found this a bit interesting--

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2618260

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/19305.htm

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=46694

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040421/1/3jmvw.html

seeing this no wonder the UN and certain countries were against the war.........

I'm guessing that the proposed constitutional ammendment is looking slightly less important? ...

Vote for gridlock in November (Bush with a Democratic House and Senate) ????

An honest politician is a contradiction in terms.

This could be a disaster for certain members/individuals of the UN. It's also been clear for some time that more control is needed as some members seem to think it's a gravy train. Checked out one of the links, found this interesting:

"Those named were said to have received oil contracts under the programme...as thanks for political support for Saddam’s regime..."

Change "Saddam's" to "Bush's" and you have a good description of Haliburton, Carlyle Group, Enron etc's role in American Govt. and Iraq rebuilding (i.e. use military to destroy it then charge US taxpayers to "rebuild" it).