john, you're the one exhibiting the bias here. hakan makes pretty straight, oranges to oranges comparisons. you attempt to sidestep this by raising the red herring of higher taxes. taxes are so-o-o-o-o un-american. you've already associated 'un-americanism' with the list member you're rebutting, before you even mention the words 'anti-u.s.' when you do, your condescending and patronizing attitude merely underscores your own bias.
the fact is, the u.s. exercised tremendous influence over the oil for food program; to the point where it had near total control. the u.n. adminstration itself had virtually nothing do to with OFFP. the specially-created entity which oversaw the process, reported to an independent commission. every member of the security council was represented on this commission, and had veto power over any and all oil contracts. the u.s. held up billions in humanitarian goods contracts because of concerns (totally invalid, as the record has shown) over 'dual use'. meanwhile, dozens of instances of pricing irregularities ( = kickbacks going to saddam) were reported to the commission, and the u.s. did not oppose a single one of these contracts. in other words, the u.s. was amply aware of the corruption, and chose to allow it to continue. what's more, the u.s was well aware of the oil smuggling as well. this was separate from the OFFP, and dwarfed the corruption in the OFFP process. (and like the OFFP, it was outside the purview of the u.n. administration: oil smuggling was supposed to be policed by the mif (multinational interception force), which was comprised almost entirely of u.s. military forces, and under the command of the u.s.) what could explain this u.s. inaction? could it be because, for example, the russian broker was selling its oil almost exclusively to u.s. companies? or because a large part of the smuggling was done through our allies? perhaps also because it suited what had been or strategic goal vis a vis iraq all along, which was regime change? is it possible that you neglected to identify the 'perhaps one other u.s. outfit' involved in the corrupt iraq dealings, because that player was halliburton? including during the period *when*dick*cheney*was*at*the*helm? in fact, cheney was quite vocal in his opposition to the sanctions while at haliburton. yet he sang a very different tune on the campaign trail in 2000, denying that haliburton had done any business with iraq. so, it would seem that you are the one who is limiting your presentation according to your bias. as evidenced in your claim that OFFP clearly demonstrates that this so-called 'world tax' (a really stupid and biased label) would be pointles because it would never work because of all the corruption. yet the fact is, the corruption in OFFP was a very small percentage of the total money involved. more importantly, OFFP *worked*. further evidenced by your portrayal of the john bolton nomination. 'filibuster' is a blatant misrepresentation of what actually occured. there was no filibuster at all. there were a majority of voices which wanted to proceed very deliberately, including certain influential republican senators. it was not the senate which unduly delayed the process, and it is absolutely not a forgone conclusion that 'the vote would have been yea'. the delay was a product of the white house stonewalling and dragging its feet when asked to produce documents requested for the nomination hearings. thus, the white house got their way: the senate was not able to conclude the hearings before the recess, which enabled bush to make the recess appointment. which means they have the man they want for six months before they have to bring him before the senate again. and it *is* telling. one indicator of corruption is the circumventing of the process, which is precisely what happened here. and as regards your break down of recess appointments in recent administrations, let's take a look at that. reagan, a republican, averaged nearly as many appointments per term as clinton, the only democrat in the list, had during his entire two terms. during both of their presidencies, the capitol was controlled by the opposing party, but the opposition during clinton's presidency was unmistakably more vehement, militant and partisan. darn near hysterical, in fact. even so, his recess appointments were only half those of his 'illustrious' predecessor. both bushes show recess appointments at a pace greater than clinton's as well. in fact, bush the younger is outpacing clinton by some 50%, and that's *with*a*friendly*congress*! why this republican predilection for cirucmventing (i.e. corrupting) the process? >When a person looks at a situation with a mind full of prejudice and expectation they >are bound to arrive at a conclusion that fits into their existing views regardless of >fact. well said. well said, indeed. . . . -chris b. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
