http://www.nationalreview.com/...rosett200404182336.aspBeyond the billions in graft, smuggling, and lavish living for Saddam Hussein that were the hallmarks of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, there is one more penny yet to drop.
It's time to talk about Oil-for-Terror.
Especially with the U.N.'s own investigation into Oil-for-Food now taking shape, and more congressional hearings in the works, it is high time to focus on the likelihood that Saddam may have fiddled Oil-for-Food contracts not only to pad his own pockets, buy pals, and acquire clandestine arms ? but also to fund terrorist groups, quite possibly including al Qaeda.
There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." The other was a Swiss-registered subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during Osama bin Laden's 1990's heyday in Afghanistan.
These cases were reported in a carefully researched story published last June by Marc Perelman of the New York-based Forward, relying not only on interviews, but on corporate-registry documents and U.S. and U.N. terror-watch lists. It was an important dispatch but sank quickly from sight. At that stage, the U.N. was still busy praising its own $100-billion-plus Oil-for-Food program, even while trying quietly to strip out the huge graft overlay from the remaining $10 billion or so in contracts suddenly slated for handover to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). That was shortly before the records kept in Baghdad by Saddam began surfacing in such damning profusion that Secretary-General Kofi Annan was finally forced last month to stop stonewalling and agree to an independent investigation ? though just how independent remains to be seen.
As it now appears, Oil-for-Food pretty much evolved into a BCCI with a U.N. label. The stated aim of the program, which ran from 1996-2003, was to reduce the squeeze of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis by allowing Saddam to sell oil strictly to buy food and other relief supplies. As Oil-for-Food worked in practice, however, the program gave Saddam rich opportunity not only to pad his own pockets, but to fund almost anything and anyone else he chose, while the U.N. assured the world that all was well. (For the full saga, see my article in the May issue of Commentary, "The Oil-for-Food Scam: What Did Kofi Annan Know and When Did He Know It?").
For a sample of the latitude enjoyed by Saddam, there's Treasury's announcement last week that the U.S., in its latest round of efforts to recover Saddam's loot, is asking U.N. member states to freeze the assets of a worldwide group of eight front companies and five individuals that were "procuring weapons, skimming funds, operating for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and doing business in support of the fallen Saddam Hussein regime." The list includes a Dubai-based firm, Al Wasel & Babel General Trading, a major contractor under the Oil-for-Food program that turned out to be a front company set up by Saddam's regime specifically to sell goods (and procure arms) via the program ? right under the U.N.'s approving eye. Indeed, Al Wasel & Babel's website boasts that the company was set up in 1999 especially to "cater to the needs of Iraq Government under 'Oil for Food Program.' "
link between saddam and al qaeda
- Thread starter cmdavid
- Start date
There are only a few "links" here, quoted in the following paragraph.
Essentially what is being said is that two different firms purchased oil from Saddam and one of them had close ties to a trust that has something to do with Al Qaeda and the other dealt with the Taliban. No elaboration is provided on what "close ties" and "dealt with" entail. The firms could have sold the Taliban Dixie cups for all we know. And even if those are terrorism links, there is nothing to suggest Saddam was involved or even knew about those links...once you are going throught a third party, it's easy to make something look suspicious when it's not.
I'm not saying Saddam wasn't linked, but there is nothing in that article to suggest any kind of solid link. He sold oil to some companies that possibly have a link of some kind with the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda...give me a break, that's thin at best.
Essentially what is being said is that two different firms purchased oil from Saddam and one of them had close ties to a trust that has something to do with Al Qaeda and the other dealt with the Taliban. No elaboration is provided on what "close ties" and "dealt with" entail. The firms could have sold the Taliban Dixie cups for all we know. And even if those are terrorism links, there is nothing to suggest Saddam was involved or even knew about those links...once you are going throught a third party, it's easy to make something look suspicious when it's not.
I'm not saying Saddam wasn't linked, but there is nothing in that article to suggest any kind of solid link. He sold oil to some companies that possibly have a link of some kind with the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda...give me a break, that's thin at best.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Do a search on it if you want comments. This had been posted here before I am sure, the article you linked was written in April you know
yes, relationship between the two is very old news. move on to debunking other truths
and substituting your favorite lies. kevin bacon ? you mean monty python by way of
noam chomsky . . . nothing funny ofcourse.
there is a great book on the subject called 'the connection' by stephen f. hayes.
check it out. i think the info you posted above is more current than the evidence
hashed by hayes. the investigation is developing and gains being made slowly.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
There is a great movie that shows that no matter if there were ties to al-q or not, the Bush inner circle was jonesing to invade Iraq prior to 9/11, it's call Hijacking Catastrophe. All Americans should watch it, blows F9/11 out of the water, as if that were a hard task.
plans to invade iraq were hashed during the clinton regime in 1998. the best account of the bush
admin's build-up to war can be found in bob woodward's two books, 'bush at war' and 'plan of
attack'. woodward was granted inner circle access to all the major players, speaking to them in
person, sitting in on meetings, interviewing foreign leaders too.
bush, in fact, gave an explicit order for all members of his cabinet to cooperate with woodward.
needless to say they did.
the portrait woodward creats is fair and free of all the hysteria, lies, innuendo and other
misrepresentations favored by certain people.
1) Chevron and Halliburton made deals with Iran for oil
2) Iran now has nukes
3) Nukes are expensive
4) Chevron and Halliburton funded Iran's nuclear program.
5) Kevin Bacon once filled his gas at a Chevron station.
6) Kevin Bacon funded Iran's nuclear program.
I win.
2) Iran now has nukes
3) Nukes are expensive
4) Chevron and Halliburton funded Iran's nuclear program.
5) Kevin Bacon once filled his gas at a Chevron station.
6) Kevin Bacon funded Iran's nuclear program.
I win.
American public says, "I am intrigued. Please tell me more about how we can destroy Bacon and avenge 9/11"
1. Al Qaeda is not the only terror organization in the world.
2. Iraq's government sponsored terrorism.
2. Iraq's government sponsored terrorism.
yeah you can't forget the time in 1982 when Saddam gave 20 dollars to some dude that looked at reagan funny
Straight unadulterated FUD and innuendo, requiring the usual leap of faith- believing what you want to believe, even if there's not enough evidence to raise suspicion in the non-tinfoil hat crowd.
"may have" "could have" "might have" "intended to" blah, blah, blah... basic grasping at straws, attempting to grant innuendo the same weight as actual evidence... of which the article offers none whatsoever.
"may have" "could have" "might have" "intended to" blah, blah, blah... basic grasping at straws, attempting to grant innuendo the same weight as actual evidence... of which the article offers none whatsoever.
earthman
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 1999
- 1,653
- 0
- 71
Sounds like another attempt to justify a vanity war by an incompetent president. The fact is, even if there was some peripheral connection, intentional or not, there's a thousand times more terrorism in Iraq now than there was before, and 100,000 more people willing to be terrorists. This just in: The White House has announced that it has documented evidence that the elusive weapons of mass destruction are rumored to be hidden in the the glove box of a Toyota once owned by Saddam Hussein's fourth cousin. The Pentagon has announced that 20,000 troops will be withdrawn from South Korea to aid in the search for the missing vehicle. It was also announced that all troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan now that democracy has been established, and that the Kandahar Sheriff's Department will thake over the search for Osama Bin Laden
Yeah sure they were connected. Sure.... We believe George Bush, right?!! After all, he's proven his trustworthiness repeatedly! :disgust:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter