Buried in all the thousands of stories you're reading in the press today about how the non-partisan Duelfer report found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction is another finding by the same group: That individuals in France, Russia and China specifically benefitted, illegally, from the oil-for-food program.

 

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/184723-2300-010.html

thats been in the paper for a few days... sad isnt it?

 

seemingly the countries accepted, and further more it all went through the UN's program.

 

i doubt that they got large benefits, and they should hopefully pay for it if the US and UK esp. come down hard on them, however those are some major countries in the UN and there is a possibility that it will all be "talked out" and passed off as a minor incident and forgotten, hope it wont.... but it is possible, what with them being major countries and more than one.

 

the US could be able to use this against sadam in the courts... bribery, but maybe not, sadam would just say he was making an ally with them, being kind to those who were kind to him.

sadam is a very clever guy apparently, never directly ordered the killings of people, when he first went to a court, i read most of the script, he'd make the most amazing lawyer, he was amazing, through everything the US said right back in their face.

Buried in all the thousands of stories you're reading in the press today about how the non-partisan Duelfer report found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction is another finding by the same group: That individuals in France' date=' Russia and China specifically benefitted, illegally, from the oil-for-food program.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/184723-2300-010.html[/quote']

Fox news has been talking about the "oil for food" scandal for a while now, It appears as if it's now "breaking news".

Looks like Saddam was snubbing his nose at the UN resolutions, knowing he had France, Russia and China on his team.

The names of American companies and individuals who might have been involved in oil deals weren't released because of U.S. privacy laws, the report said.

What, precisely, does that mean?

I wondered the same.

 

Perhaps they meant libel lawsuits, but that seems a little odd. If it's based on factual information then they can hardly be sued for libel.

Bump this back up.

 

Kofi Annan is "very dissapointed" his son was involved. No word yet on his own involvement