Dick Durban Supports The Troops

[Warham]

BY JAMES TARANTO

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:11 p.m. EDT

Durbin Supports the Troops

Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, took the Senate floor yesterday and likened American servicemen to Nazis (link in PDF):

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]--I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

We are fighting an enemy that murdered 3,000 innocent people on American soil 3 1/2 years ago and would murder millions more if given the chance--and according to Dick Durbin, our soldiers are the Nazis.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006823

[Nickdfresh]

If it walks like a duck...

[knuckleboner]

dude, because somebody did a huge wrong to us does not make it morally proper for us to do a small wrong to somebody.


3,000 innocent people WERE murdered. that does not justify the torture of captured prisoners.


if torture did happen at an American run camp, then it's wrong. although the end might be noble, protecting more innocent lives, the means DO matter.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Warham
We are fighting an enemy that murdered 3,000 innocent people on American soil 3 1/2 years ago and would murder millions more if given the chance--and according to Dick Durbin, our soldiers are the Nazis.


If there were 3,000 "murders" of Boston citizens, NYC citizens, and Washington, D.C. citizens where are the "murder" investigations? huh

Where?

You believe in the big lie, it's obvious. Hey, just like the GERMAN people, the NAZIS, believed in their Reichstag fire and all of the rest of their big lies.

That's sad, because you'd be good as a troll.

It's later than you... it's too late.


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
dude, because somebody did a huge wrong to us does not make it morally proper for us to do a small wrong to somebody.



Do you mean 100,000 dead Iraq civilians is a small wrong?

The U.S. government, YOUR government Warham, funded and trained al-Qaeda.

Your government FUNDED AND TRAINED AL-QAEDA.

Do you get it?


:spank:

[Nickdfresh]

http://www.whale.to/b/images/nazi-twins.jpg

Well, you have to admit there is a passing resemblance.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[IMG]Well, you have to admit there is a passing resemblance.
Nick,

Do you have any ideas as to how to get rid of Rumsfeld and the Bushes and Clintons and the rest?

I see a revolt coming and they want you to think it's all their boys, al Qaeda.

But it's OUR boys, CIA.

Get ready for the big civil war here.

War is eminent, global and on North America this time.


:spank:

[Warham]

The comments will probably be spread over the world, with folks overseas saying, 'see, their own Senators all calling their troops Nazis!' More terrorists will probably be recruited by the spread of this comment, and more troops will be killed by car bombs. It's irresponsible.

Does anybody here think that would have happened during Vietnam?

In an unrelated note, He also said that people who own Hummers should join the military, because they only get five miles to the gallon.

Not the brightest bulb in the chandalier.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Nick,

Do you have any ideas as to how to get rid of Rumsfeld and the Bushes and Clintons and the rest?

I see a revolt coming and they want you to think it's all their boys, al Qaeda.

But it's OUR boys, CIA.

Get ready for the big civil war here.

War is eminent, global and on North America this time.


:spank:

Are they letting you picking strawberries at the looney bin this year? :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Nick,

Do you have any ideas as to how to get rid of Rumsfeld and the Bushes and Clintons and the rest?

:spank:

I was thinking more like populist reform, and elections...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham


In an unrelated note, He also said that people who own Hummers should join the military, because they only get five miles to the gallon.



I agree. The Hummer was designed as a military vehicle. That gas guzzling piece of crap should have never been licensed for civillian use, and it absolutely should have never been made a toy for the rich by the abuse of a tax loophole designed to help family farmers buy tractors.

All these assholes with small penis problems who want to drive them should do so.

In Iraq.

[BigBadBrian]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/108136.jpg

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Are they letting you picking strawberries at the looney bin this year? :rolleyes:
Nick,

A revolt is coming.

If there is one more CIA attack on the U.S. like 9/11 there will be a march on Washington D.C. the likes you and the world have NEVER seen before.

Do you think that's crazy?

Crazy as George Washington crossing the old Delaware at night, Xmas eve, and all of the other "crazy" things these "rebels" did.

The "middle" is not a safe place to be. BOTH sides will be gunning for you. BOTH sides want you to pick them or the other side. Nobody likes a spy.

Figure out where you stand before the revolt comes.


:spank:

[BigBadBrian]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/108202.jpg

[Warham]

It's absolutely intollerable.

Honest Abe was absolutely correct. Durban should be strung up by his nads.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The comments will probably be spread over the world, with folks overseas saying, 'see, their own Senators all calling their troops Nazis!' More terrorists will probably be recruited by the spread of this comment, and more troops will be killed by car bombs. It's irresponsible.

Um, it's too late for that. And people don't join terrorist groups because of what Democratic Senators say. They join terrorist groups because they live under doespotic regimes and don't have a pot to piss in, or they're rich kids who believe they are the vanguard or such people. There is a reason most of the 9/11 hijackers were SAUDIS!

One of the main reasons I believe this could never have been a conspriacy is that the US Gov't would never have selected SAUDI identities for their alleged terrorist bogeymen.

And DONALD RUMSFELD has more of a boon to terrorist recruitment that any SENATOR! Why don't you flame him for a while? It's kind of fun.


Does anybody here think that would have happened during Vietnam?

Actually during VIETNAM, some in the peace movement mistakenly idealized the VC/NLF and the North Vietnamese, so yes it did happen! Especially around the My Lai Massacre when US troops literally were doing their best NAZI impression.


In an unrelated note, He also said that people who own Hummers should join the military, because they only get five miles to the gallon.

Not the brightest bulb in the chandalier.

Perhaps, but can anybody believe that it's very patriotic to help drive up the cost of gas and thereby increase our dependance on foriegn oil simply to show: you have the money to do so, are massively insecure, or have a small penis?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/108136.jpg

What about a DEFENSE SECRETARY?

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~dudley/fellows/lit/2004-5/rumsfeld%20psychuc%20final1.jpg

[Warham]

And here I thought you said that FORD and other posters here should tone down the Nazi rhetoric, but if Durban says it, hey, why not? Right?

And he's saying it about our men and women in uniform.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
It's absolutely intollerable.

Honest Abe was absolutely correct. Durban should be strung up by his nads.

Right after every single member of the BCE and PNAC are shot by firing squad for Treason against the United States of America.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by FORD
Right after every single member of the BCE and PNAC are shot by firing squad for Treason against the United States of America. After a trial, FORD.

In a barn, outdoors near a tree or a wall or a ditch, anywhere they are caught will be a good place for a trial then...


:spank:

[Guitar Shark]

Can somebody explain to me how the Senator's comments undermine "the troops"?

If anything, they are critical of the administration's Guantanamo Bay policies. Those policies are the ones damaging the reputation of our troops, not the Senator's comments. Does nobody see this?

[Warham]

Durban's been reading too many of FORD's posts here, with the comparisons of G.W. Bush to Hitler.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
And here I thought you said that FORD and other posters here should tone down the Nazi rhetoric, but if Durban says it, hey, why not? Right?

And he's saying it about our men and women in uniform.

I said the NAZI metaphor was overused. But I also was sick of seeing DEMOCRATS you guys hated dressed up in NAZI uniforms simply because you opposed them politically!

But beating and semi-torturing suspects that have never been charged with anything IS SORT OF reminiscient OF THE NAZI's CRUSHING RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS!

And he was not saying that ALL US military personnel acted this way, just a few!

[Warham]

I should dig up some Nazi photos of concentration camps with all the Jewish corpses laying around and post them here, and maybe find some pictures of Gitmo, to see if there is a comparison.

Did the Nazis provide Jews with a Torah to read while they were prisoners?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I said the NAZI metaphor was overused. But I also was sick of seeing DEMOCRATS you guys hated dressed up in NAZI uniforms simply because you opposed them politically!

But beating and semi-torturing suspects that have never been charged with anything IS SORT OF reminiscient OF THE NAZI's CRUSHING RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS!


Originally posted by Warham
BY JAMES TARANTO
...
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.


--He doesn't have a point? And the guys at GITMO likely had nothing to do with 9/11. Again, they were small fish! TARANTO fails to mention that, doesn't he?

And he was not saying that ALL US military personnel acted this way, just a few!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Warham
And here I thought you said that FORD and other posters here should tone down the Nazi rhetoric, but if Durban says it, hey, why not? Right?

And he's saying it about our men and women in uniform.
Yes he is. And he's correct. Study your German history. It's America's history and America's future now.

When the Nazi style clampdown of the U.S.A occures the revolt will begin.

It's later than... it's too late.


:spank:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I should dig up some Nazi photos of concentration camps with all the Jewish corpses laying around and post them here, and maybe find some pictures of Gitmo, to see if there is a comparison.

Did the Nazis provide Jews with a Torah to read while they were prisoners?

We talking about interrogation techniques of enemy fighters, captured on the battlefield here, not death camps! And he was referring to a specific descriptions. You guys are already trying to exaggerate this and twist it way out of proportion. SPARE ME!

BTW, have you ever seen the photos of DRESDAN?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Can somebody explain to me how the Senator's comments undermine "the troops"?

If anything, they are critical of the administration's Guantanamo Bay policies. Those policies are the ones damaging the reputation of our troops, not the Senator's comments. Does nobody see this?

And more than damaging the reputation, of the troops, they damage the reputation of our entire country.

Here we have an unknown number of unknown persons caged up for unknown reasons. I don't believe any of them have been charged with a crime.

THIS IS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY, YOU BLIND IDIOT BUSHEEP!!

As far as anybody dying at Gitmo, it could happen, and they would never need to find mass graves. The waters off that coast are some of the most shark infested on the planet, and it would be all too easy to dispose of "evidence".

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Warham
I should dig up some Nazi photos of concentration camps with all the Jewish corpses laying around and post them here, and maybe find some pictures of Gitmo, to see if there is a comparison.

Did the Nazis provide Jews with a Torah to read while they were prisoners?
Nothing happens overnight. It took time and a world war for those pictures of the great enemies of the Reich to develop.

Warham, you MUST have a small mind.

It takes time for FEMA camps to turn out the same way.

Maybe you'll get a good camp.


:spank:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Can somebody explain to me how the Senator's comments undermine "the troops"?

If anything, they are critical of the administration's Guantanamo Bay policies. Those policies are the ones damaging the reputation of our troops, not the Senator's comments. Does nobody see this?

exactly:cool:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
exactly:cool:
No, they don't see it. That's why there's going to be a war here.


:spank:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
The waters off that coast are some of the most shark infested on the planet, and it would be all too easy to dispose of "evidence".

Hey, I resemble that remark. :mad:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Hey, I resemble that remark. :mad:

No, the vacationing lawyers are further up the coast ;)

I meant these guys.....
http://www.strangedangers.com/images/content/104280.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Hey, I resemble that remark. :mad:

Lawyers swim off CUBA? "Don't go into the water!":eek:


Originally posted by FORD
No, the vacationing lawyers are further up the coast ;)

I meant these guys.....
http://www.strangedangers.com/images/content/104280.jpg

Oh! You just meant Great White Sharks...nevermind then.:p

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Warham
The comments will probably be spread over the world, with folks overseas saying, 'see, their own Senators all calling their troops Nazis!' More terrorists will probably be recruited by the spread of this comment, and more troops will be killed by car bombs. It's irresponsible.




to be technical, he didn't call American soldiers nazis. he said that, if you heard of prisoners being tortured in this particular manner, would you be more likely to think they were in a U.S. POW camp, or a nazi, soviet camp?

yes, i think he's exaggerating a little.

but at the same time, we WOULD be decrying this kind of treatment if slobobdan did it to any captured American pilots.




(and yes, i agree, that hummer argument sounds ridiculous. the same argument could be made for people who go faster than X speed limit. they waste gas. or people who accelerate too quickly.

"sure, you drive a prius, pal. but when you accelerate from 0 to 45 that quickly, you're burning more fuel than if you were lighter on the pedal. you should be drafted into the infantry!")

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
to be technical, he didn't call American soldiers nazis. he said that, if you heard of prisoners being tortured in this particular manner, would you be more likely to think they were in a U.S. POW camp, or a nazi, soviet camp?

yes, i think he's exaggerating a little.

but at the same time, we WOULD be decrying this kind of treatment if slobobdan did it to any captured American pilots.




(and yes, i agree, that hummer argument sounds ridiculous. the same argument could be made for people who go faster than X speed limit. they waste gas. or people who accelerate too quickly.

"sure, you drive a prius, pal. but when you accelerate from 0 to 45 that quickly, you're burning more fuel than if you were lighter on the pedal. you should be drafted into the infantry!")

Yes, but I've heard SENATORs make dumber comments, like "let's rename French Fries to Freedom Fries."

[Warham]

Oh, please Nick. Everybody hated the French then.

It didn't last.

This is dumber. Then it, it is Dick Durban we're talking about.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh, please Nick. Everybody hated the French then.


I didn't. The French were right in declining to support this war.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I didn't. The French were right in declining to support this war.

Me neither. I didn't go with the flow on "old Europe." Apparently they knew something we didn't.

"Pulverize the Eiffel tower,
Who criticize your government..."

--Green Day, From "Holiday"

[Warham]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I didn't. The French were right in declining to support this war.

Of course they declined, they were getting their pockets stuffed by Saddam.

It's funny how the Germans, French and Russians voiced their dissent more than any other countries, yet when the Oil-For-Food scandal broke, which countries come out of that looking soiled the most?

[Guitar Shark]

Nice try, War. Those claims are untrue and you know it.

For the sake of argument, though, let's say that France DID get some money from Iraq as part of the UN Oil for Food program. The money we'd be talking about is FAR less than the $300+ billion the U.S. has spent to date on this ill-conceived, unjustified war. Not to mention the thousands of civilian and military casualties.

Now what was the question you asked again? Who looks the most soiled? The answer is clearly us.

[Warham]

Really?

Unfounded you say?

Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm

France didn't want their pipeline to stop.

[Guitar Shark]

Thank you for providing a link to a March 22, 2004 story Warham. It's nice to know you're so current with your news. :)

Recent stories on this subject (as recent as May of this year) have totally discounted the claims.

And even if they ARE true, there is no proof of any connection between this "scandal" involving FORMER French politicians and France's decision not to participate in the war. Because there IS no connection. My opinion, anyway. :cool:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
The answer is clearly us.
Not me.

Don't include me in your definition of us, okay.


:spank:

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Warham
Really?

Unfounded you say?

Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million)

France didn't want their pipeline to stop.
Your mind is small after all.

Why do you bother?


:spank:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Not me.

Don't include me in your definition of us, okay.


:spank:

Don't worry Phil, you are truly an original.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I didn't. The French were right in declining to support this war.

Neither did I.

When Warpig says "everyone".....he's refering to "everyone who has drank the kool-ade and now is in lockstep with whatever Rush, Sean, and little Scotty [do me gannon] tells them to thinlk"

:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Thank you for providing a link to a March 22, 2004 story Warham. It's nice to know you're so current with your news. :)



Welcome to Warpig's World.

Where a weak, outdated defense is just a Google search away:rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Of course they declined, they were getting their pockets stuffed by Saddam.

It's funny how the Germans, French and Russians voiced their dissent more than any other countries, yet when the Oil-For-Food scandal broke, which countries come out of that looking soiled the most?

Imagine that! In bed with SADDAM! Of course you guys are again exaggerating the accusations. Maybe we need another SCOTSMAN MP to come over here and OWN Senators (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21416)...

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Of course they declined, they were getting their pockets stuffed by Saddam.

It's funny how the Germans, French and Russians voiced their dissent more than any other countries, yet when the Oil-For-Food scandal broke, which countries come out of that looking soiled the most?
:rolleyes:
So what kind of BUSH-Aid are you drinking tonight WAR, Raspberry-Rat Poison or Cyanide-Cherry?

Briton Denies Having Rights to Buy Iraqi Oil
Lawmaker Challenges U.S. Case for War

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701358.html) Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 18, 2005; Page A11

A British lawmaker forcefully denied allegations in a Senate hearing yesterday that he received rights to purchase millions of barrels of Iraqi oil at a discount from Saddam Hussein's government, and he delivered a fiery attack on three decades of U.S. policy toward Iraq.

George Galloway, a formidable debater recently ousted from the British Labor Party after attacking Prime Minister Tony Blair for supporting the war in Iraq, used his appearance before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations as a forum to challenge the veracity of the Bush administration's case for going to war.

British legislator George Galloway testifies at the Senate subcommittee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Capitol Hill Tuesday, May 17, 2005 in Washington. Galloway is testifying over allegations that he received millions of barrels of Iraqi oil for backing Saddam Hussein's regime.

British legislator George Galloway testifies at the Senate subcommittee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Capitol Hill Tuesday, May 17, 2005 in Washington. Galloway is testifying over allegations that he received millions of barrels of Iraqi oil for backing Saddam Hussein's regime.
He also unleashed a personal attack against panel Chairman Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), calling his investigation the "mother of all smoke screens" designed to "divert attention from the crimes that you supported" by endorsing President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

"Senator, I am not now nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf," said Galloway, dispensing with the deference traditionally reserved for Senate leaders. "I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf."

Galloway's testimony under oath came less than a week after Coleman's subcommittee published a report including Iraqi documents that allegedly detailed the former government's approval to allow the member of Parliament to purchase about 20 million barrels of oil from 2000 to 2002. Former Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan, who is in U.S. custody, told Senate investigators in April that Galloway had been awarded rights to buy oil "because of his opinions about Iraq."

The subcommittee yesterday also discussed its investigation of allegations that the former Iraqi government used its oil wealth to curry favor with senior government officials, politicians and businessmen in Russia and France. The panel alleged that a senior adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a former French interior minister, Charles Pasqua, also received rights to buy millions of barrels of discounted oil.

"Saddam used oil to his geopolitical and strategic advantage," Coleman said. "Over the past week, the subcommittee has released a number of bipartisan reports detailing how the Hussein regime quickly manipulated the use of oil allocations to garner political influence around the globe."

The Senate subcommittee has not presented any bank records or other documentation showing that Galloway traded in Iraqi oil or paid kickbacks to the government. But Coleman, a former prosecutor, engaged in a feisty exchange with Galloway as he sought to prove the subcommittee's claim that the British politician had used Mariam Appeals, a charity established to care for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl with leukemia, to launder Iraqi money.

Coleman questioned Galloway about the appearance of his name on Iraqi oil ministry documents approving his right to purchase large quantities of oil. He also sought to demonstrate that a wealthy Jordanian businessman who participated in the Iraqi oil trade, and who served as a major donor and chairman of Galloway's charity, was buying Iraqi oil on Galloway's behalf.

Galloway, who repeatedly evaded questions concerning his views of his Jordanian associate's involvement in the Iraqi oil trade to make broader political points, presented the committee with a hefty dossier that he said expressed his opposition to Hussein's government over the past 15 years "in the most withering terms." However, he also described himself as a "friend" of former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, and said that he met twice with Hussein.

Galloway acknowledged that he was aware that the Jordanian chairman of his charity was a commercial partner of the Iraqi government but said that Galloway never personally profited from any business dealings in Iraq.

He also noted that previous Iraqi documents used in newspaper reports, including one in the Christian Science Monitor, to link him to the Iraqi government have proven to be forgeries.

"What counts is not the names on the paper; what counts is where is the money, Senator?" he said. "Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them here today."

Coleman said he did not believe Galloway came across as a "credible witness" and warned that his staff would examine his testimony to determine whether he perjured himself. "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," Coleman told reporters after the hearing.

Galloway repeatedly cited a report this week by the committee's minority staff members that alleged that a Texas-based oil company paid $37 million in kickbacks to Hussein's government and criticized the Treasury Department for not monitoring sanctions violations by U.S. companies. But he also took a jab at Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the committee's ranking Democrat, incorrectly charging him with supporting the "illegal attack on Iraq."

Levin, an outspoken critic of the invasion, said, "Sorry about that, I didn't."

[Warham]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Thank you for providing a link to a March 22, 2004 story Warham. It's nice to know you're so current with your news. :)

Recent stories on this subject (as recent as May of this year) have totally discounted the claims.

And even if they ARE true, there is no proof of any connection between this "scandal" involving FORMER French politicians and France's decision not to participate in the war. Because there IS no connection. My opinion, anyway. :cool:

Here ya go, pal. Fresh off the presses, this includes Russia as well.

I don't see any discounting in this article, do you?

Those countries were bought off....

New Bump in U.S.-Russia Ties

Key Question Is Extent of Kremlin Role
In Oil-for-Food Scandal
By ALAN CULLISON in Moscow and YOCHI J. DREAZEN in Washington
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 14, 2005; Page A13

The alleged role of the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow in helping Baghdad exploit the United Nations' oil-for-food program has emerged as a new flash point in already rocky U.S.-Russian relations.

In the three years before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, say former employees of the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow and American investigators, cash deliveries were funneled through the embassy as part of an elaborate kickback scheme to Saddam Hussein's government, paid in return for lucrative oil contracts under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program.

The main question facing investigators is whether the scheme took place with the active cooperation of the Kremlin or was simply part of the murky and often corrupt business climate that has flourished in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. The intermingling of Russia's government and business spheres -- many companies are either formally state-owned or under the unofficial control of powerful political or military figures -- is making the issue more difficult to resolve.

Clear evidence that the Kremlin subverted U.N. sanctions, or that Russia's opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was financially motivated, would undermine Moscow's credibility with Washington at a time when the U.S. is already wary of President Vladimir Putin and what many consider his backsliding on democracy and economic change. The Kremlin's critics in the U.S. say the scandal proves Russia is an unreliable partner in international affairs and has worked actively to undermine U.S. interests.


The Iraqi embassy in Moscow.


Russians say the investigation is a trumped-up political affair designed to punish Moscow for its opposition to the Iraq war; to cover up the fact that the U.S. never found any weapons of mass destruction there; and to weaken the country's influence internationally. The Kremlin says its opposition to the war was motivated by Russia's national interests, not by payoffs. And top Moscow political figures, including the former presidential chief of staff, deny making any payments.

U.S. and U.N. investigators say the crumbling side street that hosts the Iraqi Embassy was the scene for the unusual relationship that helped Mr. Hussein's regime survive lean years under the U.N. embargo. Every few days, according to former embassy employees and American investigators, sport-utility vehicles would roll to a stop next to the Iraqi embassy, a dilapidated three-story building of yellow chipping paint a few blocks from Russia's Foreign Ministry. Bodyguards and accountants would step out of the vehicle and disappear into the embassy carrying duffel bags of bundled $100 bills. The money was stashed in the embassy's safe, then loaded into diplomatic pouches and sent to Baghdad.

The money allegedly wound up in secret bank accounts controlled by Mr. Hussein's government, according to U.S. congressional investigators and a U.S. report by former American weapons-hunter Charles Duelfer. The oil allocations were supposed to allow Iraq to sell its oil and use the revenue for food and other humanitarian goods. Most of the funds went to their intended purpose. But over the years, the kickbacks formed an important lifeline for Mr. Hussein's regime as it struggled to stay afloat in the face of international pressure.

For Baghdad, the oil-for-food trade "was a way for Saddam Hussein's government to get illegal money," says Abdul Mostafa, Iraq's current ambassador to Russia. "Saddam hoped it would also be a way to buy influence in places like Russia, as well as France and China. ... Whether he was successful is the question for the investigators." Russia received one-third of all oil allocations under the U.N. program.

Mr. Mostafa says the embassy played a central role in funneling money to the Hussein regime. "There was an elaborate system here of bypassing the U.N. sanctions," he says. The embassy's oil-for-food dealings were described last month in a U.S. Senate panel report, based on interviews with Iraqi officials, including Tariq Aziz, Iraq's former deputy prime minister. American investigators allege that as much as $90 million in illegal kickbacks was funneled through the embassy between 2000 and mid-2002, when Mr. Hussein discontinued the surcharge system. The U.S. Senate released two reports last month on Russia's role in the oil-for-food scandal, and Russia is expected to be a focus in a forthcoming report by a U.N.-appointed investigative panel on the same topic.

The allegations of cash kickbacks are "all legend, just like the legend that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," says Sergei Isakov, head of Russian Engineering, a company that figured prominently in the Senate report and allegedly accepted Iraqi oil on behalf of Mr. Putin's former chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin. Mr. Voloshin denies that he or any of his administration had anything to do with the oil trade.

Investigators say the Iraqi government demanded a surcharge for every barrel of oil that it doled out to business or political allies around the world. Recipients allegedly were willing to pay the surcharge because the Iraqi oil allocations were less expensive than oil sold on the open market. The former Iraqi ambassador to Russia, Abbas Qunfuz, allegedly helped select many of the Russian recipients and oversaw all of the oil-for-food business, U.S. investigators and current embassy employees say. Mr. Qunfuz, who is now living in Moscow and has declined to help in the inquiry, couldn't be reached for comment.

After the U.S. attack on Iraq, embassy employees allegedly burned documents in Moscow, and U.S. investigators say they haven't been able to determine precisely what was destroyed.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111869842986758422-_9g9Oqtrb9UcuIAIEy6FqGILN04_20060613,00.html?mod=t ff_main_tff_top

[Warham]

The claims were discounted, yet France is doing an independent investigation...

France launches independent oil-for-food inquiry
6/2/2005 9:00:00 PM GMT

French prosecutors will launch a separate investigation into oil-for-food kickback allegations involving French diplomats and businessman, a local report said on Thursday.

According to France's Le Figaro, French investigating magistrate Philippe Courroye is set to launch an inquiry into charges that former Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and others benefited from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program under the rule of the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Pasqua was among several other international personalities who were accused in a recently published U.S. report of receiving some $10 billion dollars worth of oil-for-food kickbacks.

But Pasqua denied the allegations.

Courroye reportedly will study similar allegations involving 10 other French diplomats, including former employees of the French oil group, Total.

The toppled Iraqi government was permitted under the UN oil-for-food programme to sell oil to buy food and other civilian goods to help ease the sufferings of the Iraqi people that resulted from sanctions imposed by the UN on the country in 1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Meanwhile, UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, fired a senior staff member for involvement in the oil-for-food scandal, UN spokesman said.

This is the first UN staff dismissal in the investigation of the program.

Yesterday, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said that Annan had dismissed Joseph Stephanides, head of the Security Council Affairs Division, who had been scheduled to retire in September, "in accordance with United Nations staff regulations" and after a "thorough review of all aspects of the case." The dismissal took effect immediately, Dujarric said.

But in a telephone interview on Wednesday, Stephanides denied any wrongdoing and said he was "very upset and disappointed" by the Secretary General’s decision.

Stephanides had retained a lawyer to appeal his dismissal through the UN system.

It is noteworthy that dismissals of UN staff members are rare. Annan dismissed only 40 people, including Stephanides, since taking the top post in 1997.

Four months ago Stephanides was suspended after a panel appointed by Annan to investigate accusations of corruption in Iraq’s oil-for-food program accused him of helping to steer an inspection contract to a British company.

In its report, the Independent Inquiry Committee, led by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, said that Stephanides violated UN procurement rules by taking actions that "prejudiced and pre-empted" competitive bidding for the contract.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8667

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Welcome to Warpig's World.

Where a weak, outdated defense is just a Google search away:rolleyes:

Yeah, outdated my ass.

You guys aren't too sharp.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The claims were discounted, yet France is doing an independent investigation...




Wow! That proves everything! When do we get an independent investigation into the DOWNING STREET MEMO?

[Warham]

Doesn't prove anything, Nick, but GS said the claims were already discounted. Apparently not...

[Guitar Shark]

*sigh*

Where to begin?

So a French prosecutor is continuing to investigate the charges. Who the fuck cares. At this point they remain CHARGES, there has been no proof of any wrongdoing. The investigation has gone on for more than a year and no charges have been filed. Forgive me if I don't lend much credence to this story.

But again, let's assume the charges are true. You still haven't made any connection between this alleged scandal and France's motivation for staying out of Iraq. Because there ISN'T ANY. Making such a connection requires the same degree of rank speculation that FORD and others use to connect 9/11 to a U.S. government conspiracy. Don't be a hypocrite.

Many members of your own party are publicly questioning the administration's Iraq policy. Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe we never should have invaded Iraq. France, and other countries who refused to join the hilariously titled "coalition of the willing" are looking pretty damn good right about now.

P.S. Does this mean you will be posting articles from Al Jazeera from now on War? :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
*sigh*

Where to begin?

So a French prosecutor is continuing to investigate the charges. Who the fuck cares. At this point they remain CHARGES, there has been no proof of any wrongdoing. The investigation has gone on for more than a year and no charges have been filed. Forgive me if I don't lend much credence to this story.

But again, let's assume the charges are true. You still haven't made any connection between this alleged scandal and France's motivation for staying out of Iraq. Because there ISN'T ANY. Making such a connection requires the same degree of rank speculation that FORD and others use to connect 9/11 to a U.S. government conspiracy. Don't be a hypocrite.

Many members of your own party are publicly questioning the administration's Iraq policy. Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe we never should have invaded Iraq. France, and other countries who refused to join the hilariously titled "coalition of the willing" are looking pretty damn good right about now.

P.S. Does this mean you will be posting articles from Al Jazeera from now on War? :)

This is the most sensible post I've seen here in a long while...

[Warham]

I have to post from Al Jazeera, GS. They aren't owned by the BCE.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
I have to post from Al Jazeera, GS. They aren't owned by the BCE.

Don't be so sure... I'm sure FORD knows of a connection somewhere. ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Don't be so sure... I'm sure FORD knows of a connection somewhere. ;)

I don't have a link handy, but I do recall reading somewhere a claim that Al Jazeera was a joint operation between BCE & Mossad.

If I'm not mistaken, the network is based in the United Arab Emirates, which is a BCE/oil industry puppet state. Hardly a place for an allegedly America hating fundie Islamic network isn't it?

[Warham]

Well then, I better use the BBC.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Warham
Well then, I better use the BBC.
Butt Buddies Club.


:spank: