It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Report: U.S. Bought More Oil From Saddam Than Rest of World Put Together

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I found the following old news article and thought it particularly relevant, given the huge amount of ignorant speech regarding France and Russia being in cahoots with Saddam being the "reason" why they wouldn't invade Iraq. It turns out the U.S. was the most guilty party of all in the oil-for-food scandal, yet we did invade Iraq.

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.


Source, and rest of article: The Guardian

The actual Senate report will not be up for another few months, but copies of the ranking investigatory members' statements can be found here.



[edit on 11-11-2005 by koji_K]




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Ah yes!

Excellent Find Koji!



As I was saying a Thousand times when everyone was on Mister Galloways case - he was a SMALL FISH! And as we can see today, the SHARK in the Ocean of "Oil-4-Food-Scam" was, ofcourse, US of A.

Now, lets wait for the Cavalry...




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
So what if the U.S. bought more oil than other countries under the oil for food aid? The U.S. company is one of many thousands of other companies that did illegal means to profit the oil for food aid.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   


As I was saying a Thousand times when everyone was on Mister Galloways case - he was a SMALL FISH! And as we can see today, the SHARK in the Ocean of "Oil-4-Food-Scam" was, ofcourse, US of A.


I just wonder how accepting of a story saying the opposite you would be. What if this made further accusations against Europeans, was based completely off allegations made by REPUBLICANS (as this supposed report is based entirely off the claims of Democrats) and was reported by Fox News instead of the Guardian.

I have a feeling that, like many other threads that would harm your political agenda, you would be completely absent.

Besides the fact that I question the source of these claims (both the primary and secondary), I find it funny that, unlike with certain European countries, no American politicians have directly been named in this scandel. I've yet to hear reports that American politicians were receiving personal bribes from Saddam.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
So what if the U.S. bought more oil than other countries under the oil for food aid? The U.S. company is one of many thousands of other companies that did illegal means to profit the oil for food aid.


Other people doing it, doesn't make it right, or ok for the U.S. to do it.

And, I think the point is, one point continually brought up about certain parties's lack of support for the war is the damning kickbacks. But the point is moot if the US was getting them as well.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
You need to understand- this is the SAME committee which is accusing Galloway. It's found evidence for both "issues", and both are mentioned in the same report (or rather, member's comments pending the report.) You can pick and choose what you believe in, but I think that says something about your own partisanship, if you're going to take the findings of a bipartisan senate subcommittee where the members actually agree with each other's findings and pick and choose only the Republican contributions to attribute credibility to.




[edit on 11-11-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 11-11-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette

Originally posted by deltaboy
So what if the U.S. bought more oil than other countries under the oil for food aid? The U.S. company is one of many thousands of other companies that did illegal means to profit the oil for food aid.


Other people doing it, doesn't make it right, or ok for the U.S. to do it.

And, I think the point is, one point continually brought up about certain parties's lack of support for the war is the damning kickbacks. But the point is moot if the US was getting them as well.



Yes, that's pretty much the point, although it wasn't about the kickbacks, it was about the illegal purchases made by the US private sector as well as other private sectors.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
You need to understand- this is the SAME committee which is accusing Galloway. It's found both, and both are mentioned in the same report (or rather, member's comments pending the report.)

So if you doubt the source, you are doubting bipartisan findings of both Republicans and Democrats, as well as the Galloway story.



i never said dat i doubt the source. wat im sayin is your title which says dat the U.S. bought more oil than the rest of the world. wat is the significance of dat? then u put up dat some U.S. oil company bought oil with illegal means.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

i never said dat i doubt the source. wat im sayin is your title which says dat the U.S. bought more oil than the rest of the world. wat is the significance of dat? then u put up dat some U.S. oil company bought oil with illegal means.


I was responding to Disturbed Deliverer, not you. Sorry for not making that clear. I'm not quite sure what you mean here, though. The significance is that while everyone was busy blaming the French and Russians for being in cahoots with Saddam, it was Americans who took first place, by a long shot.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

You need to understand- this is the SAME committee which is accusing Galloway. It's found evidence for both "issues", and both are mentioned in the same report (or rather, member's comments pending the report.) You can pick and choose what you believe in, but I think that says something about your own partisanship, if you're going to take the findings of a bipartisan senate subcommittee where the members actually agree with each other's findings and pick and choose only the Republican contributions to attribute credibility to.


This is not the same committee accusing Galloway. This was in fact only part of it, the Democrat side of it. Not only that, but this was just simply a leaked report that, as far as I can tell, only the Guardian has picked up on. Did they post the report for everyone to view? No. Did we have both sides of the story on this? No.

So, this is in no way the findings of that committee, or even necessarilly the findings of the Democrats in that committee. This is simply the Guardian's spin on the story.

And the allegations against Galloway haven't simply come from America, but also the UN's own probe into the Oil for Food scandel.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

This is not the same committee accusing Galloway. This was in fact only part of it, the Democrat side of it. Not only that, but this was just simply a leaked report that, as far as I can tell, only the Guardian has picked up on. Did they post the report for everyone to view? No. Did we have both sides of the story on this? No.

So, this is in no way the findings of that committee, or even necessarilly the findings of the Democrats in that committee. This is simply the Guardian's spin on the story.


No, I posted the primary source- to the subcommittee itself, which I have already stated is comprised of both Republicans and Democrats. It is the same committee. And the report was not "leaked," the Guardian story was based on comments which have been made public- they are on the website I linked to. I'm not sure what you mean by "both sides of the story," here. This is not even a Republican/Democrat thing. This is Republicans AND democrats commenting on the actions of the US private sector. You are bringing partisanship into a matter where it is unwarranted. The report will be made available for everyone to view in a few months time, as the senate subcomitte website states. But this is irrelevant, as the statements of the members have already been posted, and the report itself will be based on their findings, to which the statements refer.

You have every right to believe or disbelieve what you want, but don't try to present this in partisan or liberal/conservative terms, because this has nothing to do with that.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

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.


From your Guardian article. It's based purely off claims being made by the Democratic side of the committee. Your second link, to the Senate Report, simply says such issues will be discussed, and what hearings it will be done at. It does not validate any of these claims.

I also love this line from Galloway, and the way the Guardian fails to point out how the same accusations have been made by the UN's own investigation:


"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.


And, finally, this report has not be accepted as of this time:


It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
OK, off topic, but it's starting to bug me. And I'm not pointing fingers at one individual, there are many more doing it.

wot is not a word.
dat is not a word.
u is a letter, not a word

sigh



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join