Saddam's Kickbacks

[crawjo]

I wonder what Chris A thinks of this report, from ABC News, that alleges Saddam gave vocal British war critic George Galloway $9.5 million worth of oil, and the Indonesian President, also a vocal critic of the war, $5 million worth of oil.

If this is true, what does it say about the U.S. refusal to bow down to those opposed to the war, particularly if many of the countries voicing their opposition were getting millions of dollars for doing so from Saddam Hussein, dating back to 1997?

So, Chris, what say you about this treachery?

[crawjo]

Saddam's willingness to use the country's main source of wealth for his own political cover also raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of expanding the "oil for food" program. Saddam clearly had other designs for what to do with his oil.

[crawjo]

According to the document, the following individuals and/or institutions also received money from Saddam:

Russia

The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million
The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million
The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (2 separate contracts)
Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million
The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million

France

Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million
Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million
Ibex: 47.2 million
Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million
Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million

Syria

Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey

Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million
Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia

Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain

Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia

The Socialist Party: 22 million
Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada

Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy

Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million
Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States

Samir Vincent: 7 million
Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom

George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million
Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa

Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan

Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million
The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million
Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million
Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon

The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt

Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million
Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories

The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million
Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million

Qatar

Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya

Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad

Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil

The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)

The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine

The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million
The Communist Party: 6 million
The Socialist Party: 2 million
The FTD oil company: 2 million

[claude]

Crawjo,

I certainly don't claim to have any expertise with regards to these payments, and certainly payments to politicians are suspect, at the same time there are many of those payments that could be for legit purposes. When I saw a payment to a Canadian CEO of a company I didn't recognize, I looked up the stock out of curiosity. The company seems to be a relatively small player in the north sea oil exploration business. I can't think of why a company president like this would hold any sway over political decisions so I am assuming this was simply an investment in the company. I didn't research any of the others but this one case makes me question the validity of the overall listing.

In addition I would question the sources of any information coming from the quasi-news/entertainment organizations that produce much of what passes for news these days. I haven't followed this story closely and am only commenting on what I have read here, so don't flame me too badly if I am behind the times on this.

My, it's all so shocking!

[crawjo]

Originally posted by claude
Crawjo,

I certainly don't claim to have any expertise with regards to these payments, and certainly payments to politicians are suspect, at the same time there are many of those payments that could be for legit purposes. When I saw a payment to a Canadian CEO of a company I didn't recognize, I looked up the stock out of curiosity. The company seems to be a relatively small player in the north sea oil exploration business. I can't think of why a company president like this would hold any sway over political decisions so I am assuming this was simply an investment in the company. I didn't research any of the others but this one case makes me question the validity of the overall listing.

In addition I would question the sources of any information coming from the quasi-news/entertainment organizations that produce much of what passes for news these days. I haven't followed this story closely and am only commenting on what I have read here, so don't flame me too badly if I am behind the times on this.

Well, I wouldn't defend anyone doing business with someone like Hussein, though I'm sure plenty of businesses did and would have if given the opportunity. It's the payments to politicians and political organizations that are more troubling. The fact that one of the most vocal critics of Blair's Iraq policy may have received millions of dollars from Hussein is disturbing to say the least.

Also, this story has now been reported on by dozens of news organizations, including the BBC. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[Monte Smith]

This is not the first allegation to hit George Galloway. In the immediate aftermath of combat, the Telegraph newspaper reported that documents proving that Galloway had been corrupted were found in Baghdad. I know Galloway sued the Telegraph, but that's the last I heard of it.

We discussed this at a thread called "Hey Brits--What's with Galloway?"

[GoodSpeak]

TBH...I'm not sure what this means other than a lot of folks made some big time money and in return flapped their gums in opposition to the US.

Seems to me, if we are to believe this report then the other ABC News items [about the Bush Admin's full knowledge that there were no WMDs to start with and that they were planning this even before 9-11, etc.] must be true as well. IMO, Bush was going into Iraq even if it killed every cow in Texas.

I don't know that we can allow ourselves just to pick and choose which news stories we're going to believe simply upon the basis of personal political beliefs or agendas.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
TBH...I'm not sure what this means other than a lot of folks made some big time money and in return flapped their gums in opposition to the US.

Seems to me, if we are to believe this report then the other ABC News items [about the Bush Admin's full knowledge that there were no WMDs to start with and that they were planning this even before 9-11, etc.] must be true as well. IMO, Bush was going into Iraq even if it killed every cow in Texas.

I don't know that we can allow ourselves just to pick and choose which news stories we're going to believe simply upon the basis of personal political beliefs or agendas.

I have not seen any report that shows the Administration *knew* there were no WMDs. Do you have a link for that?

Goody, which do you think is worse: exaggerating the case for a war to remove a brutal tyrant from power, or receiving millions of dollars from that tyrant in order to try to cover his ass? IF this story is true, then it reveals the absurdity of trying to resolve this issue through the U.N. As the above list shows, there were hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to very influential people in many of the countries that opposed the war, Russia and France being the two prime examples.

One other question, Goody: How do you square away the claim that Bush was determined to go into Iraq long before 9/11 with his running as a non-interventionist in the 2000 election? I haven't seen anything that proves, in even the remotest sense, that Bush was determined to go to war prior to 9/11. O'Neill's documents are nothing more than plans drawn up by the military for an invasion. Since regime change had been U.S. policy dating back to the Clinton administration, and since we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia in the very event that an Iraq war were to take place, why would it be in the least bit surprising that there would be plans drawn up ahead of time? If there had been no plans, wouldn't that be a sign of gross negligence on the part of someone at the Pentagon?

[crawjo]

C'mon Chris. What's your response to this? Or do you just want to limit your involvement in the political discussions on this board to occassional cut-and-paste jobs and shucking and jiving?

[willy]

Didn't the left's beloved UN forbid this kind of hanky-panky with Iraq? Why were France and the others doing what the UN, the place where the left said we had to go to legitimize the war, said they couldn't do?


Seems despite the rhetoric nobody really takes the UN seriously.

Or do you just want to limit your involvement in the political discussions on this board to occassional cut-and-paste jobs and shucking and jiving?

Uh-oh, Chris has finally been exposed!

[Tom Storer]

Crawjo, the Iraqis were trying to buy influence. They found corruptable people and organizations. Neither point is in any way surprising and I daresay the US and other Western countries would do the same. The fact that Iraq offered money for influence and influential people took it, secretly of course, has nothing at all to do with the UN and says nothing about "about the U.S. refusal to bow down to those opposed to the war."

You say "many of the countries voicing their opposition were getting millions of dollars for doing so from Saddam Hussein." The countries where actual government officials were paid are:

- Russia (head of the Putin's cabinet)
- Jordan (Ministry of Energy)
- Libya (Prime Minister)
- Chad (Foreign Minister)
- Myanmar (Minister of the Forests)

To my mind this in no way ruins the credibility of, for example, Western European opposition to the war. Despite Willy's claim, it was not "France" that received money from Iraq any more than it was the United States that received money from Iraq because Iraq managed to pay off a couple of US individuals.

[crawjo]

Tom,

Except that the documentation reveals payoffs to former members of the French government *and* a former ambassador to the United Nations. And these are only the ones that we know about. When Charles Pasqua, the former French Minister of the Interior, was confronted with the allegations this week, he claimed that he had not been involved in any kickbacks, but that he believed other members of the government were involved. I predict that this is only the beginning for this story. Members of the U.N. having government officials accepting bribes from Hussein is a huge story, when placed in the context of the pre-war debate at the U.N., and the French and Russian intransigence about going to war. Of course they would not want to go to war!

And why can we be so sure that the U.S. would have done the same thing? Why, after all, didn't Saddam bribe members of the U.S. government, or members of the Democratic Party, the "opposition party" to oppose the war? After all, if the 1991 Gulf War was *really* a U.N. action, then what makes the United States any different from any other country that was a part of that large coalition that kicked Hussein out of Kuwait and instituted the sanctions? Perhaps our country is lagging behind our "allies" across the Atlantic when it comes to government corruption?

[Tom Storer]

Crawjo, surely you see the difference between a former member of government and a member of government? Former members of government do not make policy.

What I meant about the US doing the same is not government officials being bribed (although if you think being a US government official makes you magically immune from human flaws...), but the government bribing.

Members of the U.N. having government officials accepting bribes from Hussein is a huge story, when placed in the context of the pre-war debate at the U.N., and the French and Russian intransigence about going to war. Of course they would not want to go to war!

You're going awful fast from claims that former French government officials received money to France therefore not wanting to go to war. I hardly think a few million bucks to a political has-been like Charles Pasqua, who fell from grace with Chirac years ago, is enough to determine French foreign policy. It is said Putin's cabinet director got his palm greased, too, but again there's a long way to go to conclude that Russia based its entire foreign policy on that. There's nothing to say these guys didn't pocket the cash and figure they'd done a good day's work ripping off a country whose regime looked certain to go down the tubes at any time.

There is certainly corruption in French and Russian government as there is all over, but I'm not quite as quick as you to conclude that they simply put their foreign policy up for sale, no questions asked.

Were they influenced by longer-term commercial prospects for French and Russian business, in particular oil? Certainly. Was the United States also influenced by such factors? Certainly.

Crawjo, why are you not concerned about the bribes your Bush people paid in their desperate efforts to put together a coalition? Couold we have your comments on that issue?

[crawjo]

Originally posted by Chris A
Crawjo, why are you not concerned about the bribes your Bush people paid in their desperate efforts to put together a coalition? Couold we have your comments on that issue?

Classic Chris A non-response. What bribes are you referring to?

[crawjo]

Tom,

From the report:

According to the document, France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.

I wonder how he distributed his "earnings," eh?

[crawjo]

Also Chris, the degree of moral equivalence you display is astounding.

On the one hand, we have individuals, who, under the auspices of the "oil for food" program, meant to feed Saddam's malnourished people, accepted gifts from one of the most brutal dictators on the planet, as a reward for opposing any war to overthrow said dictator.

On the other side of the equation, you have the U.S. government's various attempts at arm-twisting to get nations into the coalition to REMOVE SAID MURDEROUS DICTATOR from power.

To you, these actions are equivalent. Did you go to the Adolph Hitler School of Ethics prior to becoming a jazz writer, my friend?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by crawjo
Goody, which do you think is worse: exaggerating the case for a war to remove a brutal tyrant from power, or receiving millions of dollars from that tyrant in order to try to cover his ass? IF this story is true, then it reveals the absurdity of trying to resolve this issue through the U.N. As the above list shows, there were hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to very influential people in many of the countries that opposed the war, Russia and France being the two prime examples.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest removing a tyrant is somehow justifiable simply upon the basis that he was a tyrant.

There are MANY tyrants on this Earth and it is my opinion Bush went after Saddam as a get-back for Daddy Bush.

ALL tyrants are bad...but this was a clear choice by Bush to attack an obvious target...for oil AND for Daddy bush.

Originally posted by crawjo
One other question, Goody: How do you square away the claim that Bush was determined to go into Iraq long before 9/11 with his running as a non-interventionist in the 2000 election? I haven't seen anything that proves, in even the remotest sense, that Bush was determined to go to war prior to 9/11. O'Neill's documents are nothing more than plans drawn up by the military for an invasion. Since regime change had been U.S. policy dating back to the Clinton administration, and since we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia in the very event that an Iraq war were to take place, why would it be in the least bit surprising that there would be plans drawn up ahead of time? If there had been no plans, wouldn't that be a sign of gross negligence on the part of someone at the Pentagon?

All I'm saying is is there is absolutely no correlation between what you want us to believe via your ABC News citation any more than what I have suggested was Bush's motivation.

If you want to believe one news report, it seems to me you need to accept ALL the ABC News reports.


To do otherwise is nothing more than selective reasoning to justify your claim.

[GoodSpeak]

It's kinda like comparing 1870 Democrats to present day Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.


Your argument just dosen't hold water.

[crawjo]

What ABC News reports am I not accepting?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by crawjo
What ABC News reports am I not accepting?

You're kidding...aren't you?

My first post on this thread:

TBH...I'm not sure what this means other than a lot of folks made some big time money and in return flapped their gums in opposition to the US.

Seems to me, if we are to believe this report then the other ABC News items [about the Bush Admin's full knowledge that there were no WMDs to start with and that they were planning this even before 9-11, etc.] must be true as well. IMO, Bush was going into Iraq even if it killed every cow in Texas.

I don't know that we can allow ourselves just to pick and choose which news stories we're going to believe simply upon the basis of personal political beliefs or agendas.TBH...I'm not sure what this means other than a lot of folks made some big time money and in return flapped their gums in opposition to the US.

May I assume, then, that you agree with the ABC News reports regarding paragraph #2?

[crawjo]

Tim,

I don't know because I haven't seen the report in question. In the case of this ABC News report, which is based on a document found in the offices of the Iraq Oil Ministry, I'm basing my "belief" in it on the evidence contained in the article, not on who is writing the article. I would need to see the report you keep referring to without specifically providing a link in order to judge whether I believe it or not. I don't dismiss or accept things based on who writes them. I dismiss or accept things based on the evidence and arguments used.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by crawjo
Tim,

I don't know because I haven't seen the report in question. In the case of this ABC News report, which is based on a document found in the offices of the Iraq Oil Ministry, I'm basing my "belief" in it on the evidence contained in the article, not on who is writing the article. I would need to see the report you keep referring to without specifically providing a link in order to judge whether I believe it or not. I don't dismiss or accept things based on who writes them. I dismiss or accept things based on the evidence and arguments used.

OK.

But if you don't actually see something reported on ABC News...does this mean it wasn't aired?


Which begs the question: Do you watch ABC Evening News at all?

Originally posted by crawjo
I don't dismiss or accept things based on who writes them. I dismiss or accept things based on the evidence and arguments used.

Now we're on the same page, you and I ;-)

Well stated, Crawjo.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
OK.

But if you don't actually see something reported on ABC News...does this mean it wasn't aired?


Which begs the question: Do you watch ABC Evening News at all?

No, I don't. I get all my news by scouring the Internet. I get my news from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and from a scattering of blogs that reflect some of the political diversity out there...Andrew Sullivan has a good one, so does Josh Marshall. That's how I try to keep myself informed. If ABC News aired something relating to what you are referring to above, I didn't see it or read about it. It slipped under the radar, I guess you could say. I saw this particular piece after Andrew Sullivan linked to it from his web site. This followed a piece in a similar vein (though without as much detail) from the BBC, so I felt that it was a major developing story. I still do.

Historians are going to spend years trying to unravel all the stuff that's been going on with Iraq in the last two decades. This document is just another (potential) subplot to that large and complex story.

As for the possibility that Bush deliberately distorted evidence to go to war, I think that too, is something yet to be determined. I'm glad there is going to be an independent review, and I hope it really is independent, and that Americans trust the people behind it to be impartial.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by crawjo
No, I don't. I get all my news by scouring the Internet. I get my news from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and from a scattering of blogs that reflect some of the political diversity out there...Andrew Sullivan has a good one, so does Josh Marshall. That's how I try to keep myself informed. If ABC News aired something relating to what you are referring to above, I didn't see it or read about it. It slipped under the radar, I guess you could say. I saw this particular piece after Andrew Sullivan linked to it from his web site. This followed a piece in a similar vein (though without as much detail) from the BBC, so I felt that it was a major developing story. I still do.

Historians are going to spend years trying to unravel all the stuff that's been going on with Iraq in the last two decades. This document is just another (potential) subplot to that large and complex story.

As for the possibility that Bush deliberately distorted evidence to go to war, I think that too, is something yet to be determined. I'm glad there is going to be an independent review, and I hope it really is independent, and that Americans trust the people behind it to be impartial.

OK then...why are you so quick to accept this ABC News report but equally as quick to dismiss any other ABC News reports?

Buddy, you're waffling here...big time.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
OK then...why are you so quick to accept this ABC News report but equally as quick to dismiss any other ABC News reports?

Buddy, you're waffling here...big time.

No, I'm just saying that I haven't seen the ABC News reports in question, so I can't say whether I would dismiss them or not.