"Honesty stands at the gate and knocks, and bribery enters in."
- Barnabe Rich (c. 1540-1617), English author, soldier
It should be interesting to see how John Kerry uses the findings of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) when he debates the President in tomorrow night's Town Hall forum. My guess is he'll repeat what dozens of mostly liberal major media outlets who are summarizing its findings as "no WMD found" have reported, and hope that no one is familiar enough with the truth to call him on it.
Actually, the ISG uncovered a ton of damning evidence against Saddam Hussein and the U.N. Security Council members who voted against U.S. intervention in Iraq. Glenn Reynolds, in an article titled "Kerry's Case Collapses," outlines the reason he thinks the ISG's report has undermined Kerry's foreign policy position:
"The real centerpiece of Kerry's foreign policy stance, though, has been that he would be better than Bush at getting allies together, and at passing the 'Global Test' before taking military action. And that case is in total collapse this week."
In support of his position, Reynolds makes several points. First, he cites Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski's recent criticism of Kerry's lack of appreciation for the coalition sacrifices in Iraq, and provides a link to a post about this story on the Chrenkoff weblog.
Then he points to The Washington Times coverage of a Kerry speech yesterday in which the Senator admitted to his audience that he may not be able to convince France and Germany to help in Iraq:
"The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign,but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops."
Reynolds says that "the 'Global Test' bit looks kind of bad, in this light. But it looks even worse when you consider the other revelations of the Iraq Survey Group--namely, that most of the opposition to the war came from people who were being bribed by Saddam."
He quotes generously from a Fraser Nelson/James Kirkup story in The Scotsman as he elaborates on how France, Russia and China were bribed by Saddam to vote against the use of force against his country:
"Saddam Hussein believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.
Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France--having been granted oil contracts--would veto any American plans for war.
To keep America at bay, he focusing [sic] on Russia, France and China--three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers."
Reynolds sums up his argument with a tongue-in-cheek suggestion for Senator Kerry:
"It's hard to pass the 'Global Test' when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would 'outbid the bad guys.' That approach is more likely to succeed than the one he's been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed."
I continue to be appalled at the apparent corruption and dishonesty in the French and Russian governments and at the highest levels in the U.N. Having an Islamic extremist jihad underway against the non-Muslim world is bad enough. Having countries who should be allies intentionally sabotaging efforts to fight this insidious enemy in order to satisfy their own greed is worse. It's really a pretty sad situation, and while I hope it will get better, I don't believe there's much chance it will, no matter who our next president happens to be.
2 comments:
I haven't had time to read the Duelfer report yet. But my understanding is the claims about misuse of the food-for-oil project - which is part of the basis of comment you make here - are based on information provided second-hand from the Iraqi National Congress of the forger, embezzler and Iranian agent Ahmed Chalabi, who is for the moment aligning himself with the radical Shiite fundamentalist Muqtada al-Sadr. I don't believe those documents were made available to Duelfer's group.
So far, everyone who has relied on Ahmed Chalabi's information in matters related to Iraq has been proven wrong. So don't be surprised if his claims about the oil-for-food program go the way of his claims about WMD, i.e., turn out to be totally flaky. Maybe he's telling the God's honest truth this time. It's always possible. - Bruce
On the first day of this story's release, the MSM ran with their favorite theme "NO WMD! Bush Lied!" Not that it mattered to them that WMD was only ONE of the reasons given for invading Iraq. On the second news cycle, you'll notice the story had changed considerably. People have actually read the report, or at least the 19 page summary and realize Saddam was a lot more dangerous than some realized and he was determined to have the sactions lifted and get back into the WMD business. The Economist summed it up very nicely:
"YES, the weapons stocks that America, Britain and indeed most governments expected to find in Iraq after last year’s invasion are still not there. But no, that is not proof, as critics claim, that United Nations sanctions were working. On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was trying to play the UN and everyone else for fools; left to his own devices, he would have been quickly back to his chemical, biological, nuclear and missile tricks. If America’s intelligence services and others were victims of too much certainty about Iraq’s weapons, Saddam fell victim to his own deceit. "
Post a Comment