Regarding Saddam’s ilegal trade and the Oil For Food scandal:
With Republican-led congressional
committees investigating allegations of oil-for-food corruption, some
Democrats are pressing for answers about why the United States did
little to stop the smuggling. The issue is part of a series of broader
questions these lawmakers have about what U.S. officials knew about
Saddam’s overall illicit finances.
Understandably, this is important info. However, since the majority occured during Clinton’s years in the White House, what may be an attempt by Congressional Democrats to smear the Bush administration could backfire and be a major slam against Slick and his admin.
Lawmakers frequently lump together
estimates of Saddam’s illicit income from smuggling and from the
oil-for-food program, blaming the United Nations for the full $21.3
billion. Critics of the United Nations say a surge in smuggling was
made possible by the general lawlessness caused by oil-for-food
corruption.But Democrats say Annan cannot be held accountable for smuggling that they say the United States condoned.
They are correct. Who knew what when. Since the OFF program was stopped in 1999, Clinton was still in office. Since the majority of the kickbacks occurred between 1991 and 1999, Clinton was in office. The article states that the only way to have stopped the illegal trade between Iraq and Syria was through military operations. Would the Democratic leadership have been OK with that? The Democrats may get some shots in at the Bush admin, but they could torpedo the Clinton legacy. (FYI: I voted for Clinton’s 2nd)
