Yes, but it was a seven-year program, so you have to divide that 2700 by seven. Also the accounting done at the program's closing last November showed I think 46 or 47 billion in oil and goods exchanged over the period of the program, rather than 70. Seeing as the accounting was simultaneously monitored by 11 international aid orgs, as well as the UN and the participating governments, it seems like those figures at least are unlikely to be grossly wrong.

I mean, undoubtedly there's graft there, but I don't think nearly enough to explain a single European leader's position against the war. One thing you have to remember is that, the world over, politicians are politicians, and in France, Germany, et al, you had hundreds of thousands, millions of people in the street protesting against that war, And nothing to gain except for America's often fickle gratitude by going to war. Combine that with their general state of discomfort with humiliating the UN and their distrust of the Bush Administrations consistently unilateral policies regarding treaties, trade agreements, etc.., and being generally pissed off at our international behavior in general, I think you need look no further for the reasons they chose not join. And their distrust, economically of the administration was probably justified. What, for instance, has Britain gained in the area of large contracts, oil or otherwise? Contrast Britain's paltry booty with Exxon/Mobil who just yesterday posted a 67% increase in NET profit!!! this quarter, in spite of no increase in productivity. Probably most of that is due to the reduced tax, admittedly, but 67%??? I dunno.

db