T Nation

Condoleeza Rice - Another Crook

Now that Paul Wolfowitz has been more or less sidelined, how about some questions for Condoleezza Rice?

What’s to ask Condi? Well, for starters about her role in the Oil-for-Food scandal-a role she might have played first in private industry, and then, as President Bush’s National Security Advisor.

This week an investigation by the International Herald Tribune and the Italian business daily Il Sole 24 Ore revealed that Total, France’s largest company, indirectly paid up to $1 million dollars in illegal surcharges to Saddam’s regime on oil it bought from Iraq from 2000 to 2002.

That sum, however, is nothing compared to the $20 million that-according to another report- U.S. oil giant Chevron apparently paid indirectly to Saddam during the same period. Chevron will now pay between $25 to $50 million dollars in fines as part of a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department.

What has Condoleezza Rice to do with all that?

As she tells it, she was just a very concerned spectator. In January 2005, during Senate confirmation hearings to be the nation?s next Secretary of State, Ms. Rice expressed her outrage at revelations that Saddam had used some of the billions he skimmed from the Oil-for-Food program to purchase dual use equipment that could have been used to produce WMD.

“I think it is a scandal what happened with Oil-for-Food” She told the senators. “We’ve got to get to the bottom of what happened he…and those who were responsible, I think, should be held accountable.”

Right, except that during much of the period that Chevron was violating the sanctions, Condoleezza Rice was on the Chevron Board of Directors. She went on the board in 1991. Iraq began demanding the illegal surcharges in August 2000. By the time that Rice resigned from the board in January 15, 2001 to work in the White House, Chevron had already bought millions of barrels of crude from Iraq, even though Iraq’s supplemental charges violated the Oil-for-Food program.

According to the Volcker Committee which investigated the Oil-for-Food program, the fact that Saddam was charging illegal supplements was common knowledge in the oil industry.

Though it may be argued that boards of directors are often big name figureheads, according to Chevron’s own executives the company’s policy was that “board members must hear the bad news along with the good. And they should hear it in board meetings, before it appears in the newspapers.”

As Claudio Gatti, who wrote the IHT reports, pointed out, if any board members should have heard the bad news about illegal payments to Saddam, it would have been the board?s Public Policy Committee, established specifically to consider important legal, environmental and other policy issues. For two years, it was chaired by Condoleezza Rice. (Perhaps some enterprising reporter or congressional investigator will talk with other members of that committee to see if the subject ever came up.)

But Rice’s possible complicity in the Oil-for-Food scandal doesn’t stop there. At the beginning of 2001, she became President Bush’s National Security Advisor. One of her major preoccupations, of course, was Saddam Hussein. As she told the Senate committee in 2005, the United States relied on Oil-for-Food “to keep Saddam Hussein contained and checked. And clearly we weren’t doing that. The sanctions were breaking down. He was playing the international community like a violin.”

Who arguably better knew the music and some of the key players then Condoleezza Rice, fresh from the Chevron board?

One wonders what thoughts crossed her mind when she read-as she must have-reports by U.S. intelligence agencies detailing how sanctions against Iraq were being thwarted by the major oil companies…

Indeed, according to the Volcker Committee, Saddam’s manipulations had been reported to members of the 661 Committee which oversaw the U.N. Sanctions. The most powerful member of that Committee, of course, was the United States.

What did Condoleezza know about all this and when did she know it? It’s doubtful we’ll ever find out from Condi directly. She has an impressive record of either somehow ignoring, forgetting or gliding by when confronted with unpleasant issues.

For instance when she was questioned by a congressional committee this past February about why the Bush administration in 2003 rejected an offer by Iran to negotiate major issues with the U.S-including Iran’s nuclear program-Rice testified that she had never seen any such proposal.

She was immediately contradicted by Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice. He compared the potential offered by Iran’s proposal to the 1972 U.S. opening to China. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but “the administration rejected the overture.”

Other congressional investigators are still trying to find out how the charge that Saddam had been attempting to purchase uranium in Niger got into President Bush’s State of the Union Speech in January 2003. This despite a specific warning from the CIA to the White House in October 2002 that the charge could not be substantiated. In fact, Condoleezza Rice had deleted that accusation from an earlier Bush speech for that very reason.

Condoleezza now claims that the CIA warning had somehow slipped by, forgotten by both herself and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.
“Maybe we should have remembered. We didn’t.” She recently said.

Ms. Rice is refusing a subpoena to testify about the affair before a committee of the U.S. Congress.

On another occasion, after Bob Woodward’s latest book, “State of Denial” charged that CIA Director George Tenet had come to the White House on July 10, 2002 specifically to warn Rice of a serious terrorist attack being prepared add aimed at the United States, Rice told reporters that it was “incomprehensible” that she could have ignored dire terrorist threats two months before 9/11. She also claimed not to remember any such meeting with Tenet in the White House on that date.

It later turned out there was such a meeting, but Rice still denied receiving any urgent warnings about Al Qaeda.

In his book, Woodward also quotes David Kay, who led the hunt for WMD after the invasion, and found out-to his own surprise-that there were none. Kay later told an NSC staffer who claimed that Rice “was the best national security adviser in the history of the United States.” “Well, she could have stopped trying to be the best friend of the president and be the best adviser and realize she’s got this screening function,” Kay said.
When Tenet had insisted the WMD case was a “slam dunk”, she should have followed up aggressively, demanding a full reexamination of every last shred of the “slam dunk” evidence…‘She was probably the worst national security adviser in modern times since the office was created,’ she said."

There is a similar damning account in Paul Bremmer’s description of his tour as U.S. proconsul in Baghdad, “My Year in Iraq.” As Bremmer tells it he realized early on that the insurgency was going to represent a serious, perhaps fatal, threat to U.S. plans for Iraq. He repeatedly expressed those fears to Washington, along with increasingly urgent requests for more U.S. troops on the ground.

Among those he repeatedly warned, he says, were Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. Rumsfeld didn’t even reply to one particularly stark warning. Nor, says Bremmer, did he hear any further about it from Rice.

A few days later, says Bremer, he briefed Condoleezza again, and Steve Hadley, on the catastrophic security situation: “the message to most Iraqis is that the Coalition can’t provide them the most basic government service: security…We’ve become the worst of all things?an ineffective occupier.”
What was the reaction of Rice and Hadley according to Bremer? They “listened but made few comments.” Bremer and his assistant walked away “not sure if our analysis would have any effect in Washington.”

I heard a similar account in the Spring of 2004 from a top Amnesty International official in Washington. Already in June of 2003, Amnesty and other human rights organizations were attempting to alert the Bush administration to the many documented cases of torture and killing taking place in U.S. military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was almost half a year before the Abu Graib scandal became public.

Among the top officials they personally alerted: Colin Powell-and Condoleezza Rice.

I see that you forgot your source. I took the liberty of listing it for you:

“Condi Rice – Cooked in Oil?” By Barry Lando

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I see that you forgot your source. I took the liberty of listing it for you:

“Condi Rice – Cooked in Oil?” By Barry Lando[/quote]

Dammit, wrong again. That is not my source, but it maybe the original source.

And you know as well as I do, that does not negate the facts.

guess the source again? Want me to tell you?

Read Robert Baer’s books Sleeping with the Devil and See No Evil for some off the cuff remarks off who (politicians) pimps for who. They have all been bought off, it is a matter of finding those who can still accomplish what you value in the world.

[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
They have all been bought off, it is a matter of finding those who can still accomplish what you value in the world.[/quote]

Not entirely true. You forgot about Nader.

Look, if the Council on Foreign Relations wants to run this country, they’re going to do it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, if the Council on Foreign Relations wants to run this country, they’re going to do it.[/quote]

Hi HH,

I hope your not mad at me for going off on you and others. I apolgize.

Hey, an important member of their gang was brought down. Let’s just savor the moment shall we?

Plenty of time to go after the next crook.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I see that you forgot your source. I took the liberty of listing it for you:

“Condi Rice – Cooked in Oil?” By Barry Lando[/quote]

Did you find a girl yet? Probably not. I wonder why. They are certainly lined up at my door. Maybe because I post material without listing the source?

Or maybe because I do not spend hours online pointing out where some forum loser neglected to post his source.

I dunno, you are a smart guy, maybe you can figure it out. Or, maybe not since you most likely already would have figured it out. LOL

Dam, I am married, and poor, but girls bang on my door constantly.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Did you find a girl yet? Probably not. I wonder why. They are certainly lined up at my door. Maybe because I post material without listing the source?
[/quote]

Maybe you can beat that drum a little harder. What’s your point, btw? Does it make you more right, or the article any more attributed, to point out a weakness I’ve freely admitted to, and am obviously not ashamed of?

It actually took me under 30 seconds to locate the exact article and post the attribution. Which only makes me wonder why you couldn’t do the same.

Neph,

If he cooks food like he cooks up his stories, without listing sources, imagine what’s in the food. Petey, you a Fight Club fan?

Is there an option somewhere to turn the low blows off?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Is there an option somewhere to turn the low blows off?
[/quote]

You’re right. I’ve edited my post.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
They have all been bought off, it is a matter of finding those who can still accomplish what you value in the world.

Not entirely true. You forgot about Nader.[/quote]

The second part takes care of him (unviable as a serious contender it seems)

[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
The second part takes care of him (unviable as a serious contender it seems)
[/quote]

Hmmm…it’s the fault of the system in place if you ask me. Putting aside the two-party dominion on the political scene ever since the civil war, the exorbitant amount of money needed to stand a chance in the elections casts aside any candidate from the masses with an agenda for the masses.

Seriously folks, that ain’t much of a democracy you got there; it’s an oligarchy.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Did you find a girl yet? Probably not. I wonder why. They are certainly lined up at my door. Maybe because I post material without listing the source?

Maybe you can beat that drum a little harder. What’s your point, btw? Does it make you more right, or the article any more attributed, to point out a weakness I’ve freely admitted to, and am obviously not ashamed of?

[/quote]

My point is pretty simple. You cannot seem to perform a fundamental, and essential, aspect of human existence, yet you proclaim yourself to be superior to others.

I have an idea for you. Before you attack another person, perform the most simple act of human existence and form a pair bond?

OK?

[quote]
Or maybe because I do not spend hours online pointing out where some forum loser neglected to post his source.

It actually took me under 30 seconds to locate the exact article and post the attribution. Which only makes me wonder why you couldn’t do the same.[/quote]

Yea, how does it make you feel that you quoted the wrong source? You performed the seemingly single point of your existence which is posting online (because your not getting laid) and you failed to do it accurately. I wonder how many other things you fail at. But then again I guess it is obvious from your posts.

I would give up Neph, you have lost and will continue to lose. Let the thread die, like all the female relations you have attempted.

WOW. Do I really need to inform you that the evidence leans toward you sucking as a human and a MAN?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
The second part takes care of him (unviable as a serious contender it seems)

Hmmm…it’s the fault of the system in place if you ask me. Putting aside the two-party dominion on the political scene ever since the civil war, the exorbitant amount of money needed to stand a chance in the elections casts aside any candidate from the masses with an agenda for the masses.

Seriously folks, that ain’t much of a democracy you got there; it’s an oligarchy.[/quote]

Hey lixy,

YOU F’ING ROCK!

HH, come visit me in VA. VA is for lovers you know. Come and give me some loooooove.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
My point is pretty simple. You cannot seem to perform a fundamental, and essential, aspect of human existence, yet you proclaim yourself to be superior to others.
[/quote]

I doubt you can find a post of mine in which I say or imply that I am superior to others. If you feel threatened or inferior, that’s on you.

I’m going to leave your personal life out of this (about which you have posted abundantly enough for me to draw some conclusions). But I will say that I think you have some definite anger issues and maybe you should reflect a bit on what exactly constitutes an “attack.”

I didn’t attack you. I didn’t even say you were wrong or that you were intentionally claiming credit for articles that anyone who has spent thirty seconds reading your posts would be certain to recognize as originating from another source.

I did poke a little fun at you and post links to the articles. I’m not going to apologize for that.

Well, unless the articles I posted were plagiarized from whatever your mysterious source is, I posted the right links. If you are correct, however, you should definitely expose this horrible plagiarism scandal to the world. We need to know.

I’m looking around right now actually… at the paperwork for my new job, at my house, at the books I’m soon going to read - and the funny thing is, I don’t feel like I’m a failure or like I’ve failed at much. I’ve really been blessed, actually.

And I don’t know how long it takes you to write a post… most of mine take under a minute to type. The rare one takes five minutes. If you’re spending so much longer to type up a post, “Mario Teaches Typing” is an awesome way to learn.

I’ve been here a lot longer than you have, Pete. There are people here who like me, warts and all. And while I might be a jackass occasionally, I think everyone else realizes that it’s all in good fun, and I get as good as I give. And as a general rule, I don’t attack people. Do you think there’s anyone cheering for you, right now? Do you really think there’s a big “death to Nephorm” contingent? I’m glad you attribute such importance to me, but if so, I’m afraid you are mistaken.

So what are you getting out of it, Pete? Satisfying the rage that is burning inside of you? If I were to meet you in real life, and you disliked a view I had, would you “get in my face?” Would that show what a big man you are?

Maybe you’re the one who needs to step away from the keyboard and reevaluate his life and priorities…

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
lixy wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
The second part takes care of him (unviable as a serious contender it seems)

Hmmm…it’s the fault of the system in place if you ask me. Putting aside the two-party dominion on the political scene ever since the civil war, the exorbitant amount of money needed to stand a chance in the elections casts aside any candidate from the masses with an agenda for the masses.

Seriously folks, that ain’t much of a democracy you got there; it’s an oligarchy.

Hey lixy,

YOU F’ING ROCK!

HH, come visit me in VA. VA is for lovers you know. Come and give me some loooooove.

[/quote]

Sounds good. I’ll where my Dr. Martens.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Did you find a girl yet? Probably not. I wonder why. They are certainly lined up at my door. Maybe because I post material without listing the source?

Maybe you can beat that drum a little harder. What’s your point, btw? Does it make you more right, or the article any more attributed, to point out a weakness I’ve freely admitted to, and am obviously not ashamed of?

My point is pretty simple. You cannot seem to perform a fundamental, and essential, aspect of human existence, yet you proclaim yourself to be superior to others.

I have an idea for you. Before you attack another person, perform the most simple act of human existence and form a pair bond?

OK?

Or maybe because I do not spend hours online pointing out where some forum loser neglected to post his source.

It actually took me under 30 seconds to locate the exact article and post the attribution. Which only makes me wonder why you couldn’t do the same.

Yea, how does it make you feel that you quoted the wrong source? You performed the seemingly single point of your existence which is posting online (because your not getting laid) and you failed to do it accurately. I wonder how many other things you fail at. But then again I guess it is obvious from your posts.

I would give up Neph, you have lost and will continue to lose. Let the thread die, like all the female relations you have attempted.

WOW. Do I really need to inform you that the evidence leans toward you sucking as a human and a MAN?

[/quote]

TSB. Candidate of the year.

Neph is cool, you’re a fucking clown.