Talk:Oil-for-Food Programme/Archive 2

Archived Talk from Talk:Oil for food
Comments interspersed in mediation discussion from April 29 and 30, 2004

---

It was more than just the GAO report, that was one component of it. Interesting you should bring that up because Joseph Christoff (GAO chairman) is upset because the UN is refusing to release any of its internal audits to the GAO. But anyhoo...... my comments on the GAO and what the report implied, was on the talk page, not in the article, so please do us a favor and cram it. As far as known truths and allegations go we do know the following:

In short, you lied on the talk page about what the GAO report stated. Thanks for clearing that up. --Rei

Time to break out the way back machine.

the article have been verified by a GAO investigation

It says Investigation not report BIATCH! An Investigation which is still ongoing at the GAO and is being coordinated with a congressional investigation.TDC 20:01, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't call me a bitch. --Rei

I never called you a "bitch" honey cakes, so tone down the potty mouth.

• Kofi Annan admits that there is a high probability of wrongdoing in the program.

Not bribery. --Rei

Kofi is not going to say bribery. Since there is an ongoing investigation (that the UN is trying to stall), he most definitely is not going to say bribery when it could mean his job, jail time for his buddies, and his credibility swinging from a rope in what will be a very public execution of his reputation..

I'm asking you to quit trying to use what Kofi said to give credence to things that he never even talked about. --Rei

• $10bil of the funds are were illegally kicked back to Saddam.

The GAO found the program (4 by$? I'd have to check the report) more than the value of the products, and assumed that it was kickbacks. The rest was oil smuggling.

Not assumed, concluded. The UN also turned a blind eye to the smuggling operation as well as Michael Soussan pointed out. But I forgot he is just another nobody too right?

And concluded via the fact that the products weren't selected weren't sold at market price, which is an assumption that will be investigated if you can just wait the couple months for the investigation (why don't you respond to the fact that you refuse to wait for the investigation???). The GAO doesn't fault any individuals for not stopping the smuggling - the general sense of the report is that the UN felt helpless to stop these sorts of things because they didn't have the resources or authority for major operations. By the way, will you admit that your 10b$ in kickbacks statement is false?

Why dont I wait for the end of the investigation? Simple: Wiki articles regulary update themselves (911 commision, ongoing War in Iraq) as events unfold. And, no, I wont admit that the $10bil figure is false honey cakes.TDC 21:02, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

They update themselves when there is NEWS of new facts that have come to light - not the latest smear. This is not "TDC's Blog". We - at least I, for one - have quality standards.

I'm not asking you to admit that the 10b$ number itself is false - I'm asking you to admit that the GAO does not say that Saddam received 10b$ in kickbacks. It says no such thing. It says that it is their conclusion that he received 4.4 billion dollars in kickbacks. To claim that they said 10b$ in kickbacks is a lie. --Rei

• Shaker al-Kaffaji admits that the charges against him are true and that hed did received and sell Iraqi oil contracts and kick back money to Saddam.

And Shakir al-Khafaji is a noone. His name would be completely unknown if he hadn't contributed to a Ritter film. You're accusing people as disprate as world leaders and the Russian Orthodox Church. Last I checked, Khafaji didn't run the Russian Orthodox Church. --Rei

He’s a nobody, He’s a nobody!! Wahhh it doesn’t prove a thing. Whining will get you no where sparky. He not only contributed to Ritter’s film, but also arranged the trip for Baghdad McDermott. It provides more credence to the Al’Mada article. TDC 20:01, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

What country does he run? What world-relevant organization does he run? What church does he run? Do you have *anything* relevant about this guy? --Rei

• Galloway admits that his contributors had links to the former Iraqi regime.

How many times do I have to correct you on this? Galloway admitted that it was *possible* that people who had donated to his *charity*, which was set up because he *already opposed the sanctions and the possibility of war with Iraq*, had ties. He stated that working with people who have ties to Saddam was the inevitable price to pay for dealing with Saddam. *Duh*. You've been corrected enough times on this one that there's no way you could keep repeating it without knowing that you're lying. --Rei

You are so right on this one. I mean what are the odds that after this prick spent the better part of 30 years schilling for the Soviets, that he would schill for Saddam. I mean its not like he has set a precedent. Simple fact, Galloway took money, and did not give a rats ass where it came from just so long as he could use it to continue his campaign against the US, and lets be honest, that’s all the anti-sanctions movement was about, or at least to one of its former members at any rate. Galloway lied, Iraqis died.TDC 20:01, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. What are the odds that a person could actually believe in anything liberal without being on the dole from someone. If you'll excuse me, I have to go collect my weekly check from Osama bin Laden. BTW, what did Galloway "lie" about? --Rei

A check from Bin Laden, now why doesn't that suprise me.

• An authorized oil for food contractor was shut down for financial links to Al-Queada

Which one? --Rei

ASAT Trust and Bank Al Taqwa TDC 20:01, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Out of the several (hundreds? thousands? I know it's at least 700) contracts given out in OFF ended up going to a company which the US declared associated with terrorists? What a horrid endictment. I mean, could you imagine if the Bush administration had ties to al-Qaeda - what a scandal *that* would be! Should I go fill the George Bush article with a 4:1 allegation to content ratio over that? --Rei

Thats two honey cakes. And its not organizations that are on the US's terrorism list, but organizations that are on the UN's list. And ooh, Counterpunch, now thats a sourse we can trust! TDC 20:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, what source do you want? How about the Federation of American Scientists? The Los Angeles Times? Salon? The Guardian? How many more do you want? --Rei

• The General Accounting Office report, presented at a congressional hearing into the program, determined that 80 percent of U.N. records had not been turned over and the UN claims that documents can no longer be located.

That's called disorganization and a lack of record keeping, although I haven't seen that particular claim. --Rei

• The vast majority of "relief supplies" came from two places: France and Russia. These two nations also continually pushed to expand the program.

Ooooh! And most of the contractors in Iraq came from America. Does that mean that America invaded to help the contractors? Give it a rest. --Rei

No it does not, but does that mean that France and Russia supported expanding the program (against US and UK wishes) because its officials were being bribed and given sweetheart deals. You betcha!

Wait a minute. You're saying that if one country does things that help its business interests a ton, that it's not some hidden agenda, but that if two other countries do things that help their companies by a lesser amount (compare OFF to Iraq reconstruction, oil purchase, and basic supply contracts per year), that there is some insidious motive. Stop and analyze your logic.

We are paying for Iraqi reconstruction, you are damn right the bulk of the contracts are going to us. TDC 20:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you. I'm talking about the invasion. If France and Russia supported OFF just so their companies could get the contracts, one could apply the same logic to the US invasion. Because, I mean, it is so shocking to think that in France and Russia, they might actually care if people in Iraq starve or die of easily preventable diseases. No, those pinko-liberals had to be on the dole to someone! --Rei

• "There is no question that where the evidence is beyond doubt, the US will take action to put people who defrauded the system to court, and for the courts to apply appropriate justice. That may be criminal courts as well as civil ones." - Hankes-Drielsma

And Drielsma is a rep. of the committee headed by, is a close personal friend of, and is on the payroll of, Ahmed Chalabi. You know, the fraudster bank embezzler. --Rei

Drielsma also works for one of the best accounting firms in the world. But I know, I know, just another corrupt nobody whose word (not to mention the mountain of evidence he will unleash) means nothing. TDC 20:01, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he's such a major figure because of his former job as a business executive on a committee. The biggest things he personally runs are Roland Berger Strategy Consultants and Windsor Leadership Trust. The latter is such a good, worldwide organization, in fact, that it gets 151 hits on the internet. So good, in fact, that its website is down [1]. For comparison, a google search for pages containing the keywords "crazy", "peanuts", and "sidewinder" (I just picked three random words that came to mind) gets 272 hits. Roland-Berger is a bit better - it gets just a little bit less hits than "crazy" "peanuts" "cookies".

What a stunning repudiation of his credentials! I mean man, you have just proven that he is totaly unqualified. TDC 20:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

This guy is not some impressive figure. You're trying to use his credentials to show him off as some sort of really reputable figure; he's not that impressive. He runs two mediocre organizations, and was a former upper-midlevel exec in Price-Waterhouse. And you still haven't addressed anything about the fact that he's a Chalabi friend, who was picked by him personally, and is being paid by him. --Rei

Not an impressive figure? How could you claim that his education and experience in the business world does not make him more than well qualified to run this investigation? TDC 14:36, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Information on purchasers and sellers names and deals brokered through the UN became confidential after Sevan took control of the program

You still haven't evidence that, or that even if it was, if it was a Sevan request as opposed to a request of the new company doing the inspections. That's called "smear" when you don't have any evidence to back it up, by the way. --Rei

I most certainly have.

Recap please:

While attempting to determine the complexity of the Oil for Food program for an article in the New York Times, investigative journalist, Claudia Rosett of the Hudson Institute, discovered that the UN treated details such as the identities of Oil-for-Food contractors, the price, quantity and quality of goods involved in the relief deals, and the identities of the oil buyers and precise quantities they received as confidential. The bank statements, the interest paid, the transactions, were all secret as well [2]. This all took place after Sevan began heading the program, set up by Kofi Annan's predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. =Rosett testified to this under oath on April 21, 2004 before the House Subcommittee on National Security=.

Boo Yah!!! TDC 20:01, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Boo Yah"? That's intelligent debate. Before you "Boo Yah" again, I suggest you read what you're posting. As I stated before, you haven't evidenced that it happened when Sevan took over the program, or that if it was, it was a deliberate action from Sevan. Once again, you're doing Proof by Ghost Reference - here's Rosett's testimony: [3]. And this is on top of the fact that you are selectively picking whose testimony to look at.

Well, I read what I wrote again, and ..... um .. yeah .... BOO-YAH!TDC 20:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

At what point did Rosett blame *anything* on Sevan? Or even state that it took place after Sevan took over? --Rei

the UN treated details such as the identities of Oil-for-Food contractors, the price, quantity and quality of goods involved in the relief deals, and the identities of the oil buyers and precise quantities they received as confidential. The bank statements, the interest paid, the transactions, were all secret as well This all took place after Sevan began heading the program

For legal resons, I am sure that Rosett cannot come out and say that Sevan was on the take, but she paints a pretty clear picture of what was at best his ineptitude at stemming the flow of illegal funds and at worst his involvement of a criminal conspiracy to enrich both Saddam and himself. TDC 14:36, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

The only argument you have is that Chalibli is friends with the new Oil minister, which would not invalidate any of my above points as they are all independent of the Al Mada claims.

Give it up chief, it stays. TDC 17:54, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

That's not your call. --Rei

Right on that, its not my call, but no one has ever out muscled me before, I doubt you will be the first sweet cheeks. TDC 20:01, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to out-muscle you. You just don't get this, do you? --Rei

One more dash of salt on your already painful wound.

"We should have spoken out when we came across indications that the Iraqi government was demanding kickbacks as the cost of doing business," he said. "We should have spoken out when members of the Iraqi government made intimidating threats against our staff. We should have spoken out when the Iraqi government delayed or sabotaged our humanitarian program in Iraqi Kurdistan. We should have spoken out on a range of issues, but in most cases we did not."

Michael Soussan, Former Program Coordinator for the Oil-for-Food Program

Soussan isn't major enough of a player in the program to even render a hit on the UN's website. I've quoted in the article from several *heads* of the program. Give it up. --Rei

several *heads* who all pulled up to Saddams tit as suckled dirty oil money while Iraqis died, yeah real reliable sources they are. TDC 20:06, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Next time you want to erase what I wrote on the talk page, dont, ok honey cakes? TDC 20:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

It must have been a merger error. Almost every post I've made I've had to merge, because there's been so much activity. It's a real pain. Of course, the comment that accidentally got removed shows the quality of journalism that you're bringing to this forum, so I'm glad that you reinserted it. --Rei

You are jack's enraged feeling of humiliation

TDC 18:03, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Why don't you *evidence* what you claim instead of insinuating? And *why can't you wait for the investigation*? You have yet to answer that. --Rei

The consensus was to merge. I do not think it is helpful if two who opposed the outcome now complain again. If it were helpful to have two articles others would see it as well. You already failed to convince us before.

TDC's list again worries me if he is at all willing to contribute to an unbiased article. It is deceptive to quote Galloway out of context. He denied all charges of wrongdoing and only said that in order to work at all on the Iraq subject it was necessary to get in contact with the Saddam regime, which is an experience I know even those who openly opposed Saddam made. It is also deceptive if we do not clearly distinguish between the UN investigation, known facts and the high likeliness that wrongdoings existed - which has been known for years - on the one side and unconfirmed Al-Mada lists, smear campaigns against Annan, the French, the Russians and the Vatican on the other side. I would say that it is equally important to report a widespread concern that the sanctions caused misery and the death of thousands of civilians as it is to report what a single newspaper wrote. No serious encyclopedia should base substantive parts of its articles on the speculation of a single source. Get-back-world-respect 18:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to believe that this all stems from one article n one newspaper, it does not.

There are 4 investigations. The UN, the GAO, US congress, and the IGC. The GAO began its investigations while determining the resolution of Oil of Food money after the invasion and realizing that there was quite a bit of money missing and most of it went to Saddam. The congressional investigation is expanding on this. The IGC investigation is the only one which is specifically looking into charges made in the Al Mada article. The UN is doing a comprehensive investigation looking into all the charges. TDC 19:16, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the way you present it makes the reader think that the UN probably believe the Al-Mada is truthful, Annan corrupt and Galloway got bribed. You need to distinguish between the allegations and indicate which comes from which source. Get-back-world-respect 22:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just an update:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855109/

Well I would argue that Annan does believe that there is a good deal of truth to the AlMada list, although he would never admit as much. I personally do to believe Annan had any personal knowledge of wrongdoing before the war, but as the leader of the UN, it is inexcusable for him to have to allowed a historically unprecedented level of corruption within the organization. Annan is going to go down as the captain of the titanic unless he does something to immediately diffuse this situation and make any investigation as transparent as possible. He should not be stonewalling the GAO, and refusing to give them information needed in their investigation. TDC 14:36, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Members of the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi were airlifted into southern Iraq the day Saddam's government fell. Chalabi was President Bush's guest at the State of the Union address. Even today, the INC gets $340,000 a month from the Pentagon to feed the United States intelligence information.

But NBC News has learned that members of the group are now under investigation by Iraqi police in Baghdad - allegations of: abduction, robbery, stealing 11 Iraqi government vehicles, and assaulting police by firing on them during a search.

To quote David Kay, as mentioned in the article:

"You know, once taken, excused," says Kay. "Twice taken you're an idiot. And I think we're now at the point of we're really an idiot."

--Rei

I've run into many people, Rei, who, when you bring up Hitler, tell you how bad Stalin was. If Chalabi is proven to be everything you say he is, does that prove that nothing corrupt happened with the United Nations? Cecropia 20:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No one says that nothing was wrong with the programme. What Rei and I say is that TDC is trying to write in a deceptive way here. Get-back-world-respect 21:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rei, if you're so upset by including unproven allegations in an encyclopedia, how are you for doing some work on the GWB article? Much of it is one long allegation whose inconclusive results are innuendo that they're really true. George W. Bush military service controversy rates an entire article of its own. ==Business and political career== is one long allegation about improprieties in his business dealings, ending up with hints that he and his brother stole the 2000 election. Afghanistan outlines other countries' and NGO groups' theories about unlawful combatants. ==Iraq== has so many unproven allegations and links its hard to pick and choose, but prominent are the complaints of disgruntled ex-officials with books to sell. When we move down to the =Links= we get such sterling examples of reportage as a site that Bush is the anti-Christ as foretold by Nostradamus.

Got your editing pencil ready, Rei? -- Cecropia 20:26, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you see anything unbalanced in the reporting of worldwide coverage of the 2000 presidential elections, the illegal treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo or the statements about premature plans to invade Iraq made by people who had high ranks in the Bush administration, feel free to discuss it over there[4]. By the way, although there are many people in France and Russia criticizing Chirac for corruption, Putin for his war in Chechnia and both for other stuff, no French or Russian member of the administration ever supported your ridiculous claim that their veto threats were due to financial interests in Iraq. Is it a truely American phenomenon that people go insane when out of office? I would even support you if you want to rewrite the business allegations in a more concise way, and if there are more hatespeech links than the one I recently deleted just go ahead. If you list Is GWB a deserter? for deletion I will support you in merging it with the main article. I however would not support flooding the GWB article with 4 times as many allegations as facts. The facts hurt more 8^p Get-back-world-respect 21:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, since Chalabi's friends are the ones pushing the bribery claims, the ones with the supposed "documents", then yes it is relevant. If there was little to no evidence that Stalin had been butchering his own people, outside of documents that Hitler claimed to have, people would be right to be doubtful of Hitler.

We have a person who is, by all accounts, a complete and utter fraud. All the intelligence that the INC gave was bogus. They strung along Judith Miller of the NYT and much of the rest of the press; they strung along congress; they strung along the executive branch. Much of Powell's information for the UN presentation came from a single INC defector (search for "Curveball" at news.google.com). Chalabi headed the largest single embezzling operation operation in Jordan's history - Petra Bank. Chalabi makes no secret of his disdain for the UN and for those who opposed the war. Etc. --Rei

I've largely been staying out of the GW Bush article for a while (and I'm thinking about dropping the Kerry article as well), just because they tend to be one big free-for-all fight. But if you want to work on it, you have my blessing. For example, that antichrist link should never be in an encyclopedia article, although the links section should be more free than the rest of the article. Even at worst, however, the George Bush article is a quarter accusation and three quarters indisputable truth; I'd put it closer to 1:8 accusation/truth, which is quite reasonable. As I stated before, I'd be willing to accept 1:1 here. --Rei

Well, Rei (enter touchy-feely-getting-in-touch-with-my-inner-scholar mode), political discussion is an addictive poison. I got started with the GWB thing when I happened on the article and saw what a mess it was. IMO, a disgrace to an encyclopedia no matter what your political view. But I'm much happier when I'm writing about history, geneology and arcana, like the article I just started on my home town of Flatbush. I'm not recommending you give up your politics, but you wrote on some interesting subjects before--did you ever consider resuming that? (conclude touchy-feely-getting-in-touch-with-my-inner-scholar mode) Frankly, I would be amazed if a reading of Wikipedia made a net difference of a dozen votes in the coming elections, but there is a lot of material this encyclopedia needs—unfortunately a lot of what people are looking for are probably Girls Gone Wild, Paris Hilton and other nekkid people. *sigh*. I think I go to bed now. -- Cheers, Cecropia 05:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I have owned Rei enough for one day. Time for a truce (providing she does not give me any more ammunition), and time to get started on a resolution for this.

It is going to happen one of three ways.

1. Rei and I come to an agreement on a rewritten article.

2. The Oil For Food Corruption gets its own page again. (after the VFD the consensus was to merge, not delete, but Rei’s recent actions have essential deleted the contents of the entire previous article).

3. We both agree to defer to an outside part taking control, re writing the article and agreeing to whatever comes of this.

TDC 20:39, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

I can't at this moment carefully read and comprehend everything in the discussion above, as there are so many comments interspersed with each other, etc., so I'll read it later. I've been away from a computer for the last 12 hours, and since there is so much here, I can't really tell if this is going to work or not. Two people currently support the proposal, one supports but wants to figure out if the article is split or not, and one person notes that it was probably a mistake to merge the articles in the first place. However, I will continue on the assumption that we will be able to move forward.

Therefore, I'm going to try to decipher the discussion above, and propose that for the time being we all work on one article, with the understanding that a decision about whether it stays as one article or two will have to be made later.

And, to answer Rei's specific question, I am asking that contributors only add content that they believe that all contributors will agree with. So yes, I mean material that all people agree should be in the article rather than that all people believe is true. If we can construct an article that consists of content that all can agree should be in the article, that will be the basis for further work. So yes, it means that this initial, temporary version won't contain everything -- and it may even be incomplete, but I think it is the common point of reference that is needed so that we can all move forward together.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:00, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)