why does this NOT suprise me

[jaxmike]

wonder where the WMDs in Iraq went? this might point you in the right direction.. good ole' UN, incompetence incarnate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...16/woil116.xml

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'm just surprised they even made this much of an effort as WMD inspectors in Iraq...

At least we can confirm that the bars of Iraq are WMD free. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[CORed]

This article seemed to be about the oil for food program, not the weapons inspectors. No surprise here. I'm sure that once Sadaam knew we were planning on invading, he said, "I think I'll get rid of my weapons, now." The WMD were gone long before we invaded. I will admit I was surprised that we didn't find chemical weapons. We know Sadaam had these. I think he wanted us to think he might have them, perhaps in the mistaken belief that we would be reluctant to invade, but he didn't want to risk actually getting caught. Then again, I'm trying to outguess a madman. The stuff about the mobile bio-weapons labs was pure vaprware. If the WMD were smuggled out, where were they smuggled to? Probably whoever Dubbaya decides we need to invade next. When we don't find them there, we'll just say they were smuggled to the next country Dubbaya wants to invade.

[jaxmike]

just curious, but i really didnt get a point out of what you wrote. are you trying to say that "Saddam smuggled out his weapons and Bush is going to invade a country and claim thats where the weapons went"?

do you believe the article could accurately represent the facts? disagree?

[CORed]

I actually have no idea what Sasaam did with his chemical weapons, or why he seemingly went to so much effort to hide weapons that he apparently no longer had. I am suggesting, half-facetiously, that Dubaya will claim that Sasaam smuggled the WMD to whatever country he decides to invade next, as a pretext for the invasion.

[Chris Alger]

What makes this post particularly foolish is not that it doesn't even mention WMD, or that it's based on one report from an allegedly disgruntled employee, or that it's from a paper notorious for writing scare stories about Iraq that tend to be discredited as soon as they appear (like the "secret documents" that only the Telegraph has tying Saddam to bin Laden).

It's unbelieveably stupid because there is no longer any basis for arguing that the UN administration of any program relating to Iraq was riddled with corruption, abuse or incompetence. Consider the report on the food-for-aid program investigation. Although the head of the program was chastised for a Cheney-like confict of interest, he was not accused of the sort of corruption that rightist cranks (like Henry Hyde and Claudia Rosettt in the WSJ) had long insisted was obvious. Volcker concluded that the U.N. administration of oil-for-food appeared to be "free of systematic or widespread abuse."

Contrast that with the report by the U.S. Inspector General about how the CPA cannot account for nearly $9 billion of money it transferred to various contractors and Iraqi officials, $8 billion of which was left over from the food-for-aid program. BBC Some of the allegations: <ul type="square">Last week a British adviser to the Iraqi Governing Council told the BBC's File on Four program that officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) were demanding bribes of up to $300,000 in return for awarding contracts. Iraqi money seized by U.S. forces simply disappeared. Some $800 million was handed out to U.S. commanders without being counted or even weighed. A further $1.4 billion was flown from Baghdad to the Kurdish regional government in the town of Irbil, and has never been seen since.[/list]Alternet It takes little imagination about how this would play in the press, especially in the right-wing propaganda network, if Volcker had uncovered anything of the sort by the UN.

In other words, the most incompetent agency and worst abuser of food-for-aid dollars wasn't the UN but the Bush administration.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Volcker concluded that the U.N. administration of oil-for-food appeared to be "free of systematic or widespread abuse."

[/ QUOTE ]

The Volker investigation is a joke as the Volker committee generally lacks credibility in terms of its objectivity and neutrality. Volker has no subpoena power either, he gets what others are willing to give him and you can be damn well sure that nobody is going to incriminate themselves. Just find a few fall guys and see if it'll blow over. There are serious questions regarding potential conflicts of interest involving Volker. He was a director of the United Nations Association, a UN advocacy group and so I think cannot be seen as a completely neutral figure. Many would argue that Volker and Annan are pals. Would Annan really put someone in charge of the investigation that would implicate Annan, his son, and or colleagues in the scandel?

Also about Volker and his potential conflicts of interest focuses on the following:

— Volcker has a longtime membership in the UNA-USA Business Council (search), a pro-United Nations organization partly funded by BNP Paribas (search), the bank that handled all Oil-for-Food transactions.

— There are questions about Volcker’s position as an adviser to the Power Corporation of Canada (search), a company with close ties to BNP and also to Total (search), the French oil giant that did nearly $2 billion of Oil-for-Food business.

[Chris Alger]

Why don't you get back to us when you think of a serious response. "There are questions about ...." Get real. Just because liberal-haters are desperate enough to fall for this sort of swiftboatvet/Willie Horton/no-fact innuendos hardly suggests that the same applies to normal people.