perspective: Saddam Hussein managed to skim about 1.8% of the total program transactions in kickbacks, which is held as proof of the U.N.'s incompetence and corruption. But compare that to the 1.7% "pilferage rate" that the American retail industry experiences every year, according to the National Retail Security Survey, and the U.N. doesn't come off looking quite so corrupt.

Or you can contrast the $1.8 billion (out of over $100 billion) that the Iraqis squeezed out of the program during six years with the $8.8 billion that the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority lost in Iraq during just eight short months under U.S. occupation chief L. Paul Bremer (out of a total of $34 billion in reconstruction funds).

Half of that $34 billion, unlike the OFF money, was made up of U.S. taxpayer funds. But the Washington Times hasn't played up that scandalous bit of graft.

Distortion #3: The suggestion is made, defying the evidence, that "huge" profits influenced individuals and states to oppose the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. War opponents are painted as being "soft on dictators" in exchange for big, big money.

In his Washington Times op-ed, New Gingrich marvels that Saddam Hussein "was able to bribe a global network of international power players and turn the Oil for Food program into a massive charade."

In the same paper, David R. Sands wrote:

Companies, politicians and pro-Saddam Hussein activists from countries that opposed the war in Iraq figure heavily in a list of about 270 recipients of suspected oil bribes from Iraq under the scandal-plagued United Nations Oil-for-Food program.

Despite the questionable bona-fides of that particular list -- that's the one that appeared in Ahmed Chalabi's circle -- this is the charge that has the most validity. The Volcker Report makes clear that Saddam Hussein did indeed favor companies with oil contracts from countries that supported his policy goals (while fully 36% of all Iraqi oil ended up in the United States, most of it went through foreign middlemen).

However, the kernel of truth doesn't support the charge that countries -- especially Russia and France -- opposed the invasion based on those favors. Rather, Saddam's regime steered contracts towards countries that supported him on issues like getting spare parts to repair oil infrastructure allowed under the program.

Ultimately, this claim is for each individual to judge based on the facts. Using a frequently cited estimate by The Times of London, sales under the program would represent something like six-tenths of one percent of Russian exports and one quarter of one percent of French exports. Contrast that with exports to the United States -- 6.1 percent and 7.8 percent respectively -- and it looks highly suspect.

And, of course, there's the hypocrisy of criticizing others when the United States, too, doled out contracts in Iraq only to countries that supported our policy objectives.

Distortion #4: The fact that OFF was a highly successful program, despite all of its flaws, is sometimes just not reported. More often, though, the implication is made that the opposite is true, that corruption kept the program from fulfilling its mandate to provide relief to desperate and malnourished Iraqis (and to keep WMD technology out of Iraq).

According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial:

Even now we are told that "at least" Oil-for-Food fed the Iraqi people when they were on the edge of starvation, and this is accounted a U.N. success. That is false. Oil-for-Food offered a lifeline of cash and influence to a regime that was starving its people.

A New York Daily News editorial put it more bluntly: "Unquestioned is that very little of this relief ever ended up in the bellies of Iraq's hungry children."

Those are examples of major American newspapers flat-out lying to their readers. Nobody with any knowledge of the OFF program disputes that it saved many, many Iraqi lives. According to U.N. impact studies, from 1996 to 2001 the average Iraqi's daily food intake increased from 1,200 to 2,200 calories per day. Malnutrition among Iraqi children was cut in half over the life of the program, as were deaths of children under five in the center and south of the country. During the same period, polio was eradicated in Iraq.

In general, these findings are supported by the Volcker Committee, which released a report PDF] on the program's success in decreasing hunger and malnutrition, a report that won't be reported in the right's echo-chamber any time soon.

United Nations Communications Director Edward Mortimer wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "The Oil-for-Food programme was an effort to spare ordinary Iraqis some of the bitter hardships that their leaders had brought upon them. ... No doubt it could have been better designed, and better implemented, but in its basic mission, it succeeded."

On this question, the facts are tough to spin: the GAO estimated that 93% of program funds went to the purposes for which they were intended, and the Volcker Report put that figure at 98%. The Iraqi elections in January used OFF lists, as no other census existed.

The Scandal Pimps

Soon after the unverified list of OFF recipients was published in Baghdad, a small group of American writers, all with a readily discernible conservative outlook, began to promote the scandal. They were led by Claudia Rosett, a former member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board who in the last year and a half penned 20 pieces in the National Review and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page (as well as for other publications, including The New York Times). Rosett is a fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute and at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies -- called a "Neo-conservative" think-tank. She is also Fox News' "Oil-for-Food analyst."

Joining Rosett are David Sands (31 stories since April 2004), Betsy Pisik (31 articles since March 2004) in the Washington Times (with other staffers occasionally pitching in) and William Safire, syndicated in major papers across America. Chalabi confidant Judith Miller chipped in with 15 stories about OFF for The New York Times.

Continued:

http://alternet.org/story/26055/

[clarker]

Oil for Food - US Involvement

When your freeper friends bring up the UN scandal with the Oil For Food program, in their psychotic need to punish France and Germany any chance they can, send them a copy of this page and remind them how deep the US was involved also.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm

U.S. Firms Aiding Iraqi Oil Industry

Commerce With Baghdad Grows Quietly as Washington Urges Regime Change

By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, February 20, 2000; Page A23

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 17—Four years ago, when he was director of central intelligence, John M. Deutch headed up American efforts to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Today, Deutch sits on the board of Schlumberger Ltd., a multinational company that is helping Baghdad service its oil rigs.

As secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War, Richard B. Cheney played a key role in the U.S.-led military coalition that forced Iraq to retreat from Kuwait. But as chief executive officer of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based maker of oil equipment, Cheney recently held a major stake in Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., two American players in the reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry. While the United States and Britain wage almost daily airstrikes against military installations in northern and southern Iraq, U.S. companies, executives and even some architects of American policy toward Iraq are doing business with Saddam Hussein's government and helping to rebuild its battered oil industry. Though perfectly legal, the growing U.S.-Iraqi commerce has been kept quiet by both sides because it seems to fly in the face of Washington's commitment to "regime change" in Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's claim to be defying the world's lone superpower. The United Nations also helps both countries avoid embarrassment by treating the business arrangements as confidential.

The trade is permitted under the "oil for food" deal, a humanitarianexemption from the U.N. trade embargo imposed on Iraq after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It allows Iraq to sell oil and use the proceeds, under U.N. supervision, to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian goods, as well as spare parts to keep the oil flowing.

Placing bids through overseas subsidiaries and affiliates, more than a dozen U.S. firms have signed millions of dollars in contracts with Baghdad for oil-related equipment since the summer of 1998, according to diplomats, industry officials and U.N. documents.

"The United States is the cradle of the international oil industry," said James Placke, who tracks Persian Gulf oil production for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "A lot of the equipment in Iraq's oil industry was originally made in America, and if you want spare parts, you go back to the original supplier."

Most U.S. oil companies have been prohibited by Baghdad from directly purchasing Iraqi crude since the United States bombed Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. But Iraq nevertheless has emerged in the past year as the fastest growing source of U.S. oil imports, according to Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation.

American companies, he said, now purchase about 700,000 of the 2 million barrels of oil exported daily by Iraq, mainly through foreign middlemen who load the Iraqi crude and transport it directly to American ports, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.

"The Chevrons and the Exxons of this world have to buy from the Russians, the French and the Chinese traders," said Goldstein. But, he added, "the U.S. spare parts industry is too dominant to ignore."

After approving the oil-for-food exemption in 1996, the U.N. Security Council gradually raised the amount of oil Iraq was allowed to sell, and on Dec. 17 it removed the ceiling.

In June 1998, the 15-nation Security Council voted to allow Iraq to buy up to $300 million in spare parts every six months. The council is considering a proposal to double that limit.

According to U.S. government figures, American firms account for only a tiny share of the nearly $10 billion in trade that has been conducted under the oil-for-food exemption. U.S. citizens have received licenses to export about $15 million of oil-related spare parts and $400 million of food, medicine and water treatment equipment to Iraq, according to the State Department.

But those figures do not count most products purchased by Iraq from American subsidiaries abroad. This indirect U.S.-Iraqi trade is tracked by the United Nations, which must approve all the contracts. But little information about it has been made public.

The U.N. humanitarian program for Iraq maintains a Web site that lists contracts by number, with a brief description of the goods involved and the country--but not the company--selling them to Iraq. According to this, the United States has been responsible for only 2 out of 2,080 contracts for oil spare parts submitted to the United Nations for approval. France, China and Russia, by contrast, submitted a total of 746 contracts.

America's real share of this trade, while unclear, is certainly far greater. Until recently, visitors to the Web site could search for a company name and then call up the contract numbers associated with that company, allowing cross-referencing between contracts and companies. The search engine was shut down last week after U.N. officials learned that The Washington Post had used it to investigate U.S. companies doing business with Iraq through foreign subsidiaries.

John Mills, spokesman for the U.N. Office of the Iraq Program, declined to comment on the extent of U.S. trade with Iraq, saying it was proprietary trade information.

According to diplomats and the Web site, American firms that have done business with Iraq, directly or through subsidiaries, include such petroleum industry giants as Halliburton, the world's largest oil field service company; Schlumberger, the second largest oil field servicer; the Fisher-Rosemount unit of Emerson Electric Co. in St. Louis; the Hamilton Sundstrand unit of United Technologies in Windsor Locks, Conn.; and Baker Hughes Inc. of Houston.

Deutch, the former CIA director who sits on the board of Schlumberger, and officials at the firm's New York headquarters did not respond to requests for comment on their dealings with Iraq. A Halliburton spokesman, Guy Marcus, confirmed that two of his firm's former joint ventures--Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump--conducted business with Baghdad. "The joint ventures sold spare parts to Iraq through European subsidiaries," he said.

Marcus added, however, that Halliburton's share of both joint ventures was sold in the last two months to Ingersoll-Rand of Woodcliff Lake, N.J., which now wholly owns them. He also said that Cheney, the former secretary of defense, "was not involved in the management of either joint venture and was not involved in the decision to make such sales" to Iraq.

According to one diplomat at the United Nations, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump signed $29 million in contracts for spare parts with Iraq through affiliates in Austria, France, Germany and Italy. Marcus said he did not know whether that figure was accurate.

Peg Hashem, a spokeswoman for Hamilton Sundstrand, confirmed that a French subsidiary, Dosapro Milton Roy, sold pumps for Iraqi water treatment plants in a contract worth "under $1 million." She said it was also possible that the firm had sold additional equipment to Iraq.

Spokesmen for Dresser-Rand, Dresser-Ingersoll Pump Co. and Baker Hughes did not respond to requests for comment on their ties to Iraq. But a Fisher-Rosemount spokesman, Walt Sharp, acknowledged that it has sold equipment to Iraq. Although he was not sure of the value of the contracts, he said, all the deals were approved by the Treasury Department and a U.N. Security Council sanctions committee.I didn't realize that any U.S. involment in the Oil-For Food Scam, and yes I concede that there was some, stop us from overthrowing Saddaam?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush had to create urgency because without it he knows he probably does not get his war.

Bingo.

He knew that he only had a few more weeks until Blix announced that there were no WMD.

[baja]

You believe that Bush is the only person in the world who would put their own selfish wants above the common good?

Clarker we are talking first strike use of nukes here. If our traditional allies had access to intel that showed that was a real possibility than yes they would have been on board to take Saddam out

[clarker]

Clarker we are talking first strike use of nukes here. If our traditional allies had access to intel that showed that was a real possibility than yes they would have been on board to take Saddam outYou could be right. I hope you are. France and Germany, I would trust them somewhat, but Russia and China? Not a chance.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You could be right. I hope you are. France and Germany, I would trust them somewhat, but Russia and China? Not a chance.

What makes you say that (about China and Russia?)

[baja]

You could be right. I hope you are. France and Germany, I would trust them somewhat, but Russia and China? Not a chance.

Well obviously when I speak of "traditional allies" I'm not thinking Russia or China

[baja]

Oh and if any nation has become untrustworthy it is the United States under Bush. This administration has made it very clear it's Bush's way or the highway.

"Either you are with us or you are against us"