I wonder if the “the UN is unspeakably corrupt and Jacques Chirac took oil-for-food bribes” meme will be hit by the news that the Chalabi crony who broke the news has ‘lost all the evidence in a computer crash’?
I remember a few school and university deadlines where I ‘lost my completed essay in a computer crash’. I don’t think my teachers were terribly convinced then – and I’m not even wanted for fraud (nor have I ever lied to lead a country into war…)
Update: oops, forgot to hat tip the splendid Josh Marshall.
Maybe you should check out this article from May 27th, John. The D.T. -my DNOC when I choose- has been going downhill faster than a late entrant into a village cheese-rolling competition. I agree with Josh it’s incredibly disjointed journalism.
So much for news emerging ‘last night’.
As for what it all means- dirty trick or convenient excuse-I think that we’re meant to be kept guessing about that by whoever is dictating the game.
I know who has the muscle on their side.
Darnit, forgot the link:
http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000924.html
Surely the Yanks have the muscle in Iraq, not the UN? Unless that’s the point, in which case I’m mighty confused. Maybe I should do a Masters in Kremlinology…
I did in fact mean US ‘muscle’- because every indication is that the decision-makers do not want to humiliate the UN or antagonise Russia or France, for reasons of pragmatism. I suppose they have to win a war, and ten billion was only significant in the particular context of Saddam and the UN- it’s peanuts by comparison with the US economy, though the trade was useful at the time for French and Russian interests. Besides, there were US and British interests too- just not as many or on the same scale.
I think that the moral outrage brigade is very small by comparison with the political interests at stake.
Hope that’s clear.