First of all, Iraq has simply not had that much money from selling oil. It could sell more oil if it was allowed to rebuild its industrial base - but we haven't allowed that to happen.
Second of all, what Oil-for-Food money is spent on is decided by UN 661 Committee - not by Saddam Hussain.
Third of all, most of the Iraqi children who have died have died of a lack of infrastructure - but you can't restore availability of clean water (for example) by importing food and medicine. You can only do this by importing the technology and supplies needed to return Iraq's economy to the 20th century - which the US won't allow. (Nor, for that matter, is it possible to rebuild a modern hospital without access to technology). Importing food and medicine won't give Iraq the capacity to dispose of sewage in a safe, sanitary manner. Importing food and medicine won't allow Iraq to restore electric power needed to run hospitals and sewage plants. Importing food and medicine won't restore Iraq's agricultural base.
Not to mention the occasional, ongoing US bombing of Iraq, which also makes rebuilding infrastructure difficult.
Fourth of all, the oil-for-food program currently brings in $252 per Iraqi per year. Have you tried eating on $252 per year? Would that strike you as adequate? What evidence do you have to show that Iraq has the infrastructure and technology necessary to sell ten times as much oil as it does currently?
Fifth of all, if the idea of US responsibility for the humanitarian crisis is just a self-serving story created by Hussain, then why have so many knowlegable people bought the story? Critics of the US State Department and the sanctions include two UN heads of the Food-for-Oil program (both of whom resigned in disgust), two former heads of the UN Iraqi weapons inspection team, and numerious international humanitarian observers. Many of these people seem far better placed to know what is happening in Iraq, and who is to blame for the failures of the Old-For-Food program, than anyone else in the world. Are all of these people in Hussain's pocket, in your opinion?
Finally, even if you were right on any facts at all (which you're not), so what? If Hussain is deliberately starving children as a tool for ending sanctions, then the responsible thing to do is to end the sanctions. The sanctions do absolutely nothing to topple Hussain from power; UN inspections confirm that Iraq is nowhere close to having the capacity for building weapons of mass destruction; Hussain is (according to you) purposesly starving his people to make the sanctions look bad. So what's the up side of the sanctions?
It seems to me that if, as you claim, the predictable response of Hussain to sanctions is killing his own people by the hundreds of thousands, then the moral response by the US is to stop the sanctions so that Hussain no longer has an excuse for his mass killings.
--BD