Originally Posted by
Rat Faced
Come on J2, im waiting here....
For what?
Your obsession with Bush precludes noting that if Bush presided while the Oil-for-Food fiasco was taking place, he would have been stepping into Clinton's shoes as re: stewardship of that situation, because that is when it started...you seem, however, to believe Clinton's only negative was an Oval Office hummer, about which none of the hoi polloi have entree to opine.
In all other regards, Clinton seems to have been your kind of guy, as you've not mentioned this very salient fact, which, by the way, amounts to the same petard as the Halliburton one, which was heartily initiated by Clinton.
As to whether or not the Iraqis got fed, watered and medicated by virtue of Oil-for-Food, how
well they made out was a relative thing, given that we now know how well Saddam (and a few well-chosen U.N. flunkies and figureheads) made out, too, the fact of which doesn't seem to bother you either, so eager are you to hang the whole thing on Bush, or at least mitigate the blame-worthiness of others by including him in the bargain.
I would think a fair-minded person should be outraged that Saddam lined his pockets to tha Iraqis' detriment, by virtue of a program meant to regulate
his financial viability and care for his people, administered
by the U.N.-not the U.S.
I've heard more outrage from this board, in this single thread, about poorly-chosen but off-the-cuff remarks made by the President's mother than I have about Oil-for-Food in the entire history of that issue...
Bookmarks