Norm Coleman's Strategy: Feign Horror at Petty Corruption and You Never Have to Say You're Sorry for All the Destruction

Now that we have "officially" admitted what we've known all along, that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction, perhaps Minnesota's own Norm Coleman will be the first to admit that the economic sanctions were working and that U.S. paranoia regarding Saddam Hussein is responsible for the mess that was made of the oil-for-food program.



The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.



However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.



Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.



According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):

The corruption evident in the oil-for-food program was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.

Look at Baghdad in 2002, after years of the food-for-oil program that Norm Coleman condemns as "corrupt." Emerging from near total economic ruin after the first war with the U.S., Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks.



Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.



True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.



Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen