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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (44162)	4/29/2004 2:04:55 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

HOW TO BUY A FRENCH VETO By DICK MORRIS April 28, 2004 -- ANYONE who pines for genuine international multilateralism would do well to follow the bribes now being uncovered in the United Nations' Oil-for- Food scandal. Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime? And why did they press constantly, throughout the '90s, for an expansion of Iraqi oil sales? Was it their empathy for the starving children of that impoverished nation? Their desire to stop the United States from arrogantly imposing its vision upon the Middle East? It now looks like they it was simply because they were on the take. Saddam was their cash cow. If President Bush has suffered some discredit over his apparently false - but not disingenuous - claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the lapse is minor compared to the outright personal selfishness and criminality that appears to have motivated many of those who opposed his efforts to rid the world of one of its worst dictators. Throughout the '90s, France and Russia badgered the United States and Britain to increase Iraqi oil production. President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair fought them at each step, but then reluctantly gave way. First Iraq was allowed to sell 500,000 barrels daily. Then, on Franco-Russian insistence, it was raised to 1 million, then to 2 million and, finally, to 3 million barrels a day. Each time, America and Britain - the nations now accused of coveting Iraqi oil - resisted the increases in Iraqi production and urged tighter controls over the program. Each time, the French and the Russians prattled on about the rights of Iraqi sovereignty and the need to feed the children. Now we know why the French and Russians were so insistent. Iraqi government documents (leaked to the Baghdad newspaper Al Mada) list at least 270 individuals and entities who got vouchers allowing them to sell Iraqi oil - and to keep much of the money. These vouchers, and the promise of instant great wealth they carried with them, bought vital support in the United Nations to let Saddam stay in power. The list of those receiving these bribes includes France's former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (who's a leader of Chirac's party) and Patrick Maugein, the head of the French Oil firm Soco International. France's former U.N. ambassador, Jean-Bernard Merimee, got vouchers to sell 11 million barrels. In Russia, the payoff chain reached right into the "office of the Russian president." President Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party also got vouchers, as did the Soviet- era Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov and the Russian Orthodox Church. Nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky shared in the largesse. Not to be left behind, the Rev. Jean Marie Benjamin of the Vatican got the rights to sell 4.5 million barrels as recompense for setting up a meeting between Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and the pope. Indeed, the list indicates that Benon Sevan, the United Nations official in charge of the Oil-for-Food program received vouchers. He denies the charge, but has decided to retire next month anyway. At the start of the Oil-for-Food program, America and Britain proposed that the money flow only to accounts entirely controlled by the United Nations. Soon this standard was lowered to include accounts not actually controlled by the United Nations, but only monitored by it. Then-Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) warned that "oil is fungible" and noted that once Iraq was allowed to pump and sell it, Saddam could sell all he wanted outside of officially sanctioned channels and nobody could tell which black liquid was legal and which not. But nobody imagined that there were actual bribes going to specific French, Russian and U.N. officials as part of the program. Now it appears that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's sanctimonious posturing may have concealed oil bribes which reached high up in the ranks of the U.N. organization itself. The defect of international coalitions is that they include the just and the unjust, the bribed and the honest, the democratic and the autocratic. And their members cannot be trusted equally. The group that stood up and backed the invasion of Iraq was nicknamed "the Coalition of the Willing." Now it appears it was also "the Coalition of the Honest." NEW YORK POST

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (44162)	4/30/2004 2:23:46 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Reagan's Former Navy Secretary Unleashes Tide of Iraq Criticism commondreams.org <<...Webb said he thought Bush was a decent human but didn't fully consider alternatives to war or look hard enough for the potential downside. One audience member asked whether Webb thought the Iraqi war arose from a desire to finish Bush family business. Webb said no and attributed the war more to Vice President Dick Cheney -- whom he called "The Godfather" -- and a war-bent circle of advisers with no sense of military reality themselves. "The minds were programmed" before Sept. 11 happened, Webb said. "I think they jumped too fast."...>>

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (44162)	5/1/2004 12:46:06 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Buffett warns of 'huge' derivatives problem biz.yahoo.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (44162)	5/1/2004 2:03:38 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

A Deafening Silence on War Costs ______________________________________ Bush needs to level with Americans on how he plans to pay for a long, costly Iraq occupation without dragging down the economy yahoo.businessweek.com <<...CONFLICTING AGENDAS. Richard Nixon also attempted to lowball costs. The price of fiscal irresponsibility during Vietnam was high indeed. Budget deficits soared, inflation took off to double-digit levels, and the economy careened from one crisis to another. The intangible cost of citizens losing confidence in government leaders may have been even greater. President Bush has compounded the problem faced by all White House occupants during a military conflict by simultaneously running for reelection as the War President and the Tax-Cutting President. The latter stance may have to be abandoned to support the former. One way for Bush to pay for the war is to discard his campaign pledge to make temporary tax cuts permanent. Alternatively, he could propose a temporary income surtax to help foot the war bill. His father came up with an innovative way to maintain sound fiscal policy during war: America's foreign allies essentially foot the bill for the first Persian Gulf War. But the current Administration is too isolated internationally to even consider replicating that technique. I realize that asking Bush to change his tax-cutting philosophy is naïve, about as credible as calling for the Pentagon to embrace a national draft. But what I want to know -- and think everyone deserves to know -- is how he plans to maintain troops in the field while embracing sound fiscal policy at home? The silence says it all...>>