billroper | More on the Coalition of the Bribed

This article from the Times of London quotes from a leaked report that gives a great deal of information about Saddam's work to bribe France, Russia, and China via the Oil for Food program and how he skimmed off profits for his own use.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

I remember this stuff from before the war. Germany, too. Just as we had strong economic interests -- well, Bush's friends had strong economic interests -- to occupy Iraq, France, Germany, and Russia (I don't remember reading about China) had strong economic interests to keep him in power. All the stuff about the UN and WMD and the like was all play acting, on all sides.

I guess I'm surprised that it's news again.

From:

billroper

I think that there are two reasons that it's in the news.

First, there's a lot of new information that has come out recently about the degree of corruption that seems to have existed in the Oil for Food program which wasn't available at the time that the war started.

Second, Kerry continues to insist that Bush did the wrong thing by invading Iraq without getting support from nations like France and that he would have been more successful in getting them involved. I believe that this sort of information puts the lie to that statement -- much as, I think, you're agreeing in your post above. (Unless I'm misreading it.)

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

"I believe that this sort of information puts the lie to that statement...." I'm not sure how. I believe this statement is true: "Bush did the wrong thing by invading Iraq without getting support from nations like France and that he would have been more successful in getting them involved." I believe it 100%. I also believe there were realpolitik reasons why different countries lined up either for or against the war, and that those concerns primarily had nothing to do with Hussein, dictatorship, terrorism, WMDs, etc. I don't think that believing the latter means that I am lying when I say that I believe the former.

Oh, and I believe that Bush was reckless with American credibility abroad, his own credibility at home, American lives, and American tax dollars by invading Iraq. I believe he did it for personal and political reasons, and that "national security" was simply the reason he presented to the world. I believe the world would be a safer place had we continued to pressure Hussein diplomatically (with the French and the Germans), and only invaded with a clear UN mandate and a broad international coalotion. And yes, I believe that we could have -- had we bothered caring -- maneuvered France, Germany, and Russia (again, I haven't a clue about China) into a position where they would have supported war.

What earthly good was Bush's "bring 'em on" attitude? Why in the world did he want the world's anger pointed at the US? If, as both Bush and bin Laden claim, this is a Crusade -- a global war of Christianity against Islam -- then our overarching goal should be to unite our side while dividing their side. Bush has done the exact opposite, and for no good reason at that. The man's a menace, and he's a threat to national security.

B

From:

billroper

I am not saying that you are lying. I am saying that the fact that the French, Russians, and Chinese were being bribed via the Oil for Food program makes Kerry's statement that he could have successfully coaxed the French into joining the coalition unlikely at best -- or, in classic terms, "puts the lie to that statement".

I would dearly love to hear that question -- "Senator Kerry, given that influential French, Russian, and Chinese figures were being bribed by Saddam Hussein's government via the Oil for Food program prior to the Iraq invasion, how is it that you feel that you could have successfully enlisted those countries in a coalition against Hussein, or indeed even obtained yet another UN Security Council resolution in the face of such a situation?" -- put to Kerry in a debate. Bush can't do it, because then he would be guilty of exactly the same sort of "dissing" of an ally that he (with some justification) has accused Kerry of with respect to those countries that actually did join the coalition.

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

"I am not saying that you are lying. I am saying that the fact that the French, Russians, and Chinese were being bribed via the Oil for Food program makes Kerry's statement that he could have successfully coaxed the French into joining the coalition unlikely at best -- or, in classic terms, 'puts the lie to that statement.'"

I guess I'm not sure how that logic holds. "Bribed" is not a binary state; it's not all or nothing. A better way to look at it is: "the French, Russians, and Chinese all had substantial financial interests in Hussein remaining in power." That was certainly true, just as Bush and his cronies had substantial financial interests in deposing Hussein and installing a more sympathetic government.

But even a bribed person can be bribed again. Even someone with strong interests in one direction can be coaxed into another. That's the whole point of diplomacy.

Just as I'm not willing to say "Bush was bribed by oil money, so any statement that he could have been successfully coaxed into letting diplomacy work is unlikely at best," I am unwilling to concede the reverse. I believed at the time that we could have maneuvered France, Germany, and Russia -- again, I haven't a clue about China -- into supporting invasion. (Unless we got better proof that, as was indeed the case, that Hussein disarmed.) We needed to make it so that any other position was untenable for those governments. I understand that Bush has no patience for this sort of thing, but it is what governments do.

And remember, everyone in the country is not bribed. Just a few are. Just as oil money couldn't bribe everyone in the U.S. to support invading Iraq, Hussien couldn't bribe eveyone in those countries to oppose it.

You have to remember that politics is complicated. This kind of black and white thinking is how the Republicans like to paint the world, it's not how it really works.

(continued on next comment)

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

"I would dearly love to hear that question -- 'Senator Kerry, given that influential French, Russian, and Chinese figures were being bribed by Saddam Hussein's government via the Oil for Food program prior to the Iraq invasion, how is it that you feel that you could have successfully enlisted those countries in a coalition against Hussein, or indeed even obtained yet another UN Security Council resolution in the face of such a situation?' -- put to Kerry in a debate."

I don't know how he would answer the question, but I can imagine my own answer. It might go something like this: "Diplomacy is the art of making someone do what they don't want to do, and then thank you for the privilege. France, Germany, and Russia certainly had substantial financial interests in Hussein remaining in power. Hussein was a smart politician, and he played the game of international politics well. But if Hussein can play politics, America can play politics smarter. Bush's reckless 'bring em on' attitude pushed our allies away, and played right into Hussein's hands. So instead of a broad-based coalition against Hussein, we ended up going in alone: bearing the brunt of the casualties, the brunt of the financial costs, and the brunt of Arab anger."

"Bush can't do it, because then he would be guilty of exactly the same sort of 'dissing' of an ally that he (with some justification) has accused Kerry of with respect to those countries that actually did join the coalition."

Oh, I don't know. He's dissed so many of our allies that a few more won't do him any more damage.

There's something else here, something even more important. There isn't just Bush's oil interests vs. France/Russia/China's oil interests. There isn't just your way or my way. There's also right and wrong. There are morals and there are ethics. There's smart security and dumb security. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, our pre-emptive war, was wrong. It was bad ethics, and it was bad security. Bush did a stupid thing. Just because France/Russia/China had unethical reasons to oppose it doesn't mean that they weren't right.

The Republicans are using this as "these countries were bribed, so it was okay for us to bribe our coalition." Bullshit. Bribery is wrong. Bush's "coalition of the willing" was an embarrassment, a coalition of countries bribed, coerced, and lied to. That was wrong. And it's nonsense to claim that it was okay because others are doing it too. I expect the U.S. to be more moral than other countries. I expect us not to torture, even if the bad guys do it. I expect us to play well on the world stage, even if our allies are not. I expect this country to be what the world aspires to, not what is derided.

And I certainly don't expect us to put our own citizens at unnecessary risk by invading another country without spending time on the requisite diplomacy.

B

From:

billroper

I understand that politics is complicated.

I am also fascinated by your unsupported assertion that "Bush was bribed by oil money". That's a wonderful tack to take in a political discussion without providing any supporting evidence and a remarkably black and white way of looking at things as well.

You speak in your next post of Bush dissing our allies. Really? While I'm aware that many people have dissed the French, I don't recall that Bush was one of them. (It's also not unreasonable to ask whether the French are particularly good allies, but that would be another discussion altogether.) And -- since I did watch at least part of last week's debate -- I am able to recall Bush working very hard not to dis our Russian allies when he was being led in that direction by the questioning.

I understand your belief that attacking Hussein was wrong. I do not necessarily agree with you about this -- for a wide variety of reasons that I don't propose to go into here -- but I am certain that there are good and valid reasons why you believe what you believe and I do not presume any bad motives on your part.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with Senator Kerry's position on the Iraq war, which I would attempt to delve into in depth here, except for the fact that I have some actual work that I need to do.

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

"I am also fascinated by your unsupported assertion that 'Bush was bribed by oil money'. That's a wonderful tack to take in a political discussion without providing any supporting evidence and a remarkably black and white way of looking at things as well."

Sorry. It was such an ancillary point that I didn't bother thinking twice about it. I agree that "bribed" is too strong a word, just as I think it's too strong a word to use with the French etc. I used it because you did, and I wanted the parallel. I shouldn't have done that.

Anyway, there is a much longer discussion about the influences behind Bush's invasion of Iraq. Certainly it wasn't WMD, or terrorism, or security...his general foreign policy actions make no sense if those reasons were correct. I believe the reasons are oil interests, and they're obviously oil interests. That and the bizarre political theories of the neoCons.

But yes, I probably should not have use the comment without the underlying support. I don't think it affect the rest of my post, though.

"Really? While I'm aware that many people have dissed the French, I don't recall that Bush was one of them."

Sorry also. I use "Bush" as a shorthand for "the Bush Administration," because the buck stops with the guy in charge. I don't like the "he never actually said the words" defense that I keep hearing. I think it's bogus.

"I understand your belief that attacking Hussein was wrong. I do not necessarily agree with you about this -- for a wide variety of reasons that I don't propose to go into here -- but I am certain that there are good and valid reasons why you believe what you believe and I do not presume any bad motives on your part."

And I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. I don't think I have any bad motives, either.

"I do, on the other hand, have a problem with Senator Kerry's position on the Iraq war, which I would attempt to delve into in depth here, except for the fact that I have some actual work that I need to do."

Feel free to bring it up later. I don't have all his answers, but I have access to a lot of them. And while I don't necessarily agree with everything he's said during his campaign, I believe that no one can honestly predict what they will do as President. These kinds of things are very much about the events at the moment, and the best decisions are the ones made at the time. The best we can do as voters is pick someone whose general ethics, beliefs, and intellect seem like the ones we want on the job when the decisions have to be made.

This seems like an easy choice to me.
B

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

While I can never be accused of understanding the diplomatic approach, I can say that I trust John Kerry to lean on one of his core strengths: that he is a world citizen. Bush, let's be honest, is not.

I'm with James Angove, who said, "it is a observed property of the world, not a hope or a slogan or a choice, that we are all in this together." I want my president to have significant experience with other cultures, other peoples, other languages, and other ways people live in the world. I especially do not want my president to have none of those things.

I wonder if the people who disagree with my position are ones who have not spent much time traveling outside the US.

K.