Embarrassing new report: US paid more kickbacks to Saddam in oil for food scandal than entire world put together. OOPS

[imported_Tango]

Of course. The whole UN thing was usefull to discredit the institution in public opinion eyes at the time of its Iraq war opposition. In a global context EVERY country is involved in the same business traffics.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Typical. Got any more bashing you want to do around here, n00b?

Bashing? WTF?

Your blinders need adjusting.

Someone seems a little sensitive, and I don't think it's conjur.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Phokus

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.

The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.

The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived yesterday in Washington demanding an apology from the Senate for what he called the "schoolboy dossier" passed off as an investigation against him.

"It was full of holes, full of falsehoods and full of value judgments that are apparently only shared here in Washington," he said at Washington Dulles airport.

He told Reuters: "I have no expectation of justice ... I come not as the accused but as the accuser. I am [going] to show just how absurd this report is."

Mr Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and will come face to face with the committee in what promises to be one of the most highly charged pieces of political theatre seen in Washington for some time.

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.

In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.

After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".

Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."

The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.

Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.

Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.

An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.

It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.

The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html

I like how the us government/neo-cons are all high and mighty when corporations outside America does this, but when American corporations do this, they turn a blind eye. Hooray for hypocrisy.

Who was in power when this was all going down. Oh yeah, BILL CLINTON. Nice job Billy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Phokus

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.

The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.

The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived yesterday in Washington demanding an apology from the Senate for what he called the "schoolboy dossier" passed off as an investigation against him.

"It was full of holes, full of falsehoods and full of value judgments that are apparently only shared here in Washington," he said at Washington Dulles airport.

He told Reuters: "I have no expectation of justice ... I come not as the accused but as the accuser. I am [going] to show just how absurd this report is."

Mr Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and will come face to face with the committee in what promises to be one of the most highly charged pieces of political theatre seen in Washington for some time.

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.

In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.

After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".

Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."

The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.

Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.

Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.

An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.

It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.

The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html

I like how the us government/neo-cons are all high and mighty when corporations outside America does this, but when American corporations do this, they turn a blind eye. Hooray for hypocrisy.

Who was in power when this was all going down. Oh yeah, BILL CLINTON. Nice job Billy.

Started under Clinton, knowingly continued under Bush. Then the whole UN Oil for Food scandal broke out, trying to paint everyone but the US as some kind of villain in bed with Saddam. Now we hear that the US was more involved then everyone else put together. Hmmmm.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Phokus

US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'

Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms

Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.

The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.

The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived yesterday in Washington demanding an apology from the Senate for what he called the "schoolboy dossier" passed off as an investigation against him.

"It was full of holes, full of falsehoods and full of value judgments that are apparently only shared here in Washington," he said at Washington Dulles airport.

He told Reuters: "I have no expectation of justice ... I come not as the accused but as the accuser. I am [going] to show just how absurd this report is."

Mr Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and will come face to face with the committee in what promises to be one of the most highly charged pieces of political theatre seen in Washington for some time.

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.

In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.

After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".

Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."

The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.

Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.

Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.

An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.

It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.

The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html

I like how the us government/neo-cons are all high and mighty when corporations outside America does this, but when American corporations do this, they turn a blind eye. Hooray for hypocrisy.

Who was in power when this was all going down. Oh yeah, BILL CLINTON. Nice job Billy.

to the rest of the world it doesnt matter, it was the US not the Democrat party US or the Republican party US, just plain and simple US

 

[arsbanned]

Trotting out the "BLAME CLINTON!" banners already. Then they talk about "Personal Responsibility" and "Family Values" It's enough to turn my stomach.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And the usual suspects attempt to deflect any blame from Clinton, under whom this problem went on for years, and focus only on Bush, where the problem went on for months. How typical.

And do they focus on the actual problem? No. They divert attention away from the actual issue and regurgitate the same old lines, seemingly begging like the Wizard of Oz to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." It's laughable.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Ok, here's the issue... we blamed the UN for everything regarding the O.F.F. scandal. We chastised, made fun of, harrassed and tried to embarrass them to the nth degree. Turns out we're (U.S.) the biggest whores in this matter.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Ok, here's the issue... we blamed the UN for everything regarding the O.F.F. scandal. We chastised, made fun of, harrassed and tried to embarrass them to the nth degree. Turns out we're (U.S.) the biggest whores in this matter.

Based on what? because you say so? Or based on a squalid Gaurdian aticle that ommited relevant facts of the case? Has anyone tied the OFF scandal to any top level officials in the US government? Not AFAIK. The same can't be said for Britian, France, or Russia.

But hey, let's pretend the US is the biggest "whore" in this matter and disregard the rest. So long as you guys can focus on Bush and Co to the exclusion of all else, nothing else matters. Right?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Ok, here's the issue... we blamed the UN for everything regarding the O.F.F. scandal. We chastised, made fun of, harrassed and tried to embarrass them to the nth degree. Turns out we're (U.S.) the biggest whores in this matter.

Based on what? because you say so? Or based on a squalid Gaurdian aticle that ommited relevant facts of the case? Has anyone tied the OFF scandal to any top level officials in the US government? Not AFAIK. The same can't be said for Britian, France, or Russia.

But hey, let's pretend the US is the biggest "whore" in this matter and disregard the rest. So long as you guys can focus on Bush and Co to the exclusion of all else, nothing else matters. Right?

hahah you saying that zirinosky is a top level official?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And the usual suspects attempt to deflect any blame from Clinton, under whom this problem went on for years, and focus only on Bush, where the problem went on for months. How typical.

And do they focus on the actual problem? No. They divert attention away from the actual issue and regurgitate the same old lines, seemingly begging like the Wizard of Oz to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." It's laughable.

Really? Was it Clinton who tried to smear everyone else with this scandal? No one has defended Clinton, just called out the hypocrisy of the Bush Admin, again.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Who was in power when this was all going down. Oh yeah, BILL CLINTON. Nice job Billy.

Yeah. Started in "September 2002". Clinton sure had a lot of power in those last 3-4 months in office. And, of course, the entire government had nothing else on its mind. Forget the USS Cole bombing and the fiasco of an election.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Tango
Of course. The whole UN thing was usefull to discredit the institution in public opinion eyes at the time of its Iraq war opposition. In a global context EVERY country is involved in the same business traffics.

This is what it comes down to.

 

[Jhhnn]

The fact that the iraqis were forced to sell at a discount insures kickbacks, plain and simple. The people who initiated the plan likely knew it full well. In many respects, that's how business is done in that part of the world- witness the Halliburton/Kuwaiti gasoline scandal.

So a lot of well-connected people made a lot of money off the deal, as was intended. Saddam got his, too, and the iraqi people benefitted, as well... I'd be extremely surprised if some of the schemers weren't American.

The problem for the Repubs now is damage control- what they represented as something only the freedom-hating french, russian, english and assorted "other" people would engage in was apparently performed by Americans, as well. Ths whole round of self-serving accusations has come back around to land on their doorstep.The issue with the treasury dept refusing to release the pertinent records to the UN is pretty damning, after all... indicating some well placed influence being applied.

When you get to the bottom line, what's the difference between paying Saddam kickbacks for cheap oil and paying the repub campaign machine for tax breaks, anyway?

 

[imported_Tango]

When does the american public start to turn everything into a democrats vs. republican struggle? I wish truth were that simple... do you really think that international business really changes depending on who's sitting at the white house? That multinational corporations take orders from the US senate? From Clinton? Bush? The State Department? Why do you think their money are kept in Swiss and Cayman Island banks?

 

[Jhhnn]

For a variety of reasons, Tango. It wasn't the Dems trying to ddiscredit the ROTW with accusations about the whole oil for food deal, after all. It was the Repubs, trying to find a way to discredit their international detractors wrt the invasion of Iraq. One of those attack the messenger deals.

The other side of it is that Dems will always be relatively poor performers wrt campaign contributions from business interests and the wealthy. Dems are philosophically and politically compromised by their labor base. Repubs have no such divided loyalties, and give better bang for the buck... sleazy profits from oil for food scheming being no exception, and no problem at all... heck, they'll cover your butt by having the treasury dept withold info from the UN..

 

[aidanjm]

How does the second article someone posted discredit the first article? I don't see it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're right, aidanjm. The second article just spins it a little differently. American companies didn't pay direct kickbacks, according to the second article, they used a Russian firm as a beard, instead. Plausible deniability, and all that...

It's based on the same principle as Delay's corporate cronies laundering their largesse thru non-profits- this time, they're laundering oil...