I didn’t see a topic about this so pardon me if it’s already up.
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/01280002aaa05619.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News
I think the site has a copyright thing on it so I’m not sure if I’m allowed to quote it so I won’t, but the link should work. Think this is pure political propaganda? I haven’t seen it on any other web sites. -Paco
The basis for this article was, apparently, this story from The Independent.
There’s also a more detailed account in Le Monde. (Automatically translated by Google)
I’m filing this under “Important if True, Await More Information”.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-115648-6755r.htm
The Russian Orthodox Church? Yeah, right. I’m surprised that Chalabi didn’t try to frame the Pope as well.
And don’t forget, the last time stuff like this turned up, it claimed that a UK anti-war MP took bribes. The documents proved to be forgeries.
The Google translation of the Le Monde article is a little rough and ready, but it seems to suggest that the list which has come to light records payments allegely made in 1999. Even if the list is accurate, therefore, the payments can hardly have been made to induce France to adopt a particular position on matters coming before the Security Council in 2002.
Besides, this contradicts my own personal kooky conspiracy theory; it was the British who bribed Chirac to announce that he would vote against military action regardless of what case was put to the Security Council. Once he had adopted that position, the British Government was let off the hook of its own earlier promise to seek Security Council approval before undertaking military action against Iraq. It’s neat, isn’t it? So it must be true!
No, it isn’t, because it is based on the false premise that France stated they would vote against military action regardless of what case was put to the Security Council. That’s spin spread by Bush supporters and widely circulated in US media, but has nothing to do with the French position. The French position was that they did not consider the current evidence enough to justify war and would vote against any introduction of an automatism towards war. I.e. they wanted an explicit authorization of war at a time when the Security Council had seen new evidence and found it sufficient to warrant military action. There was nothing in the French position that can’t be read up on in the UN charter…
Some Galloway accusations, as noted, fooled me for a while.
I can’t really know one way or the other. While I’m at it, the early “WMDs FOUND!!” stories interested me, until it was clear that if a pesticide factory tested positive in a field test (predictible) the networks would run with it to be first. The “embeds” wanted to get whatever happened with their units out as fast as possible. Sometimes they didn’t do anything, obviously. They made up for it with overenthusiasm when something truly exciting did happen.
OTOH, the government is taking it seriously – moreso than early WMD field tests.
I’d hope that the Treasure Department knows something about he nature of the evidence before making a statement like that. Hopeful I am.
Galloway’s denial,
I can’t help it, let’s parse that statement:
He did not have to see it. He did not really “own” it. He did sell it, not buy it.
Well…
Do you use “own” “a” or “b” The law would use “b” – he might have been using “a”. A little misunderstanding.
He had the right to buy at a discounted price, then the oil was instantly resold – I’d guess. Buyer shows up, sell “Galloway’s interest in purchasing oil.” “OK.”
The Oil-For-Food corruption allegations have been around for quite some time. This list, given how some earlier trumpeted lists have petered out, should be examined over time. Thank goodness for a forum to discuss the long-running questions of our time.
This one needs some handwriting experts, better, a team of them to go over this before I’m going out on a limb either way.
Could be true or maybe not. What kind of impact does it have on the war itself either way? My guess would be “none, whatsoever”.
There is one issue in the article, I’d agree with: “Oil runs thicker than blood,” That’s for sure.
Just the documents turned up by the Christian Science Monitor. The documents turned up by the Daily Telegraph however appear valid enough.
Sure it does. One of the main arguments against the way the U.S. went to war was that it was illegitimate because Bush didn’t get U.N. approval. But if these allegations turn out to be true, then France and Russia were bought and paid for, and Bush was NEVER getting their approval.
It also strikes a blow against the security council, because it shows corruption of two of the most powerful members. Look at it this way - if a board of directors refused to vote for an environmental cleanup, and later on you found out that two of the directors were on the payroll of the polluter, what would you say about the legitimacy of that decision? The same applies here. If Bush can show that his opponents were actually on Saddam’s payroll, then their arguments become severely tainted.
Also on the list, btw, appears to be the producer of Scott Ritter’s movie about Iraq. So now we have George Galloway and Scott Ritter, two of the most vocal opponents of the war, possibly being paid under the table by Saddam.
But I have to say that it’s WAY too early to make any claims about this document. It could be a forgery, but even if it’s authentic it could still be a ‘forgery’ of sorts. Saddam’s regime was so corrupt that some member of his government could have been claiming that the money was going to these people while pocketing it himself. Or he could have added a few fake names to an otherwise legitimate list to pocket a percentage of the money. So I’m afraid that we may never know if the people listed really did receive cash in hand.
I think it’s fair to say that the basis for any decisions made in the Security Council is already well known, irrespective of whether this information is true or not. The period before the debate in the UNSC saw economic pressure applied to the various members by the United States, they didn’t seem too bothered about the legitimacy of the decision!
Sam:
Well, I didn’t receive any oil coupons, and I also was a vocal opponent of the war. Just to keep the record straight.
Can anyone out there explain to me what an “oil coupon” is, or how it’s used?
It’s like an option - you are given the right to buy oil at a very depressed price. You turn around and sign a contract to sell it at market prices, and basically you get paid about .50 cents a barrel. You never see the oil, you just sort of broker the transaction. The way the deal was run you probably didn’t do anything at all - just received a check. It’s just a paper shuffle to launder the real transaction.
Sam:
Thanks, but, at the risk of sounding dense, I still don’t understand. My brain is so constructed that I need to know/see in a very concrete fashion precisely what the coupon entails in order for me to understand it, I’m afraid. (In other words, I don’t know what an “option” is.) Is the coupon a sort of receipt for a given amount of oil that is then traded on some market?
By the way, for all interested parties, here is a list of those individuals, companies, and organizations accused of taking bribes. I think those in red are political organizations or individuals involved in politics. I see Galloway’s name on the list, but not Ritter’s. Galloway is said to have received 19 million barrels; at 50 cents on the barrel, that would be 9.5 million dollars in bribes, correct?
There is a general consensus in the Iraqi blogosphere that this list is merely “the tip of the iceburg.”
I’m afraid I’m also at the limits of my understanding of the exact mechanism. So I can’t help more. But clearly it’s just a backdoor way of sliding bribes to people.
But as usual with anything coming out of Iraq these days, healthy skepticism is important. There are many ways in which this document could be something other than what it seems.
I don’t know whether this list will turn out to be genuine or not, but anyway, concerning the OP, since the supposed recipients weren’t holding political offices, and anyway the “gifts” would have been granted long before the Irak war issue, I can’t see how they could have been used to bribe the french governement in voting against said war.
Oh! And it’s becoming old. Every tidbit of information is aparently twisted by some american politicians/medias to give the impression that French (and occasionnally German) position about the Iraki war was uphelp for some vile reason. Like there was no sensible reasons at all to vote against the war and said vote was a great mystery (“sensible” doesn’t mean that said motivations were altruistic).
The people on the list – allegedly – had an “option” to buy at a discounted price. If the option is time-sensitive one can make the argument that it is a real investment vehicle. If the particular “credit recipient” must buy at a certain price at a certain time, that’s a real option. There are still ways to make the transaction fraudulent, but I don’t want to give you any ideas.
Here is the mechanism, I guess…
One kind of option is to buy [whatever] for a certain price at a fixed date in the future with the idea being to instantly resell at a profit.
Or, in the alternative, you end up “buying” at a “lower” price when the market price has since become even lower and you lose money. Why “buying” – because you don’t really buy anything, these are all just paper transactions. Why “lower” – because the price you set is arbitrary in the first place. (Woops!, Cat, out of bag)
FYI, the other option is to “sell” at a future date. That might mean purchasing [whatever] at the market price in order to sell it. Just keep reading the sentences over-and-over, eventually it makes sense.
This scheme – allegedly – was lossproof for the particular recipients of the “oil credits.” Or, I’m guessing, the Treasury Dept. would not have made the statement they made. If these were sham options they amount to bribes. Bribery is bad, generally speaking.
Another way of looking at this is stock options. How were stock options treated when paid as compensation to employees in lieu of money? Many companies refused to “expense” stock options in any way. One thing, among many, that means is – dilution. Stock dilution. What you are being paid (stock) is being inflated (devalued) as if it were money by making more and more stock. This can be spun a million different ways if you think about it, depending on who is aware of the dilution, and when.
So-called “sham” transactions are created for a reason. It’s another level of legal defense, beyond laundering the money. That’s the key, the money trail.
Remember, you can create various investment vehicles that don’t conform to existing ones. The philosophy of options – “gambling” on future prices – is the same.
Chicago “Futures” trading If you click “Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options” and read the first sentence of the introduction to the HUGE PDF – you are first warned that it is in no way comprehensive.
I’ll trade Tiger Woods’ for mine. OH! Those futures. Pork bellies? They don’t deliver them, do they? Yes, sometimes they do. If you buy the wrong option by mistake you may well get a semi of pigs delivered to your business address.
(weeping with happiness)
Oh, Sam! You’re mind is being opened to other possibilities! We’ll turn you into a liberal yet.