POLITICAL Headlines of the day

[Banzai]

TUE OCT 05, 2004 14:05:38 ET
POLISH PRESIDENT SLAMS KERRY AFTER DEBATE SNUB

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski has slammed Dem president hopeful John Kerry for not recognizing Poland's contributions and sacrifice to the war in Iraq.

"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience does not recognize Polish contribution. This is immoral," Kwasniewski told FACTS in an interview commenting on the US Presidential Debate.

"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad."

The Polish President added however that one should consider this was a part of the ongoing electoral campaign.

"I do not think this was out of ignorance," the president emphasized on the TVN Facts.

"There is one thing which should be stated clearly: this coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain, Australia alone; it also involves participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who have died. It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world."

"President Bush acted like a real Texan gentleman, he made sure to show appreciation for other countries' involvement in the coalition," Kwasniewski pointed out.

[mcurtiss1970]

correction: Republican headlines of the Day

[Banzai]

correction: Republican headlines of the Day

It's an OPEN forum, add yours and be happy!

[mcurtiss1970]

just pointing out that your "newsfeed" is likely to show only one side

[Ted]

there is a lot of B.S. on both sides at this point, i think i made this same comment in another thread, pick your vote by the personality traits of a good leader and whether or not they share your values. politics will always be politics.

[Banzai]

just pointing out that your "newsfeed" is likely to show only one side

I welcome real headlines to be posted in this forum from both sides...I'm not the director of the show, just starting a new thread.

[Banzai]

there is a lot of B.S. on both sides at this point, i think i made this same comment in another thread, pick your vote by the personality traits of a good leader and whether or not they share your values. politics will always be politics.

Ted I appreciate you speaking on these type of subjects. This thread is intended to display a tally of the headlines of the day, not a bias rally.

[SL10]

It is interesting to note that Bush may have the war effort as an Ace in the hole to sway voters. But that was the same with Bush, Sr. and yes Kerry didn't put the countries helping the war into play at the debate. But we already knew what countries were involved, making sacifices in the war! So, the article is good up to a point! But after the war is done, what will it cost the U.S. if GWB is reelected? I hate to see another 4 years with GWB? To find that answer out!

[Ted]

Ted I appreciate you speaking on these type of subjects. This thread is intended to display a tally of the headlines of the day, not a bias rally.

I agree. See my post in the "hope the dems dont read this thread".

[A six double 0]

:eyebrow: Oh boy Poland is mad...What will they do take their 2,400 troops and go home? I appreciate that they are bearing the brunt of the troop deployment & they are footing most of the bill.

United States 138,000
Britain 8,530
Albania 70
Australia 850
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 455
Czech Rep. 92
Denmark 510
Dominican Rep. 300
El Salvador 360
Estonia 55
Georgia 150
Hungary 300
Italy 2,700
Japan 1,000
Kazakhstan 25
Latvia 120
Lithuania 105
Macedonia 28
Moldova 25
Mongolia 180
Netherlands 1,263
New Zealand 60
Nicaragua 115
Norway 150
Poland 2,400
Portugal 120
Romania 730
Singapore 200
Slovakia 105
South Korea 675 (3,000 on way)
Thailand 460
Tonga 44
Ukraine 1,700

[arpy64]

Thanks, Dub. Good list. For Bush to imply that all of these countries are equally bearing the costs and perils of this war is BS. This is not a true, international coalition similar to the one Dubya's daddy put together in the '91 Gulf war, where all countries--especially arab countries--shared the costs.

And I read today that Poland is wanting out of Iraq by the end of 2005. Another grand coalition member saying "F..k this."

[Ted]

i have a complex position on this. first, i respect the contributions others have made. second, i feel strongly that there needs to be much more international participation. both sides have a point. the kerry camp is right to say that more support is needed, and the bush camp is right to say thanks to those who DID serve.

[Ted]

or should i have simply said, i have a complex and left it at that!

[arpy64]

or should i have simply said, i have a complex and left it at that!
or maybe that you are complex?
Nahhhhhhh. :D

[Ted]

no, i did not claim to BE complex, i said i HAVE a complex. if yer gonna slam me do it right.

[arpy64]

no, i did not claim to BE complex, i said i HAVE a complex. if yer gonna slam me do it right.
Come on ted, you know me. I don't slam ....not here anyways.

[A six double 0]

i have a complex position on this. first, i respect the contributions others have made. second, i feel strongly that there needs to be much more international participation. both sides have a point. the kerry camp is right to say that more support is needed, and the bush camp is right to say thanks to those who DID serve.The U.N. is what is needed in Iraq, not "just" the United States. It should have never been just the US in Iraq.

[Ted]

The U.N. is what is needed in Iraq, not "just" the United States. It should have never been just the US in Iraq.

i agree! i'm just saying that i also appreciate the soldiers from other countries that ARE there. now lets get some more!

[pixelpusher]

:eyebrow: Oh boy Poland is mad...What will they do take their 2,400 troops and go home? I appreciate that they are bearing the brunt of the troop deployment & they are footing most of the bill.



mmhmm....and they also have a country of roughly 38 million compared to our 300+ million.

[arpy64]

mmhmm....and they also have a country of roughly 38 million compared to our 300+ million.
By my count, Poland should have roughly 17,000 (loose estimate) troops relative to our approximately 140,000.
This isn't to downplay these countries sending their people over, but to merely show what a joke it is when Bush suggests that these other countries are equally committed to Iraq. It's just not true. Another example of a "misjudgement" by this administration.

[A six double 0]

mmhmm....and they also have a country of roughly 38 million compared to our 300+ million.Riiiiiiiiiight....They were so "willing" to help out, they sent 2,400 troops out of a population of 38 million. :joy:

[Ronkh]

i agree! i'm just saying that i also appreciate the soldiers from other countries that ARE there. now lets get some more!


such as who ?
france and germany have already said they wont send troops no matter which candidate wins...

UN. Ha, they got the worst "nation building" record going. besides....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ibd/20041004/bs_ibd_ibd/2004104issues

UNconscionable

Mon Oct 4, 7:00 PM ET

Investor's Business Daily

Oil For Food: It's one of the great scandals of our time, no less so because the big media have mostly ignored it. Now comes a report hinting why some key former allies opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites): They were bribed.


The new report, conducted for the interim Iraqi government, seeks to get to the bottom of the oil-for-food scandal that has rocked the United Nations (news - web sites) -- but has been greeted with yawns on America's blase shores.


Leaked to The Times of London, the report suggests the U.N.-run oil-for-food program in Iraq during the 1990s was rife with corruption. Specifically, it implicates France, Russia and China as having been involved in seamy, if not outright criminal, behavior.


It might be easy to discount one report. But another, due soon from Congress, is expected to be just as damning. It cites a study by the Government Accounting Office that finds alarming evidence of fraud and profiteering in the oil-for-food fiasco.


"The former Iraqi regime attained $10.1 billion in illegal revenues from the oil-for-food program," GAO concluded, "including $5.7 billion in oil smuggled out of Iraq and $4.4 billion through surcharges on oil sales and illicit commissions from suppliers exporting goods to Iraq."


What does all this mean?


The oil-for-food program lasted from 1996 to 2003, a period during which some $64 billion in oil was sold. The money was supposed to be put to humanitarian uses, such as food and medicine, for the people of Iraq.


Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) abused the program from the start, pulling in roughly $10 billion in illegal profits by busting sanctions on oil sales and what it could use the money for. To make sure he got away with it, Saddam bribed people.


It worked. Indeed, as Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner recently noted, it worked so well that it grew to become "among the largest criminal enterprises in history."


Or as Iraq's former oil minister remarked, "We were not pumping oil to feed Iraqis, but to feed (300) U.N. bureaucrats."


The Iraqi government report confirms this. Based on Saddam's own records, the bribe list was a long one -- including some 270 people and businesses from 50 countries and the U.N.


Those implicated include:


Benon Sevan, director of the U.N. oil-for-food program and a protege of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites). Sevan allegedly made a profit of nearly $1 million by selling 9.3 million barrels of oil "allotted" to him by Saddam.


A French oil company with ties to Jacques Chirac, France's president. It allegedly bribed U.N. officials in order to falsify Iraqi oil export documents.


A former top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites). The aide allegedly netted $500,000 or so from illegal sales of Iraqi oil.


Get the pattern here? Not surprisingly, France and Russia, along with China, are members of the U.N.'s Security Council. Also not surprisingly, they clumsily tried to block any inquiry into the oil-for-food program. And objected to the U.S. war to oust Saddam.


The U.N., of course, had to do something. So it named a largely ceremonial panel to investigate, headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) chief Paul Volcker. That panel has little power, and after six months has virtually nothing to show for its efforts. It's toothless.


It's crucial to understand that all this puts the lie to claims that somehow the U.S. could have built a broader coalition if it had only exercised more artful diplomacy, as Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) suggests.

Sorry, but the Security Council votes of France, Russia and China were already bought and paid for by Saddam.

It also shows the shocking cynicism of the U.N.'s Annan, who just last month had the gall to declare the U.S. war in Iraq "illegal."

Fortunately, no fewer than four committees in Congress are now looking into the scandal, along with Iraq's interim government.

One of those panels, headed by Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), will hold hearings today to look into whether companies that audited the oil-for-food program looked the other way when bribes were made.

We're happy to hear the drumbeat on the oil-for-food scandal is getting louder. It means the U.N.'s day of reckoning is near. U.N. oil-for-food overseers looked the other way while money that could have eased the pain and suffering of ordinary Iraqis was looted.

In that respect, the U.N.'s dapper diplomats and untaxed bureaucrats holed up in their New York headquarters are little better than the Baathist thugs who looted Iraq in the war's chaotic aftermath. Different strategies, same results.

At some point, the U.N.'s culture of unaccountability must end.

[A six double 0]

You're missing the point. Everything that we do is under the microscope, due to the U.S. being the last super power. The Iraq war has made the U.S look bad on all fronts. They needed that same U.N. to bring a shred of legitimacy to the occupation.

If Saddam was such a terror, why haven't we gone after North Korea, Iran, Pakistan to name a few? I'll tell you why...because they have nukes. We pick on selective targets that can't really fight back. Saddam was totally contained from the last Gulf War. That doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator. But if we're in the business of taking out brutal regimes, what about a going into Africa & cleaning up?

The other thing that makes the U.S. look bad, is that we helped most of them to power. Back in the day we thought it was better to stamp out the spread of communism, in doing so we helped the likes of Saddam & Osama rise to power.

Another thing, if we are also in the business of being the W.M.D. police of the world, why do we still have stockpiles of these same weapons?

such as who ?
france and germany have already said they wont send troops no matter which candidate wins...

UN. Ha, they got the worst "nation building" record going. besides....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ibd/20041004/bs_ibd_ibd/2004104issues

UNconscionable

Mon Oct 4, 7:00 PM ET

Investor's Business Daily

Oil For Food: It's one of the great scandals of our time, no less so because the big media have mostly ignored it. Now comes a report hinting why some key former allies opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites): They were bribed.


The new report, conducted for the interim Iraqi government, seeks to get to the bottom of the oil-for-food scandal that has rocked the United Nations (news - web sites) -- but has been greeted with yawns on America's blase shores.


Leaked to The Times of London, the report suggests the U.N.-run oil-for-food program in Iraq during the 1990s was rife with corruption. Specifically, it implicates France, Russia and China as having been involved in seamy, if not outright criminal, behavior.


It might be easy to discount one report. But another, due soon from Congress, is expected to be just as damning. It cites a study by the Government Accounting Office that finds alarming evidence of fraud and profiteering in the oil-for-food fiasco.


"The former Iraqi regime attained $10.1 billion in illegal revenues from the oil-for-food program," GAO concluded, "including $5.7 billion in oil smuggled out of Iraq and $4.4 billion through surcharges on oil sales and illicit commissions from suppliers exporting goods to Iraq."


What does all this mean?


The oil-for-food program lasted from 1996 to 2003, a period during which some $64 billion in oil was sold. The money was supposed to be put to humanitarian uses, such as food and medicine, for the people of Iraq.


Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) abused the program from the start, pulling in roughly $10 billion in illegal profits by busting sanctions on oil sales and what it could use the money for. To make sure he got away with it, Saddam bribed people.


It worked. Indeed, as Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner recently noted, it worked so well that it grew to become "among the largest criminal enterprises in history."


Or as Iraq's former oil minister remarked, "We were not pumping oil to feed Iraqis, but to feed (300) U.N. bureaucrats."


The Iraqi government report confirms this. Based on Saddam's own records, the bribe list was a long one -- including some 270 people and businesses from 50 countries and the U.N.


Those implicated include:


Benon Sevan, director of the U.N. oil-for-food program and a protege of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites). Sevan allegedly made a profit of nearly $1 million by selling 9.3 million barrels of oil "allotted" to him by Saddam.


A French oil company with ties to Jacques Chirac, France's president. It allegedly bribed U.N. officials in order to falsify Iraqi oil export documents.


A former top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites). The aide allegedly netted $500,000 or so from illegal sales of Iraqi oil.


Get the pattern here? Not surprisingly, France and Russia, along with China, are members of the U.N.'s Security Council. Also not surprisingly, they clumsily tried to block any inquiry into the oil-for-food program. And objected to the U.S. war to oust Saddam.


The U.N., of course, had to do something. So it named a largely ceremonial panel to investigate, headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) chief Paul Volcker. That panel has little power, and after six months has virtually nothing to show for its efforts. It's toothless.


It's crucial to understand that all this puts the lie to claims that somehow the U.S. could have built a broader coalition if it had only exercised more artful diplomacy, as Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) suggests.

Sorry, but the Security Council votes of France, Russia and China were already bought and paid for by Saddam.

It also shows the shocking cynicism of the U.N.'s Annan, who just last month had the gall to declare the U.S. war in Iraq "illegal."

Fortunately, no fewer than four committees in Congress are now looking into the scandal, along with Iraq's interim government.

One of those panels, headed by Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), will hold hearings today to look into whether companies that audited the oil-for-food program looked the other way when bribes were made.

We're happy to hear the drumbeat on the oil-for-food scandal is getting louder. It means the U.N.'s day of reckoning is near. U.N. oil-for-food overseers looked the other way while money that could have eased the pain and suffering of ordinary Iraqis was looted.

In that respect, the U.N.'s dapper diplomats and untaxed bureaucrats holed up in their New York headquarters are little better than the Baathist thugs who looted Iraq in the war's chaotic aftermath. Different strategies, same results.

At some point, the U.N.'s culture of unaccountability must end.

[Banzai]

Ronkn, you are absolutly on point. This is a fundamental reason why the world is so critical of the Bush administration and it's policy. They are being lead to believe that their goverment is either strictly anti-war or anti-America, when the truth is that these countries along with Saddam Hussein have been steeling money from the Iraqi people for years and they don't want to get caught with their signature on the agreements.

Oil for food has feed the hatred against America...

such as who ?
france and germany have already said they wont send troops no matter which candidate wins...

UN. Ha, they got the worst "nation building" record going. besides....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ibd/20041004/bs_ibd_ibd/2004104issues

UNconscionable

Mon Oct 4, 7:00 PM ET

Investor's Business Daily

Oil For Food: It's one of the great scandals of our time, no less so because the big media have mostly ignored it. Now comes a report hinting why some key former allies opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites): They were bribed.


The new report, conducted for the interim Iraqi government, seeks to get to the bottom of the oil-for-food scandal that has rocked the United Nations (news - web sites) -- but has been greeted with yawns on America's blase shores.


Leaked to The Times of London, the report suggests the U.N.-run oil-for-food program in Iraq during the 1990s was rife with corruption. Specifically, it implicates France, Russia and China as having been involved in seamy, if not outright criminal, behavior.


It might be easy to discount one report. But another, due soon from Congress, is expected to be just as damning. It cites a study by the Government Accounting Office that finds alarming evidence of fraud and profiteering in the oil-for-food fiasco.


"The former Iraqi regime attained $10.1 billion in illegal revenues from the oil-for-food program," GAO concluded, "including $5.7 billion in oil smuggled out of Iraq and $4.4 billion through surcharges on oil sales and illicit commissions from suppliers exporting goods to Iraq."


What does all this mean?


The oil-for-food program lasted from 1996 to 2003, a period during which some $64 billion in oil was sold. The money was supposed to be put to humanitarian uses, such as food and medicine, for the people of Iraq.


Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) abused the program from the start, pulling in roughly $10 billion in illegal profits by busting sanctions on oil sales and what it could use the money for. To make sure he got away with it, Saddam bribed people.


It worked. Indeed, as Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner recently noted, it worked so well that it grew to become "among the largest criminal enterprises in history."


Or as Iraq's former oil minister remarked, "We were not pumping oil to feed Iraqis, but to feed (300) U.N. bureaucrats."


The Iraqi government report confirms this. Based on Saddam's own records, the bribe list was a long one -- including some 270 people and businesses from 50 countries and the U.N.


Those implicated include:


Benon Sevan, director of the U.N. oil-for-food program and a protege of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites). Sevan allegedly made a profit of nearly $1 million by selling 9.3 million barrels of oil "allotted" to him by Saddam.


A French oil company with ties to Jacques Chirac, France's president. It allegedly bribed U.N. officials in order to falsify Iraqi oil export documents.


A former top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites). The aide allegedly netted $500,000 or so from illegal sales of Iraqi oil.


Get the pattern here? Not surprisingly, France and Russia, along with China, are members of the U.N.'s Security Council. Also not surprisingly, they clumsily tried to block any inquiry into the oil-for-food program. And objected to the U.S. war to oust Saddam.


The U.N., of course, had to do something. So it named a largely ceremonial panel to investigate, headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) chief Paul Volcker. That panel has little power, and after six months has virtually nothing to show for its efforts. It's toothless.


It's crucial to understand that all this puts the lie to claims that somehow the U.S. could have built a broader coalition if it had only exercised more artful diplomacy, as Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) suggests.

Sorry, but the Security Council votes of France, Russia and China were already bought and paid for by Saddam.

It also shows the shocking cynicism of the U.N.'s Annan, who just last month had the gall to declare the U.S. war in Iraq "illegal."

Fortunately, no fewer than four committees in Congress are now looking into the scandal, along with Iraq's interim government.

One of those panels, headed by Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), will hold hearings today to look into whether companies that audited the oil-for-food program looked the other way when bribes were made.

We're happy to hear the drumbeat on the oil-for-food scandal is getting louder. It means the U.N.'s day of reckoning is near. U.N. oil-for-food overseers looked the other way while money that could have eased the pain and suffering of ordinary Iraqis was looted.

In that respect, the U.N.'s dapper diplomats and untaxed bureaucrats holed up in their New York headquarters are little better than the Baathist thugs who looted Iraq in the war's chaotic aftermath. Different strategies, same results.

At some point, the U.N.'s culture of unaccountability must end.

[zaphod]

Hmmm. Meanwhile Halliburton continues to do business with Iran. And our "vice" president gets a $1M retainer from said company. Ah, but it's not Halliburton directly, it's a "subsidiary"......yeah right.

And, hmmmm. Didn't Saddam get military equipment and aid from, hmmmm, whom??? The US??? Why? Because he was conveniently not Iranian. Ronald Reagan kissed Saddam's butt during the 80's, and who was over there, working closely with Saddam, who.....Donald Rumsfeld???? Who's he? Oh yeah, Secretary of Defense.

This administration is bereft of conscience and morals. Anything for a buck. And you people flip out when someone else in the world does it???? Why, because it is a sole right of the American right?????

[huntm856]

Oil for food has feed the hatred against America...

I don't quite understand this argument. Sure, it seems obvious that there was massive graft in the Oil-For-Food program; but when the Americans came in and set up the CPA to run things in the country, it seems to me that there would then be all the more incentive for countries like France, Russia, etc., which are accused of benefiting from kickbacks on the program, to get in bed with us, since we were there and taking over, and were going to cut off their gravy train--and were all the more likely to do so and to make a point of their alleged malfeasances if they didn't play nice.

One of their not-quite-public complaints has been that they've been frozen out of most if not all of the reconstruction contracts. That only happened because the US decided not to reward countries that hadn't stood with us. So if their opposition to us is based on venality--our cutting off their gravy train--why not do what they can to stay on, instead of taking actions to ensure they'd be shut out? Doesn't make sense to me if anger over money lost from shutting down the Oil For Food program was their primary motivator.

In a related matter, the House subcommittee investigation into abuses of the Oil-For-Food Program ('OFFP') is being widened to look at the role of the CPA when it took over administration of the Iraq oil monies after the OFFP was shut down. And guess what company is at the center of questions about how WE handled those funds? You got it, HALLIBURTON! Stay tuned.

[huntm856]

In addition, isn't it a bit incredulous to believe that all this graft was going on--and that there were people inside the OFFP who were aiding in the diversion of OFFP funds to Saddam, which he could then use to fund his 'hidden' WMD programs, something that has been suggested elsewhere--and there was no one in the US government's intelligence or commerce/business regulation communities who was aware of any of it until now? If this is the case, then the CIA was even more incompetent than has already been shown.

Or is it more likely that there were people in the government who were keeping an eye on this but that it did not serve their purposes to bring it to light for one reason or another? One of the reasons I think that the administration has been so slow to pick up on the malfeasances in the OFFP is because there are things about the entire business that if they came to light could be very damaging to a lot of people in power, and once one opens up this sort of thing it's very difficult to manage where it ends up going. I expect that this thing will die a fairly quiet death pretty soon, because there are a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic who want that to happen.