Helping Saddam [Oil for Food? Guess what... BUSH KNEW!]

The Guardian ^ | May 17, 2005 | By Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson

[johnny7]

A Senate report says the Bush administration was aware of U.S. firms' illegal kickbacks to the Iraqi leader in oil-for-food sales but did nothing to stop them.

The U.S. 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 Monday night by Democratic staff on the Senate investigations subcommittee 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 subcommittee against U.N. staff and European politicians like British M.P. George Galloway and the former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua. In fact, the Senate report found that U.S. oil purchases accounted for 52 percent of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil -- more than those of the rest of the world put together. "The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated U.N. sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing U.N. sanctions," the report says. "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 U.N. secretary-general. The new findings are also likely to be raised when Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations Tuesday. The Respect M.P. for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived Monday in Washington and demanded 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." Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and will come face to face with the subcommittee in what promises to be one of the most highly charged pieces of political theater seen in Washington for some time.

Monday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. First, it found that the U.S. Treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, BayOil, that facilitated payment of "at least $37 million in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime." The surcharges were a violation of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, 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 cents a barrel in return for oil allocations. In its second main finding, the report said the U.S. military and the State Department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8 million barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the U.N.-monitored oil-for-food program. 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 U.N. monitors to obtain information about BayOil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the U.S. Treasury. After repeated requests over eight months from the U.N. and the U.S. State Department, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control wrote to BayOil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions, but did not "request specific information by U.N. or direct Bayoil to answer the U.N.'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 U.N. approval or surveillance. Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc., the U.S. company chartering the seven huge tankers that picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received agreement from U.S. military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by U.S. Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo. Odin was reassured by a State Department official that the U.S. "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action."

The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a U.S. 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," 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 Monday night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations subcommittee.

The Pentagon declined to comment. The U.S. representative's office at the U.N. referred inquiries to the State Department, which failed to return calls.

salon.com

[johnny7]

I bet CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC will be 'showcasing' this one in place of Newswe(a)k's lies tonight. Hell... this might be good for a 60 Minutes segment!

[Paradox]

Ya know what, I have assumed that EVERYBODY was in some ways, in the past, helping Saddam, etc, etc, blah blah, puke. Fact is, it was moral and correct to take him out, doesn't matter WHAT you knew/did in the past. This is all a huge smokescreen, both sides should drop it IMHO. Except the UN part of it, that should be exposed.

[Arkie2]

Looks like this could be trouble but it also looks like a policy that was in place before Bush took office. I wonder how far back the investigation went or if it's just a hit piece in Bush.

[okie01]

I bet CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC will be 'showcasing' this one in place of Newswe(a)k's lies tonight. Hell... this might be good for a 60 Minutes segment!

Do you suppose they'll mention the policy of the previous administration?

I would bet the farm that this was nothing more than a continuation of Clinton administration policies.

Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped)

Hmmmmmmmmm. Who was it that was President in September, 2000? And who was President "when the practice was stopped"?

[smag999]

The liberal media is now going to say Bush should have marched into the United Nations and arrested everybody on the take from Saddam, including French and Russian diplomats.

Lets just blame America again for the criminals at the UN.

[federal]

A report released Monday night by Democratic staff on the Senate investigations subcommittee 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.

Well shows you how stupid I am, I actually thought that President Bush with the approval of Congress sent the USA Military and removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Sometimes I have to wonder just how stupid these media/democrats think I am. There were many reasons Saddam was removed from power and I'm sure this was among them.

[smag999]

I knew it! IT'S ALL AMERICA'S FAULT THE UNITED NATIONS IS FILLED WITH CROOKS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Yup. Its all our fault.

[fatnotlazy]

I thought the sanctions were in place during the Clinton administration as well.

So have Dems looked into violations of those sanctions during the Clinton administration? And if so, what did they find?

[bnelson44]

From the Guardian? I'll wait until I read a real report on it.

[hflynn]

Guess what, this wasn't the George Bush Oil for Food Program it was the U.N. Oil for Food Program.

Guess what, the U.N. knew about the kickbacks before Bush knew because people in the U.N. what stuffing money in bank accounts as soon as the program began.

[bmwcyle]

Who didn't know? The UN has been corrupt for years. It does take a evern a high school drop out to figure the people of Iraq were not getting food.

[Sacajaweau]

Thanks for noting the dates.

[Steve_Seattle]

Monday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. First, it found that the U.S. Treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, BayOil, . . . Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) . . . In its second main finding, the report said the U.S. military and the State Department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8 million barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the U.N.-monitored oil-for-food program. 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 U.N. monitors to obtain information about BayOil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the U.S. Treasury. After repeated requests over eight months from the U.N. and the U.S. State Department, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control wrote to BayOil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions, but did not "request specific information by U.N. or direct Bayoil to answer the U.N.'s questions." BayOil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities.

Well, let's see: the alleged illegal activity began when Clinton was president, and was stopped when Bush was president; a "tacit green light" is vague and seems contradicted by the later paragraphs mentioning State and Treasury Dept. requests for info on these transactions and the filing of charges against Chalmers. Also, it appears that there's some CYA by U.N. officials embedded in this report. At worst, I see bureaucratic inertia in the treasury Dept, not willful toleration of illegal activities.

[Question Liberal Authority]

FINALLY the press is admitting there was bribery and corruption associated with the UN Oil For Food program.

This is like their coverage of the Swiftboat vets. They spend months covering up their very existence, but the second they think they can pin it on Bush, it's front page news.

[kb2614]

(YAWN) Blame Bush,,,again. This is getting predictable. What idiots.

(rollseyes & shakes head)

[crazyhorse691]

A report released Monday night by Democratic staff on the Senate investigations subcommittee

---

That puts the whole thing in proper perspective. Any report the Rats touch will involve Bush bashing that the MSM will gleefully report as proof that its all Pres. Bush's fault. That Karl Rove is some sort of evil genius to be able to get Bush appointed the chairman of the conspiracy in Sept. 2000(Before the election).

[texas_mrs]

The hypocrisy couldn't be more obvious here. Bush has committed the more heinous act by 'knowing' than those who were doing the scam themselves? How many hit peices have you seen on Kofi? His son? Or any of the other slimballs involved in this fiasco?

[johnny7]

It's always Bush crazyhorse691... always. It's not the MSM... it's ALL Bush!

Hey... do you know what Crazy Horse's real name was? Hint; His father had the same name.

[untrained skeptic]

Notice that this report was prepared only by the Democrats on the comittee and hadn't been looked at or commented on by the rest of the Committee before it was released to the press.

You simply don't do that in an investigation unless you're trying to scew the facts. If they felt the Republicans were trying to hide the facts they could release the report after presenting it to the full committee.

If the true facts come out I'm betting that you will find that there were valid reasons why the Navy chose not to interdict the tankers.

I also suspect that there's more to the BayOil story as well.

Let's see what the whole committee has to say, rather than just some partisan Democrat hacks.

[crazyhorse691]

Patrick O'Grady Sullivan. Just a wild guess(I knew it at onetime, but, not in the nowtime)

[kaboom]

Bush knew...but did nothing to stop them.

I'd say that he stopped them. Forever.

[Realism]

I'm really hoping they'll throw it all out on the table so we can all get a good whiff and decide on our own who stinks and who gets to come away clean.

[AlexW]

"From the Guardian? I'll wait until I read a real report on it."

Yes, it is the UK version of the NYT...not even worth being used for fish wrap.

[brushcop]

I was going to say the same thing, well, he knew alright--and DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[TX Bluebonnet]

Well shows you how stupid I am, I actually thought that President Bush with the approval of Congress sent the USA Military and removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Sometimes I have to wonder just how stupid these media/democrats think I am. There were many reasons Saddam was removed from power and I'm sure this was among them.

EXACTLY!!! I assume he knew and that's why he knew the Security Council would never do anything and why France & Russia and God knows who else were having such hissy fits about avoiding the war.

Helllllooo People! Wake up and smell the coffee

[N. Theknow]

Um...what exactly was the Bush Administratin supposed to do with this information? Since the UN was not policing anything, why would it have policed itself?

[massgopguy]

Now, who was President in 2000?

[johnny7]

To the MSM... this is just another reason why John Bolton is a bad choice for UN Ambassador! ;^D

[kallisti]

I agree.
(Methinks you're not so untrained.)

[pollyannaish]

Sheesh. Ok, so the administration knew. Can you imagine the uproar if Bush had tried to do anything about it? "He's killing babies and old people!" There was not one thing he could do about it...until he did something about it. /end eye roll.

I think there is a reason that Democrats released this...and I'm pretty sure it is an effort to protect themselves from something really ugly headed their way.

[N. Theknow]

It certainly seems like the only difference between Democrats/liberals/progressives and militant Islamists is that the Islamists would perpetrate acts of terror on the United States and its citizens for their beliefs, and the Democrats/liberals/progressives would pay someone to do the same thing in the belief that it would make George Bush look bad.

[roylene]

OK OK .. GWB found out about all this in 2000-2002, does not this mean that it was going on during Clinton administration?

[CFC__VRWC]

Let's see, the oil-for-food investigation has been going on since well before last year's election. We're supposed to believe that, if there was anything whatsoever to this, the Dims just sat it on all through the campaign, didn't bring it up once in an attempt to smear the President? Uhhhh-huh ...

[Calvin Locke]

This sounds like a BBC story from before last Christmas. "US (via the UN Security Council) knew..."

[usa1776]

Bush good, UN Bad blah blah blah

How blind can you Bush supporters be? The guy is every bit as corrupt as the UN. It's not Bush's fault, the GOP was corrupt long before he became a puppet for them.

By the way, news reports don't murder people, people murder people. Conservatism has been hijacked by the hypocrites in the GOP.

[pollyannaish]

Amen. I've tried to cut them slack in the "good intentions but misguided" department over the years. But they don't have good intentions anymore (If they ever did).

They (The MSM wing of the Democrat Party) have a dog in the hunt now. Their CW is proving to be incorrect and they are feel cornered. Honestly, I think there isn't much that they wouldn't do to make Bush look bad, the country loose this war, just so they could say "We told you so." It's very scary.

[johnny7]

Worm. Bookmark it for the futuretime.

[Shermy]

It's misleading.

Bay Oil was done within the UN. And it's peanuts.

The sales to Jordan were because it is a neighbor and was hurt by the sanctions.

[Arkie2]

Thanks for the background. It looked like a hit piece. Your info indicates that it is exactly that.

[RobRoy]

"...the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them."

I wouldn't call what has been going on in Iraq for the last couple years "nothing."

[Shermy]

"Monday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. First, it found that the U.S. Treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, BayOil, that facilitated payment of "at least $37 million in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime." The surcharges were a violation of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, 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 cents a barrel in return for oil allocations."

The order of the article is deceiving. Bay Oil is in court now. I don't know what the "treasury" knew back then. Anyway, the USA was the biggest buyer of oil from Iraq throughout the program - via the UN, not Iraq. Bay Oil's deal was different.

Then the writer writes:

"However, Saddam was allowed to choose"

This implies this was a US deal. Wrong, it was a UN policy negotiated via Kofi and pals.

The Jordanian oil was a straight up nation to nation sale like any other. No US kickbacks, but illegal. Probably allowed because Jordan suffered under sanctions and we needed to buy their cooperation.

[Shermy]

"Notice that this report was prepared only by the Democrats on the comittee and hadn't been looked at or commented on by the rest of the Committee before it was released to the press."

Notice they are more interesting in deflecting criticism of the UN.

[GoLightly]

The US installed Saddam when he served a purpose

???

[Paul_Denton]

Except the UN part of it, that should be exposed.

The UN should be exposed and ABOLISHED.

[Paul_Denton]

The US installed Saddam when he served a purpose and uninstalled him again when somebody whith big enough ***** was at hand to do so after the game turned to the wrong players. Clinton just couldn't have done it.

The US did not "install" him. He brought himself to power. A lot of the western world helped him when we had a common enemy (Iran). Big difference. And out of that western world only the United States, Britain, Poland and a then-friendly Italy took him down while the countries to benifit from Saddam the most (france germany and russia) opposed the war because they were bribed.

So who messed with the iraqis more - the Yankees or the French. Certainly the US, because the french are comparably small fries. They could outweasel you guys because they just don't play this anti muslim satan role - they just live close to the arabs - they know them better. But it was fin du weaselage when W showed them what's gonna happen in the country of the second largest depot of cheap oil. As some quite bright guy said - oil is a damn good reason for a war.

Facts aside I smell a troll.

I have sensed a great disturbance in the force. As if millions of DUmmies suddenly cried out whining and were completely dumbfounded.

[GoLightly]

I checked history. We have someone that gets most of their news & information from Germany. I think you're jumping the gun on calling troll.

[Paul_Denton]

Well his blame america first attitude rang some alarm bells. Still pretty amazing anyone would fall for the "news" coming out of germany/france which is about as balanced as Charlie-Bravo-Sierra and NewsWeak.

[GoLightly]

Well his blame america first attitude rang some alarm bells.

Why do you think I checked history? LOL I checked it before I wrote my first response in this thread.

Still pretty amazing anyone would fall for the "news" coming out of germany/france which is about as balanced as Charlie-Bravo-Sierra and NewsWeak.

Course it is, for you & me. We're used to disbelieving most of what the MSM spoon feeds to us. European news provides views from the left & from the right (European kind of left & right), but both sides have an anti-American, anti-administration slant whenever there is a Republican in the WH.

[MeekOneGOP]

this thread looks like a football fan side. It's never about facts but only about left or right. More precisely it's about right or right and even more precisely about who is best at quoting the correct opinion broadcasted by fox, which is as shallow and twisted as journalism can get .....

Blah! ..... blah! ..... blah! .....