Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (196080)	8/8/2006 2:03:37 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Then find out who those US government officials ARE and indict and try them. Pretty simple, isn't it?? That is, unless those officials were possibly part of the Clinton administration, eh? I don't especially care where it leads to. My point is the hypocrisy of conservatives claiming the UN is corrupt while they completely ignore that the US government facilitated the activity and 52% of all the kickbacks that went to Saddam came from good patriotic US companies. I'm sure all of them flew the US flag proudly in front of company HQs while they were paying kickbacks to Saddam. I imagine Bay Oil didn't contribute enough to the RNC and was picked to be the example for the next RNC pass the hat. You might also recall the Duefler report.... "The final official version of the report cites only France, Russia and Canada as violators who paid kickbacks (countries who were also heavily anti-war) while at the same time specifically censoring out companies from the US originially included by Duelfer by CIA order. [11] However, the full version of the report, before the U.S. names were removed, was sent to congressional committees and some of it made publicly available. The U.S. companies implicated include Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and El Paso Corp" en.wikipedia.org Clever of the CIA to oreder the US names removed. No doubt a national security issue. How are the indictments on those companies proceeding? To tell you the truth I don't really care whether Bay Oil got indicted and I don't much care whether anyone in the US government or military gets indicted. I just like the sunshine. If you google [I note that you've recently indicated your abilities in that regard.] you'll find the instrument of facilitation was the US Navy. Career military just taking orders. If you're a bit lucky, you'll hit on the time period when the Navy was involved. If you use your fingers to count backwards, you'll be able to figure out which Administration it was. Scott Ritter is a former marine, as such, I don't think anyone should be surprised. Best and brightest and all; they all go pretty cheap. But what would you expect when they come out of the Service and have no market skills. Whether Ritter got money that was associated with Bay Oil isn't a crime as far as I know. Perhaps you've got some particular Federal Code that applies. Volcker criticized Kojo Annan, son of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the Swiss company Cotecna Inspection SA, Annan's employer, for trying to conceal their relationship. Whoa! That's a big one. I can see the prosecution chomping at the bit to prosecute that one. You've really hit a big one there. I'm almost embarassed to bring up the all the illegal kickbacks that US companies made to Saddam. 52% of the world total of kickbacks to Saddam seems pretty petty compared to concealing a relationship. A leaked internal U.N. audit, which surfaced on mineweb.com, shows massive discrepancies between Cotecna reports and U.N. agency reports for the value of the shipments into northern Iraq. Cotecna would be a Swiss company. One should never trust those "netural" people. I think it translates to we'll take money from anyone in any way we can. Unless Kojo was the accountant for Cotecna, I don't see musch value in bringing that up. If I was going to bring up another country or company, I would have mentioned the Aussies. Another one of the great members of the Coalition of the Willing. If I recall correctly it was an Aussie company that held the record for the company paying the largest kickback to Saddam. Cotecta actually raised the price of its bid after the second meeting with Annan and it STILL WON. That doesn't mean a lot to me. We used to get contractors to raise bids before a competitive award. Most of the time it was because they overlooked something; sometimes it was to get a contractor to raise his bid to get him out of the competition. You have to be very careful which words you use. Keep it to clarification questions....I'm trying to find in your proposal where you've covered _________? Ok, does anyone want to submit a revised cost proposal before we select the winner? Bottom line.. the UN panel might have stated there was "no evidence" that Annan had a role in orchestrating Cotectna's being awarded that contract via the influence of both he and his son... "might have said!? I think they did say there was no evidence. You can't remember meeting someone TWICE, IN A PRIVATE MEETING Geez. Bush can't remember ever meeting Jack Abarmoff. Rummy can't remember ever saying that there were WMD to the North, South, East and West of Baghdad! There's a global problem in recall. Maybe it's the 4400 doing it's 4400 thing. BTW, you'll also find that majority of illegal shipments of oil were outside of the any UN program. Any invovement by UN personnel or any or the other individuals you missed was not a function of the UN but a handful of individuals operating independently for their own personal gain. You want the big corruption, you look at the companies from around the world; with US companies responsible for the bulk of the kickbacks to Saddam and the US government facilitating it. jttmab