US backed illegal oil deals



 Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > US backed illegal oil deals

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1
Topic: Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User: "tw"
Date: 17 May 2005 02:50:30 AM
Object: US backed illegal oil deals
Putting Bush and his Halliburton buddies in charge of this really was
handing the henhouse to the fox to guard, wasn't it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive
sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate
investigation.
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.
The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi
Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.
The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears
before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.
The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived yesterday in Washington
demanding an apology from the Senate for what he called the "schoolboy
dossier" passed off as an investigation against him.
"It was full of holes, full of falsehoods and full of value judgments that
are apparently only shared here in Washington," he said at Washington Dulles
airport.
He told Reuters: "I have no expectation of justice ... I come not as the
accused but as the accuser. I am [going] to show just how absurd this report
is."
Mr Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and
will come face to face with the committee in what promises to be one of the
most highly charged pieces of political theatre seen in Washington for some
time.
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".
The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which
Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and
humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies
were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and
September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks
of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.
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. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil
directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under
the counter.
The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information
about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided
by the US treasury.
After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state
department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil
in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request
specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".
Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's
activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil
and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously
defend these reckless accusations."
The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of
the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or
surveillance.
Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US
company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor
al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and
civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy
vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.
Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of
the shipments and has determined not to take action".
The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US
naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments.
"He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I
completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young
said.
An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil
shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.
It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted
by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.
The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN
referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.
--
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114709781.332897.111490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...


tw wrote:

<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1114700062.6094a60c7ba98783255460a391047bf3@teranews...

Marburg outbreak claims 253 lives in Angola


What's your point, bitchtits? Do you think it was weaponised Marburg
manufactured by Saddam from his gaol cell?



''gaol cell?''

That is not a typo :)

Nope, it's the correct spelling. As you might have known if your brainstem
had developed into an actual brain.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gaol


You just slammed me as a illiterate - lol.

...and you just confirmed it, you braindead fucking fool. Thanks!
.


  Page 1 of 1


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER