| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
After accusing the U.S. of seeking to control Iraq’s oil, the following must raise eyebrows:
The rebuilding efforts are to be funded by oil revenues that are now controlled by the United Nations. [.....]
The unilateral actions [lifting sanctions against Iraq] outlined by the administration Wednesday were “wholly consistent” with the U.N. restrictions, U.S. officials said, and were not an attempt by the United States to preempt U.N. authority.
But they appeared likely to send a strong signal of U.S. impatience to Security Council members who have been reluctant to lift international sanctions until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq is free of banned weapons. France, Russia and some other council members, fearing that a U.S.-supported government in Iraq would cut them out of reconstruction efforts, have wanted to keep Iraq’s oil resources under U.N. control.
So let me get this straight. France and Germany accused the U.S. of being in Iraq in order to seize control of Iraqi oil. Now it turns out that we’re trying to give control of the oil back to Iraq, and the U.N. is seeking to seize control of it.
Not only that, they’re doing it on the basis of seeking weapons of mass destruction, which up until now they claimed didn’t exist.
How absurd is that?
