Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (35706)	3/20/2004 12:15:54 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793954

I said earlier that this could be big. THE NOTE - The Wall Street Journal 's Schlesinger reports that with voters already worrying about a weak economy and slow job growth, soaring gas prices could further decrease Bush's approval ratings.

To: LindyBill who wrote (35706)	3/20/2004 4:50:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793954

Yep. As Ricky would say. "Kofi, you got some s'plaining to do!" Kofi's 'Claude Raines' moment is just about over Oil-for-graft at the UN NY Daily News Editorial Kofi Annan has some explaining to do, and he knows it. Now that it's no longer possible to maintain with half a straight face that the United Nations' humanitarian oil-for-food program in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not mercilessly looted, Secretary General Annan concedes that "it is highly possible there has been quite a lot of wrongdoing." Yep, sure looks like it. There's one of the troubles with a free and independent Baghdad for you. So much embarrassing stuff starts spilling out of the place with Saddam gone. Oil-for-food was the operation by which the UN proposed to feed Iraqis desperately suffering under the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. Saddam was permitted to sell limited quantities of his oil in return for relief for his people. Instead, of course, he appropriated the UN dollars for himself - and, per mounting evidence, enriched assorted business cronies and even, what a surprise, souls inside the UN bureaucracy. Till now, Annan had favored an in-house probe of charges that UN people had their snouts in Saddam's trough. So hilarious is the idea of such a self-inquiry, though, that even Annan understands a broader investigation is necessary, and he has called for one. As it happens, though, such an investigation would require approval by the Security Council. And there is good reason to suspect that neither France nor Russia is going to be all that happy to see too many honest answers coming out in the wash. For the moment, this largely leaves the Iraqi Governing Council and the U.S. General Accounting Office doing the digging. What is known at this time, GAO has informed a House subcommittee, is that Saddam personally pocketed more than $10 billion. Unestablished is precisely where millions more went. Unquestioned is that very little of this relief ever ended up in the bellies of Iraq's hungry children, and that's reason enough to demand a total audit. Dirty charges. Dirty hands. Dirty business all around. Somewhere in here, perhaps, are insights into why the world body couldn't seem to be roused from its torpor as Saddam sneered so openly at umpty-ump formal UN resolutions.

To: LindyBill who wrote (35706)	3/20/2004 6:17:30 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793954

IF this is true, Kerry is toast.

To: LindyBill who wrote (35706)	3/20/2004 10:10:01 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793954

When i was in grad school and actively involved in the anti-war movement, there were often times where the loony left said and did things that were deeply offensive to the majority of anti-war folks. There were meetings held in which the most stupid of things were discussed. Sometimes we would vehemently argue with them. Sometimes we would walk out. If Kerry found himslelf is such a place there is no way, knowing his desire to be in public office, that he would support a policy of killing senators. Maybe he walked out, maybe he argued against it, maybe he sat there with his mouth agape, shocked by what he was hearing. He is the only one that really knows what he did and like most of us this old, it is a bit foggy, confusing things we wanted to do or should have done with things we actually did. If he was there he should tell us what transpired. NY Sun by the way aint the NYTimes by any stretch so beware of believing all you read. Mike