George Galloway blasts the Senate

Published on Sunday, December 12, 2004 by the Independent / UK
The Oil-For-Food 'Scandal' is a Cynical Smokescreen
by Scott Ritter

United States Senators, led by the Republican Norm Coleman, have launched a crusade of sorts, seeking to "expose" the oil-for-food programme implemented by the United Nations from 1996 until 2003 as the "greatest scandal in the history of the UN". But this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush's self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimise the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption, and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse.

The oil-for-food programme was derived from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution, passed in April 1995 but not implemented until December 1996. During this time, the CIA sponsored two coup attempts against Saddam, the second, most famously, a joint effort with the British that imploded in June 1996, at the height of the "oil for food" implementation negotiations. The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change.

Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey as well as fellow regime-change plotters in Kurdistan. At the same time as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was negotiating with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov concerning a Russian-brokered deal to end a stand-off between Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors in October-November 1997, the United States turned a blind eye to the establishment of a Russian oil company set up on Cyprus.

This oil company, run by Primakov's sister, bought oil from Iraq under "oil for food" at a heavy discount, and then sold it at full market value to primarily US companies, splitting the difference evenly with Primakov and the Iraqis. This US-sponsored deal resulted in profits of hundreds of million of dollars for both the Russians and Iraqis, outside the control of "oil for food". It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States.

Likewise, using its veto-wielding powers on the 661 Committee, set up in 1990 to oversee economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States was able to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the provisions of the oil-for-food agreement. And when Saddam proved too adept at making money from kickbacks, the US and Britain devised a new scheme of oil sales which forced potential buyers to commit to oil contracts where the price would be set after the oil was sold, an insane process which quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food programme of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the United Nations.

The corruption evident in the oil-for-food programme was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.

While money derived from the off-the-book sale of oil did indeed go into the purchase of conventional weapons and the construction of presidential palaces, the vast majority of these funds were poured into economic recovery programmes that saw Iraq emerge from near total economic ruin in 1996. By 2002, on the eve of the US-led invasion, Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks. Compare and contrast that image with the reality of Baghdad today, and the ultimate corruption that was the oil-for-food programme becomes self-evident.

Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and the author of 'Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction.

.....lets just hope that they get a Senator with more than one brain cell this time, and a strong backbone, to investigate this matter.

I think it would be good for America's reputation to make this investigation as rigorous and as transparent as possible, whatever the consequences.
However, back in the real world, there go some flying pigs.

Lord Ellpus wrote:

.....lets just hope that they get a Senator with more than one brain cell this time, and a strong backbone, to investigate this matter.

That may be a bit of a challenge.

Galloway is already a celebrity of sorts in the UK, a well-known pugnacious and picaresque figure who both has the public eye and is apparently counted on in some quarters to 'give the bastards their due'. That may give him an enduring prominence in the UK public mind that he doesn't enjoy here.

Here he is an odd unknown who doesn't have a place in the public perception and imagination. Moreover the particular polarization of the body politic here on unrelated but fundamental issues doesn't create favorable ground for a figure like Galloway. While he was entertainingly colorful in his performance at the hearing, I doubt that anyone either believes him or cares much about the matter. He had his 15 minutes of fame here, and has already passed from the scene and been forgotten.

... The USA has never been a place to countenance the truth. When y'all look in the mirror all you can see are the false stories you were taught in school and the even falser images you see in the movies and on TV. This is how this perception has been formed.

You just keep repeating the same ole story line, the same ole drivel. And yet, you'd have us believe that you're an honest, thoughful man. Why is there no discussion from you about the US companies, individuals, government employees who SEEM to be up to their necks in this scandal?

Why are the Brits here able to discuss honestly their own in this in a forward and honest fashion, but you, ...?

The USA has never been a place to countenance the truth. When y'all look in the mirror all you can see are the false stories you were taught in school and the even falser images you see in the movies and on TV. This is how this perception has been formed.

I generally pay little attention to your usually inflammatory and nonsensical comments, but, what the hell ... it's a slow day, and I'm on vacation.

I wish I could say I believe you, George but your record belies that. I say this with the greatest of sadness. I was truly dumb struck earlier in this thread [was it this thread?} when Blatham pointed up how contradictory you had/have been.

I thought, "how can such a well spoken, apparently extremely perceptive man be so, what's the word I'm looking for, ... , ..., calculating"; [that'll have to do for now but it is close enough].

I thought, "is there any hope for the world when thinking people simply accept that their government is going to mistreat others just because it can?"

I think your assertions about the ability (or lack of it) for the truth to thrive in the United States are an example of extreme exaggeration.

Allowed, it was.

Media bias and market exploitation are about the same throughout the Western World. The quality of perception and insight among people doesn't vary that much either. These nonsensical assertions make you look a bit odd, ...angry & resentful, without evident reason. This doesn't speak well for the quality of your judgements.

I don't think that your first assertion is quite as true as you'd like to believe but I must defer as I presently have no solid proof for my point.

However, I must note that you are prone to these sweeping statements, "nonsensical assertions". Many of my assertions have been backed up by a good deal of proof. Are you referring perhaps to the My Lai info or the Tiger Force info. Your claims would have more authority if you had addressed some specifics.

Do really believe that the "Brits" on these forums have uniquely been able to, "discuss their own in this in a forward and honest fashion", while others (presumably myself primarily) have not? I don't believe that is a supportable conclusion based on a review of this thread and what was actually written here.

No, not you primarily, George. Yes, I believe that. McTag has stated it quite clearly. Steve has stated that the war was a lie. LordE too, if I'm not mistaken.

I have made no assertions whatever about the involvement (or lack of it) of U.S. or international oil companies in oil for food transactions. I consider it self-evident that at some point in all these transactions the oil in trade made it eventually into the hands of one or another of the international petroleum distribution and refining firms. I'm not sure what is your point here, but you will have to do more with it to be taken seriously.

George, you're much too bright for me to buy that. Interwoven in all this talk about Galloway and the senate, there came an article stating that a US Senate Commission investigating this very thing found some very untoward things have apparently [much more so than you know about GG] been done by US interests with the connivance of the US administration.

Your silence, your complete avoidance of this aspect is proof of your, shall we say, homey attitude. You waft off on theoreticals, pontificating on historical this and thats but you avoid the specifics.

I note that in the Scott Ritter piece above he also acknowledges the same point with regard to the oil companies - namely that they were necessarily secondary figures in this corrupt practice, but not the originators of it. Ritter also goes on to blame it all on the United States and our ten year policy of "economic strangulation" of Iraq which he says killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The key point here is that the international sanctions on Iraq during that decade were indeed actively supported by the United States and approved by the UN Security Council as a direct consequence of the Iraqi regime's invasions of both its neighbors during the previous 15 years, and sustained refusal to abide by the agreement that ended the Kuwati conflict. The actions of the Saddam regime were the real cause -- unless you (and Mr Ritter, a paid hack) are prepared to argue that economic sanctions are an impermissible form of political action.


I'm prepared to argue that they were USED in an impermissable fashion. That is the crux of the issue, George. I'm prepared to argue that no political action that causes the death of half a million children is ever acceptable political action. That is, on its face, impolitical, and I here use political as social relationships involving authority or power. Nations that unite should do so for the benefit of mankind, not the destruction of mankind to fit some craven self interest.

Every country of the United Nations [save for Israel, if I'm not mistaken] has voted against the US for its genocidal policies in Nicaragua. Should half a million or a million US citizens die because of their government's, what were your words, "invasions of ... its neighbors"? Where is the fairness in this?

My apologies for the length of this reply.

Quote:

Recently released internal U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents reveal that the United States anticipated the dire civilian health consequences of destroying Iraq's drinking water and sanitation systems in the Gulf War. The documents also illustrate U.S. awareness that sanctions would prevent the Iraqi government from repairing the degraded facilities, and lead to the inevitable destruction of the Iraqi water system, resulting in a devastating humanitarian crisis for the Iraqi people.

Quote:

The most likely diseases during "the next sixty-nine days (descending order" are "diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."[4]

Quote:

The info is out there, George and I could go on and on but I'll stop. I'll only note that the content of your postings reveals a decided reluctance to go anywhere near the facts. You write beautifully, though somewhat hurriedly sometimes, but as I've said, it's all just pretty paper and ribbons and too too often, all there is is a whole lot of road apples inside.

Do you imagine that the US Democrats or Republicans might ban someone from their party simply because he was controversial?

Or do you believe that UK party politics and that much fundamentally different from the US variety?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Do you imagine that the US Democrats or Republicans might ban someone from their party simply because he was controversial?

Or do you believe that UK party politics and that much fundamentally different from the US variety?

I really don't know: what are the reasons for expulsion in the US parties then?

Identify an example of expulsion and I might be able to answer your question.

I doubt Galloway's expulsion was any less of an exception in the UK than it might of been in the US.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Identify an example of expulsion and I might be able to answer your question.

I doubt Galloway's expulsion was any less of an exception in the UK than it might of been in the US.

Well, there are party rule, a party constitution.

These are the charges on which George Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party:
he incited Arabs to fight British troops
he incited British troops to defy orders
he threatened to stand against Labour
he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston.
(As said earlier already on this thread.)

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Identify an example of expulsion and I might be able to answer your question.

I doubt Galloway's expulsion was any less of an exception in the UK than it might of been in the US.

Well, there are party rule, a party constitution.

These are the charges on which George Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party:
he incited Arabs to fight British troops
he incited British troops to defy orders
he threatened to stand against Labour
he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston.
(As said earlier already on this thread.)

The first two charges seem to be deserving of expulsion from any political party.

The second two are inconsequential and would never have been exerted on their own.

I can't recall any similar situation in the US, but expect that if such a miscreant held office here he would be charged with treason, and rightly so, as opposed to the slap on the wrist of banishment from a political party.