[MNJohnnie]

10. McGavin999 #305 How long that takes is debatable. Either way I am hoping there is never a day when some level of US forces are not in the country just to stabilize the lust by foreign powers to come in and create mayhem. I read on Iraq the Model yesterday that their parliment is talking about taking 1/3 of the oil revenues and paying it out to the Iraqi citizens (much like they do up in Alaska). That would make an unbelievable difference because everyone would then have a stake in the country. Sunni, Shiia, Kurd, it would all be Iraqi.

9. Macia #101 Oops, I made a mistake - it wasn't the ISG answer that was jarring, it was Brownback's response to the issue of Iran becoming a nuclear power. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=26e889d9-3de9-46f6-a504-a17a0d8fc0cf ###### HH: And how do you understand the enemy we face in the war? SB: Well, I think it’s very clear that we face an enemy, and I think we’ve done some of a disservice by using a verb, and not a noun in the war on terrorism. Who is it that we’re fighting? And we’re fighting Islamic-facists. I think we should be saying that. We should confront this group that wants two things. They want us out of the Middle East, and they want to establish an Islamic caliphate in the region where we pull out of. This is a very serious enemy that we’re confronting. HH: Can we allow Iran to go nuclear, to possess nuclear weapons? SB: Well, that’s a tough issue to decide, and discern just exactly where the Iranians are. Hugh, I don’t have a direct answer on that. I do know that I believe we have to strongly confront the Iranians, we have to confront them on a multiple set of issues, including human rights issues, which I don’t think we’ve done, the strength of which we need to on that. And we’ve got to get the Europeans and others engaged with us, to aggressively confront them, which is tough to get done. But you know, the way you phrased that question, it almost begs a military response, as is does it get to that level. And I can’t, in my own mind, commit to that at this point in time.

8. Unrepentant VN Vet #124. Posted by Unrepentant VN Vet to MNJohnnie On News/Activism 12/10/2006 9:01:45 AM CST · 124 of 598 ".....So I suspect the Junk Media is going to be painfully surprised to find out there idols the Democrats are going to ignore them on Iraq fully as much as GW Bush has." From brief observation of Montana's DNC-worshiping media, you may have hit on something. Any mention of the ISG that appears out here in the North American Outback has been shoved back so far from the front pages you need a telescope to find it, and the only articles that do involve Beltway politics are such an abject attempt to polish up our (now) two dim Senators' images as straight-shooters-totally-committed-to-representing-voters, it almost sounds like they're already into their re-election campaigns. Somebody's WAY worried about how the ISG is going to reflect on the dims, IMHO. Anybody want to get in a pool on the date and time that the DNC tells the media to finally bury this turkey and never, ever mention it again?

7. Dirtbiker. #173 Sen. Brokeback and Dudd think the commission report should be followed...4 years, great cost of lives and money, yada, yada, yada. 3,000 lives lost in 4 years. We lost 3,000 lives in 1 hour on September 11th. But they weren't in "harm's way", like our soldiers are.... (BTW DUDD, diplomacy IS a sign of weakness to muzzies!) Thank God these morons were NOT in power during WWII. We would all be speaking German and eating saurkraut by now...

6. Barset #272 It's hard to talk to state sponsored terror countries that lose respect for you when you want to talk instead of getting it on. We may learn that one day." This should be emblazoned on the cover of the ISG report after discarding its contents. That is all a resonable person needs to know about this. Also, can someone tell me where these old reptiles get off telling the sovereign state of Israel how to placate her enemies, and the sovereign state of Iraq, with its democratically elected government, how to submit to 7th century despotic Iran, Syria, and Baker's paymaster, Saudi Arabia. These "study" groups and our criminally stupid media setting out to prove once again, "Being an enemy of America is harmless (and fun) being America's friend is treacherous.

5.Benard #61 There is no way to explain why Iran should be consulted. These are the same people who complained that the US should have kept Saddam Hussein's army intact (sort of like having Himmler and Goering run the German defense force in 1946) after the fall of Iraq. If those pesky media types keep asking Mr. Hamilton to justify that report with his name on it, well, that's just not acceptable. I'm sure the media will receive a retraining memo from the DNC this week on the protocol for accepting the report verbatim. Just like computer programming mistakes - Garbage in, Gospel out.

4. Lavern #294 I noticed that they were very testy with Iraq's reaction. One thing that really bothered me though, and is indicative of the ego's behind these commissioners, is that Hamilton said, that if they don't work for their national unity, we will leave and we will leave soon. How dare he usurp the Presidential power of Foreign POlicy...what an arrogant jerk. Rather than discuss Iraqi's concerns about their report, they just trash the Iraqi leadership. Shameful stuff by both of them.

[snugs]

3. Chuck54 #67 Baker trying to explain "the American people have a serious problem with the situation in Iraq". I would opine the "American people would have a much more serious problem with WMD, and or suicide car bombs going off in NYC, San Fran, DC, etc."

2. bvw #379 The BBC timeline does not indicate it was scaled back at all, until immediately prior to Iraq War II: August 1990: The UN imposes sanctions on Iraq following the country's invasion of Kuwait. March 1991: A UN mission to Iraq reports: "The Iraqi people may soon face a further imminent catastrophe, which could include epidemic and famine, if massive life-supporting needs are not rapidly met." The UN proposes to allow Iraq to sell its oil in exchange for humanitarian goods without breaking the sanctions. The Iraqi government refuses. April 1995: The UN Security Council adopts a resolution to establish an "oil-for-food" programme. Iraq refuses its terms. December 1996: The programme is implemented and the first oil is exported. The first shipments of food arrive in Iraq in March 1997. 17 March 2003: All UN humanitarian staff are withdrawn from Iraq, two days before the start of the second war in Iraq. November 2003: The oil-for-food programme is wound down and handed over to the Coalition Provisional Authority. January 2004: An Iraqi newspaper publishes a list of 270 people from some 40 countries - including UN officials, politicians and companies - it alleges may have profited from the illicit sale of Iraqi oil during the OFF programme. March 2004: The US General Accounting Office says it believes Saddam Hussein made $10bn of illicit gains from the programme between 1997 and 2002. April 2004: The UN sets up a high-level inquiry into the allegations. Former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker is appointed to head the panel. The US Congress and the Iraqi government set up their own inquiries. October 2004: The UN inquiry gets $30m in funding from the programme itself. Mr Volcker says the allegations are serious and the investigation could take more than a year. A report by the Iraq Survey Group, published on the CIA website, says Saddam Hussein's government netted $11bn from the deals. It also accuses the former head of the oil-for-food programme, Benon Sevan, of benefiting from the corruption. Mr Sevan denies any wrongdoing. November 2004: US Senate investigators say they believe Saddam Hussein made more than $21bn from illicit oil sales and kickbacks. They believe $13.6bn came from selling oil to neighbour states keen to breach the sanctions, while $4.4bn was earned through kickbacks on humanitarian goods supplied through the programme. Kofi Annan expresses disappointment that his son Kojo worked for Swiss-based Cotecna for four years longer than previously believed. Cotecna had a contract with the oil-for-food programme. Kojo Annan is said to have worked only for its West African operations. January 2005: Iraqi-American businessman Samir Vincent appears in a US federal court as part of a criminal investigation into the scandal by the US Justice Department. Mr Vincent pleads guilty to being an illegal agent of Saddam Hussein's government and skimming money from the programme. February 2005: Benon Sevan is accused of having repeatedly asked Iraqis to allocate oil to a particular company in an interim report by the UN inquiry. Mr Sevan and another official, Joseph Stephanides, are suspended from the UN. Both deny any wrongdoing. March 2005: Another interim report finds "significant" questions over the integrity of Kojo Annan's dealings. Kofi Annan is cleared of any wrongdoing, but is faulted over an "inadequate" inquiry into the affair. April 2005: A Texas businessman, a Bulgarian and a Briton are indicted in the US for taking part in an alleged scheme to pay bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. May 2005: US Senate investigations committee says British MP George Galloway and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua were rewarded with oil allocations by Saddam Hussein's regime. Both deny the accusation. A few days later, the committee accuses Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and former presidential aides Alexander Voloshin and Sergei Issakov, of receiving oil allocations in return for Russian lobbying on Iraq's behalf. Russia says it would be "unethical" to comment before the Volcker report is released. June 2005: The UN inquiry says it is "urgently reviewing" new material on contacts between Kofi Annan and Cotecna. Two newly uncovered memos from the company say an executive met the head of the UN "and his entourage" and was told the firm "could count on their support" ahead of the award of an oil-for-food contract to the company. Mr Annan denies prior knowledge of Cotecna's bid for the contract. August 2005: Benon Sevan resigns on the eve of the publication of the third report into the scandal. In a bitter letter to Kofi Annan, he denies any wrongdoing and says he has been sacrificed for political expediency. In the report, Mr Sevan is accused of receiving about $150,000 in cash bribes. September 2005: The Volcker panel releases its final report, in which it condemns "illicit, unethical and corrupt" behaviour during the scheme, and blames the secretary general for mismanagement. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Kofi Annan, but he admits the affair is "deeply embarrassing" for the UN. Wow! The numbers on that corruption are stagggering. It must be a total effect "GDP equivalent" of $100+ Billion dollars, over only about FIVE years. A whole lot of influence being bought and traded! Yeah, sure it was "wound down" or a "non-starter" after 9/11 -- NOT! If anything the grifter-type of ethos would have put the dang hammer down and pulled more grift from the wells! And to think that the Iranians, the Chinese, and the Saudis have to compete at that same level of "greasing the wheels", and still do ..

1. Kabar. #364 You are correct. The Oil for Food Program continued on until after our invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In May 2003, "the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain jointly put forward a draft United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq and the phasing out of the oil-for-food program. France and Russia opposed the move, arguing that sanctions should be lifted and oil for food ended only after Iraq has been declared free of weapons of mass destruction by U.N. inspectors and the United Nations has been given a lead role in shaping the future of Iraq." For obvious reasons, the UN, France and Russia wanted to continue the program for as long as they could. End the Oil-for-Food Program