interesting wording here:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... o_hussein/

"Bush administration officials who asked not to be identified confirmed that US investigators in Iraq have targeted several American companies and individuals -- none of whom were US government officials at the time -- for allegedly providing Hussein's government with goods prohibited by UN sanctions, which were applied against Iraq after its defeat in the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

not government officials at the time....? wonder who that could mean?? I wonder if anyone involved in this administration ever was involed in the oil for food scandal...let's look, shall we?

But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil

UN documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the UN's oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to UN documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al-Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of its foreign subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001.

The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, UN records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts – later blocked by the United States, according to the Post – to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War years earlier.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

The United States had concluded that Iraq, Libya, and Iran supported terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them. Yet during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton the company did business in all three countries. In the case of Iraq, Halliburton legally evaded U.S. sanctions by conducting its oil-service business through foreign subsidiaries that had once been owned by Dresser. With Iran and Libya, Halliburton used its own subsidiaries. The use of foreign subsidiaries may have helped the company to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

under Cheney's watch, two foreign subsidiaries of Dresser sold millions of dollars' worth of oil services and parts to Saddam's regime. The transactions were not illegal, but they were politically suspect. The deals occurred under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, at a time when Saddam Hussein chose which companies his government would work with. Corruption was rampant. It may be that it was simply Halliburton's expertise that attracted Saddam's regime, but a United Nations diplomat with the Oil-for-Food program has doubts. "Most American companies were blacklisted," he said. "It's rather surprising to find Halliburton doing business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level decision, made by the regime at the top." Cheney has said that he personally directed the company to stop doing business with Saddam. Halliburton's presence in Iraq ended in February, 2000.


In July 2000, the International Herald Tribune reported, "Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., joint ventures that Halliburton has sold within the past year, have done work in Iraq on contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry, under the United Nations' Oil for Food Program." A Halliburton spokesman acknowledged to the Tribune that the Dresser subsidiaries did sell oil-pumping equipment to Iraq via European agents.


According to an oil industry trade publication, "Under the United Nations oil-for-food program, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and Valero, an independent refining company, were among the biggest American buyers of Iraqi oil through international traders."

So Hailliburton selling pumps and firefighting equipment made Saddam, France, Russia, China, Germany, and UN members bribe one another.

That makes total sense. Hey, why don't you turn this into a well cited thesis paper, turn it into an English professor, and see what kind of grade you get on it.

What's wrong with a company giving equipment for Iraq to pump oil? In all seriousness? I mean, I do have moderate objections to it, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the oil for aid scandal.

NOTHING!

Now if they recieved illegal kickbacks and such, I'd be disturbed, but they gave them oil pumping equipment.

"eating ice cream with the enemy hey coach?"

mighty ducks


its working with the enemy. with terrorists. "either with us or against us" when we work with them ourselves..or supply for them...

i personally believe it just adds to the complete crap our government spews us. we are in it for our own personal gain. bottom line

<sigh> did you even read it? Let's see...Most US companies were blacklissted yet Saddam allowed a company ran by the sec def during the 1st Gulf War....yeah sure...nothing shady there, eh?

They also violated US law to deal with Iraq, using French agents to carry out the deals.

As 62Strat pointed out, when does the 'you're either with us or with the terrorists' apply? I guess not when you are making money from them.

So why are they allowed to mention French and German companies by name but US ones have to be 'US persons' or a' US comapny'?? And the line "none of them were US government officials at the time'....???

Read again: PROVIDING HUSSEIN's GOVERNMENT WITH GOODS PROHIBITED BY UN SANCTIONS. and they made over $73 MILLION from it.

Sooo you see nothing wrong with violating UN sanctions and US law to help them increase their oil supply which helped them bribe more ppl? At the very least can you say 'enabler'?

Correct me if Im wrong but I do not think selling oil pumps was prohibited by the oil for food programs. The United States supported Iraq's selling of oil for humanitarian purposes and if we had to provide them with the capabilities to do so, I see NOTHING wrong with it. I was expecting something mindblowing in this thread and theres no story at all. The U.S. supported the oil for food program and in doing so provided Iraq (according to your story) with the means to enact the program. This isnt a scandal, there is no bribary, this absurd that you are even making an issue of it. How absolutely despicable of Halliburton to sell equipment to Iraq so that they could participate in a humanitarian effort approved by the U.N.

Well, ya know...I did say that I have objections to this...if it's true.

Couple questions though. I read those articles in their entirity. Now, no offense, but the Globe piece doesn't put its finger on any company. And I'd say that the paragraph you just...well...felt like posting if anything exonerates Cheney.

Seondly...the New Yorker? Hey, why don't I just go to National Review and post articles here. I'm sorry if I view a "Letter From Washington" written as an opinion piece in the New Yorker as less than legtimate source of information.



Well, did you read the articles? I'm not going to answer that, because your own source does a better job of answering that question than I could.



Again, I said I have issues with it yes. I don't have NEARLY the issues that you have with it, because again, selling .073 billion dollars in pumps has nothing to do with what...42 billion dollars in bribery in the UN. Lets keep all this in perspective.

Here is my big issue with these accusations. Call this common sense, but let's pretend Dick Cheney is LittleWing. If Vice President LittleWing as director of Halliburton illegally sold and profited from dealings with Iraq in the nineties, Vice President LittleWing would NOT ADVOCATE GOING TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE! Mainly because LittleWings wrongdoings would undoubtedly come to light...

Call that common sense.

it was more than selling pumps...and how do you explain this:

The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to UN documents.

and

under Cheney's watch, two foreign subsidiaries of Dresser sold millions of dollars' worth of oil services and parts to Saddam's regime

oil SERVICES services...ya know what services are, doncha?

also if it were so innocent why did Cheney at first in 2000 claim they NEVER did business with Iraq? Then when it came out he claimed he didn't know, i mean he's only the freakin CEO, why should he know that his company has contracts with Iraq for a bit under $100 Million? Yeah, makes perfect sense, don't it?

Also if you read the article it says 'most US companies were blacklisted' So Saddam refuses to work with US companies because he's bitter about the GUlf War EXCEPT for the one ran by the fucking Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War....ummm suuuuure

Yeah, and I'm sure it was that cut and dry...



I guess that automatically makes them not authorized under the oil-for-food deal?

And again, you need to do a little better than a vague article in the Boston Globe and some piece of used toilet paper from the New Yorker. Again, you'll never see me try and convince anyone here with articles from Towhall.com, worldnetdaily, or Right Wing News.

well since you obviously know feel free to share your speculation...err i mean well documented facts with us



I guess that automatically makes them not authorized under the oil-for-food deal?

And again, you need to do a little better than a vague article in the Boston Globe and some piece of used toilet paper from the New Yorker. Again, you'll never see me try and convince anyone here with articles from Towhall.com, worldnetdaily, or Right Wing News.[/quote]

I have no clue what you mean by the first part there...who said they weren't authorized?? He (and you) like to say 'but they just sold oil pumps!!" I showed you both that they also provided SERVICES which maybe you didn't know is more than just selling oil pumps.

Yes you don't use right wing news, actually I never see you back up anything you say at all...yeah you sure showed me!

Please give me a list of approved sources I am allowed to use

Again, and this is just me trying to be funny, VoR, Strunk would hate you.

All involved should be indicted.

is that supposed to make sense?

and



I've reverted to pictures. Does it help?

I think what hes trying to indicate is that a history, english, or political science professor wouldn't whipe his ass with this tripe, and to use it as a credible source would be detrimental to your argument. Essentially, this is subjective opinion and you haven't given us any compelling evidence aside from your obvious contempt for Cheney.

UNITED NATIONS

The right-wing has found an excuse to dust off its plans to undermine the United Nations. Without a doubt, the illegal exploitation of the United Nations' oil-for-food program by Saddam Hussein is a serious matter that deserves careful scrutiny. But it does not justify the dishonest and manipulative campaign by the right-wing lynch mob, led by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), against U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Fox News, predictably, has skipped over the question of whether Coleman's allegations – which he claims oblige Annan to resign – are true, and jumped right to the broader conclusion that the United Nations itself is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent. This Sunday, Fox News' Brit Hume said "The deeper problem here, of course, is the U.N. itself. This scandal is really, really a sign of what the U.N. has become. It is an enormously corrupt bureaucracy up there. It's a world unto itself. Self-dealing, I think, is rampant." For anyone sick of the bluster from people like Hume, here are the facts – we report, you decide: (Click here for our list of ten things you should know about the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.)

THE SECURITY COUNCIL WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING THE PROGRAM: Coleman and others are calling for Annan's head because he was at the helm of the United Nations bureaucracy while the scandal took place. But the U.N.'s oil for food program was developed and directed "not by U.N. civil servants but by the U.N. Security Council, as are all the organization's sanctions regimes." In other words, the people who ran the program didn't work for Annan, they "worked for the council's member states, including the United States and the four other permanent members." Therefore, diplomats from members of the Security Council – including the United States – are far more culpable for any problems with the oil-for-food program than Annan, who had no direct authority over it.

SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IGNORED U.N. OFFICIALS: Since the Security Council ran the program, its members were responsible for rejecting or accepting contracts to do business with Iraq. On 70 occasions, U.N. officials – who were under the control of Annan – reported evidence of oil pricing scams to the council. The Security Council, including officials from the United States, ignored all of these warnings. They ended up approving 36,000 contracts to do business with Iraq, but didn't hold up a single one on the basis that it could be used to siphon money.

LIES, DAMN LIES AND COLEMAN'S STATISTICS: Coleman issued a press release stating that "Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions." But Coleman fails to specify that two-thirds of this money had absolutely nothing to do with the oil-for-food program. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) explained on CNN on 12/3/04 that $15 billion was acquired by Saddam through "direct oil sales...by Iraq to Jordan and to Turkey and to Syria." This was no secret to the White House or Congress. According to Levin, "both President Clinton and this President [George W.] Bush knowingly waived that problem by notifying Congress that those sales were taking place in violation of the oil-for food program, but nonetheless they didn't want to do anything about it relative to stopping foreign aid," as generally required under United States law.

THE OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM WORKED: The two most important facts are ignored by Coleman, Fox News and rest of the right-wing's anti-U.N. mob. First, according to the administration's hand-picked weapons inspector, the sanctions regime was completely successful in preventing Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Second, the oil-for-food program mitigated the effect of the sanctions on the Iraqi people. The Financial Times notes, while the oil-for-food program was in place, "malnutrition was halved, whereas since last year's invasion of Iraq it has almost doubled."

COLEMAN'S TORTUROUS HYPOCRISY: Coleman claims that "as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent" of the problems. But there is already a comprehensive independent investigation underway "headed by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman" for Ronald Reagan. Coleman has provided no evidence that Annan is impeding the investigation. Moreover, Coleman did not argue that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld step down so the military could make an independent investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal that occurred under his watch. Instead, Coleman offered Rumsfeld words of support after he testified before Congress (calling his testimony "contrite, candid and thorough") and expressed confidence that a special commission investigating the scandal would be effective.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/s ... b=100480#2