Saddam's Oil for Food scam worse than originally stated

[obby]

If 12 + years of failure is not long enough for some here then for real.....how many years would it take for you to say enough is enough? Honestly ! I just want a number (larger than 12 obviously).

[mursa]

..lol , you sheep crack me up .

Fact is you folks are close minded , im not , you folks most probably have never left the continental US , I have . Case closed .......shhhhhhh enjoy the cricketts .

ps.... Nerdboy , me likey ! ..better a nerd with a biology degree at 23 than a Sheep living in his moms basement (igloo) .

[mursa]

..lol , you sheep crack me up .

Fact is you folks are close minded , im not , you folks most probably have never left the continental US , I have . Case closed .......shhhhhhh enjoy the cricketts .

ps.... Nerdboy , me likey ! ..better a nerd with a biology degree at 23 than a Sheep living in his moms basement (igloo) .

[jtk4]

12 years of failure at what? Being the world police? Then yes they have failed but to say that they have done nothing good then you do not know anything about the UN. They have helped countries, they have helped people, they have helped the planet. You guys are just pissed because they were against the us to invade iraq. Get over it.

[obby]

Wrong !!!!!!!

I'm bitter because they could have prevented the war if they would have stood firm to their words. They could have easily added another 30 nations to back us all up...........ohh wait thats right. OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL.

Give me a number jtk4. Everything else aside. How many years would it take for you to say enough is enough? Just wondering.

[mursa]

. You guys are just pissed because they were against the us to invade iraq. Get over it.

In a nutshell, thats basically it .

[kramadas]

Wrong !!!!!!!

I'm bitter because they could have prevented the war if they would have stood firm to their words. They could have easily added another 30 nations to back us all up...........ohh wait thats right. OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL.

Give me a number jtk4. Everything else aside. How many years would it take for you to say enough is enough? Just wondering.

I think you need to widen your scope than just the current conflict. There have been many many many needs of the UN other than to just back the US on its war against Iraq. Like jtk4 said, they cannot do shit as a police force, but I think have done a lot in terms of humanitarian aid.

[jtk4]

Wrong !!!!!!!

I'm bitter because they could have prevented the war if they would have stood firm to their words. They could have easily added another 30 nations to back us all up...........ohh wait thats right. OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL.

Give me a number jtk4. Everything else aside. How many years would it take for you to say enough is enough? Just wondering.

Ok besides this what have they done wrong and i will post 6 million things they have done that is good for the world. Nothing is perfect, just like the US, but like us they have done more good then bad. Its not like our country's comapnies do not break sanctions.(halliburton-iran) so do not give me this holier then now bullshit

ANd to say they could of prevented this war is shit, the only way saddam was going to be out of power is death or the us invading.

[obby]

ANd to say they could of prevented this war is shit, the only way saddam was going to be out of power is death or the us invading.

I disagree !!!!!!

[nootsy]

How come it does not mention the american companies that took part in this?

Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and Valero Energy Corp, halliburton

How quick we are to judge other countires

They werent mentioned because they werent involved in the food for oil scam.

[tres-b]

It is easy for an organization to look like the hero when they are sending food to starving kids, helping people suffering from AIDS in Africa, etc. However what is being skimmed off the top?

If you follow the oil for food $$ from Saddam to Europe to the bank accounts of families of Muslim terrorists who murdered innocent Israelis you can draw the easy connection that the UN was funding terrorism. Additionally, the UN has always been accussed of being a somewhat anti-semetic organization. Did those in the know at the UN not realize this was going on? Please...

The UN is an outdated organization that is dying that must modernize. The war in Iraq has exposed the fact that countries need the UN to function.

[chris817]

They werent mentioned because they werent involved in the food for oil scam.

uhh they were so, stop listening to Fox or rush

[nootsy]

Wrong !!!!!!!

I'm bitter because they could have prevented the war if they would have stood firm to their words. They could have easily added another 30 nations to back us all up...........ohh wait thats right. OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL.

Give me a number jtk4. Everything else aside. How many years would it take for you to say enough is enough? Just wondering.

They will never say enough is enough - The Liberals in this country are going to be on the wrong side of history on this one. Kofi made Millions of dollars on the oil for food as did the rest of the U(seless) N. They dont care about 911 - They dont care abouth the sucide bombings in Isreal and they dont care about the inhumanity and terrorism that is running rampant in many countries all they care about is How to exploit the UN. They have rendered it powerless. I am not a big Clinton fan but I remember hearing he was thinking of going for the job of U.N president ( I am not sure if thats a rumor) - If thats true I think it may be a good idea. Clinton likes a good BJ but I dont think he will pull the shit this guy Kofi is pulling. The U.N is a corrupt organization that has no problem sending U.S troops to die when it serves their purpose.

[nootsy]

Can I get a double post

[nootsy]

uhh they were so, stop listening to Fox or rush

The U.S was not involved in that scam. Granted we have had our problems but not that one. I know how you libs like to trace everything back to Bush but sorry not this time. By the way if it was true then wouldnt the blame lay on the Clinton administration?? since he was in office for 8 years during this scandal? well thank god its not true

[jtk4]

sweet so besides this fiasco the un has done more good then bad right. AS long as they do not play world police because that is the US's job, and focus on helping people they are ok.

What could the UN have done that would of prevented this war, the bad intel would of still been there. Bush still would of wanted to go in because of the bad intel. Saddam was making billions of dollars that was used to pay off suiside baombers families but even with that money he had no wmd's. If the un did not give him money, someone else would have because money is money and people are greedy fuckers. There are always ways around sancions as our VP has shown.

Halliburton still deals with iran to the tune of 25 million a year, where is the outrage? This started when our VP was in charge. What is the difference except iran is closer to having wmd? Can someone explain that to me, why is it outrages for these people to beat sanctions and deal with saddam, but not when halliburton which has ties to the white house goes around sanctions and deals with iran? Both regimes support terrorism, repress and kill the people in their country. It is ok when we do this bullshit but when these other countries do it, or the un does it and people can not believe it.

[jtk4]

The United States had concluded that Iraq, Libya, and Iran supported terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them. Yet during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton the company did business in all three countries. In the case of Iraq, Halliburton legally evaded U.S. sanctions by conducting its oil-service business through foreign subsidiaries that had once been owned by Dresser. With Iran and Libya, Halliburton used its own subsidiaries. The use of foreign subsidiaries may have helped the company to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

In some ways, the Libya and Iran transactions were consistent with Cheney's views. He had long opposed economic sanctions as a political tool, even against South Africa's apartheid regime. During the 2000 campaign, however, Cheney said he viewed Iraq differently. "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he told ABC News. But, under Cheney's watch, two foreign subsidiaries of Dresser sold millions of dollars' worth of oil services and parts to Saddam's regime. The transactions were not illegal, but they were politically suspect. The deals occurred under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, at a time when Saddam Hussein chose which companies his government would work with. Corruption was rampant. It may be that it was simply Halliburton's expertise that attracted Saddam's regime, but a United Nations diplomat with the Oil-for-Food program has doubts. "Most American companies were blacklisted," he said. "It's rather surprising to find Halliburton doing business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level decision, made by the regime at the top." Cheney has said that he personally directed the company to stop doing business with Saddam. Halliburton's presence in Iraq ended in February, 2000.

The basis for keeping the names of U.S. individuals secret is supposedly the 1974 Privacy Act. But that act only shields individuals. To justify hiding the names of the companies that were in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, the CIA's lawyers had to rely on an obscure executive order made by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

So yeah US companies were involved we just will not know which ones, but seeing how we are one of the top buyer and user of oil I will go out on a limb and say we were involved. So get off the high horse folks.

[jtk4]

[nootsy]

Dont get too excited - I have been busy today. Dont forget that Clinton used Haliburton all through the 90s, as a matter of fact most of the things cited in your essay happened through the Clinton administration. Second - you are citing abc news LOL. Finnaly If you read here are some interesting quotes -

"The transactions were not illegal "

"Cheney has said that he personally directed the company to stop doing business with Saddam. Halliburton's presence in Iraq ended in February, 2000."

What was going on with forieghn countries that you all know and love is in fact illegal. Not to mention the weapons that our soilders are encountering are French and Russian. I guess the French might as well sell them since they never have the balls to use them.

[jtk4]

Dont get too excited - I have been busy today. Dont forget that Clinton used Haliburton all through the 90s, as a matter of fact most of the things cited in your essay happened through the Clinton administration. Second - you are citing abc news LOL. Finnaly If you read here are some interesting quotes -

"The transactions were not illegal "

"Cheney has said that he personally directed the company to stop doing business with Saddam. Halliburton's presence in Iraq ended in February, 2000."

What was going on with forieghn countries that you all know and love is in fact illegal. Not to mention the weapons that our soilders are encountering are French and Russian. I guess the French might as well sell them since they never have the balls to use them.

So the companies were doing the same thing the others were doing they were just smart enough to cover it. Also "halliburton stopped doing business in 2000" thats great the sanctions started in 1992. What does Clinton have to do with this?

Weapons get sold and resold then resold. Are you saying france is arming the insurgents?

[nootsy]

So the companies were doing the same thing the others were doing they were just smart enough to cover it. Also "halliburton stopped doing business in 2000" thats great the sanctions started in 1992. What does Clinton have to do with this?

Weapons get sold and resold then resold. Are you saying france is arming the insurgents?

Listen to yourself - he other companies (foriegn) were illegally trading for oil - That the operative word Illegal. Maybe thats why they hid what they were doing????? - You Implied that Haliburton had connections to the white Hose because Cheney was in office. Well lets see - The sanctions started in 1992 and Haliburton stopped doing business in 2000 - Who was in the white house? Must be Bushs fault. I love how you liberals like to blame everything on Bush. Haliburton - Haliburton - Haliburton. Its your Battle Cry - Guess what American is sick of being self hating and that is why the DEM party was driven so far out of office. Time to change the Game plan

[jtk4]

are fucking kidding me, how did this turn into a party vs party. This has to do with us screaming and yelling at these countries for breaking sanctions when OUR companies do the same thing. As a COUNTRY we have been doing the same things these countries did. This has nothing to do with bush/chaney/republicans/democrats it has to do with everyone.

halliburton does have connections to the white house. They also deal with Iran, i was making the connection between our country breaking sanctions and foriegn countries breaking sanctions.

[chris817]

The U.S was not involved in that scam. Granted we have had our problems but not that one. I know how you libs like to trace everything back to Bush but sorry not this time. By the way if it was true then wouldnt the blame lay on the Clinton administration?? since he was in office for 8 years during this scandal? well thank god its not true

Yes we were deal with it; I'm not blaming bush or clinton. I was just pointing out if we are to blame other countries, we need to include ourselves in the story. I will only blame Bush if he is covering up something or someone.

http://www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=452

Duelfer Report Hides Americans Involved in Oil-for-Food Corruption

CIA lawyers ordered Duelfer to keep secret names of Americans and American companies

Friday, October 8, 2004

With every one of his 30-odd justifications for the Iraq war in tatters, George W. Bush and his veep are now trying to claim the corruption of the United Nations Oil-for-food program is reason enough to invade. Indeed, for months, Republicans and President Bush have been obsessed with the corruption of the Oil-for-Food program as a means for bashing former allies like France and the UN in general. What they don't want to trumpet is the names of American individuals and corporations that were similarly engaged in bribes and illicit trade with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. One can imagine that if Dick Cheney were one of those individuals, there would be a lot of pressure to keep that secret.

As the Washington Post reports on page A8 today, the CIA forced Duelfer to censor any mention of Americans, leaving only other countries implicated: CIA analyst Charles A. Duelfer's report on Iraq's weapons programs included lists of governments, political parties, companies and individuals from at least 44 nations who received vouchers to buy oil -- both legally and otherwise -- from the Iraqi government during Saddam Hussein's reign.

The names on the politically explosive list are French, Russian, Chinese, Canadian and Japanese; if Duelfer had had his way, U.S. companies and individuals would have been included, too.

But he was overruled by CIA lawyers. The report instead lists some voucher recipients only as "U.S. person" and "U.S. company." The basis for keeping the names of U.S. individuals secret is supposedly the 1974 Privacy Act. But that act only shields individuals. To justify hiding the names of the companies that were in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, the CIA's lawyers had to rely on an obscure executive order made by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The Post reports in another article on the oil vouchers that although the Duelfer report censors the names of U.S. individuals and companies, it can be deduced that three American oil companies are among them — Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, and Valero Energy: But in June, three U.S. oil companies disclosed that they had received subpoenas in connection with a federal investigation into the program: Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and Valero Energy Corp.

Valero has said that it is cooperating fully, that the company had no direct contact with Iraq and that the subpoena does not imply any wrongdoing. Prem Nair, a spokeswoman for Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that the company did not violate any laws. "All purchases were documented as being in full compliance with all laws," Nair said. ChevronTexaco did not return a phone call. According to an oil industry trade publication, "Under the United Nations oil-for-food program, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and Valero, an independent refining company, were among the biggest American buyers of Iraqi oil through international traders."

Of course, since the names of the Americans and American companies that Duelfer's survey team found were involved in the oil-for-food corruption have been kept classified, we have no idea who else might have been involved. Need we ask whether Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and its subsidiaries were whited-out or blacked-out of Duelfer's report?

The Boston Globe also covers the story. They report David Kay saying yesterday that "There were Americans involved." And that:

"Bush administration officials who asked not to be identified confirmed that US investigators in Iraq have targeted several American companies and individuals -- none of whom were US government officials at the time -- for allegedly providing Hussein's government with goods prohibited by UN sanctions, which were applied against Iraq after its defeat in the 1991 Persian Gulf War." Now that's an interesting wording. Why would they say these individuals weren't US government officials at the time unless they were US government officials at some other time, either formerly, after, or even today? Dick Cheney was -- famously -- not a US government official at the time, for example.

UPDATE at 4:10 p.m.: From the New Yorker: The United States had concluded that Iraq, Libya, and Iran supported terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them. Yet during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton the company did business in all three countries. In the case of Iraq, Halliburton legally evaded U.S. sanctions by conducting its oil-service business through foreign subsidiaries that had once been owned by Dresser. With Iran and Libya, Halliburton used its own subsidiaries. The use of foreign subsidiaries may have helped the company to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

In some ways, the Libya and Iran transactions were consistent with Cheney's views. He had long opposed economic sanctions as a political tool, even against South Africa's apartheid regime. During the 2000 campaign, however, Cheney said he viewed Iraq differently. "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he told ABC News. But, under Cheney's watch, two foreign subsidiaries of Dresser sold millions of dollars' worth of oil services and parts to Saddam's regime. The transactions were not illegal, but they were politically suspect. The deals occurred under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, at a time when Saddam Hussein chose which companies his government would work with. Corruption was rampant. It may be that it was simply Halliburton's expertise that attracted Saddam's regime, but a United Nations diplomat with the Oil-for-Food program has doubts. "Most American companies were blacklisted," he said. "It's rather surprising to find Halliburton doing business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level decision, made by the regime at the top." Cheney has said that he personally directed the company to stop doing business with Saddam. Halliburton's presence in Iraq ended in February, 2000.

[nootsy]

are fucking kidding me, how did this turn into a party vs party. This has to do with us screaming and yelling at these countries for breaking sanctions when OUR companies do the same thing. As a COUNTRY we have been doing the same things these countries did. This has nothing to do with bush/chaney/republicans/democrats it has to do with everyone.

halliburton does have connections to the white house. They also deal with Iran, i was making the connection between our country breaking sanctions and foriegn countries breaking sanctions.

You were the one who put the connections with the white house into play - What I am telling you is that when this was going on the person in the white house was Bill Clinton.

The difference is our country - this administration has taken these things more seriously. You are right in the sense that this country was asleep at the wheel. Well now we are awake - The U.N is useless. Do you realise that they drag our asses into every God damn war and the one time we call on them for help they all have their hands in the cookie jar. Well unlike John Kerry I do not want to see our Troops die under a U.N Flag - I do not want to see our troops being judged by international courts and I certainly DO not want foriegn commanders giving order to our men when our Privates are better trained then most foriegn Generals. The U.N has let that Greedy little piece of crap Kofi turn it into a joke. Their is talk of Bill Clinton running for his job and although he was not my favorite president I would much rather see him there. The world does not have a series of checks and balances like we do - As much as we do not like each others views the opposition always keeps one another from getting too corrupt (or corrupt at all) many of these forign nations dont get that - The leaders are unopposed and the corruption runs rampant. Libya heads the human rights commission in the U.N - Give me a fn break. Get the U.N out of NYC and build the stadium there

[nootsy]

I can sit here and show you articles all day long Too. All you guys are missing is the NY times. Here is the problem - If the U.S was involved like you would have us believe why didnt the U.N (who had a seperate investigation) pick up on it?? Or did the CIA silence them too?

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The French bank that handled funds for the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq made tens of millions of dollars in fees and did not properly monitor transactions involving Saddam Hussein's oil sales, congressional investigators said yesterday.

The New York branch of the Banque Nationale de Paris-Paribas, or BNP Paribas, was the sole bank for administering the $64 billion U.N. program and did not have adequate checks on whether money was being funneled to terrorists, a House International Relations Committee probe found.

"We have uncovered what appears to be serious malfeasance on an international scale," said Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican and chairman of the committee. "There are indications that the bank may have been noncompliant in administering the oil-for-food program. If true, these possible banking lapses may have facilitated Saddam Hussein's manipulation and corruption of the program."

Committee investigators uncovered evidence that BNP Paribas made payments without proof that goods were delivered and sanctioned payments to third parties not identified as authorized recipients, Mr. Hyde said at a hearing yesterday.

Mr. Hyde said investigators think the bank "facilitated improper payments to companies that were shipping illegal goods to Iraq."

Investigators estimate that the bank received more than $700 million in fees under the U.N. program that began in 1996 and ended after the ouster of Saddam in March 2003, Mr. Hyde said.

"This is a lot of money, and it is reasonable to ask if BNP Paribas adequately supervised its compliance programs overseeing the administration of the oil-for-food program," he said.

Mr. Hyde said problems with the oil-for-food program prompted him to introduce legislation yesterday to require greater accountability at the United Nations. "We need international institutions that are transparent, answerable to outside scrutiny and beyond reproach," he said. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Tom Lantos, California Democrat.

The House inquiry is one of at least three congressional investigations into the oil-for-food program. In addition, the Bush administration is investigating the program, and the United Nations has started its own probe, led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

Everett Schenk, the chief executive officer of BNP Paribas in North America, told the committee that the bank followed the direction of the United Nations in issuing letters of credit under the oil-for-food program.

He denied that the bank improperly made payments under the program. Apart from "temporary backlogs" in administering letters of credit, the bank acted within U.S. laws and regulations, he said.

However, committee investigators said that in at least one case, the bank issued three U.N.-approved payments for Al Riyahd International Flowers that instead were paid to a company known as East Star Trading Co. Ltd.

"These third-party payments were an exception to BNP's procedures relating to the assignment of letter of credit proceeds," one investigator said. "BNP explained that a senior manager at BNP authorized this exception based on the request of Al Riyahd International Flowers and did so in accordance with BNP's procedures for the escrow account."

Committee investigators said eight government agencies notified the French bank about "deficiencies" in handling money in the U.N. program. Four internal audits and memoranda also found problems with the bank's procedures.

Mr. Hyde said some U.S. allies "did all they could to facilitate business" with Saddam's regime, and that committee investigators think Saddam used money obtained through oil sales to fund terrorists.

"According to the information provided to this committee, Saddam paid $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through the Iraqi ambassador to Jordan out of accounts in the Rafidain bank in Amman, which held kickback money Saddam demanded from suppliers to his regime," Mr. Hyde said.

Mr. Lantos, the committee's ranking Democrat, said Russia and France were involved in helping the regime through commercial transactions and political support within the United Nations. He also said the State Department failed to act against illegal activities in the U.N. program.

"I'm stunned at the failure of our own State Department to put a halt to Saddam's larceny," Mr. Lantos said, adding that the committee should "turn our attention as far as Moscow and Paris, and as near as Foggy Bottom."

The panel investigators say Saddam was allowed to set the sale price of Iraqi oil 50 cents per barrel above market prices. That added amount was then paid back to his aides by oil purchasers and placed in banks in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The U.S. and British governments first uncovered the kickback scam in 2001 and, through a diplomatic battle at the United Nations, ended the "spot-pricing" of oil.

Russia and France opposed the U.S. and British effort because both countries were making money from the illicit oil sales, the investigators said.