|
No.
I wrote a long piece over a year ago at SOCNET on why the blood-for-oil argument was as invalid for France opposing war as it was for the US going to war, but there's no need to rehash that argument here. The question is whether the article provides any evidence in support of that argument, and not the merits and demerits of the argument itself. The al-Mada article alleges bribes in 1998 and the most senior person named was even then a former cabinet minister (and intraparty rival of Chirac, by the way). There may be more recent bribes, and there may be higher level officials involved, and there may be an explict quid pro quo of opposing the US, but there is no evidence in that article, the documents it is based on, or anywhere else to substantiate that.
|