SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (5571)10/7/2004 11:23:31 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
France: No Convictions Without Confessions

Captain Ed

The French have responded to the CIA's release of the long list of officials bribed by Saddam Hussein through the UN Oil-For-Food program -- and it's a non-denial denial:


<<<France dismissed accusations made in an official US report that French businessmen and politicians received bribes from Saddam Hussein order to influence government policy on Iraq, with the foreign ministry describing them as "unverified." ...

"It is important that we check very closely the truth behind these claims, because as far as we understand it the accusations ... are unverified either with the persons concerned or the authorities of the countries concerned," ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said.>>>

In other words, France will not accept the results of the report if it is not accompanied by either (a) an individual admission of guilt, and/or (b) an admission of guilt by the country -- France! That's a nice example of circular logic. By that reasoning, we should never convict anyone without their confession first. It explains why the French felt it necessary to hide the murderer Ira Einhorn for so long. "Zut alors," they exclaimed, "he says he did not verify the charges!"


Notice, however, that the French never claimed that the charges were erroneous or incorrect -- merely that they were not verified by the people who profited from the graft. More on the non-response response from our allies, the French:


<<<The French Socialist party meanwhile refused to respond to the accusation made in the report that it was given one million dollars by Iraq in 1988. A spokesman said the party could not react to allegations of which it was only partially informed. ...

"Maybe there are some people who could have been corrupted -- it is possible -- but the French position was not based on such arguments. France thought that what the US said about WMD was wrong and that we had to respect international procedures at the UN," said deputy Daniel Garrigue, president of the National Assembly's Iraq study group.>>>

Garrigue wants to assure that despite taking money on the sly from a dictator in order to undermine the sanctions regime France claimed kept Saddam in his box, it was only their scruples that were corrupt and not their judgement. Anyone who buys that argument must either be French or a Democrat.


Posted by Captain Ed at 12:48 PM

captainsquartersblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (5571)10/8/2004 1:12:16 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A Familiar Name Among The Bribed

Captain Ed

Fox News's article on the ISG report ties more names to the widescale corruption at the UN which enabled Saddam to subvert the international sanctions John Kerry claims had him "trapped". Billions of dollars made their way illegally into Saddam's coffers, and some familiar names benefitted from the kickbacks:

<<<Suitcases full of cash, secret bank accounts, covert operatives, corrupt politicians on the take. A report detailing alleged illicit U.N. Oil-for-Food deals with the former Iraq government paints a portrait of Saddam Hussein as an international gangster -- not a nuclear terrorist. ...
The report, delivered Wednesday by Charles Duelfer, who was charged to investigate the extent of Iraq's weapons programs, relies on internal Iraqi documents and extensive interviews with members of the former regime now imprisoned in Iraq.

Although Saddam opposed the program at first, he quickly realized it could be exploited and did so with mendacious verve until the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, former Iraqi officials report.

Saddam was able to "subvert" the $60 billion U.N. Oil-for-Food program to generate an estimated $1.7 billion in revenue outside U.N. control from 1997-2003, Duelfer's report says.

In addition to Oil-for-Food schemes, Iraq brought in over $8 billion in illicit oil deals with Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt through smuggling or illegal pumping through pipelines during the full period that sanctions were in place from 1991-2003, the report says.>>>

Syria, it should be noted, sat on the UN Security Council and had responsibility to enforce its sanctions on Saddam. Instead,
as the LA Times detailed in December 2003, Bashir Assad deliberately undermined the sanctions regime in order to both enrich himself and curry favor with his Ba'ath colleague and sometime rival. Egypt gets $2B a year from the US to maintain its alliance with us and Israel, but decided to moonlight for spare change. Jordan and especially Turkey are supposedly our allies, Turkey being an example of an Islamic democracy that we would like to duplicate. Perhaps they prefer the French, who also made a lot of money stabbing us in the back.

Fox notes some individuals who made out pretty well by selling out - Benon Sevan, for one, who ran the Oil-For-Food program and has recently taken to saying that enforcement of the rules wasn't his job. The oil vouchers he received from Saddam could have brought him an extra $2M. A Russian colonel got between $15-$20M, although she intended to disperse it among colleagues, and it's always good to see people sharing their good fortune.

One name leaps out from the crowd, however. People may recall the pardon scandals at the end of the Clinton presidency in January 2001, just as Clinton prepared to leave office. One pardon in particular raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, and that same name has mysteriously reappeared in the UNSCAM fallout:


<<<In what the report calls, "an open secret," the Iraqi government demanded illicit surcharges of 25-to-30 cents on all barrels of oil bought, which buyers had to secretly pay before the deals were sealed. They complied because the Iraqis were selling slightly below market prices.

One of the most prolific purchasers of the oil was Swiss-based Glencore run by one-time fugitive American financier Marc Rich, which the report alleges paid over $3.2 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government. Rich, formerly wanted for tax-evasion was pardoned by President Clinton in his last days in office.


The report says that the company denies any inappropriate deals.>>>

At the time of the pardon, many people puzzled over why Bill Clinton would pardon a man who fled the country and whose status as a fugitive had been under negotiation with the FBI just prior to Clinton's action. Instead of cutting a deal with Rich to get him back to the US to face charges, Clinton pulled the rug out from under the FBI. Without the leverage of the charges, Rich had no further motivation to cooperate with the DoJ on any outstanding investigations.

At the time, the presumption was that Rich's wife had donated enough money to buy the pardon. Now, however, the question may be whether Clinton knew about the corruption and feared that an aggressive Bush administration policy would uncover Rich's participation in undermining Iraqi sanctions while Rich raised funds for both his presidential library and Hillary's election. Or maybe the issue runs even deeper than that?
(hat tip: G Gotway)



To: Sully- who wrote (5571)10/8/2004 5:28:16 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Iraq Amnesia

The real "coalition of the bribed" was at the U.N.


The Wall Street Journal
Friday, October 8, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Judging from the current Iraq debate, you might think Saddam Hussein didn't use poison gas on the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. Or that 500,000 American troops hadn't been sent to the Gulf in 1990-91 to reverse his invasion of Kuwait. Or that Saddam hadn't tried to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in 1993, or long harbored one of the bombers who attacked the World Trade Center that year.

It might also be easy to forget that Saddam never came clean about his weapons of mass destruction, resulting in Bill Clinton's Desert Fox bombing of 1998 and the ejection of U.N. inspectors. Or that he necessitated a huge U.S. troop presence in the region, which Osama bin Laden cited in his 1998 fatwa as one of his primary grievances against America.

It's clear why John Kerry doesn't want to talk about these things, having decided for now that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Count us a bit mystified, however, that the incumbent hasn't done a better job putting his Iraq policy in this context. Fortunately for President Bush, Congressional Oil for Food hearings and Charles Duelfer's final weapons inspections report for the CIA have come along this week to remind us all that the "containment" of Saddam was neither as blissful as certain partisans remember it, nor even sustainable.


"By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," Mr. Duelfer writes. "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."


We realize that some of our media friends think the salient news here is the old news: that Saddam did not possess large stockpiles of WMDs when Coalition forces invaded in March 2003. But Mr. Duelfer explicitly rejects the facile conclusion that therefore sanctions were working. Among his other findings, based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and other senior regime figures:

• Saddam believed weapons of mass destruction were essential to the preservation of his power, especially during the Iran-Iraq and 1991 Gulf wars.

• He engaged in strategic deception intended to suggest that he retained WMD.

• He fully intended to resume real WMD production after the expected lifting of U.N. sanctions, and he maintained weapons programs that put him in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions including 1441.

• And he instituted an epic bribery scheme aimed primarily at three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, with the intent of having them help lift those sanctions.

"Saddam personally approved and removed all names of voucher recipients," under the Oil for Food program, Mr. Duelfer writes. Alleged beneficiaries of such bribes include individuals in China, as well as some with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac.

As Congressmen Chris Shays's House International Relations Committee heard in testimony on Tuesday, France, Russia and China did in fact work hard to help Saddam skirt and escape sanctions. One Iraqi intelligence report uncovered by Mr. Duelfer says that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its U.N. veto against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq--as indeed France later threatened to do.

Evidence also continues to mount that U.N. Oil for Food Program director Benon Sevan was among those on Saddam's payroll.
(He denies it.) And contrary to earlier claims that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son Kojo severed connections with the Swiss-based firm Cotecna prior to it winning its Oil for Food inspections contract, we now know that Kojo was kept on the company payroll for another year. We eagerly await the promised interim report from the U.N.'s Paul Volcker-led Oil for Food review panel, and hope in the interests of an informed electorate that it can be delivered soon.

But there are already plenty of facts on the table to support one conclusion.
To wit: Even if one accepts the desirability of some kind of "global test" before America acts militarily, U.N. Security Council approval can't be it. There was never any chance that this "coalition of the bribed" was going to explicitly endorse regime change, or the presumed alternative of another 12 years of economic sanctions. "Politically," writes Mr. Duelfer, "the Iraqis were losing their stigma" by 2001.

The sanctions-were-working crowd also ignores that Saddam never would have readmitted weapons inspectors without the kind of U.S. troop mobilization that isn't feasible with any frequency. For President Bush to have backed off in 2003 without unambiguous disarmament would have meant the end once and for all of any real threat of force behind "containment."

Senator John McCain summed it up well at the Republican Convention: "Those who criticize that decision [to go to war in Iraq] would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone." Supporters of his Iraq policy are hoping that Mr. Bush finds a similar voice tonight.


opinionjournal.com



To: Sully- who wrote (5571)10/8/2004 6:41:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
JOHN KERRY'S 'ALLIES' — BOUGHT AND PAID FOR

NY Post
October 8, 2004

The national media are busy trumpet ing the news that the chief U.S. weapons inspector, Charles Duel fer, found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Which is hardly news, right?

But there is news — real news — in Duelfer's 1,200-page report.

It tells the tale of how Saddam Hussein, clinging to power, enlisted top U.N. officials to help him bribe leaders of those European nations so dear to John Kerry's heart into ending tough economic sanctions against Iraq.

Whereupon Saddam planned to resume his decades-long quest for WMDs.

And he almost succeeded.

What stopped him?

The attacks of 9/11 — which prompted determined leaders like President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair finally to confront the threat Saddam represented — as Duelfer's report confirms.

The key was the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program
— meant to provide relief for Saddam's suffering millions, but, in the event, one of the most corrupt "humanitarian" undertakings in history.

It provided almost no help to the Iraqi people, but rather gave Saddam nearly $11 billion in hard currency — cash used to bribe foreign officials into a gradual loosening of sanctions.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan's deputy, Benon Sevan, oversaw the program.

(Now it appears that Sevan may have enriched himself to the tune of $1.3 million, courtesy of oil companies he personally recommended to Iraq after the program began.)


Saddam's "evolving strategy," says Duelfer, "centered on breaking free of U.N. sanctions in order to liberate his economy from the economic stranglehold, so he could continue to pursue his political and personal objectives."

To do that, he resolved to divide the five permanent Security Council members. The United States and Great Britain were unapproachable — so instead he set about buying off the governments of France, China and Russia.

The three nations which — wouldn't you know? — worked at every turn to frustrate any attempt to hold Saddam's feet to the fire.

Among those to whom Saddam personally approved offers of oil vouchers — worth millions of dollars each — were:

* Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister;

* Patrick Maugein, believed by Iraqi intelligence to be closely tied to French President Jacques Chirac; in addition, two of Chirac's aides and one of his spokesmen were given cash payoffs.

According to the report, an unnamed French politician wrote Saddam to assure him that France would use its veto power against any U.S. attack on Iraq.

* Officials in the Russian presidential office and foreign ministry.

In all, officials in more than a dozen countries were given the vouchers.

And dozens of oil companies in the same countries — their names still kept secret — got lucrative contracts.

Which were the nations with the highest percentage of oil-voucher recipients?

France, China and Russia.

The sweetheart deals "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions," according Duelfer.

In fact, Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, "sanctions were in free fall . . . If not for 9/11, I don't think they would exist today."

Once the sanctions were gone, said Duelfer, Saddam could have had a biological weapons "within a few weeks."


"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force" and "had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," said Duelfer. (This, after all, was a man who'd already used poison gas against both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish women and children.)

Also clear, according to the report, is that "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable."

You certainly won't be hearing anything like that from the John-John Ticket — Kerry and Edwards.

The Democratic Duo has adopted the simplistic position that no weapons of mass destruction means no justification for the Iraq war. And that the enlistment of "allies" — France? Russia? — is the key to a secure America.


Back in the real world, while the Duelfer report may not be a smoking gun in the case against Saddam, it certainly represents a loaded pistol pointed straight at the United States and at the global economy — dependant as it is on Mideast oil.

Saddam fully expected sanctions to disappear — and he acted accordingly.

According to Duelfer's report, the Oil-for-Food program and Saddam's decision to once again kick out U.N. inspectors in 1998 "spurred a period of increased activity in [weapons] delivery-systems development. The pace of ongoing missile programs accelerated, and the regime authorized its scientists to design missiles with ranges in excess of 150 km."

Duelfer's investigators also "uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruiser missile."

These plans, they said, "demonstrate Saddam's . . . desire — up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom — for a long-range delivery capability."

Moreover, Saddam had the help of a host of scientists and technicians from Russia, and "had entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems."

In fact, a French arms firm was in negotiations to supply Saddam with critical surface-to-air missile and other high-tech parts "with battlefield applications" just three weeks before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Duelfer's report makes it unmistakably clear that regional domination was Saddam's goal all along — and that he would have continued his quest once U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Which, thanks to the corruption at Turtle Bay, they would have been by now.

In retrospect, how can anyone doubt that Saddam represented a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world?

That's exactly how Charles Duelfer describes him.

Waiting for U.N. "sanctions" to do the job — as John Kerry and John Edwards now say they favored — would have been foolish.

The lesson of 9/11 is that America can't let the next threat grow until it's too late to do anything about it.

President Bush understands — which is why he was right to move militarily against Iraq.

To do otherwise would have been to invite another 9/11 — or worse.


nypost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (5571)10/10/2004 3:06:51 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
"Once bribed they stay bribed"

Common Sense & Wonder

Too bad that it is not possible for President Bush to say the things detailed in this piece from Investors Business Daily. Because it clearly outlines the absurdity of Senator Kerry's position on Iraq. Unlike Senator Kerry the President cannot in public insult nations, the UN, or imply criminality no matter how well justified unless he is prepared to call them enemies.

<<<<Scandal: A great debate has raged over why so many of the world's major countries suddenly went all weak in the knees when the U.S. went after Saddam Hussein. A new CIA report makes the reason clear, and it isn't pretty.

The report by Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, sketches out in plain language what could be the biggest bribery scandal of the last century — one that reaches into the highest political circles. It makes for shocking reading.

It shows how Saddam evaded U.N. sanctions from 1997 to 2003 by illicitly selling oil through other countries and bribing world leaders, up-and-coming politicians, journalists, businesses, even the U.N. itself. In the process he cleared $11 billion in illegal profits.

The report names names. Anyone who could help him regain weapons of mass destruction was a target. He settled on Russia, France and China — three of the five U.N. Security Council members that, with the stroke of a veto pen, could stop the U.N. from going to war or end economic sanctions against his country.

Even more stunning than the fact of the bribery is its scope and depth. The list of those who helped Saddam cheat and got paid for it is long and depressing.

It includes Charles Pasqua, France's former interior minister; Megawati Sukarnoputri, president of Indonesia; and Benon Sevan, former head of the U.N.'s Iraq sanctions program. Also named are a large number of Russian government officials and fixers and the governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt and China.

And that's just a few. The list is hundreds of names long.

Saddam's strategy was simple: keep the U.S. off his back. American and British planes were buzzing over Iraq's "no-fly" zones since the 1991 end of the Gulf War, and Saddam was forced to suspend his WMD program due to U.N. inspections.

To get his way, Saddam gave, in the words of the report, "preferential treatment to Russian and French companies hoping for Russian and French support on the UN Security Council."

That is, he bribed them. He wanted U.N. sanctions ended so he could go back to making chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

France proved to be an easy target. So was Russia.

In the case of France, Iraqi intelligence "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," the Duelfer report said. Iraq even toyed with the idea of supporting a candidate in the French elections — though there's no evidence Iraq gave Chirac money directly.

Still, a member of the French Parliament, according to a memo sent to Saddam in May 2002, "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the U.N. Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq." That is, once bribed, France would stay bribed.

All in all, a scandal of epic proportions
. But what can be made of it? Well, a number of things:

For one, it's a devastating blow to John Kerry's much-ballyhooed "plan" to end the war in Iraq by holding an international conference of nations — including France, Russia and China — to decide Iraq's future. Given what we know of those nations' complicity with Saddam's murderous regime, that's no longer an option.

Also shattered is Kerry's assertion that patient diplomacy might have disarmed Iraq and brought Saddam to heel. French, Russian and Chinese efforts to subvert U.S. actions against Iraq show they would have opposed us no matter what. They were merely providing the service they were paid for.

Then there's Kerry's assertion that future action in Iraq must pass a "global test." That, too, now seems ridiculous.

Iraq's cheating on sanctions corrupted a major world forum — the U.N. — along with many of its most influential members. Put bluntly, the U.N. can't be trusted. Nor can France, Russia or China. Despite pretenses, none of them can be counted as a U.S. ally.


Too bad. In coming months, tough decisions will have to be made in Iraq — how much force to use, how to hold elections, how to rebuild. We'll have to make them with our existing coalition.

It should have been a broader effort of many nations — one that potentially led to the blossoming of democracy across the Mideast.

Instead, a massive bribery scandal has revealed the rank cynicism and open dishonesty of many nations we used to trust.

We commend the Duelfer report to your attention. It shows clearly we were right to get rid of Saddam. Perhaps more important, it shows just as clearly whom we can still call friends.
>>>>

Jerry Scharf

commonsensewonder.com