Posted on 05/17/2005 12:43:11 PM PDT by 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
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
I knew it! IT'S ALL AMERICA'S FAULT THE UNITED NATIONS IS FILLED WITH CROOKS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Yup. Its all our fault.
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?
From the Guardian? I'll wait until I read a real report on it.
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.
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.
Thanks for noting the dates.
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.
(YAWN) Blame Bush,,,again. This is getting predictable. What idiots.
(rollseyes & shakes head)
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?
Hey... do you know what Crazy Horse's real name was? Hint; His father had the same name.
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.
Patrick O'Grady Sullivan. Just a wild guess(I knew it at onetime, but, not in the nowtime)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.