Sure, Saddam May Have Been A Crook, But What About Dick Cheney?

This latest from Judith Miller and the Times on the Congressional hearing into the UN Oil-for-Food program will create some controversy (Drop the pretence - it will OUTRAGE people):

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - A House subcommittee investigating the United Nations oil-for-food program expanded its inquiry on Tuesday to the Bush administration's postwar stewardship of Iraq's oil money.

Yielding to pressure from his panel's Democrats, Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, agreed to subpoena documents on the administration's management of oil revenues and, if necessary, audits on contracts for reconstruction projects, including one given to Halliburton, the oil services giant once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Mr. Shays said he would subpoena records from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the banker for the administration's Development Fund for Iraq, which contains its oil revenues, and send a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanding audits on the fund's noncompetitive contracts, including one to Halliburton for $1.5 billion, the single largest awarded.

The agreement came after subcommittee Democrats staged a surprise revolt at a hearing on accusations of corruption and mismanagement in the $67 billion program. It was intended to examine whether companies hired to monitor the program were crippled by the Security Council and the United Nations sanctions office, both of which have been accused of permitting Saddam Hussein to plunder money.

But the hearing quickly evolved into a partisan showdown, a perhaps inevitable development so close to a presidential election. While Republicans denounced France and other Security Council members for permitting the United Nations to mismanage the seven-year oil-for-food program that ended with the American invasion in 2003, Democrats criticized the Bush administration for its mismanagement of Iraqi oil money.

They also criticized the subcommittee for failing to investigate numerous accusations of fraud, favoritism and undue secrecy surrounding the administration's stewardship of the fund and Iraqi oil money.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the panel's ranking Democrat, warned that failing to explore the administration's stewardship of Iraq's money would lead people to believe that the United States had invaded Iraq for oil.

Representative Bernard Sanders, an independent of Vermont, joined Democrats in arguing that while the panel had investigated even wild accusations against the Clinton administration, it had failed to scrutinize the Bush administration, ignoring questions like why the country had gone to war in Iraq, who leaked the name of a Central Intelligence Agency agent, or how Halliburton received its huge contract...

Well. The Dem talking points will focus on clean hands, Caesar's wife, and our already tarnished international credibility. They will also argue that this is not impeding the Congressional investigation into the United Nations, it is simply expanding it.

Rep screaming points will include the famous "Blame America First" speech and questions about "whose side are they on?". Reps will also note that the US has a regular procedure for awarding Pentagon contracts, and the GAO provides oversight, as the NY recently observed in appraising the Cheney-Halliburton relationship.

And the Moral Equivalence Watch will wonder whether Cheney and Halliburton really need to be investigated in the same forum with Saddam and the United Nations. I suspect each side has a deeply heart-felt answer to that.

More absurdities abound. First, the NY Times has given the story to Judith Miller. After her discredited reporting of the WMDs in Iraq, she is probably not high on the "must-read" list amongst Times readers.

Secondly, her current story tells us that this "partisan showdown" was "a perhaps inevitable development so close to a presidential election.

However, Ms. Miller gave only the bare bones of the story in her account from Oct. 2, telling readers that "Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars. "

She provided no suggestion that this interfered with Security Council deliberations on the war against Iraq. Nor did she provide any quotes from either the Bush or Kerry campaigns suggesting that there might be a partisan angle to this. Too obvious to report, perhaps? Or too painful? When did the partisan breakdown become inevitable?

Here are some links to Sub-Committee Chairman Chris Shays, and to the hearing in question - lots of good background material there. I can't find a transcript of the session.

MORE: A wonderfully inflammatory headline from the LA Times: "Oil-for-Food Probe to Reach White House". Call it "Mission Accomplished" for Waxman.

Oh, my opinion? If it is not obvious, it is because I am a model of restraint. And because I counted to ten. A hundred times.

UPDATE: The CIA has the report of the Iraq Survey Group; Instalinks here.

Comments

[Swede]

One can only stare in amazement and disbelief at the sheer gall of these people. It is no exaggeration that they will quite literally do anything to beat Bush. Anything! And they took umbrage with Zell Miller's charge about "manic obsession". How else do you describe what we see here?

[abb1]

Sounds good to me.

Well, the post-war oil contracts looting aside, what you guys call "the UN Oil-for-Food scandal" is, of course, the SC nation states scandal, of which the US is the most influential one.

The UN bureaucracy administered the program, the SC states oversaw it. UN officials, of course, warned the SC several times about the problems, but the SC states (did I mention that the US is the most influential one?) never reacted.

So, who knows what this subcommittee might reveal if the investigation was done properly. I suspect it may be something unpleasant for you, guys, because Bush/Cheney hardly ever mention "The Scandal".

So, perhaps, switching to the post-war "stewardship of Iraq's oil money" is a much more bi-partisan move than it may seem. Some things just don't mean to be investigated.

What do you think, Tom?

[Buddy Larsen]

What in the WORLD? Waxman, please, THINK, man! And start wearing your nose right. You have it on upside down. If you go out in the rain you'll drown. Hmm...please, go out in the rain.

[pajama_jihad]

I agree, the White House should be thoroughly investigated in this matter - the Clinton Whitehouse and the Democrats who supported them – like Henry Waxman. The corrupting mechanisms were all set up and operated while Bill Clinton and Henry Waxman fiddled their legacies away.

[TM]

What do you think, Tom?

I think that if you follow the link, the story makes it perfectly obvious that the US and Britain tried to get the Security Council to reform their ways;

I think *many* other stories have made it perfectly obvious that Bush is not pushing this because they are trying to work with the UN in Afghanistan and Iraq;

I think that I have *seriously* underestimated your blind ignorance;

and I *don't* think that, on the fine day that I get fed up with you, you will have a chance to say good-bye.

Any other questions?

[capt joe]

why do you bother with a Zeropean like abb1? He is deliberatly pulling your chain. he is not intrested at all in honest interaction

The bozo is so partizan that his DU talking point filters will permit a thought that does not align with him Chomskian world view. US bad, Zarqawi good.

[JG]

This will be fun to watch. The press couldn't be bothered with a little story of mass corruption of their beloved U.N. but now if they can only by implication link the Whitehouse, headlines will blare. Liberal media? We will see soon enough.

[sym]

Bush's managemnet of the Iraqi funds certainly deserves investigation. But this is an extremely ill-chosen platform from which to launch that investigation. OTOH, I guess the Dem argument is that the partisan GOP congress would never allow any investigation of a Republican President.

[sym]

Alternately, we could all just agree to go to factcheck.com and abide by what they have to say on the matter. Even Dick Cheney loves that site!

[MaDr]

I guess we'll have to widen the scope to the Clinton administration's role in setting up and their oversight of Oil-For-Food. Maybe we'll find out what Hillary and Chelsea were really doing on that long, tax payer funded, tour of Africa.

[HH]

The guard at the D.U. asylum accidentally let abb1 out...

[abb1]

I think that if you follow the link, the story makes it perfectly obvious that the US and Britain tried to get the Security Council to reform their ways

I don't buy it at all. What the US wants to do in the UN SC - it does. France and Russia couldn't stop the US and UK from starting a war, but they stop them from fixing the OFF program? Not very convincing.

I think *many* other stories have made it perfectly obvious that Bush is not pushing this because they are trying to work with the UN in Afghanistan and Iraq

Nah. they smear UN and especially France all the time. But they seem to be uncharacteristically shy about the so called OFF scandal.

and I *don't* think that, on the fine day that I get fed up with you, you will have a chance to say good-bye.

Why all this hostility? Isn't good for you to hear opposing views?

Well, I guess you're right about my blind ignorance: I don't understand the substance of this post at all. Why would it be wrong to investigate postwar stewardship of Iraq's oil money? Could you help me out, please?

Thanks.

[Robert Crawford]

I don't buy it at all. What the US wants to do in the UN SC - it does. France and Russia couldn't stop the US and UK from starting a war, but they stop them from fixing the OFF program? Not very convincing.

Only to someone militantly set against being convinced.

o The OFF program was run by the UN.

o In order to clean up a program run by the UN, you need the cooperation of the UN.

o There was no way the US and UK could have cleaned up OFF without UN cooperation.

o France and Russia blocked any attempt to get the UN to clean up a UN-run program.

[thirdfinger]

Dear abb1,

First and foremost, there is no one, I repeat, no one on the UN SC that can make us do/not do anything regarding the use of our military power in defense of our nation.

That being said, I do believe that they (others in the UN SC) can and will hide anything detrimental to themselves politically or, in this case, criminally with regards to the matter of the OFF scandal.

As to why the forum of the senate commitee investigating the OFF, should not be the place to investigate our purported wrong doings in Iraq is because this commitee was set up to INVESTIGATE THE OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL. If you would like to investigate the current administrations actions in Iraq, then ask your representative start a new commitee whose purpose is to investigate that matter.

Not having seen your dog, I can't speak to your "blind ignorance". I can say though, that based on your writings, you are certainly obtuse, disingenuous, smarmy, condescending and irritating.

Good day.

[Mike]

I don't buy it at all. What the US wants to do in the UN SC - it does. France and Russia couldn't stop the US and UK from starting a war, but they stop them from fixing the OFF program? Not very convincing.

Were this true, the SC would have rolled over for us and just approved the war in Iraq! Let's not confuse the SC with the USA's ability to protect its own people and its own interests.

[Michael Ubaldi]

If Bush had started in on the United Nations' foibles a year ago, we might have seen old Kofi "All You Need is Love and a Loaded MP5" Annan behind bars, instead of telling 25 million Iraqis that their natural rights are illegal. Let's hope the White House's magnanimity on Oil-for-Food doesn't come back to haunt it.

[bb]

Just another hail mary pass by the dems to try anything before the election.

I say bring it on. Whoever is president in 2005 can continue the investigation and let's find out who is dirty.

This administration has been investigated more, I'm sure, than any first term administration and they keep coming up clean. And the Dems keep making themselves look like fools for following such a game plan.

Michael Moore, Moveon, these are the people the Dem party is rubbing shoulders with? By now, the idea that Bush skimmed some money off the iraq budget pales so much in comparison to the other, even more strongly pushed accusations by the left wing-nuts that it is kind of quaint. The desperation is pathetic.

[Some Guy]

This is a quite interesting turn that I may have missed, but for this piece. Thanks, Tim, you're doing great work. That said, this lack of concern for the truth is quite disturbing.

Oh, did I mention that Rep. Henry Waxman himself also accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein in exchange for his support in the runup to the war? Saddam funnelled almost $600,000 in bribes to Waxman through a Bahamanian front company from December 2001 through February of 2003. Waxman's public relations advisor also around $100,000 from Saddam's regime.

Pass it on.

[Appalled Moderate]

Some Guy:

Link please. You don't get to accuse someone of being bribed without a little independent confirmation, even down here in commentary-land.

[Ryan S.]

I'd heard about the bribery charges before against congressional Democrats. Supposedly, Saddam had hired PR guys to pass on contributions laundered through a Bahamaian and American individuals in an effort to "Support the U.N.", but I've never seen the details on how he did it or who was involved. It smacks of conspiracy theory without those details, and hopefully this isn't a blatant lie that Repubs will impale themselves on. After all, why would Saddam be willing to pay good money for someone's support when they were willing to back him for free? The only reason I could think would be to dirty them up so that they spout his line long after he went down.

Then again, Waxman is serious sleaze. He's a good soldier who says what he's told to by the Dem leadership, in addition to definitely being for sale to the highest bidder. Maybe people should float these rumors to see if anyone picks them up and investigates the substance...

[Lurking Observer]

For people like abb1, they should go and take a look at the record. The UN's corruption was such an issue that even Bill Clinton appointed a special ambassador to the UN to look into UN practices regarding expenses, contracts, etc.

The report that he forwarded noted that there was little transparency, lots of cronyism, corruption everywhere. He recommended serious overhauls of UN auditing, UN financial oversight, methods of assigning personnel (which is mostly by geography and little by competency), etc.

The report was deep-sixed by the UN, on the grounds that the only people who could operate and do such things would be Westerners (mainly from the US and the UK, at that!), and this was inherently a slap in the face of Third World nations.

[Some Guy]

Appalled Moderate,

There is no link to the fact that Waxman is in Saddam's pocket (yet). You can completely discount it as conjecture or take as true on its face. If I were you, I would give my statement very little weight until you see more definitive investigation. But keep in mind that people are talking about Waxman.

Ryan S.,

Hopefully someone with an audience does do a little background on this, because I heard the same rumors. Waxman is dirty, that's for sure, and there are a lot of people in this town who took Saddam's money, whether they knew it was Saddam's or not...

[Slartibartfast]

I looked around in opensecrets.org for a while for something like this on Waxman, but no one gave more than $10k, for example, in 2002. If he's gotten anything for his campaign that he's not disclosed, that's illegal. If he's gotten anything as income of gift that he's not disclosed, that too is illegal. If you've got something that's not been disclosed, Waxman should be being indicted as we speak.

[James T. Smirk]

Good work, Slartibartfast, but probably wasted.

When people wish to make large contributions with nefarious intent to a member of Congress, there are a number of ways to do it:

1. Give it to someone in the Congressman's family. The family member then claims the money was paid under a "consulting" contract. This is probably the most common, simply because the money comes with no campaign strings attached, becomes available for personal use, and it probably won't ever be scrutinized too closely because it is considered bad taste to go after someone's wife or SON.

2. Give it to the target in smaller chunks. If you are really sleazy, you just give it in your employees' names, or in other names. Reimbursing contributions ("funneling") is very illegal and easy to prove, but odds are that no one would never look at the contributions, anyways. Doesn't take many employees to make this work, and Opensecrets isn't very efficient at revealing this sort of thing unless you know in advance what you're looking for and from whom.

3. Give it to the target! Simple, direct, grossly illegal. Depends how tangled you want to make the web of corporations accepting the money, but you get the idea. I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to simply take direct bribes from someone in Saddam's pay, but you never know. This is how Saddam paid off the other foreign officials, if I'm not mistaken.

None of these methods lend themselves to being discovered through a quick check at Opensecrets. That said, although I do agree that Waxman is as "dirty" as they come, and I have also heard the stories about widespread funneling of money from Saddam through PR firms to congressional Democrats, I withhold judgment until I see proof. Not that I think Waxman is above it (he isn't), just that I agree that Saddam had no reason to give money to someone who was already pushing on his behalf.

[Slartibartfast]

I do agree that Waxman is as "dirty" as they come

I have to plead "insufficient data", myself. Plus I'm an innocent-until-proven-guilty type. Anything this juicy, even CBS wouldn't be able to keep from pouncing on.

[James T. Smirk]

Maybe, you'd be surprised at the stories I've seen reporters sit on. Like I said, depending on the method used, it's highly unlikely that an "investigative" reporter would be able to put the pieces together without being spoon fed by a prosecuter. Most of the data on family contracts is not public (or not public in a usable form), and working out complicated financial transactions is beyond the abilities of every reporter I've ever met. Even assuming no ideological motivations, reporters simply can't put this kind of story together until someone else does the heavy lifting, and that sometimes takes years.

Long story short, don't hold your breath for the media to break the details. Even if Saddam personally handed the keys to a brand new Mercedes to Waxman, you'd be unlikely to see reports in the news on it until the indictment was unsealed three years later. (And even then, it would be vague, and the facts would be butchered beyond recognition.)

[abb1]

There is no link to the fact that Waxman is in Saddam's pocket (yet). You can completely discount it as conjecture or take as true on its face.

LOL.

This is fun. I know for a fact that Bush and Cheney sucked off every member of the Red Sox team last week. I don't have a link, but it's true, I swear.

[abb2]

"I know for a fact that Bush and Cheney sucked off every member of the Red Sox team last week."

...and yet, President Bush would STILL be more credible on national security than that ultra-manly uber-hetero, John Kerry!

By the way, it sure is instructive to see that Democrats are so quick with homophobic slurs. Sort of reminds me of another era of recognition of civil rights, when the Democratic Party stood united against rights for every American based on the color of their skin. Times change, but apparently, the party rank and file stay the same.

[Nate]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=9&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons_glance_1

is the MSM friggin' serious with this shit? how about what Kerry said? how about the rampant corruption from our "allies"

this is infuriating.

[abb1]

Here's what Unka Dick said: Sanctioned Liar

The vice president said he found other parts of the report "more intriguing," including the finding that Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions.

"As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said "...the sanctions regime was coming apart at the seams. Saddam perverted that whole thing and generated billions of dollars."

But, apparently, as the CEO of Halliburton he was working hard to undermine the sanctions. Frankly, I have no doubt that he is implicated in the oil-for-food machinations.

[truth2004]

There's a reason that American corporate media hasn't gotten to the bottom of this story.

Fisher-Rosemount
Technip
Flowserve
Schlumberger
General Electric
Dresser-Rand
Ingersoll Dresser Pump

We should demand the public release of all documents and names related to the oil for food contracts.

[Yehudit]

Did anyone notice the democrats.org ad you have to sit through to get to the NYTimes article?