Another country caught with their hand in the cookie (oil) barrel!

[Darat]

Another country caught with their hand in the cookie (oil) barrel!


Yep it looks like yet another country at least looked the other way when it came to Iraq oil sales:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html
…snip…

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee 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 committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

…snip…


Yet more evidence that some things truly are international – greed! :(

I was a supporter of the sanctions against Iraq whilst Saddam was in power so I find all these revelations very distasteful. It is no wonder that Saddam did not consider that he should change his policies towards his own people or his general belligerence – the evidence he had was that the “West� was just playing games and it was all empty rhetoric.

[Mycroft]

Good lord, that is sickening. I hope this in investigated.

[Zep]

My own opinion is that, in all cases, administrations who act like this are not worthy of their citizens' respect and trust, regardless of the political views of those citizens. They should be summarily replaced with an administration that is so worthy.

Mycroft, Bill Clinton was impeached not so long ago, a singularly dire situation for an encumbent president, on far lesser and more personal accusations than this situation exposes. Not that this excuses Clinton his sins, but do you think we shall be seeing equal measure for GWB on the grounds of, say, gross dereliction of duty or perhaps corruption of the office of president, or some such? If this evidence is substantive, there are grounds for impeachment that surely must be initiated if sufficient such evidence as this is brought forward. Do you agree?

Personally, though, I won't be holding my breath. Nor do I expect we will here any word from Clinton's erstwhile detractors either.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Zep
My own opinion is that, in all cases, administrations who act like this are not worthy of their citizens' respect and trust, regardless of the political views of those citizens. They should be summarily replaced with an administration that is so worthy.

…snip…

If this evidence is substantive, there are grounds for impeachment that surely must be initiated if sufficient such evidence as this is brought forward. Do you agree?

Personally, though, I won't be holding my breath. Nor do I expect we will here any word from Clinton's erstwhile detractors either.

I think that will depend on as you say substantive evidence that Bush knew about this - I also suspect that we may find that this had been going on under the noses of several administrations.

Misuse of power will happen and we should accept this whilst guarding against it as best we can. However what we shouldn't accept is the people directly and those ultimately responsible for the misuse escaping sanctions.

[BPSCG]

From the link provided in the OP:
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
(...snip...)
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".
(...snip...)
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system.

But here it says:
WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's (search) regime made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N. Oil-for-Food program and other sanctions — more than double previous estimates, according to congressional investigators.
(...snip...)
But congressional investigators found that vastly more oil — totaling $13.7 billion — was smuggled out of Iraq than previously thought. Investigators also raised the GAO's estimate of $4.4 billion in oil-for-food kickbacks by $200 million, and said the regime made $2.1 billion more through a scheme where foreign companies imported flawed goods at inflated prices.Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138617,00.html)

Something's wrong here. 37 million is about eight-tenths of one percent of 4.4 billion. Where's this 52% figure come from?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zep
My own opinion is that, in all cases, administrations who act like this are not worthy of their citizens' respect and trust, regardless of the political views of those citizens. They should be summarily replaced with an administration that is so worthy.

Yeah, but where to find it?

Originally posted by Zep
Mycroft, Bill Clinton was impeached not so long ago, a singularly dire situation for an encumbent president, on far lesser and more personal accusations than this situation exposes. Not that this excuses Clinton his sins, but do you think we shall be seeing equal measure for GWB on the grounds of, say, gross dereliction of duty or perhaps corruption of the office of president, or some such? If this evidence is substantive, there are grounds for impeachment that surely must be initiated if sufficient such evidence as this is brought forward. Do you agree?

I was very much against the impeachment of Clinton and more than willing to forgive him Monica. I think his big mistake was not firing Kenneth Star when he had the chance.

No, I don’t think this will result in a similar response to GWB, but at the same time, this is a little new to be making sweeping judgments. When I said, "there should be an investigation" I’m not assuming anyone’s guilt, or even that the story is confirmed yet.

Originally posted by Zep
Personally, though, I won't be holding my breath. Nor do I expect we will here any word from Clinton's erstwhile detractors either.

I wish I’d been on this board during the Clinton years. I think it would have been a lot more fun than the places I had been hanging out.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Something's wrong here. 37 million is about eight-tenths of one percent of 4.4 billion. Where's this 52% figure come from? It comes from quoting the cough..."Guardian"...cough.. as a reputable source BPSCG. :D

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
It comes from quoting the cough..."Guardian"...cough.. as a reputable source BPSCG. :D

Oh yeah, should have noticed that.

[richardm]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Something's wrong here. 37 million is about eight-tenths of one percent of 4.4 billion. Where's this 52% figure come from?

The $37 million was just Bayoil's involvement. Presumably the 52% figure includes whatever was sloshed around by other US companies.

[Darat]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
It comes from quoting the cough..."Guardian"...cough.. as a reputable source BPSCG. :D

Do you have information that the Guardian report is incorrect?

It appears that the Guardian piece is substantiated by other news articles about the report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554507.stm


...snip...

It takes the example of Bayoil, a US oil firm which was indicted by US authorities in April and was allegedly used by the three Russian politicians as a go-between with the Iraqi authorities.

According to the report, the firm imported more than 200 million barrels to the US between 2000 and 2002, selling it to US companies and in the process paying $37m in illegal kickbacks to Baghdad.

...snip...

US agencies such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) failed to examine its activities, the report warns, assuming that UN agencies would do the job - despite UN resolutions which clearly made such oversight the responsibility of national governments.

In all, US buyers paid more than half the $224m in total kickbacks, the report estimates
...snip...

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by richardm
The $37 million was just Bayoil's involvement. Presumably the 52% figure includes whatever was sloshed around by other US companies. Then why is Bayoil being hauled out as the poster boy? Are they the biggest offender, at only eight-tenths of one percent? That's like citing breathing the smoke from your backyard grille as a cause of lung cancer.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Darat
[/B]In all, US buyers paid more than half the $224m in total kickbacks, the report estimates
Except that the estimates are that the kickbacks totalled over four billion dollars (go back to my first post here). And the total that Saddam got from kickbacks was only a relatively small part of the 21 billion he got from kickbacks, smuggled oil, and defective goods sold at inflated prices (again, refer to my first post).

I ask again: Fifty-two percent of what?

[Darat]

Anyone found a link to the actual report rather then news reports of the report?

Edited to add:

I think this is the one: http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/REPORTwchartsIllegalSurchargesKhoralAmayaFINAL.pdf

[Darat]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Then why is Bayoil being hauled out as the poster boy? Are they the biggest offender, at only eight-tenths of one percent? That's like citing breathing the smoke from your backyard grille as a cause of lung cancer.

Only just started reading the report but from the report:

...snip...

Illegal Surcharges.
The first part of this Report examines the illegal surcharge demanded from persons who wanted to buy Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food program, Bayoil (USA), Inc., a U.S. corporation, as a case history to illustrate what happened.

...snip...

[Darat]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Except that the estimates are that the kickbacks totalled over four billion dollars (go back to my first post here). And the total that Saddam got from kickbacks was only a relatively small part of the 21 billion he got from kickbacks, smuggled oil, and defective goods sold at inflated prices (again, refer to my first post).

I ask again: Fifty-two percent of what?

Isn’t it more reliable going to the source rather then the news reports? :)

From the report I think it becomes to be clear where the confusion in news reports lies (I've highlighted the relevant sections.)


Over a two year period, from September 2000 until September 2002, the government of Iraq demanded that purchasers of Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food program pay a per-barrel surcharge to the Iraqi regime. Such payments violated U.N. sanctions. The surcharge amount varied over time, from a low of 10 cents to a high of 30 cents per barrel. Internal records kept by the Iraqi Oil Ministry’s State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) show that, during the surcharge period, Iraq collected a total of about <span style="background-color:yellow;">$228 million</span>. Using SOMO and other Iraqi records, Bayoil shipping documents, and U.S. Energy Information Administration import data, the Subcommittee Minority Staff estimated that, during the period surcharges were collected, the United States imported about 525 million barrels of Iraqi oil on which <span style="background-color:yellow;">$118 million</span> in illegal surcharges were paid. <span style="background-color:yellow;">That means U.S. imports financed about 52 percent of the illegal surcharges paid to the Hussein regime.</span> The Subcommittee Minority Staff has not seen evidence showing that U.S. companies knowingly purchased Iraqi oil on which an illegal surcharge had been paid; in fact, U.S. companies typically included a clause in their contracts requiring a seller to provide a warranty that no surcharge had been paid. Countries in the rest of the world, including Europe, Asia and Africa, imported about 475 million barrels for which about 48 percent of the illegal surcharges were paid, totaling about $110 million. Ultimately, all of the surcharge payments went into the coffers of the Iraqi government, then under the control of Saddam Hussein.

(Edited for missing end quote tag.)

[richardm]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Then why is Bayoil being hauled out as the poster boy?

Don't ask me, it's your committee ;)

I dunno really - it's just an example case study, so there doesn't necessarily have to be a special reason why they were chosen. They had their fingers in the pot, so I suppose the answer is "Why not Bayoil?"

(Or "Alphabetical order" :p)

[TragicMonkey]

The quibbling about the exact numbers seems to be obscuring the issue. It's bad if the US did any of this, whether it was 52% or 41% or 17% or 1% of the total. And I really, really, really hate to do this, but it reminds me of the people who debate the Holocaust by focusing on whether it was really 6 million or 4 million or 3.5 million or 5.8 million killed. The outrage should be the occurence, not the exact degree of it. (And because I just know someone's going to pounce on that, yes, I would make a difference between .0000000001% and 52% culpability. But you know what I mean.)

[Ziggurat]

Your quote is very helpful, Darat. I'd like to highlight what comes immediately after what you highlighted:

"The Subcommittee Minority Staff has not seen evidence showing that U.S. companies knowingly purchased Iraqi oil on which an illegal surcharge had been paid; in fact, U.S. companies typically included a clause in their contracts requiring a seller to provide a warranty that no surcharge had been paid."

In other words, while the 52% number may be accurate (although it's only a percentage of oil surcharges over a particular time frame, not the total money Saddam embezzled), these surcharges weren't all (or even mostly) paid to Saddam BY US companies. Rather, the oil that the surcharges were paid on was eventually sold in the US. These could have all been, say, French and Russian traders who paid the surcharges and resold the oil to the US, thereby having US companies unkowingly "finance" Saddam - the report doesn't give any indication of what the breakdown along these lines is. Seems like the Guardian report isn't really anything new other than a way to spin the whole scandal to make the US look like the culprit.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Seems like the Guardian report isn't really anything new other than a way to spin the whole scandal to make the US look like the culprit.

Maybe, but in the case study Bayoil don't exactly sound as though they're all sweetness and light:


Bayoil fostered corruption of the Oil-for-Food program by facilitating the payment of at least $37 million in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime on the oil it purchased; engaged in intensive lobbying efforts to influence the pricing of Iraqi oil and to oppose U.S. efforts to use that pricing to stop the illegal surcharges; and participated in an illegal trade boycott of Israel.

Bayoil engaged in this misconduct for nearly two years, from 2000 to 2002, without attracting meaningful oversight from any U.S. agency. At the same time U.S. officials were urging the United Nations to institute pricing policies that would prevent the Saddam Hussein regime from imposing illegal surcharges, the United States was itself failing to ensure U.S. corporations such as Bayoil were not paying those surcharges. Last month, two years after the Oil-for-Food program ended, the United States indicted Bayoil for allegedly violating U.S. sanctions on Iraq,
committing fraud, and engaging in a conspiracy to commit fraud, including by paying “millions of dollars in secret illegal surcharges to the Government of Iraq.�


And I don't think the US government can consider itself off the hook, even if all the companies involved were above board. Elsewhere in the report, for example:


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. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales, as happened in the Khor al-Amaya incident in 2003. This incident involves the largest single illicit sale of oil transported by ship out of Iraq during the sanctions period. Over several weeks in February and March 2003, Iraq loaded over 7 million barrels of oil onto 7 seagoing oil tankers at the port of
Khor al-Amaya in Southern Iraq. In exchange for this oil, the government of Jordan wired over $53 million in hard currency to bank accounts under the control of the Hussein regime on the eve of the American invasion. Each of these massive oil tankers docked at the Khor al-Amaya port, filled its tanks with Iraqi oil, and traveled through the Persian Gulf, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the Maritime Interdiction Force, then under the command of a U.S. naval officer. When word of these oil shipments hit the press and an outcry arose about this apparent
blatant violation of U.N. sanctions, the evidence indicates that the United States continue to allow the shipments to proceed.


All has that nasty whiff of corruption about it :(

Edited to add:
By the way:

The oil loaded at Khor al-Amaya, which was supposedly intended to ensure an adequate supply for Jordan during a possible war, was sold by the Jordanian government at a significant profit.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
...on which $118 million in illegal surcharges were paid. That means U.S. imports financed about 52 percent of the illegal surcharges paid to the Hussein regime....


If I'm reading this right, it's saying U.S. imports financed the illegal surcharges unknowingly simply by buying the oil someone else made illegal proffits on?

Is that right?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If I'm reading this right, it's saying U.S. imports financed the illegal surcharges unknowingly simply by buying the oil someone else made illegal proffits on?

Is that right?

The report does seem almost determined to mix up the various accusations however this bit seems clear that it is accusing one company at least of directly paying surcharges (I think :confused: I’ve not had time to read the full report yet).



Page 4
Bayoil fostered corruption of the Oil-for-Food program by facilitating the payment of at least $37 million in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime on the oil it purchased; engaged in intensive lobbying efforts to influence the pricing of Iraqi oil and to oppose U.S. efforts to use that pricing to stop the illegal surcharges; and participated in an illegal trade boycott of Israel.
Bayoil engaged in this misconduct for nearly two years, from 2000 to 2002, without attracting meaningful oversight from any U.S. agency. At the same time U.S. officials were urging the United Nations to institute pricing policies that would prevent the Saddam Hussein regime from imposing illegal surcharges, the United States was itself failing to ensure U.S. corporations such as Bayoil were not paying those surcharges. Last month, two years after the Oil-for-Food program ended, the United States indicted Bayoil for allegedly violating U.S. sanctions on Iraq, committing fraud, and engaging in a conspiracy to commit fraud, including by paying “millions of dollars in secret illegal surcharges to the Government of Iraq.�



(Edited for formatting weirdness.)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
The report does seem almost determined to mix up the various accusations however this bit seems clear that it is accusing one company at least of directly paying surcharges (I think :confused: I’ve not had time to read the full report yet).


In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

While technically true, very misleading. It seems as it's working very hard to give the impression that the US proffited from this corruption. This particular spin seems to come from the Guardian, not the report itself.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
While technically true, very misleading. It seems as it's working very hard to give the impression that the US proffited from this corruption. This particular spin seems to come from the Guardian, not the report itself.

From the report

That means U.S. imports financed about 52 percent of the illegal surcharges paid to the Hussein regime.

From the Guardian news story:

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.


I don't see how that can be called "spin".

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Darat
From the report

That means U.S. imports financed about 52 percent of the illegal surcharges paid to the Hussein regime.

From the Guardian news story:

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.


I don't see how that can be called "spin".

I don't get it, if the US companies didn't pay for it knowingly -- according to the report -- then it couldn't come directly from Iraq, meaning it went through a middle man or men of some sort which make me doubt that 100% made it back to Iraq.

Also, how the heck does one launder oil?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Also, how the heck does one launder oil?

Warm water and detergent.

[CFLarsen]

Galloway takes on US oil accusers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm)

In a combative performance before a Senate committee, the Respect Coalition MP accused the US lawmakers of being "cavalier" with justice.

He said: "I am not now nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf."

That's as clear as it will ever get. In a way, kudos to Galloway for speaking so plainly.

So, let's see the evidence.

Cut the crap, don't obfuscate. Just post the goddamn evidence.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Darat
From the report

That means U.S. imports financed about 52 percent of the illegal surcharges paid to the Hussein regime.

From the Guardian news story:

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.


I don't see how that can be called "spin".

It appears, but I cannot yet be certain, that they are BOTH spin. They both attempt to color the U.S. (more specifically, the Bush administration by implication and not just a company based within U.S.) as being a knowing culprit (even if it is somewhat pointed out in another part that this can't be demonstrated) The fact that this is a senate report doesn't make it unbiased. To the contrary. Exactly to the contrary.

From the front page
PREPARED BY THE
MINORITY STAFF
OF THE
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE
ON INVESTIGATIONS

Do the Brits around here know who the MINORITY on the commitee is? (not trying to be condesending...just asking).

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
It appears, but I cannot yet be certain, that they are BOTH spin. They both attempt to color the U.S. (more specifically, the Bush administration by implication and not just a company based within U.S.) as being a knowing culprit (even if it is somewhat pointed out in another part that this can't be demonstrated) The fact that this is a senate report doesn't make it unbiased. To the contrary. Exactly to the contrary.

From the front page


Do the Brits around here know who the MINORITY on the committee is? (not trying to be condescending...just asking).

I presumed the Democrats? However I was also presuming that there has to be "due process" with the reports? In other words they can’t just make it up? (Please tell me that is the case...)

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's as clear as it will ever get. In a way, kudos to Galloway for speaking so plainly.


Plainly? Hmm.. listen very carefully to his words, there are some things he very carefully does not deny.

Two very personal points, I've learnt that when someone very carefully uses exactly the same phrases over and over when asked directly about something it is an indication they might be being very careful, combine that with the fact that I wouldn’t trust Galloway as far as a two year old could throw him and my personal opinion is that.... well I don’t have the resources of the Telegraph so I’ll keep my opinion to myself.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon
Warm water and detergent.

:p

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Darat
I presumed the Democrats? However I was also presuming that there has to be "due process" with the reports? In other words they can’t just make it up? (Please tell me that is the case...)

Actually, they pretty much can, but I'm not saying they did. This IS NOT the committee report. This is only a report prepared and distributed solely by the democrat members of that committee. It has no legal bearing whatsoever, so far as I know. It's good for some newspapers though.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
"The Subcommittee Minority Staff has not seen evidence showing that U.S. companies knowingly purchased Iraqi oil on which an illegal surcharge had been paid; in fact, U.S. companies typically included a clause in their contracts requiring a seller to provide a warranty that no surcharge had been paid." Are we expected to believe that the US-based oil traders did not know about the requirement to pay surcharges for Iraqi oil at this time? That they were that ignorant about a significant part of the world oil market? That anybody was? So they got the oil via intermediaries and asked for warranties. Why did they believe the warrantiess, given that they must have known of the Iraqi kickback requirements? It strikes me they knew perfectly well they meant nothing except an excuse to wave later, and be accepted by the desperate to accept.

It would be interesting to know whether this oil, bought from intermediaries who (as you point out) may have been French or Russian or Illuminati, still came at a discount to the spot price at the time. The question being, why buy that particular oil?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Darat
Another country caught with their hand in the cookie (oil) barrel!


Yep it looks like yet another country at least looked the other way when it came to Iraq oil sales:



Yet more evidence that some things truly are international – greed! :(

I was a supporter of the sanctions against Iraq whilst Saddam was in power so I find all these revelations very distasteful. It is no wonder that Saddam did not consider that he should change his policies towards his own people or his general belligerence – the evidence he had was that the “West� was just playing games and it was all empty rhetoric.

The other side of the same coin was looking the other way for much of the oil smuggling, via Syria, Iran, Jordan, Turkey and so on. Everyone was aware of that too.

However I am somewhat reluctant to accept without more proof that the US knew of all the activities of Americans in this regard.

One would think that the senators making waves in this investigation would have had access to some of that information a long time ago, and not wanted to be embarrased later in their zeal to find the conspirators.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Darat
Plainly? Hmm.. listen very carefully to his words, there are some things he very carefully does not deny.

Two very personal points, I've learnt that when someone very carefully uses exactly the same phrases over and over when asked directly about something it is an indication they might be being very careful, combine that with the fact that I wouldn’t trust Galloway as far as a two year old could throw him and my personal opinion is that.... well I don’t have the resources of the Telegraph so I’ll keep my opinion to myself.

Everything about Galloway makes him a biased source for anything. Reminds me of that Commie B** from Italy.