Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, is preparing to acknowledge that it should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein on oil it bought from Iraq as part of a defunct United Nations program, according to investigators.The admission is part of a settlement being negotiated with United States prosecutors and includes fines totaling $25 million to $30 million, according to the investigators, who declined to be identified because the settlement was not yet public.
I'm shocked, shocked that an American oil company woud do business with a ruthless dictator to make more profits.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!
Comments (5)
As Condi ever sniffed out any trouble, in advance? From the Times article "At the time, Condoleezza Rice,... was a member of Chevron's board and led its public policy committee, which oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company."
What political acumen has she ever exhibited, beyond ignoring any storm clouds on the horizon; that's why she keeps getting promoted... leaves every stone unturned, no one gets ruffled. As Bush's National Security Advisor and gate keeper, she played down, to the point of doing nothing, blatant warnings on Al Queda, from Tenet and Clarke, so this was no surprise.
1. Posted by Steve Crickmore | May 8, 2007 3:23 PM
Posted on May 8, 2007 15:23
Hey, I'm just really, really surprised that the folks on the Left are finally starting to discover that whole "Oil for Palaces" thing, after they spent so much time and effort defending it during the runup for the war. Because everyone one knows that corruption in the sanctions process was one of the justifications for going in in the first place... forgot that, did you?
But why get all upset about it now? Aren't you afraid of offending Kofi Annan?
Oh, that's right... Kofi's out of the top spot at the UN, so they can toss him under the wheels now, as he's no longer useful to them.
2. Posted by cirby | May 8, 2007 4:16 PM
Posted on May 8, 2007 16:16
My gripe with the program was that with any dictatorship, you have corruption. So while corporations and Saddam benefitted, the people of Iraq suffered because there was no oversight of the distribution of the goods. It was half-assing at it's worst and showed how the UN has seemingly become incapable of the sort of unified, decisive action it needs to again become a real factor in global politics.
3. Posted by Paul Hamilton | May 8, 2007 4:25 PM
Posted on May 8, 2007 16:25
Wow, that's quite a statement Paul. It is encouraging that you are willing to admit it.
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | May 10, 2007 4:31 PM
Posted on May 10, 2007 16:31
I'm not your run-of-the-mill fuzzy-headed liberal. Maybe it's my Hoosier heritage but I'm very pragmatic along with my liberal ideals. It *sounds* good to send food to a nation full of hungry people, but if you don't have some way of making certain that the people actually get the food, it will become just one more spoil for the bad guys. And of course the fact that a big corporation has no more respect for decency than to cut a deal with a man like Saddam just so they can make a little more profit shows that there's plenty of evil in the non-governmental aspects as well.
5. Posted by Paul Hamilton | May 10, 2007 8:33 PM
Posted on May 10, 2007 20:33