JOHN GIBSON TOOK A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE yesterday, in light of the revelation that the French were indeed on Saddam Hussein's payroll.
Remember how a few of us were saying the U.N. debate on Iraq smelled distinctly like the fix was in?
Remember during the early Oil-for-Food (search) days when a few of us were saying never mind Saddam stealing oil billions?
It's the bribery, stupid, especially when it's bribing France to veto war against Iraq?
Well, there it is: France was bribed. It was going to veto not because France hates war but because Saddam bought off a whole country.
And you know what? It doesn't bother anybody over at the U.N. because that's how things are done.
Of course, nobody listened then, because it was only "uninformed" conservatives making the claim. Things haven't really changed in light of the evidence either. Not only does this not bother the U.N. in the least, it bothers not a single soul on the liberal side of the street.
When you have "Bush lied," why would you trouble yourself with meaningless details like reality.
2 comments:
Pat,
I read the story you linked to and I didn't find any proof that the French were on the take. It was an opinion piece. Do you have any proof?
Does it seem so hard to understand that members of the security council knew there was no reason to attack Iraq? If anything, the war in Iraq has proven that the correct course of action was to allow the inspection process to run its course. There were no WMDs.
dave
Jeez Dave,
Given your penchant for being five steps ahead of the "uninformed" conservatives, I'm surprised you've never heard about this. It's all part of an obscure story we stepford voters like to call the "oil for food scandal." If you did a search on that term you might run across two or three stories about it.
The Gibson "My Word" was based on actual reporting by Eric Shawn, which is mentioned in Gibson's piece. Shawn's reporting is based on, and expanded upon, the latest report from the PSI. As part of that reporting Shawn came across memos in which "Iraqis were promised by the spokesman for Chirac's campaign that France would veto any American decision regarding an attack on Iraq."
In other words, the french gave Iraq a promise that they "would veto...any American decision," a decision that had not even been made at the time. The french assured Iraq that it would veto a decision that no one had arrived at yet? Why would they do that?
Gibson was simply commenting on the ever-increasing body of evidence against the French.
There's plenty more, including deep involvement by their main bank BNP Paribas, who made hundreds of millions in payments to "third party candidates" likely including terrorist fronts and regimes.
All the evidence is but a mere Google away.
BTW...Yes Dave, there were no WMD in Iraq. Perhaps it's time to get over that and move on with your life.
Post a Comment