|
Condi and Chevron aided Saddam
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
The ing irony is just too much;
| quote: | May 8, 2007
Chevron Seen Settling Case on Iraq Oil
By CLAUDIO GATTI and JAD MOUAWAD
Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, is preparing to acknowledge that it should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein on oil it bought from Iraq as part of a defunct United Nations program, according to investigators.
The admission is part of a settlement being negotiated with United States prosecutors and includes fines totaling $25 million to $30 million, according to the investigators, who declined to be identified because the settlement was not yet public.
The penalty, which is still being negotiated, would be the largest so far in the United States in connection with investigations of companies involved in the oil-for-food scandal.
The $64 billion program was set up in 1996 by the Security Council to help ease the effects of United Nations sanctions on Iraqi civilians after the first gulf war. Until the American invasion in 2003, the program allowed Saddam’s government to export oil to pay for food, medicine and humanitarian goods.
Using an elaborate system of secret surcharges and extra fees, however, the Iraqi regime received at least $1.8 billion in kickbacks from companies in the program, according to an investigation completed in 2005 by Paul A. Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
By imposing surcharges on the sale of crude oil, the Iraqi regime skimmed about $228 million from its oil exports.
A report released in 2004 by an investigator at the Central Intelligence Agency listed five American companies that bought oil through the program: the Coastal Corporation, a subsidiary of El Paso; Chevron; Texaco; BayOil, and Mobil, now part of Exxon Mobil. The companies have denied any wrongdoing and said they were cooperating with the investigations.
As part of the deal under negotiation, Chevron, which now owns Texaco, is not expected to admit to violating the U.N. sanctions. But Chevron is expected to acknowledge that it should have been aware that illegal kickbacks were being paid to Iraq on the oil, the investigators said.
The fine is connected to the payment of about $20 million in surcharges on tens of millions of barrels of Iraqi oil bought by Chevron from 2000 to 2002, investigators said.
These payments were made by small oil traders that sold oil to Chevron. But records found by United Nations, American and Italian officials showed that they were financed by Chevron.
The negotiations, which might take several weeks to conclude, follow an agreement reached in February by El Paso, the largest operator of American natural gas pipelines, to pay the United States government $7.73 million to settle allegations that it was involved in illegal payments under the oil-for-food program.
The settlement discussions are a result of months of work by a joint task force of the United States attorneys of the Southern District of New York and the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, with help from Italian authorities. Kent Robertson, a spokesman for Chevron, said “regarding the oil-for-food program generally, Chevron purchased Iraqi crude oil principally for use in its U.S. refineries and the United Nations approved the initial sale of all cargos ultimately purchased by Chevron.”
He said Chevron has cooperated with inquiries into the program “and we will continue to do so.”
The United States attorney’s office and the office of the New York district attorney both declined to comment.
Thus far, only former United Nations officials, individual traders and relatively small oil companies have come under scrutiny in the United States. |
Wait for it.....here it comes:
| quote: | According to the Volcker report, surcharges on Iraqi oil exports were introduced in August 2000 by the Iraqi state oil company, the State Oil Marketing Organization. At the time, Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, was a member of Chevron’s board and led its public policy committee, which oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company.
Ms. Rice resigned from Chevron’s board on Jan. 16, 2001, after being named national security advisor by President Bush.
Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, referred inquires to Chevron.
According to Chevron’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the public policy committee met three times in the course of 2000. Chevron declined to comment about the private deliberations of its board.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/b...ogin&oref=login |
Oh boy.
I gotta post that part again. It's just too ing, deliciously maddening:
| quote: | | At the time, Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, was a member of Chevron’s board and led its public policy committee, which oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company. |
So our lovely little Shoe-Shopping Diplomat seems to have been caught up in a little bit of under-the-table hooey with our lovely deceased dictator.
Let's just keep in mind where our fellow neocons stand on this Oil-For-Food scandal, like Fred Barnes of Faux News who called it the "biggest scandal in human history":
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134858,00.html
And our coveted, Bush ass-kissing Wall Street Journal op-ed board:
| quote: | There is no doubt that the U.N. relief effort in Iraq has been a global scandal. A monstrous dictator was able to turn the Oil-for-Food program into a cash cow for himself and his inner circle, leaving Iraqis further deprived as he bought influence abroad and acquired the arms and munitions that coalition forces discovered when they invaded Iraq last spring . . .
But Saddam's ability to reap billions for himself, his cronies and those who proved useful to him abroad depended on individuals who were his counterparties. These deserve a full investigation . . . [I]t's time we knew more about how the oil-for-food scandal was allowed to happen.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110004801 |
Since we're talking about arguably the "biggest scandal in human history", we will all be waiting with baited breath to see our neocon Wingers take it right to Condi and demand her resignation, if not outright trial for treason.
The neocons must not stand for one of their very own holding such ironic statements such as this:
| quote: | Rice: But we certainly know now that the sanctions weren't working, that in fact Saddam Hussein was making a mockery of the Oil-for-Food program. We certainly know that now from the multiple investigations of the Oil-for-Food program.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...4/29/le.01.html |
or this:
| quote: | [W]e understood when we came to power here in Washington several months ago that we had a problem, for instance, on Iraqi sanctions; that people believed, or that Saddam Hussein was claiming that the sanctions that were in place were somehow harming the Iraqi people. We do not believe that they were harming the Iraqi people because in the north, where the U.N. administers the oil-for-food program, Iraqi people are doing well. It's only where Saddam Hussein administers oil-for-food that there is a problem with the Iraqi people.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20011016-3.html |
or this:
| quote: | the United States relied on Oil-for-Food "to keep Saddam Hussein contained and checked. And clearly we weren't doing that. The sanctions were breaking down. He was playing the international community like a violin."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144730,00.html |
Because it was clear that Condi helped supply the violin for our evil dictator.
So, Fred, WSJ, and every other Bush supporter out there (hi LatinLover, you too!), now is your chance to stand tall and put your money where your rhetoric is and go after one of your own. Now's your time to stand away from your ardent, undying support of fellow law/rule breakers like Conrad Black:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1039
Lewis "Scooter" Libby:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/libby_03-06.html
Paul Wolfowitz:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/w...lfowitz.html?hp
Larry Franklin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0501608_pf.html
And a coupla AIPAC officials:
http://www.forward.com/articles/jud...in-aipac-trial/
Come forth and help support your rhetoric. We all eagerly await....... |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| You took a good amount of effort but look into the Seven Sisters for your answers. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
lol
Damn... we'll just eat and love it, won't we? :( |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So our lovely little Shoe-Shopping Diplomat seems to have been caught up in a little bit of under-the-table hooey with our lovely deceased dictator. |
so i don't get it. how do you come to that conclusion?
it actually was the biggest scam in history. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
so i don't get it. how do you come to that conclusion?
it actually was the biggest scam in history. |
Because she was on the Chevron board at the time in which Chevron is admitting that "it should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein on oil it bought from Iraq as part of a defunct United Nations program."
That would appear to make her a willing culprit in knowing, or blatantly ignorant while being on the board. Either claim isn't pretty, and it's difficult to conclude ignorance being on the Board and not being aware of the situation. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Either claim isn't pretty |
facts don't need to be pretty, insinuations do and pretty is only so deep. you are a very pretty woman.
| quote: | | it's difficult to conclude ignorance being on the Board and not being aware of the situation. |
it obviously is. next:rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
facts don't need to be pretty, insinuations do and pretty is only so deep. |
Then what else can you conclude given that she was on the board at the time they SHOULD have known about their kickbacks going to Saddam?
I'm more than willing to entertain any other logical alternatives, should you give them.
| quote: | | you are a very pretty woman. |
Well I did shave last night. My bikini line looks awesome now, just in case you're in the mood, hon':D.
| quote: | | it obviously is. next:rolleyes: |
So easy for you to dismiss when it's someone in your Administration under scrutiny. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Perhaps the next "biggest scam in history":
| quote: | May 12, 2007
Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says
By JAMES GLANZ
Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq’s declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.
Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was valued at $5 million to $15 million daily.
The report does not give a final conclusion on what happened to the missing fraction of the roughly two million barrels pumped by Iraq each day, but the findings are sure to reinforce longstanding suspicions that smugglers, insurgents and corrupt officials control significant parts of the country’s oil industry.
The report also covered alternative explanations for the billions of dollars worth of discrepancies, including the possibility that Iraq has been consistently overstating its oil production.
Iraq and the State Department, which reports the numbers, have been under relentless pressure to show tangible progress in Iraq by raising production levels, which have languished well below the United States goal of three million barrels a day. Virtually the entire economy of Iraq is dependent on oil revenues.
The draft report, expected to be released within the next week, was prepared by the United States Government Accountability Office with the help of government energy analysts, and was provided to The New York Times by a separate government office that received a review copy. The accountability office declined to provide a copy or to discuss the draft.
Paul Anderson, a spokesman for the office, said only that “we don’t discuss draft reports.”
But a State Department official who works on energy issues said that there were several possible explanations for the discrepancy, including the loss of oil through sabotage of pipelines and inaccurate reporting of production in southern Iraq, where engineers may not properly account for water that is pumped along with oil in the fields there.
“It could also be theft,” the official said, with suspicion falling primarily on Shiite militias in the south. “Crude oil is not as lucrative in the region as refined products, but we’re not ruling that out either.”
Iraqi and American officials have previously said that smuggling of refined products like gasoline and kerosene is probably costing Iraq billions of dollars a year in lost revenues. The smuggling of those products is particularly feared because officials believe that a large fraction of the proceeds go to insurgent groups. Crude oil is much more difficult to smuggle because it must be shipped to refineries and turned into the more valuable refined products before it can be sold on the market.
The Shiite militia groups hold sway around the rich oil fields of southern Iraq, which dominate the country’s oil production, the State Department official said. For that reason, he said, the Shiite militias are more likely to be involved in theft there than the largely Sunni insurgents, who are believed to benefit mostly from smuggling refined products in the north.
In the south, the official said, “There is not an issue of insurgency, per se, but it could be funding Shia factions, and that could very well be true.”
“That would be a concern if they were using smuggling money to blow up American soldiers or kill Sunnis or do anything that could harm the unity of the country,” the official said.
The report by the accountability office is the most comprehensive look yet at faltering American efforts to rebuild Iraq’s oil and electricity sectors. For the analysis of Iraq’s oil production, the accountability office called upon experts at the Energy Information Administration within the United States Department of Energy, which has long experience in analyzing oil production and exports worldwide.
Erik Kreil, an oil expert at the information administration who is familiar with the analysis, said a review of industry figures around the world — exports, refinery figures and other measures — could not account for all the oil that Iraq says it is producing. The administration also took into account how much crude oil was consumed internally, to do things like fuel Iraqi power plants and refine into gasoline and other products.
When all those uses of the oil were taken into consideration, Mr. Kreil said, Iraq’s stated production figures did not add up.
“Either they’re producing less, or they’re producing what they say and the difference is completely unaccounted for in any of the places we think it should go,” Mr. Kreil said. “Either it’s overly optimistic, or it’s unaccounted for.”
Several analysts outside the government agreed that such a large discrepancy indicated that there was either a major smuggling operation in place or that Iraq was incapable to generate accurate production figures.
“That’s a staggering amount of oil to lose every month,” said Philip K. Verleger Jr., an independent economist and oil expert. “But given everything else that’s been written about Iraq, it’s not a surprise.”
Mr. Verleger added that if the oil was being smuggled out of Iraq, there would be a ready market for it, particularly in smaller refineries not controlled by large Western companies in places like China, the Caribbean and even small European countries.
The report also contains the most comprehensive assessment yet of the billions of dollars the United States and Iraq spent on rebuilding the oil and electricity infrastructure, which is falling further and further behind its performance goals.
Adding together both civilian and military financing, the report concludes that the United States has spent $5.1 billion of the $7.4 billion in American taxpayer money set aside to rebuild the Iraqi electricity and oil sectors. The United States has also spent $3.8 billion of Iraqi money on those sectors, the report says.
Despite those enormous expenditures, the performance is far short of official goals, and in some cases seems to be declining further. The average output of Iraq’s national electricity grid in 2006, for example, was 4,300 megawatts, about equal to its value before the 2003 invasion. By February of this year, the figure had fallen still further, to 3,800 megawatts, the report says.
All of those figures are far short of the longstanding American goal for Iraq: 6,000 megawatts. Even more dispiriting for Iraqis, by February the grid provided power for an average of only 5.1 hours a day in Baghdad and 8.6 hours nationwide. Both of those figures are also down from last year.
The story is similar for the oil sector, where — even if the Iraqi numbers are correct — neither exports nor production have met American goals and have also declined since last year, the report says.
American reconstruction officials have continued to promote what they describe as successes in the rebuilding program, while saying that problems with security have prevented the program from achieving all of its goals. But federal oversight officials have frequently reported that the program has also suffered from inadequate oversight, poor contracting practices, graft, ineffective management and disastrous initial planning.
The discrepancies in the Iraqi oil figures are broadly reminiscent of the ones that turned up when some of the same energy department experts examined Iraq’s oil infrastructure in the wake of the oil-for-food scandals of the Saddam Hussein era. In a United Nations-sponsored program that was supposed to trade Iraq’s oil for food, Mr. Hussein and other smugglers were handsomely profiting from the program, investigations determined.
In reports to Congress before the 2003 invasion that ousted Mr. Hussein, the accountability office, using techniques similar to those called into play in its most recent report, determined that in early 2002, for example, 325,000 to 480,000 barrels of crude oil a day were being smuggled out of Iraq, the majority through a pipeline to Syria.
But substantial amounts also left Iraq through Jordan and Turkey, and by ship in the Persian Gulf, routes that could also be available today, said Robert Ebel, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“Any number of adjacent countries would be glad to have it if they could make some money,” Mr. Ebel said.
Mr. Ebel said the lack of modern metering equipment, or measuring devices, at Iraq’s wellheads made it especially difficult to track smuggling there. The State Department official agreed that there were no meters at the wellheads, but said that Iraq’s Oil Ministry had signed a contract with Shell Oil to study the possibility of putting in the meters.
The official added that an American-financed project to install meters on Iraq’s main oil platform in the Persian Gulf was scheduled to be completed this month.
As sizable as a discrepancy of as much as 300,000 barrels a day would be in most parts of the world, some analysts said it could be expected in a country with such a long, ingrained history of corruption.
“It would be surprising if it was not the case,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, which closely follows security and economic issues in Iraq. He added, “How could the oil sector be the exception?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/w...ogin&oref=login |
Wait, aren't WE in Iraq trying to secure that country? How could this happen under OUR watch?
Strange....... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So easy for you to dismiss when it's someone in your Administration under scrutiny. |
i'm far from the only person dismissing this. those that aren't are out on the limb, including you with your pretty insinuations. i'm sure you are comfortable there. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm far from the only person dismissing this. those that aren't are out on the limb, including you with your pretty insinuations. i'm sure you are comfortable there. |
Then again I ask:
| quote: | Then what else can you conclude given that she was on the board at the time they SHOULD have known about their kickbacks going to Saddam?
I'm more than willing to entertain any other logical alternatives, should you give them. |
What other possibilities could one rationally deduce here? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What other possibilities could one rationally deduce here? |
...that they were not aware of Saddam's "elaborate system of secret surcharges and extra fees".
she was a public affairs officer in charge of public policy.
i realize you have a raging hard-on for some kind of culpability and are willing to entertain intellectually whatever it takes (not unlike a 9/11 truther) but with a lot of the stuff you try to float here in reality you're just gonna have to remain out on that limb. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
...that they were not aware of Saddam's "elaborate system of secret surcharges and extra fees". |
Yet they are acknowledging that they "should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein on oil it bought from Iraq as part of a defunct United Nations program."
A bit difficult to reconcile that, almost toeing the line of doublespeak. Seriously, how can a company not be aware of the secret kickbacks, yet acknowledge that they should have?
Sorry, that's semantic bull to anyone who reads that. And it still puts the guilt squarely on Chevron and their board members (including Condi, sorry).
| quote: | | she was a public affairs officer in charge of public policy. |
Which means she NEVER attended the board meetings and was never up to speck on things that the board SHOULD have known about. Got it.
| quote: | | i realize you have a raging hard-on for some kind of culpability and are willing to entertain intellectually whatever it takes (not unlike a 9/11 truther) but with a lot of the stuff you try to float here in reality you're just gonna have to remain out on that limb. |
It's a very short limb. It's difficult for anyone to believe that someone sitting on the board somehow DIDN'T know that their company SHOULD have known they were feeding kickbacks to an eeeevil dictator. You really haven't separated her guilt or ignorance from the event very well so far. |
|
|
|
|
