Help needed on oil for food program.

[progressivejazz]

For months the right has been pounding the oil for food "scandal". Now they're trying to use it to change the subject when I bring up the true scandal of lying this country into war.

My problem is I'm weak on the oil for food issue. I know there have been a couple of reports, one last week. I think I remember that oil for food was an attempt to mitigate the harm done to the Iraqi people by the sanctions against Iraq the U.S. and Great Britain imposed independently of the UN. The number I recall associated with the so-called scandal is something like $1.8 Billion, whereas the number associated with our letting Saddam ship oil to Turkey and others is more like $8 Billion.

If anybody can help me firm up my knowledge of this issue, I'd be very appreciative. I'd like to slam these right-wingers as soon as they open their mouths, but I need facts rather than my hazy recollections.

[brainshrub]

1. Read/Watch Galloway's testimony before the Senate back 5 months ago.

Everything you need to know is there.

[progressivejazz]

4. Will do.

I remember it was effective, but forget what he said just now.

Thanks.

[occuserpens]

2. UNOFF is a spawn of IWMD

UNOFF was set under Clinton as an alternative for lifting the sanctions. Now we know that IWMD were destroyed shortly after GW-1991, so sanctions had to actually lifted. To prevent this from happening, an early version of IWMD fabrication machine was set up and UN was framed into OFF. Scott Ritter warned about this, but he was ignored.

Next, inevitable real corruption and more fabrications were used to smear the UN, France, Russia, Galloway and others.

[Catch22Dem]

3. I wish I could help you more, but

Ask them why they're changing the subject. Tell them, "I'll talk about oil for food, once you acknowledge that there's a traitor in the White House." Don't let them change the subject on you.

[progressivejazz]

5. Oh, I do call them on changing the subject.

It's just that I want to come at them from a knowledgeable position when the subject later inevitably changes. If I tell them "I'll talk about oil for food,....." that means I'll have to talk about oil for food eventually. I want to be prepared.

[Catch22Dem]

6. I'd try something like...

"Whoa, stop right there. You're branching off into a separate topic, one that involves the UN and its leaders, Iraq and its leaders, and other entities outside this topic. I'm talking about a traitor in the highest levels of OUR own government. Surely you realize that's much more important."

I'm sure that's pretty much how you handle it anyway, I just wanted to say it. :D

Here's a lot of information about OFF, but remember, it's from Wiki, so anything you find here really ought to be sourced elsewhere. Wiki can be edited by anyone, but from my experience it's usually extremely accurate. They closely monitor it and don't let bullshit stand. Thus, I feel like I can trust the information, but if I want to use the information, I try to get a second source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food_program