Oil for Food

Since conservatives love to complain that no one is talking about the Oil for Food scandal (even though its been on the the front page of every major newspaper several times in the last week) I thought I would give it some airtime on this site.

A Washington post editorial from yesterday sheds some crucial light details of the scandal that go unreported by most of the mainstream media.

"Certainly it is far too early to...call for the resignation of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, as Mr. Coleman did last week. That sounds to us like U.N.-bashing for political gain rather than responsible criticism.

It is also misleading to portray the oil-for-food program as a slush fund for Saddam Hussein while ignoring the far larger riches he reaped through illicit trade that was entirely unrelated to the United Nations. Most of the billions amassed by Saddam Hussein for weapons and palaces during the 1990s came through sanctions-busting trade in oil and other goods with such countries as Jordan, Turkey and Syria. The United States knew about this business but either condoned it, as in the case of Jordan, or did little or nothing to stop it.

If Congress wishes to assign accountability for Saddam Hussein's ability to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it would make more sense to investigate why and how the non-U.N. trade was tolerated."

Iran

Kevin Drum's take on the latest Bush stance on Iran, and the right wing's response to it:

National Review ON IRAN....National Review is unhappy with Europe's efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program:

"The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran since August 2003, and getting strung along the entire time as Tehran tries to extract more "carrots." Tehran later reneged on its agreement to stop building centrifuges and enriching uranium, but the Europeans continued to negotiate anyway. Now, the Bush administration — apparently the only international actor serious about ending Iran's nuclear program — will have to wait on the sidelines while the EU3 once again buys the mullahs time."

Kevin Drum: This is interesting language, no? The Bush administration will "have to" sit on the sidelines while the Europeans dither around some more. Have to? What's more, this sitting around apparently demonstrates that Bush is serious about getting tough with Iran.

And what does Bush's version of getting tough consist of? Referring the whole issue to the UN Security Council and recommending economic sanctions.

It's a curious world, isn't it? If Bill Clinton had been doing the exact same things as Bush — letting Europe handle direct negotiations, recommending UN sanctions, making occasional tough sounding noises — National Review would be beside itself with outrage that he had no real plan for dealing with Iran's gathering threat and was seemingly unwilling to clearly draw a line in the sand. The UN!? Sanctions?! Puh-leeze. That's Jimmy Carter all over again.

And yet, when this is George Bush's plan, he's a hero. Funny, that.