Ace42
12-02-2004, 06:42 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
The UK MP accused of fraudulently proffiting from the oil-for-food scheme has won his libel case.
This means the documents that named him (found in the Bagdhad oil ministry files, along with all the other ones) were false.
It also means that it is likely the other ones the US accounting groups are using to accuse French and Russians are also similarly forged.
Given that there is no reason for there to be falsified documents in the oil ministry, and that Saddam had no reason to frame the nations that didn't intend to invade, it makes you wonder who forged and planted them, and why?
Considering (As Kerry pointed out repeatedly) the US spent more time securing the Oil ministry than places like Al Qataa, and given that it wasn't secured well enough to prevent access to the materials there, what does that say?
Either US soldiers are even more incompetent than we would think, OR, the documents were planted by US soldiers.
The UK MP accused of fraudulently proffiting from the oil-for-food scheme has won his libel case.
This means the documents that named him (found in the Bagdhad oil ministry files, along with all the other ones) were false.
It also means that it is likely the other ones the US accounting groups are using to accuse French and Russians are also similarly forged.
Given that there is no reason for there to be falsified documents in the oil ministry, and that Saddam had no reason to frame the nations that didn't intend to invade, it makes you wonder who forged and planted them, and why?
Considering (As Kerry pointed out repeatedly) the US spent more time securing the Oil ministry than places like Al Qataa, and given that it wasn't secured well enough to prevent access to the materials there, what does that say?
Either US soldiers are even more incompetent than we would think, OR, the documents were planted by US soldiers.