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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (405)	5/17/2007 1:58:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Y'know Jttmab, try as I might, I just can't seem to find a link to that Senate report. Lots of news articles, but no actual break-down of where they get the 52%.. Now, I would concur that the 7 tankers of oil that were permitted to circumvent the normal purview of the OFF program, JUST WEEKS BEFORE we overthrow Saddam, would be quite substantial. And certainly Jordan, heavily dependent upon Iraqi oil, could not long sustain an interruption in supply. But given that Saddam was out of power within weeks, he didn't get much opportunity to spend that money. So what I would like to know is whether that 52% the Senate report mentions consists substantially of those 7 tankers, or are they asserting that the majority of these kickbacks occurred in the years before? And I think Chevron and any other US oil company, when discovered to have been paying kickbacks, should be fined dollar for dollar. But I really need to see the report and understand how they are drawing their conclusions. Because that report was not bi-partisan, according to the media articles. It was generated by the Democratic side. Hawk