Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rotstan
One of the common arguments by recipients of vouchers was that the vouchers paid for goods provided in the framework of the U.N.-administered Oil for Food program. However, under the Memorandum of Understanding governing the program, oil allocations were intended for "end users," meaning those with refineries. Most of the voucher recipients would be considered "non-end users." Moreover, if vouchers were used to pay for goods, it would suggest that these were not authorized by the program and should be considered illicit since all contracts approved by the U.N. were reimbursed from the trust account where the oil revenues were kept, at a French bank, at Iraq's insistence. According to the United Nations: "The oil buyer had to pay the price approved by the Security Council Sanctions Committee into a U.N. escrow account, and the U.N. had to verify that the goods purchased by Iraq were indeed those allowed under the program. But the U.N. had no way of knowing what other transactions might be going on directly between the Iraqi government and the buyers and sellers."(8\)

I guess that man that Jessie Jackson gave some oil revenues to here in the states, couldn't be considered an "end user" i.e. no trucks and no refinery...another oil fraud from another slickster..................

329 posted on 02/19/2004 3:55:58 PM PST by yoe (WMD come in small containers/vials...small minds don't want you to know that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: yoe

bttt


332 posted on 09/08/2004 7:12:23 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson