[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Source

April 20� At least three senior United Nations officials are suspected of taking multimillion-dollar bribes from the Saddam Hussein regime, U.S. and European intelligence sources tell ABCNEWS.


...documents have surfaced in Baghdad, in the files of the former Iraqi Oil Ministry, allegedly linking Sevan to a pay-off scheme in which some 270 prominent foreign officials received the right to trade in Iraqi oil at cut-rate prices.

"It's almost like having coupons of bonds or shares. You can sell those coupons to other people who are normal oil traders," said Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British adviser to the Iraq Governing Council.

Investigators say the smoking gun is a letter to former Iraqi oil minister Amer Mohammed Rasheed, obtained by ABCNEWS and not yet in the hands of the United Nations.

In the letter, dated Aug. 10, 1998, an Iraqi oil executive mentions a request by a Panama-based company, African Middle East Petroleum Co., to buy Iraqi oil � along with a suggestion that Sevan had a role in the deal. "Mr. Muwafaq Ayoub of the Iraqi mission in New York informed us by telephone that the abovementioned company is the company that Mr. Sevan cited to you during his last trip to Baghdad," the executive wrote in Arabic.

A handwritten note indicated that permission for the oil purchase was granted by "the Vice President of the Republic" on Aug. 15, 1998.

The second page of the letter contains a table titled "Quantity of Oil Allocated and Given to Mr. Benon Sevan." The table lists a total of 7.3 million barrels of oil as the "quantity executed" � an amount that, if true, would have generated an illegal profit of as much as $3.5 million.

"Somebody who is running the Oil-for-Food program for the United Nations should not be receiving any benefit of any kind from a rogue dictator who was perpetuating terror in his country," said Hankes-Drielsma.

The following are the names of some of those listed as receiving Iraqi oil contracts (amounts are in millions of barrels of oil):

Russia
The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million
The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million
The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (two separate contracts)
Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million
The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million


France
Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million
Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million
Ibex: 47.2 million
Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million
Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million


Syria
Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey
Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million
Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia
Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain
Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia
The Socialist Party: 22 million
Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada
Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy
Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million
Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States
Samir Vincent: 7 million
Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom
George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million
Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa
Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan
Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million
The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million
Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million
Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon
The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt
Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million
Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories
The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million
Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million

Qatar
Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya
Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad
Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil
The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)
The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine
The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million
The Communist Party: 6 million
The Socialist Party: 2 million
The FTD oil company: 2 million

Interesting to say the least.

[Troll]

The second part of your post is old news and it has been discredited completely. That is a list of some of people involved with companies that participated in the Oil for Food Programme. People on the list have already accounted for the contracts listed on there and most of them have already shown that there was nothing illegal about the sales.

For example, Tokyo Sexwale (note that the ministry didn't even spell his name correctly), disclosed documents showing that the 4 million barrels attributed to him were in fact sold to a company of which he is a director. He proved that all monies were paid directly into an escrow account in New York and were then dispersed by the UN. He also showed that the company had secured its contract in a commercial tender process without any political assistance from the South African government and without offering any quid pro quo to the Iraqi�s or the UN in return. As was the case with all sales through the OFF Programme, the price per barrel was set by the UN and was obviously fair since the company showed that they had actually lost money on some of the tranches that they took.

As to the first part, I'm sure that a proper investigation will be done. I wouldn't take an Iraqi Ministry's word as gospel. It's not difficult to track the accounts of the companies involved. It should be relatively easy to prove that Sevan got the money.

[Powerbook]

Where are the stinking Germans?!

PB.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Troll:
As to the first part, I'm sure that a proper investigation will be done. I wouldn't take an Iraqi Ministry's word as gospel. It's not difficult to track the accounts of the companies involved. It should be relatively easy to prove that Sevan got the money.

We will get the chance to find out. After some foot-dragging, the Security Council finally approved an investigation, which the French and Russians were resisting for quite some time:

The U.N. resolution calls on the agency to cooperate with the three-member panel, which is headed by Paul Volcker, the former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman. But it would not compel companies or states suspected of paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's government to answer the panel's questions or turn over documents.

This is progress. It will be interesting to follow the investigation. What will it do to the U.N.'s credibility if significant abuse of the program is found? What would it do to the Russian and French premanent security council seats if it's revealed that they may have been abusing the program too? (especially if Volker can't prove it because he can't get the necessary documents)... It's all uncertain right now and it might potentially just be a big misunderstanding, but what it it's true?

Bush may not have found any WMD's, but he may have found a smoking gun after all...

[Troll]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
What would it do to the Russian and French premanent security council seats if it's revealed that they may have been abusing the program too?

What would it do the United States or the United Kingdom's seats if it's revealed that they were abusing the programme too?

Why do you suddenly pick on France and Russia? Bit of xenophobia creaping through there perhaps? The only specific allegations made have been against a Cypriot national. Not against a government. That discredited list that Crash posted mentions US nationals too. In fact it mentions a serving member of the UK parliament!!

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Bush may not have found any WMD's, but he may have found a smoking gun after all...

Bush found this information?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Troll:
What would it do the United States or the United Kingdom's seats if it's revealed that they were abusing the programme too?

Why do you suddenly pick on France and Russia? Bit of xenophobia creaping through there perhaps? The only specific allegations made have been against a Cypriot national. Not against a government. That discredited list that Crash posted mentions US nationals too. In fact it mentions a serving member of the UK parliament!!
Bush found this information?

I only singled out France and Russia because they were the most vocal permanent members of the security council that were against the war. They also opposed the resolution approving the investigation until recently. If the investigation ends up pointing towards interests in those countries, one would have to ask the question of whether they were using their permanent menber status to contribute to the abuse of the program, especially since Russian political parties and French diplomats may have been involved, according to that list.

If US or UK interests were involved, of course one would have to ask the same question. But being that the US and UK governments were for the invasion (and, in a way, for the termination of the program once Saddam was out of power), it would be harder to make a conflict-of-interest case. In fact, if the UK parilament menber is the same guy I remember reading about, he was a very vocal critic of the war, and most certainly had no influence over Mr. Blair or over the UN actions.

Besides, I thought I made it clear that nobody really knows the facts yet, and I was playing a "what-if" game.

As for my "Bush found it" quote, I didn't mean he personally found it. In fact, I doubt he cound find his own ass, even if Cheney told him where it was. But I do think that if this investigation ends up questioning the legitimacy of the security council, then Bush will be, at least in some part, vindicated. After all, his point of view was that the Coalition was simply enforcing a dozen or so prior SC resolutions, and that the SC was abdicating its responsibility by not approving the latest one authorizing his invasion. If we find a genuine conflict of interest, then can you imagine the smug look he will have on his face then?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Troll:
What would it do the United States or the United Kingdom's seats if it's revealed that they were abusing the programme too?

Why do you suddenly pick on France and Russia? Bit of xenophobia creaping through there perhaps? The only specific allegations made have been against a Cypriot national. Not against a government. That discredited list that Crash posted mentions US nationals too. In fact it mentions a serving member of the UK parliament!!
Bush found this information?

No one is 'picking on' Russia and France. Both nations have made themselves key in the scandal, IE:

Russia and France wanted a discreet internal probe, thinking it was better to keep the corruption charges in-house at the UN rather than have outside investigators poking into the alleged links between Saddam, top UN staffers and Russian and French companies.

Resolution 1538, as it is officially known, may come to be remembered as the official lifting of the lid on a financial scandal that could ultimately dwarf even the worst excesses of Wall Street.

Source

Also, what you're leaving out with the so-called 'discredited' list, is not that the contract holders themselves weren't 'legitimate', it's that they may have been part of a scheme to extract illegal surcharges and kickbacks on those contracts totaling in the billions. The full details haven't come to light yet, but yes, indeed it's interesting that certain nations like France and Russia have tried to block outside investigators. And also we can cut the pretense that the fear of discovery of any of this may not figure strongly into their anti-Iraq war stance.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No one is 'picking on' Russia and France. Both nations have made themselves key in the scandal.

So, now preferring a discreet probe to a public one makes you guilty of the crime does it? Interesting.

I can't blame France for wanting this to be discreet. The Bushies and their supporters are like rabid sows on heat when it comes to France. You just have to mention the word France and they start slinging mud. I means you guys are already making ridiculous statements like the one that kickbacks were a motivator for the decision to oppose the war! Did you miss the fact that the largest protests in the history of France happened because of this war?

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Also, what you're leaving out with the so-called 'discredited' list, is not that the contract holders themselves weren't 'legitimate', it's that they may have been part of a scheme to extract illegal surcharges and kickbacks on those contracts totaling in the billions.

Yes, and pigs might fly in July. I realise that the allegation is that money flowed through these people to politicians. It's so easy to say that isn't it? That list came out months ago. Notice how nothing has stuck?

Al-Mada, the Iraqi daily that originally published the article (after the Iraqi National Council mysteriously gave them a copy of a list they claimed to have found at the Ministry of Oil) published a second article explaining how the whole system worked. This article came out after certain of the people on the list, notably Pasqua started showing receipts signed by the UN showing money going through a NY trust account operated by the UN. Their argument then changed to say that these were actually vouchers that were given either as gifts or as payment for goods imported into Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions. They apparently entitled the holder to a commission of 5 to 10c per barrel. 1 million barrels would have translated into $50,000-100,000. So, Charles Pasqua is accused of having received around $1.2m. That is tuppence my friend. Chirac made more out of corruption when he was mayor of Paris. The number of people you'd have to pay off to make this stick; it just isn't worth it for that money.

Some Algerians admitted that they had received payment for goods in the form of oil vouchers but showed that they had provided goods to Iraq through the programme in exchange. That's a bit more dodgy since I understand that only limited kinds of people could hold vouchers. But for Pasqua and Sexwale who are the two I've read up on, Al-Mada got it completely backwards. Both of them BOUGHT oil. They didn't get payment from Iraq. They paid Iraq through a UN operated trust account in New York. The company Sexwale is a director showed that they disposed of the oil so acquired in some cases at a loss due to market fluctuations! The number of people you'd need to bribe (trustees, bankers, UN officials, Iraqis - it just wouldn't be worth it for the small numbers we're talking here. Sexwale's "contracts" are only worth $400,000!!)

Now there's a new allegation that other amounts that never went through the OFFP are involved. That is effectively going to be an investigation into sanctions busting too but there's no list of suspects that I know of.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
And also we can cut the pretense that the fear of discovery of any of this may not figure strongly into their anti-Iraq war stance.

Actually no we can't cut pretence. Most of us believe in innocence until guilt is proven. Besides how come the paranoia you refer to applies only to the French and Russians? How come the argument doesn't apply to Italy or the UK, or to the USA? They're on the list too!

I'd be interested to see what this turns up, but knowing the accuracy of Iraqi information in the past, considering the vested interest of the INC and the responses we've seen so far, my strong suspicion is that this is crap.

[finboy]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
What will it do to the U.N.'s credibility if significant abuse of the program is found?

What credibility?

[angaq0k]

from:Information Clearing House

Burying Genocide - The UN "Oil For Food" Programme

Half a million dead Iraqi children are deemed irrelevant in coverage of allegations of UN oil for food' programme corruption_

04/23/04 "Media Lens" -- As Media Lens has reported on many occasions, mainstream media show an astonishing capacity for overlooking western crimes against the people of Iraq: a country utterly devastated by two US-UK wars, and by twelve years of sanctions that resulted in more than a million civilian deaths._

Current coverage of allegations of corruption in the UN's oil for food� programme is a dramatic case in point._

The oil for food programme was set up in 1996 by Denis Halliday, then the UN�s humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, as an ameliorative measure to counter some of the worst effects of sanctions. In 1998, Halliday resigned in protest at the devastating effects of the revamped programme. "These sanctions," he told journalist John Pilger, "represented ongoing warfare against the people of Iraq. They became, in my view, genocidal in their impact over the years, and the Security Council maintained them, despite its full knowledge of their impact, particularly on the children of Iraq." (John Pilger, 'Who Are The Extremists?', Daily Mirror, August 22, 2003)_

In a May 2000 interview, Halliday told us:_

�Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy... That's why I've been using the word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage.� (Interview with David Edwards, May 2000, http://www.medialens.org/articles_2001/iraqdh.htm)_

Halliday�s allegations, which could hardly be more serious, were based on his own experience in Iraq, and also on detailed reports by the UN and aid agencies studying the effects of the sanctions regime._

Hans von Sponeck, Halliday's successor as UN humanitarian coordinator, also resigned. In his letter of resignation, von Sponeck wrote:_

"How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" (John Pilger, 'Squeezed to death', The Guardian, March 4, 2000)_

In a co-written newspaper article for the Guardian, von Sponeck and Halliday cited a UN report which concluded: "the death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad". (Von Sponeck and Halliday, 'The hostage nation', The Guardian, November 29, 2001)_

In all the endless discussion on Iraq's recent history and, now, on the oil for food programme, the liberal media� has completely buried these horrific facts. Halliday, for example, was mentioned in 2 of the 12,366 Guardian and Observer articles mentioning Iraq last year; von Sponeck was mentioned just 5 times. Halliday has been mentioned in 0 of the 2,703 articles mentioning Iraq this year; von Sponeck has been mentioned 4 times._

In similar vein, Channel 4 News declares:_

�The sanctions against Iraq were always bitterly criticised for allegedly directing funds to Saddam Hussein rather than the Iraqi people. Now it�s questionable whether some of the profits also went abroad.� (Channel 4 News At Noon, April 22, 2004)_

The bitter criticism of the genocidal costs of sanctions is not allowed to exist._

Compare this with an article in the Daily Telegraph:_

�Critics of the programme say it swiftly became a way for Saddam to reward his friends in the West and manipulate the UN.� (�Russian and French politicians �bribed to relax UN sanctions��, Philip Delves Broughton, Daily Telegraph, April 22, 2004)_

BBC Online covers the same story making the same omissions:_

�Recent media reports have accused individuals and companies from more than_
40 countries, including a senior UN official, of being involved in corruption and bribery in connection with the oil sales.�_

The report quotes von Sponeck:_

�Former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq Hans von Sponeck said the allegations needed to be cleared up, but denied that the world body was closely involved in corruption._

"�The major part of the transactions where graft, misuse [and] kickbacks were involved by-passed United Nations officials,� he told the Today programme.� (UN orders Iraq corruption inquiry�, BBC News, April 22, 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3648409.stm)_

No mention is made of von Sponeck�s passionate denunciations of the effects of sanctions on the Iraqi people._

The Daily Telegraph twists the truth out of all recognition in another article:_

�There was no more bitter argument in the run-up to the war than the allegation by Left-wing activists, Arab nationalists and Muslim extremists that United Nations sanctions were murdering� Iraqi children by denying them food and medicine._

�They blamed Britain and the United States, which had maintained the sanctions in the face of growing opposition from France and Russia._

�Saddam's regime routinely arranged for critics of sanctions to tour hospitals and children's homes to view the suffering caused.� ('Saddam cronies grew rich on cash meant for the starving', David Rennie, Daily Telegraph, April 22, 2004)_

The �Left-wing activists� presumably include the senior UN diplomats who set up and ran the oil for food programme, and also UN and aid agency researchers._

The Times� editors write:_

�It was always obvious that the scheme was not working as intended; Iraqi children went hungry, and hospitals went without drugs, while Saddam furnished more palaces.�_

The programme is described as merely �defective� in supporting the Iraqi people. Of the literally millions of Iraqis who died and suffered terrible privations, the Times writes blandly:_

�The UN stands accused of rank mismanagement, if not outright complicity, in a scandal whose victims were vulnerable civilians, some of whom died for lack of medicines.� (Leader, Food for scandal�, The Times, April 22, 2004)_
_

(part one)

[angaq0k]

(part two)

Exchange with The Independent_

Exactly the same omissions are found in our most highly respected liberal� press. We wrote to Andrew Buncombe of The Independent as follows:_

22 April, 2004_

Dear Andrew,_

I'm writing an article for the New Statesman on Iraq. Perhaps I could ask about your article in today's Independent. You wrote that:_

"The controversial Oil-for-Food programme was set up in 1996 with the aim of helping Iraqis who were suffering because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1990-91 Gulf War. The scheme allowed Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil, supposedly under tight UN supervision, to finance the purchase of food and humanitarian goods." ('Saddam may have bribed head of UN Oil-for-Food [OFF] programme', The Independent, April 22, 2004)_

You mention that the OFF programme was "controversial". But why did you neglect to mention either Denis Halliday or Hans von Sponeck, former heads of that programme, who resigned in protest at the devastating effects of UN sanctions?_

As you know, Denis Halliday resigned in 1998, describing the sanctions regime as "illegal and immoral". "We are in the process of destroying an entire society", he said. Mr Halliday also said sanctions were bankrupt as a concept because they damaged innocent people and probably strengthened the country's leadership. He has also said that: "I would use the term genocide to define the use of sanctions against Iraq."_

Hans von Sponeck, resigning from the same position in 2000, said the sanctions had created a "true human tragedy". He asked, "For how long should the civilian population, which is totally innocent on all this, be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?"_

A 1999 Unicef report calculated that more than half a million children had died as a direct result of sanctions._

Why was none of this deemed relevant to your report today?_

I look forward to hearing from you, please._

regards, David Cromwell_


On the same day we received this reply:_

david, thank-you for your letter. it is nice to hear from you again and trust all is well with you._

my short answer to your question is that given more space and time i wd not only quoted halliday and van sponeck, as you suggest, but everybody else associated with the entire sanctions controversy. i wd have quoted madeleine albright ("it was worth it"), ritter, etc, and wd have lifted large sections from geoff simons' seminal work, targeting iraq: sanctions and boming in us policy._

as it was i had, 460 words - and 20 minutes, given the other piece i was writing yesterday morning - to write a short piece on the investigation into the alleged corruption at the UN food programme involving three of its senior officials. in my - perhaps misguided - view, i think most people are aware of the controvery surrounding the sanctions and given the limited space i had, i had to make choices on what information i used._

i don't believe that every short news piece can be, or needs to be, a complete history of every topic. that being said, if you feel the issue of sanctions and halliday's view about them has not been covered sufficiently i'll endeavour to devote some more coverage to them. i am sure this is a story i will be coming back to._

if you want an answer to why no more than 460 words was devoted to this topic when more space is devoted to such issues such as david beckham's alleged infidelity, you will need to address your question to someone more senior on the newspaper than me._

does this help? have i reinforced your propoganda model view of everyone who works for the corporate-owned media?! i have actually tried to explain some of the genuine pressures and contraints of story-length and deadline - actual working pressure on journalists that often seem to be missing from your media alerts. i realise that you will selectively use parts of my response but i hope you put any remarks you choose to quote in context._

pls get back to me if there's anything else you need. i look forward to reading your piece on iraq._

best,_

andrew buncombe_

p.s since we're in question and answer mode, i'd like to ask you to directly answer a question that alan rusbridger and others have put to you and yet you have so far - as i understand - declined to answer. namely, given the restrictions imposed on the media by their corporate ownership, what is the alternative for a truly independent media organisation, not dependent on advertising, that is sufficiently funded to allow indepth, daily coverage of the news and to meet the considerable costs of sending people to places such as iraq?_

We are grateful to Andrew Buncombe for responding. However, the claim that space and time were lacking is remarkable. Notice that in the almost infinite media space represented by the Independent, the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, Channel 4 News and website, BBC News and website, and so on, there is somehow insufficient space to mention that, according to senior UN officials, Britain was complicit in genocide. Are we seriously to believe this silence is the result of a lack of space? In fact there is no shortage of space in the media _ it is systematically denied, not lacking._

It is true that some readers are aware that �controversy� surrounds the UN sanctions regime. Not many, however, will be aware that senior UN diplomats have accused the US-UK of actual genocide in Iraq for the simple reason that it has very rarely been mentioned. Even if readers were aware, the extraordinary importance of the allegation surely merits emphasis. The media, after all, never tires of reminding us of Saddam�s gassing of civilians at Halabja _ a trivial crime, by comparison._

With regards to Buncombe's final point, we have responded to Rusbridger and several other journalists on alternatives to corporate media compromise. We are currently preparing a Media Alert that specifically addresses this issue._

Exchange with The Guardian_

We also wrote to Gary Younge of The Guardian:_

22 April, 2004_

Dear Gary Younge,_

I'm writing an article for the New Statesman on Iraq. Perhaps I could ask about your article in today's Guardian, 'UN backs oil for food inquiry'_
(April 22, 2004)._

Why did you neglect to mention either Denis Halliday or Hans von Sponeck, former heads of that programme, who resigned in protest at the devastating effects of UN sanctions?_

As you know, Dennis Halliday resigned in 1998, describing the sanctions regime as "illegal and immoral". "We are in the process of destroying an entire society", he said. Mr Halliday also said sanctions were bankrupt as a concept because they damaged innocent people and probably strengthened the country's leadership. He has also said that: "I would use the term genocide to define the use of sanctions against Iraq."_

Hans von Sponeck, resigning from the same position in 2000, said the sanctions had created a "true human tragedy". He asked, "For how long should the civilian population, which is totally innocent on all this, be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?"_

A 1999 Unicef report calculated that more than half a million children had died as a direct result of sanctions._

Why was none of this deemed relevant to your report today? Will you be covering such points in later articles?_

I look forward to hearing from you, please._

regards, David Cromwell_


We received a reply from Younge a few hours later:_

Dear Mr Cromwell, First of all my article was 350 words long which means many things are going to be left out. Given that it was a new article for a daily newspaper I chose to concentrate on the day's news which was the launching of an investigation into corruption into the oil-for-food program._

Second, the reasons why two men resigned several years ago in protest at devastating the effect [sic] of sanctions - facts reported in the Guardian previously - maybe relevant to the broader story but not the immediate issue of corruption, kickbacks and the investigation that I was covering. With more space and a more discursive brief they may have been included and and, depending on the brief, time and space, I may include them future articles, if I am called on to write on that subject. Gary Younge_

Again, Younge cites lack of space. Comment seems superfluous. Younge�s second point - that the Guardian has already given due coverage to Halliday and von Sponeck�s allegations, and on the effects of sanctions - is simply false as we have shown repeatedly in our Media Alerts._

The performance of the media on this issue fails to meet even our low expectations. Once again we find that the free press� is able to match totalitarian systems of power in suppressing even the most credible voices attempting to draw attention to the gravest abuses of power.

The plot thickens indeed....

[tie]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Bush may not have found any WMD's, but he may have found a smoking gun after all...

Smoking gun of what? And where? The Sept. 11 attackers came from our good ally Saudi Arabia, nuclear proliferation has come from our good ally Pakistan, corruption has emerged from the UN. The war with Iraq has nothing to do with any of this. Besides the war, bringing Halliburton into Iraq was the wrong way to stop corruption.