|
Only this time it didn’t. This time the grizzly bear, which had (forgive the mixed metaphor) previously acted like
a paper tiger, awakened with a new mindset in the form of a president who challenged the United Nations Security Council to
back up its seventeen resolutions against al Queda’s greatest benefactor and who let it be known that with or without
U.N. approval that we citizens of the United States of America, having demolished the Taliban in short order a year earlier,
had Saddam Hussein next on our hit list. That’s right, ‘we citizens’ of America were finally fighting back
with an all-volunteer military that was trained and sworn to defend America from all enemies. And our president did his level
best to actually shame the United Nations into authorizing the enforcement of its own resolutions, and even then it
refused to take action. Instead it condemned our intention of ridding the world of its most brutal, vicious and corrupt kleptocracy.
Why?
Because it was in bed with Saddam, that’s why. Like a collection of French whores, one of whom was actually France
herself, members of the U.N. Security Council vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq and did everything they could conceivably
do to prevent it. France railed against our invasion with haughty disdain, claiming that it was an immoral and unconscionable
attack upon an innocent country. Germany said essentially the same thing, and so did Russia, although the Russians, bereft
of nuance as they generally are, more or less simply grunted in agreement with their European cohorts. But during the course
of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq thousands of pages of documents have been discovered and, having fallen
into the clear light of day, they have disclosed in enormous detail the reason why that scam, operated by the U.N. and in
part by Kofi Annan’s own son, Kojo, was variously known as the "Oil for Fraud Program" or, as General Tommy Franks put
it, the "Oil for Palaces Program."
Get this. Saddam Hussein was supposed to use oil revenue to feed the people of Iraq and to buy medicines for them. This
cash flow was to be monitored by United Nations inspectors. Well, they didn’t do much monitoring while they were still
there and then, of course, for a period of four or five years they weren’t even there at all. No matter. Business as
usual, and business was good. We’ve heard Senator Kerry refer to our allies---I mean our real allies, like Britain
and Australia---as "a coalition of the bribed and the coerced." Bribery and coercion were some of Saddam’s most effective
tools and he used them to great advantage at the United Nations. Having arranged to pay kickbacks amounting to more than a
billion dollars to individuals on staff in the upper echelons of the U.N. itself in return for their turning a blind eye towards
where his share of the proceeds went, he also arranged some mind-boggling business deals with, primarily, France and
Russia. These arrangements included France lending, at high interest rates, billions of dollars to Iraq so that Saddam would
have even greater supplies of immediately available cash on hand to build more of the sixty-seven palaces (he had eighteen
in Baghdad alone) that he eventually owned. It has been estimated that Saddam pocketed 4.4 billion dollars in kickbacks himself
directly related to the Oil for Food program and another 5.7 billion in profits made through smuggling oil out of Iraq with
a nod and a wink from his U.N. business partners.
No wonder the U.N. didn’t want to say good-bye to Saddam. Talk about killing the Golden Goose. In the case of France
in particular, the fall of Saddam meant that their goose was cooked. No more oil revenue, no more interest payments, in fact
no more paying back of those billions of dollars in loans at all! Can you see why the French were desperate to prevent
this? And Russia? And Germany also? And the U.N. itself? Can you see why the deck was stacked against us? And why it was stacked
against George W. Bush when he went honorably and with the best of intentions to convince the U.N. to give its blessing to
our desire to rid the world of Saddam Hussein? The U.N.’s opposition to this had nothing to do with morality. Far from
it. In fact, let’s scrutinize the French position for a moment up close and personal and give an assessment of it in
strictly moral terms.
Previous / Next
|
