IHL
01-02-2005, 02:10 AM
During the run up to the war in Iraq and also in the first war in Iraq in 1991, the anti-war crowd (http://www.nobloodforoil.org/PeaceLinks.htm) would carry their banners condemning America with the slogan "No Blood for Oil". I never thought that made much sense since there was never any real evidence that the United States was doing anything to indicate the goal of the war was even in part to take oil from Iraq. It was admitted, and rightfully so that to put a large segment of the oil production and distribution in the sole hands of Saddam Hussein would have devastating consequence for the United States and the world, but that by no means meant we were going in there to take their oil. The "No Blood for Oil" argument never made much sense to me. But now I see, the liberals might have been right.
The Oil for Food program was accepted by Iraq in 1996 as a means to allow Iraq to use its resources by selling its oil to acquire goods needed to help improve and maintain the lives of Iraqi citizens. Many nations were concerned that the war in Iraq was having devastating and unintended deleterious effects on the civilian population of Iraq and therefore enacted resolution 986 (http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-986.html) to become known as the Oil for Food program. Like so many other government programs before it, the intentions were good - the result was not. The oil-for-food program has unfortunately done little to help the people that need it most and instead has lined the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats whose only incentive is self enrichment.
President Bush has been under constant attack from the Left because he did not kowtow the the U.N. for matters of national security. Many on the Left consider the U.N. to be the sole authority for matters of security decisions made in the interest of the United States. In fact, many liberals have gone so far as to insist that the U.N. monitor elections held inside the United States. Thankfully the Republicans ended this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60143-2004Jul18?language=printer) absurd proposal but the greater point should not be overlooked. Liberals, for some reason, love the U.N.
Not only is the U.N. an impotent body who has shown itself to be a laughing stock to the world by not backing up any of the dozens of resolutions it sent to Iraq (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html), it is also largely a corrupt organization who was on Saddam Hussein's payroll (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html). Hussein paid off members of the U.N. to buy political influence around the world. This included France and Russia as well individuals and companies that all profited from payments made by Saddam. Does this help to answer any questions of why the U.N., France, and Russia were so adamantly against overthrowing Saddam Hussein? It should. In a strictly ceremonial display, the U.N. hired a private firm to look into the allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program. When the firm found concerns about the program, the U.N. quickly ignored the findings (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041116-110708-9030r.htm) and stonewalled investigators. The director of the investigation, Derek Baldwin, said, "We found it extremely frustrating to be in a position where we could do something significant to dramatically assist the investigation into the oil-for-food fraud and not be allowed to proceed." The U.N. has subsequently refused to release almost any documents regarding the program and has refused to cooperate with U.S. Senators (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136621,00.html) who are also looking into the corruption and abuses.
Not only did members of the U.N. profit financially from the oil-for-food scam, the damage is much greater than just a financial disaster. Saddam Hussein diverted money from the program and paid millions of dollars to suicide bombers (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/s_273762.html) who would carry out attacks on Israel. The liberals were oh so quick to run around with the "No Blood for Oil" signs blaming Bush as the next Hitler, but where are they now? Now that a direct link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism has be proven, and a direct link between the corruption in the U.N. and suicide bombing attacks on women and children civilians in Israel has been shown, where are their signs? Where are their protests in the streets protesting their beloved U.N. now? Do you suppose there would have been protests if a link between President Bush and suicide bombers had been shown?
What about the director of the U.N., Kofi Annan? With all of the evidence mounting that the organization he heads is corrupt and financing terrorists, he must be opening every door to get to the bottom of the story and root out any and all corruption right? Not exactly. To date, Annan is ducking all responsibility (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005904) for the program. Estimates range that upwards of $21 billion has been bilked from the oil-for-food program to be used to fund terrorists, pay off nations such as France, China, and Russia, and Kofi Annan still stonewalls investigators. Could the fact that his own son has also been receiving payments (http://www.nysun.com/article/5372) from the program as recently as this year have any role in his decision to hamper investigations?
The oil-for-food program is just one example of why President Bush was absolutely correct in not requiring the 'global test' of the U.N. to dictate his actions regarding matters of security for the United States. If President Bush had done like Bill Clinton had done, and John Kerry would have done, and listened to the misguided direction of the U.N., Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Billions of dollars would be flowing to Hussein to finance terrorism, build stockpiles of weapons, and pay off key members of the U.N. to maintain the status quo, and this nation would be facing a much more serious threat of attack while the U.N. sat back and gathered its riches. This is partially why they wanted President Bush to lose. A liberal in the White House would not have questioned the U.N. They would not have rocked the boat and those with their heads in the sand would have felt very warm and fuzzy thinking the U.N. had everything under control.
Because of the investigations and in spite of the lack of cooperation by the director of the U.N., many are now forced to look further into these undisputable charges. Not all in the U.N. are corrupt and those who have now been given a chance to speak are doing so. The U.N. staff is making a vote of no confidence against Kofi Annan (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041119/1/3onv4.html), the first vote of its kind in nearly 60 years. This is a huge story, much bigger than has been shown so far. Hopefully, this will show the world that we were right in ignoring the U.N. and that the United States has been proven to be ones concerned about 'no blood for oil'. The blood is on the hands of the U.N. for their corruption is this process, not on the hands of the U.S. as many on the Left are too quick to try to point out.
The Oil for Food program was accepted by Iraq in 1996 as a means to allow Iraq to use its resources by selling its oil to acquire goods needed to help improve and maintain the lives of Iraqi citizens. Many nations were concerned that the war in Iraq was having devastating and unintended deleterious effects on the civilian population of Iraq and therefore enacted resolution 986 (http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-986.html) to become known as the Oil for Food program. Like so many other government programs before it, the intentions were good - the result was not. The oil-for-food program has unfortunately done little to help the people that need it most and instead has lined the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats whose only incentive is self enrichment.
President Bush has been under constant attack from the Left because he did not kowtow the the U.N. for matters of national security. Many on the Left consider the U.N. to be the sole authority for matters of security decisions made in the interest of the United States. In fact, many liberals have gone so far as to insist that the U.N. monitor elections held inside the United States. Thankfully the Republicans ended this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60143-2004Jul18?language=printer) absurd proposal but the greater point should not be overlooked. Liberals, for some reason, love the U.N.
Not only is the U.N. an impotent body who has shown itself to be a laughing stock to the world by not backing up any of the dozens of resolutions it sent to Iraq (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html), it is also largely a corrupt organization who was on Saddam Hussein's payroll (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html). Hussein paid off members of the U.N. to buy political influence around the world. This included France and Russia as well individuals and companies that all profited from payments made by Saddam. Does this help to answer any questions of why the U.N., France, and Russia were so adamantly against overthrowing Saddam Hussein? It should. In a strictly ceremonial display, the U.N. hired a private firm to look into the allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program. When the firm found concerns about the program, the U.N. quickly ignored the findings (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041116-110708-9030r.htm) and stonewalled investigators. The director of the investigation, Derek Baldwin, said, "We found it extremely frustrating to be in a position where we could do something significant to dramatically assist the investigation into the oil-for-food fraud and not be allowed to proceed." The U.N. has subsequently refused to release almost any documents regarding the program and has refused to cooperate with U.S. Senators (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136621,00.html) who are also looking into the corruption and abuses.
Not only did members of the U.N. profit financially from the oil-for-food scam, the damage is much greater than just a financial disaster. Saddam Hussein diverted money from the program and paid millions of dollars to suicide bombers (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/s_273762.html) who would carry out attacks on Israel. The liberals were oh so quick to run around with the "No Blood for Oil" signs blaming Bush as the next Hitler, but where are they now? Now that a direct link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism has be proven, and a direct link between the corruption in the U.N. and suicide bombing attacks on women and children civilians in Israel has been shown, where are their signs? Where are their protests in the streets protesting their beloved U.N. now? Do you suppose there would have been protests if a link between President Bush and suicide bombers had been shown?
What about the director of the U.N., Kofi Annan? With all of the evidence mounting that the organization he heads is corrupt and financing terrorists, he must be opening every door to get to the bottom of the story and root out any and all corruption right? Not exactly. To date, Annan is ducking all responsibility (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005904) for the program. Estimates range that upwards of $21 billion has been bilked from the oil-for-food program to be used to fund terrorists, pay off nations such as France, China, and Russia, and Kofi Annan still stonewalls investigators. Could the fact that his own son has also been receiving payments (http://www.nysun.com/article/5372) from the program as recently as this year have any role in his decision to hamper investigations?
The oil-for-food program is just one example of why President Bush was absolutely correct in not requiring the 'global test' of the U.N. to dictate his actions regarding matters of security for the United States. If President Bush had done like Bill Clinton had done, and John Kerry would have done, and listened to the misguided direction of the U.N., Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Billions of dollars would be flowing to Hussein to finance terrorism, build stockpiles of weapons, and pay off key members of the U.N. to maintain the status quo, and this nation would be facing a much more serious threat of attack while the U.N. sat back and gathered its riches. This is partially why they wanted President Bush to lose. A liberal in the White House would not have questioned the U.N. They would not have rocked the boat and those with their heads in the sand would have felt very warm and fuzzy thinking the U.N. had everything under control.
Because of the investigations and in spite of the lack of cooperation by the director of the U.N., many are now forced to look further into these undisputable charges. Not all in the U.N. are corrupt and those who have now been given a chance to speak are doing so. The U.N. staff is making a vote of no confidence against Kofi Annan (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041119/1/3onv4.html), the first vote of its kind in nearly 60 years. This is a huge story, much bigger than has been shown so far. Hopefully, this will show the world that we were right in ignoring the U.N. and that the United States has been proven to be ones concerned about 'no blood for oil'. The blood is on the hands of the U.N. for their corruption is this process, not on the hands of the U.S. as many on the Left are too quick to try to point out.