[Kestryll]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council,......"


Anyone surpised by this?

[fish2xs]

I am just suprised that it took this long for the info to get published

[Drjones]

Is anybody truly surprised if this turns out to be 100% true?

And from the leftist Wash. Times no less...

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm



Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac



BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted."

Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment.

French diplomats have dismissed any suggestion their foreign policy was influenced by payments from Saddam, but some European diplomats have long suspected France's steadfast opposition to the war was less moral than monetary.

"Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam.

Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria and France, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

[Jonesy9]

leftist? I think you meant the Post. the times is Reverend Moon's of the Moonies cult newspaper and is solidly slanted right.

[mcole]

see below. mcole

[Dave R]

I am extermely gratified that this info is coming to light. The current worldwide political standard seems to be "do whatever you can get away with". I hope this will let some politicians know "you can't get away with this".

OTOH, once the info is out, it is meaningless unless somebody gets punished or some behavior somewhere is otherwise modified.

[4v50 Gary]

Ahhh. The French. They do have their price. I wonder how much Al Qaeda paid them?

[Thumper]

They're already turning on each other like cornered rats (sorry Oleg):
Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua has denied claims that he received gifts from Saddam Hussein in return for supporting his regime.

Mr Pasqua rubbished recent reports in Iraqi newspaper al-Mada, saying he had "never received anything from Saddam Hussein, neither petrol nor money".The paper printed a list of foreigners who, it says, received oil coupons for backing an end to sanctions.

Mr Pasqua denies claims he was given 12 million barrels of crude oil.

He told French television: "I have never received any gifts from the Iraqi government and I am not in the habit of making my decisions on the basis of any remuneration I might receive.

"That is not part of my ethics or my conception of things."
Mr Pasqua denied knowing that any such transactions were taking place in the 1990s but he said it did not surprise him. This from a French Interior Minister.

"Former Interior Minister Charles Pasqua is not involved, but maybe other former ministers are involved," he said.

Anybody wonder how many times Scott Ritter's name is on that list?

[Waitone]

Word is out now that a list of bribed journalists exists.

I hope all the lists are published.

[moa]

I read the Washington Times every day, and the Washington Post about five days a week for a long time for both.

The Times is very much to the right and is pro-RKBA as far as I can tell. I find very little "moony" inference, next to none.

The Post is rabidly anti-gun owner and is quite to the left. Totally untrustworthy source of the news.

The Post does have better overall coverage in major stories than the Times has in general. But it is often slanted left.

And the Times prints stuff you will never see in the Post.

The Rev. Moon has been publishing the Times for years, and it is a financial failure. I think it has cost Moon over $100 million to publish the Times. It is a great counter weight to the left-wing Post, which was the only major newspaper published in Washington prior to the Times coming out.

The Times has a far superior Op/Ed page and Commentary sections than the Post. It has a very wide range of contributors of articles.

[Drjones]

Well....I could have gotten the two papers mixed up, yaknow....

Anyhow, the story still stands.

:)

[Langenator]

I was in DC on one of those high-school "See Government in Action" trips in Feb 1991. The Gulf War ended on the day we left to go back home.

The Post headline: "It's Over!"

The Times headline: "We Win!"

That told me everything I needed to know about the editorial tilt of the two papers.

[BryanP]

Very interesting, but doesn't this belong in Legal and Political?

[Thumper]

It already is...just no moderator merge yet.

[El Tejon]

And you heard this before the restart of the war in Iraq right here at THR!!!

[might as well blow our own horn:)]

[El Tejon]

And THR told you back before the restart of the war in Iraq.:)

[SodaPop]

My Intelligence network told me that before we went to war.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I am shocked, I tell you. :rolleyes:

I forgot about Scott Ritter. I am sure Saddam's habibi is listed somewhere. What about McDermott and Penn?

I betcha Russia and Germany are in there too.

White House refuses to comment :scrutiny:

[JitsuGuy]

I wonder what we bribed ol' Blair with to support us?

[nycmatt49]

blair is for freedom, you communist dik. so we didn't have to bribe him for anything. the post is WAY left, the times is just pretty left. both are some tree hugging papers for sure

[JitsuGuy]

LOL at calling me a communist, and that's okay, cause just as I have the freedom to have my own opinions, I also have the freedom to not give a @#%! what you think. :D

J

[Leatherneck]

nycmat and jitsuguy, why don't you guys take your piddling contest outside?:rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Art Eatman]

One more personal piddle and Art's Grammaw will take this toy away.

Art

[OF]

nycmat and jitsuguy, why don't you guys take your piddling contest outside?I second that.

- Gabe

[ojibweindian]

I kind of expected the French, et al, to sell us out. I expect that there will be more damning news to follow.

[buzz_knox]

I kind of expected the French, et al, to sell us out. I expect that there will be more damning news to follow.

That's a very reasonable expectation. The French sold themselves out in WWII. The French were able to co-exist with most terrorist groups throughout the '70s and '80s. And there is a reason why French systems are so often used by those charitably termed rogue nations.

[M1911]

Remember the Iraqi nuclear reactor that the Israelis bombed some years back? Chirac personally negotiated the agreement to build the reactor and transfer nuclear technology to Saddam. In addition, the draft agreement that Chirac came up with would have fueled the reactor with weapons grade uranium -- i.e., Chirac tried to give Saddam a nuclear bomb.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Remember the Iraqi nuclear reactor that the Israelis bombed some years back? Chirac personally negotiated the agreement to build the reactor and transfer nuclear technology to Saddam. In addition, the draft agreement that Chirac came up with would have fueled the reactor with weapons grade uranium -- i.e., Chirac tried to give Saddam a nuclear bomb. That must have been about the same time Ronald Reagan was allowing US companies to sell "agricultural" chemicals to Iraq that he knew they were using to make chemical weapons to use against Iran.

If I were you guys, I'd wait a little to crow about the authenticity of anything from this "independent" Iraqi newspaper. Seems we've had former Iraqi officials selling material like this for a few bucks to make ends meet before. Those turned out to be forged.

As far as Scott Ritter is concerned, if I can get up enough energy to gather some good quotes, I might start another thread to highlight some of his claims from before the war with what we know now. Until then, to make it short, he said pretty much exactly what our inspector Kay is saying now. Only it cost us a couple of hundred billion dollars and several thousand dead GIs and Iraqis to find it out for ourselves. Oh, yea, and not to mention a less stable Middle East. And more risk of terrorism than before the war.

I'm sure there's an up side to this whole thing somewhere.

[HunterGatherer]

That must have been about the same time Ronald Reagan was allowing US companies to sell "agricultural" chemicals to Iraq that he knew they were using to make chemical weapons to use against Iran.

I thought you leftys said that kindly ol' unca Sodom didn't have nasty WMDs?

[Stand_Watie]

ABC is running the list here now.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-3.html

[Khornet]

Re: Mr. Ritter, if I'm not mistaken he loudly trumpeted his belief that Saddam had WMD, then suddenly changed his mind. Kinda like most of the Dem candidates these days. It's fair to wonder why.

[ojibweindian]

Ya know, Malone the war WAS about oil.

All those peace-loving, anti-war countries, and their leaders, were neck deep in crude oil bribes.

Sure, it's all about peace, right?

[bountyhunter]

And Regan bribed Saddam Hussein back when we were using him to punish Iran for taking our hostages. We gave Iraq unrestricted trade access to all of our weapons, even the high-tech stuff. That (and the poison nerve gas) is how Iraq won the war with Iran that they were losing before Uncle Sam stepped in.

[OF]

We gave weapons to Iran then too. We weren't as interested in Iraq winning as we were in Iran and Iraq continuing to beat the hell out of each other for as long as possible.

- Gabe

[bountyhunter]

I thought you leftys said that kindly ol' unca Sodom didn't have nasty WMDs?

We said Saddam had no weapons that threatened any US interests (ie nukes) and that was never in doubt. If he had chems, who cares? He has had them since 1982 because he used them on Iran. He also used them on the Kurds and nobody said anything because he was still our ally. The WMD's and killings only became important when he invaded Kuwait and threatened the oil supply.

Point is, chem weapons were not a reason for war. Lot's of countries have them. And they sure are not a reason for a STAMPEDE to war that Bush took at the expense of pissing off the world and most of our allies.

[bountyhunter]

We gave weapons to Iran then too. We weren't as interested in Iraq winning as we were in Iran and Iraq continuing to beat the hell out of each other for as long as possible.

You are wrong on that. Do the research and you will find that Iraq was given MFN status and 100% unrestricted trade in all weapons. Iran was heavily restricted for trade and not able to buy the weapons we had. You may recall there was a guy named Oliver North who scammed Iran by offering them som garbage TOW missiles at inflated prices to finance a secret war in Nicaragua. If Iran had unrestricted access to buy arms from us, why would they be looking to buy that junk on the blck market? They wouldn't, and Iran's restriction in acquiring weapons was the juice used to fuel that scam.

You are also wrong in believing US policy in 1985 was to have Iraq get hammered. Saddam was being groomed as the US enforcer for the region who would be kept in line by lots of US $$$ and military hardware which would keep him in power. He became a bad guy when he invaded Kuwait. That was driven primarily by the fact Iraq was essentially bankrupt from the Iran war and needed to intimidate the other Arab states into cutting oil production so the prices would rise. Hussein believed if he took Kuwait it would fighten the other Arab states (primarily Saudi Arabia, who ultimately determines the price of oil). He also believed the US would not defend Kuwait, but he was wrong. We did because his actions threatened the oil supply, but also because Bush wanted to clip the wings off the monster the US had been feeding for eight years who had gone rogue. Bush was the former director of the CIA, and he fully understood the implications of Hussein getting off his leash.

[Jonesy9]

but when Bush pays our Coalition allies and hands them lucrative contracts to follow his lead it's called diplomacy right? riiiiggght.

[Mike Irwin]

"but when Bush pays our Coalition allies and hands them lucrative contracts to follow his lead it's called diplomacy right? riiiiggght."

You're missing a very important point, Jonsey (as is everyone else...)

Prior to the war, Iraq was still under strict international sanctions regarding its oil, how much it could produce, how it could use it, etc., and something tells me that using oil to issue bribes to foreign leaders wasn't on the list of approved activities.

France had agreed to those sanctions after the first Gulf War.

If these reports are true, France was violating strictures to which they AND Iraq had agreed.

France, which has a long history of screaming about violations of international law, in fact violated the very international laws they had pledged to uphold.

[Waitone]

THR is great ! Where else can yoy hang and read things never before seen in print.

[Jonesy9]

good point. That reminds me, I also remember reports that we discovered many country's and company's doing business illegally with Iraq. There were something like 14 US company's on the list that was never made public.

I wonder when we'll see these guys prosecuted or even just named?

No one here really thinks that there weren't any US MNC's doing business with Iraq do they? Every one has seen the reports of Halliburton sunsids dealing with Iraq and Iran while Cheney headed the company, granted the truth there will not come out now but what about the others?


Still, it's good that Bush decided that the US would unilaterally enforce the UN sanctions. He must love the UN to go out and help them like that. I wish his decison wasn't so freaking expensive in terms of blood and treasure, but think of all the UN lives and $$ we're helping them save! Why the UN was complaining about us baqsically taking over their world police force is beyond me.

Good thing every Republican in Congress lined up to take a squat over the Constitution and abdicate their Constitutional reponsibilities to the executive branch!

Nice list from ABC, doesn't explain why Turkey rejected Bush's $9billion bribe and took $27m from Saddam, must be them pesky Kurds.

[M1911]

As far as Scott Ritter is concernedScott Ritter? Oh, you mean the pervert:

http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories/storyprint.asp?storyID=105424
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/22/asb.00.html

Ah yes, Scott Ritter, who changed his tune about Iraq very dramatically.

Was he caught in a honey-pot trap in Iraq? Could that explain his 180 degree reversal?

[M1911]

The Boston Globe ran a piece that discussed Chirac's involvement in Osirak:

Chirac freelanced a deal to sell Saddam two nuclear reactors, and arranged to have French nuclear scientists and engineers train their counterparts in Iraq-most of whom are now on the list of Iraqi scientists and engineers that UN weapons inspectors want to chat with. Not only did Chirac help build Iraq's ''Osirak'' reactor-the Israelis dubbed it ''O-Chirac''-near Baghdad, but he also sought to ship Iraq weapons-grade uranium, even though a safer grade was available. (France's president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, scotched the plan.) By the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was France's single largest arms customer; Iranians referred to Chirac as ''Shah-Iraq.''

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/030203_chirac.htm

[M1911]

Saddam was being groomed as the US enforcer for the region who would be kept in line by lots of US $$$ and military hardware which would keep him in power. Huh? Saddam's military was primarily supplied by the USSR and France. Their small arms -- Soviet (AKM, RPK, RPG, etc). Their armor -- Soviet (BMP, T72, etc.). Their aircraft -- Soviet and French (Mig-29, Mig-25, Mig-23, Mirage). Their SAMs -- Soviet and French. Their artillery -- Soviet and South African.

The US gave Iraq some help during the Iran-Iraq war, primarily in the form of satellite intelligence (which the Iraqis reportedly either ignored or put to poor use). The US was not a primary supplier of weapons to Iraq.

[bountyhunter]

Still, it's good that Bush decided that the US would unilaterally enforce the UN sanctions. But, you have to admit it strikes odd that one week Bush is screaming that the UN is "IRRELEVANT" because they won't go to war with him, and the next week he's claiming that the war was necessary to maintain the sanctity and authority of the UN. I know politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths, but that really took some gall.

[bountyhunter]

The US gave Iraq some help during the Iran-Iraq war, primarily in the form of satellite intelligence (which the Iraqis reportedly either ignored or put to poor use). The US was not a primary supplier of weapons to Iraq.

Actually, the satellite intel was extremely valuable because it pinpointed Irans troops to maximize lethality of chemical gas ordinance sent into them. As far as who they bought from, I never said we were their only supplier.. just that they got some very good high-tech hardware from us and they would have bought more if they had the money.

[JitsuGuy]

I can't help but wonder if we'd be at all in this mess if we just had done what our FF told us to do regarding staying out of other countries business.

J

[c_yeager]

If we gave our top notch weapons to Iraq i wonder why they all up and vanished when WE went to war with them. I seem to remember a whole lot of burning SOVIET vehicles on the battlefield after desert storm I.

[M1911]

As far as who they bought from, I never said we were their only supplier.. just that they got some very good high-tech hardware from us and they would have bought more if they had the money.Your implication is still that we were a primary supplier to the Iraqis. We were not. The US was orders of magnitude less than the French and the Soviets.

You say that we supplied high-tech hardware to the Iraqis. What high-tech hardware was that? Tanks? No. APCs? No. Aircraft? No. SAMs? No. Artillery? No. Bunkers? No. Radar? No.

[El Tejon]

M1911, well, yes, it was artillery, not directly though. The Christians in Action allowed Dr. Bull's Suid Afrikan guns to be sold to Iraq. Bull went to the BoP for it and then came out an angry man. It took a Mossad bullet to calm him down.

Jitsu, excellent point.:( However, we've had to clean cages before. It is never pretty or fun though.

[Mike Irwin]

"M1911, well, yes, it was artillery, not directly though."

Beg pardon?

Dr. Gerald Bull was a Canadian national. He had no ties to the US Government of which I'm aware, and none of the weaponry that he designed that ended up in Iraqi hands was manufactured in the United States.

Not at all certain how any of that constitutes even indirect supply of artillery to Iraq.

[M1911]

M1911, well, yes, it was artillery, not directly though. Dr. Bull was a Canadian citizen, living in Belgium. He had already been convicted and served time in US prison for illegally sending arms to South Africa. I have never read anything that suggested that the US was complicit in his super gun project in Iraq. If you have any such references, please post them or retract your comment.