A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
You should have kept waiting.

He who hesitates is Faust.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The Financial Times is reporting today that

Iraq's trade ministry has transferred $400 million of Iraq's food-ration budget to Lebanese banks that are, as the paper puts it, "favoured for their secrecy." This represents about 14 percent of Iraq's $2.8 billion annual budget for food rations, upon which 60 percent of the 25-billion population is dependent, according to the United Nations. The interim trade minister, Mohammed Jabouri, is claiming that his noble intentions--expediting the delivery of food rations for Ramadan by bypassing Iraqi Trade Bank protocols--are being maliciously interpreted by "political parties who have come after the war." It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that, under Saddam Hussein, Jabouri

• headed the State Oil Market Organisation (Somo), which sold Iraq's oil and distributed coupons for oil sales prior to the war. His deputy, Fakhridin Rashan, was a senior official in the trade ministry. Both were suspended after the war following investigations into contracts they had pursued, but were reinstated after the transition to Ayad Allawi's interim government in June.

And, mysteriously, the FT reports that more than a month later, those Ramadan food rations still haven't arrived for the 60 percent of Iraqis who rely on them. Get ready for a lot more of these sorts of stories: As Iraq faces dire and fundamental threats over the next year requiring urgent attention from its new and untested leadership, officials will find ample opportunities to plunder its already-beleaguered treasury.

link (internal links omitted)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Financial Times is reporting today that



link (internal links omitted)

You realize the fact that we're hearing about this means that the people in charge are not ignoring and covering it up, don't you?

Does this mean you now acknowledge that the UN's oil for food was a big bribe fest for the Un and perhaps some secuity Council members?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You realize the fact that we're hearing about this means that the people in charge are not ignoring and covering it up, don't you?

Congrats. You win today's Silver Lining award.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You realize the fact that we're hearing about this means that the people in charge are not ignoring and covering it up, don't you?

Does this mean you now acknowledge that the UN's oil for food was a big bribe fest for the Un and perhaps some secuity Council members?

Nifty argument. Does this similarly mean that the publicity of the UN scandal constitutes a breath of fresh disenfectant, such that even the Slaves of the world will embrace it as the solution going forward?

The circle is indeed a vicious one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Congrats. You win today's Silver Lining award.

Thanks. You realize my winning doesn't negate the fact that far worse occured in NY, Paris and Moscow and none of you seem to care. I mean, don't worry, we'll clean that up too, but your selective sensitivity speaks for itself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You realize the fact that we're hearing about this means that the people in charge are not ignoring and covering it up, don't you?

We know that money has gone to Lebanese banks and the food hasn't been delivered. While this has been reported, what makes you think something's been done about it?

Does this mean you now acknowledge that the UN's oil for food was a big bribe fest for the Un and perhaps some secuity Council members?

This is the best summary I know about the oil-for-food scandal. It doesn't sound to me like the UN was getting rich from the bribes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Financial Times is reporting today that . . .

Interesting.

Jabouri has a notable past with Chalabi, who fired him from his long-held (pre-war) oil post. Jabouri says it was because he refused to deal with oil companies which had helped SH avoid the sanctions, while Chalabi says it was because Jabouri was dealing under the table with the oil companies which had helped SH avoid the sanctions. Can't quite figure out who was telling the truth.

So, is Jabouri a Bathist SH henchman thug/mobster/ripoff artist who is just finding ways to continue his past good works, or is he a cleaned-up noble figure valiantly trying to do his best for his country by working around Chalabi's outstretched hand? Either way, makes you wonder how he got this new job.

The good news is, there's now going to be a lot of pressure for that money to fly back home. Bad news is, if this is happening, what else is happening we haven't found yet?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Montana Democrats take over the state House because Republican voters can't follow simple instructions when filling out their ballots.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Montana Democrats take over the state House because Republican voters can't follow simple instructions when filling out their ballots.

Mike Meloy, a lawyer for Anita Big Spring, a voter who brought the case to the Supreme Court, said the decision was the right one. "There is no way for anybody to tell from those ballots what the voter intended," Mr. Meloy said. "Those voters violated the instructions given them, which was don't change your ballot and if you make a mistake, ask for a new ballot. Why would you want to give special consideration to someone who didn't follow instructions?"

If all Democrats recognized this, you'd be a more accepting party. Somehow, though, I bet the kind of Democrat who could win in Montana isn't real recognizable to your lot in California.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Montana Democrats take over the state House because Republican voters can't follow simple instructions when filling out their ballots.

I'll gladly concede the Montana slot just to see a lawyer for the Democratic party letting this quote slip out:

"Those voters violated the instructions given them, which was don't change your ballot and if you make a mistake, ask for a new ballot. Why would you want to give special consideration to someone who didn't follow instructions?"

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Mike Meloy, a lawyer for Anita Big Spring, a voter who brought the case to the Supreme Court, said the decision was the right one. "There is no way for anybody to tell from those ballots what the voter intended," Mr. Meloy said. "Those voters violated the instructions given them, which was don't change your ballot and if you make a mistake, ask for a new ballot. Why would you want to give special consideration to someone who didn't follow instructions?"

If all Democrats recognized this, you'd be a more accepting party. Somehow, though, I bet the kind of Democrat who could win in Montana isn't real recognizable to your lot in California.

"Cooperation will be at a premium," said Dave Wanzenried, the Democratic leader in the House, who will become the next speaker.

If at least some Republicans recognized this, you'd be a more accepting party. Somehow, though, I bet the kind of Republican who could win in Montana (or, for that matter, lose in Montana) isn't real recognizable to the GOP governing class in Washington.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Thanks. You realize my winning doesn't negate the fact that far worse occured in NY, Paris and Moscow and none of you seem to care. I mean, don't worry, we'll clean that up too, but your selective sensitivity speaks for itself.

So do you care about this one, or are you just mad at us for not caring about the other one enough?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
"Cooperation will be at a premium," said Dave Wanzenried, the Democratic leader in the House, who will become the next speaker.

If at least some Republicans recognized this, you'd be a more accepting party. Somehow, though, I bet the kind of Republican who could win in Montana (or, for that matter, lose in Montana) isn't real recognizable to the GOP governing class in Washington.

We don't need to evaluate why we lose elections, and lately don't need to accept defeat. The Montana Republicans are probably closer to Bush et al, than say, NY Republicans are to him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So do you care about this one, or are you just mad at us for not caring about the other one enough?

I care. I would think in a new country with the $$$ flowing through, that the potential for fraud would be pretty big. So I'm not surprised.

Ty posted the article as part of his ongoing "Boy is Iraq fucked Up" series. His point, near as I can tell, is the US has done a terrible job in Iraq and should have stayed out. I was merely pointing out that with regard to this one topic, the diversion of big $$$, we are at least better off in that it was exposed.