juvat

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police "Keith
Willshaw" blurted out:

Fair question. The original train of thought (by me regarding iraqi
oil revenue) was simply these revenues will pay for the rebuilding of
Iraq...and US/UK companies are currently getting the contracts (albeit
before sufficient oil revenue can replace US tax dollars). This does
not surprise me. So we eventually reach a point where US citizens
(congressmen) will demand that iraqi oil revenues reimburse the US
Treasury.

Clearly I failed to communicate my position. I am not surprised by the
motives of either sides (for or against invading Iraq). As a US
citizen I don't care how corrupt the Russian government might be, or
which french business man has his hand in Chirac's pocket. I care
about how MY country conducts itself, because that is where I get to
vote. Supposing France invaded Iraq with the UK and US opposing; I
would question french motives more than UK/US opposition simply
because I find no compelling evidence for invasion.

I find nothing hypocritical in questioning a decision to invade Iraq
and happening upon the coincidence of an allied position with France,
Germany, & Russia (regardless of their monetary risks if SH is
removed). The economic ties (oil vouchers) are damning evidence
against the french and russian governments' altruism, but have no
bearing upon their citizens' opposition. That's no hypocracy, that's
human nature.

Clear as mud?


Thanks that's an important point I missed, I stand corrected; I
misunderstood when I read the ABCNews report last week.

Fair enough, bribes by SH regime for an extended period of time. The
logical conclusion: recipients would not want to kill the goose that
laid the golden egg. The huge number of russians (including Putin's
government) is damning evidence, the four frenchmen cited less so, the
absence of any germans interesting. I find it interesting that
russians received the yeoman's share of vouchers when Russia wields so
little political power vis-a-vis Germany or France. Might this
indicate that these vouchers were not all political bribes?

Is it beyond the realm of plausibility... that if this information had
been known prior to Colin Powell's speech before the UN, the US might
have made similar "considerations" (contracts vice vouchers) available
to french interests (be it contracts in Iraq or another economic
issue)? Not a "bribe" per se, just "consideration."

Considering the pejorative context of the word bribe (since it was
used in the Washington Times, a conservative paper for the
uninitiated), how might this paper characterize political
contributions by the ACLU vice NRA? I suspect the ACLU "had their
hands in the pockets of ***x." While the NRA "actively supports ***x."

Of course the Washington Post would probably reverse the descriptions.
Such is the case with political campaigns in this country.

Juvat