RSS
Using PayPal
AMERICA'S CORRUPTION PROBLEM IN IRAQ AND AT HOME
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Oct 23 2004, 2:51PM
AMERICAN ACCOUNTING PRACTICES USED TO BE THE ENVY OF THE WORLD. Then came the crimes of Enron and Arthur Andersen, foreshadowed and followed by hundreds of cases of fraud and malfeasance cases of illegal collusion between corporate management and those hired by stockholders to be the watchdogs.
There are revelations today in the New York Times that the firm Custer Battles repeatedly billed the Coalition Provisional Authority for non-existent services.
After a few years of news about how bad it is to fix prices, rig deals, and distort market forces, I find it remarkable that Eliot Spitzer seems to have no difficulty finding giant firms to shake to their foundation. Now, AIG Chairman Hank Greenberg and his son Marsh & McLennan CEO Jeffrey Greenberg may find themselves tied up in yet another huge case of corporate criminality. The son may be on the way out real fast.
What does the American brand name mean anymore?
I have a lot of respect for Claudia Rosett who deserves enormous credit for breaking the oil-for-food scandal that swirled between Iraq, the United Nations, and major nations around the world, including U.S. firms. Regrettably, she works as journalist-in-residence at the Fund for Defense of Democracies, but she does great investigative work.
My problem though is that she is writing nothing about the staggering fact that America's corruption rivals that of the U.N. The corrupt practices of blue-chip players in American society that are self-dealing and those who dip into the U.N. cookie jar for self benefit are similarly disgusting and similarly neglected until the cases fester so much that ignoring the corruption doesn't work any more.
I am traveling now, and it is tough to search and link the countless stories on missing money under the Coalition Provisional Authority's watch. But this floors me. After all the controversy about the single-bid, forced down-our-throat contract with Halliburton, Reuters reports:
The U.S. Army is laying the groundwork to let Halliburton Co. keep several billion dollars paid for work in Iraq that Pentagon auditors say is questionable or unsupported by proper documentation, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
According to Pentagon documents reviewed by the Journal, the Army has acknowledged that the Houston-based company might never be able to account properly for some of its work, which has been probed amid accusations that Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit overbilled the government for some operations in Iraq.
Even if I wanted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on some of his idealistic crusading around the world, I can't.
When our example is deep corruption abroad and at home, when we can't manage to hold senior leadership accountable for Abu Ghraib, and when deceiving the public by withholding or classifying information that could help us make better policy choices, America has no moral standing. . .none.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - WOOLSEY WATCH: THE AXIS OF WOOLSEY - ALAN KEYES - LARRY KLAYMAN» Next Article - THE BRZEZINSKI PLAN: FIXING IRAQ AND THE US-EUROPEAN RELATIONSHIP
Dear Steve Clemons --
Well, we can all beat our breasts with you -- surely there is cause -- or we can do something between now and Nov. 2. As a descendent of evangelicals, are you prepared to contact the National Association of Evangelicals (nae@nae.net), which provides a fairly accurate but somewhat incomplete presentation of the two candidates' platforms and request that it respond to the recent PIPA Report on what Bush supporters believe to be the case?
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html)
# 75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
# 74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.
# 72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.
# 72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.
# 69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
# 61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.
# 60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
# 58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them
# 57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected.
# 56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.
# 55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
# 51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.
# 20% believe Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.
You might throw in something about who created the deficit, but don't overdo.
Another positive step: donate to winbackrespect.org which has several ads, including the fantastically effective "he just doesn't get it" which is centered on Bush joking and showing a video of himself searching for WMD in the Oval Office last year. I think this ad is very good at showing a side of Bush that his supporters don't know. Supposedly the surveys of people who've seen the ad show that it drives a large number of Bush voters away from him.
Also, go to operationtruth.org, which is a non-partisan group of Iraq war veterans who are speaking out against the dishonesty of Bush.
I was very impressed with their ad.
A big propaganda battle is shaping up for the last few days of the campaign. You can find details on talkingpointsmemo.com. Apparently the Bush campaign's response to Kerry's charge that Bush let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora has been to lie outright about the facts. Obviously Bushco is very worried that Kerry's charge will drive away voters. What we can do is watch the coverage in our local media and call them to correct errors. Talkingpointsmemo.com is a good source for both the facts and the distortions that the Bush campaign is making.
Something to worry about: there is talk of a pre-election strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, either by the US or by Israel. Here is one article on the topic, by Wayne Madsen, who was in the NSA under Reagan. I don't know if he is a good source---maybe Steve knows something about him. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
I find it hard to believe that Bush would actually do this---hard but not impossible.
Hi Steve...last nite Woolsey was on Bill Maher on HBO....nothing mentioned about his connections with business interests currently exploiting the taxpayer and the Iraqi. He was putting all the distance he could between his own "actions" and the Bush Administration. You should make a point of watching the show.
As always, enjoy your blog. VOTE!
Right on, Steve. I believe it all starts with the doctrine of "personhood" which then extends to corporations the rights and priviliges of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Corporate "personhood" establishes the trail head to corruption, lies and political power grab. I think this administration proves the point. In my judgement we've had a smash and grab looting of the middle class since 2000. There has been an obvious compulsion for political power for the sake of political power and continued secrecy. I worry that my grand kids will never know the dignity of living in a country "of the people, by the people and for the People". Getting kinda scary, Steve. PS: Thanks for the space.
A Utah company involved with Abu Ghraib is competing for prison management contracts in GBR. http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,7369,1334933,00.html?gusrc=rss
Steve,
My faith in the UN as an organization that was supposed to look out for world peace and prevent bloodshed was long ago erased by staggering impotence in preventing mass murder of a half million Tutsis in Riwanda. After the inclusion of such countries as Saudia Arabia, Sryia and Lybia on the Commission on Human Rights (2003), at least we could believe that the UN was able to provide humanitarian missions successfully . . . or so we thought. The apparent inability of the left to rigorously advance investigation into the oil-for food scandal proves to many moderates that the left will look the other way when it is a cause they celebrate.
Where is the hard-pressing journalism (multiple daily articles in NY times) that would put it on the same level as the Abu Ghraib crimes? Our country can hold Ken Lay, Enron, etc responsible, and use the laws of our land, the power of journalism and shareholder lawsuits to punish those responsible. If the country desires, it will relieve Bush of his position. Who will hold the UN accountable? Will you leave holding the UN accountable to those on the right? Shame on all of us who don’t press for the same with regards to the UN. Doesn’t the greater level of criticism toward US policy show moderates what the left really thinks? Are you Steve or is the left as critical toward corruption when it is done by fellow progressives?
According to Newmax, In 1999, only months before the California energy crisis, Davis led a $200,000 trade trip to Europe for Enron. Davis traveled at California taxpayer expense with his wife for two weeks in Europe and finally in ancient Greece, lobbying on behalf of Enron for the Greek Wind Project. On Aug. 20, 2003, California Gov. Gray Davis stated that Enron and the Bush administration were to blame for the Golden State's electricity crisis. According to the Sacramento Bee, Davis had received more than $100,000 in campaign donations from Enron. Davis openly stated that he would not return the Enron money. Where was the outcry from Democrats about this? If the Washington note had been active at this time, would you have been anti-Davis? I don’t recall this kind of criticism during the time of the Davis recall coming from the left. Why are progressives relatively muted in their on the UN corruption?
Where is the disgust Steve? Or will the left once again fail to show a high level of disgust when the corruption is done by the UN, a favored cause? Or can progressives only show revulsion and disgust if the corruption is done by those that they perceive are on the right?
Blogger after blogger bemoans the lack of morals, ethics and shame in the Bush dictatorship. Pointing it out again and again has some cathartic purpose I guess, but Bush's criminal venality has been on display for all to see for many, many years. If he's reelected it will be the best possible outcome for all wanting to see the toppling of this nation. As it is a Kerry victory means the inheritance of the most fucked up mess a man's ever been handed walking into office. Even Lincoln and Roosevelt had more reason to be optimistic about the future than we do presently.
From everything I've read on the Oil for Food "scandal" I think it is premature to buy into the radical right's bleating. Interviews with Anan and numerous other articles indicate that the source of the "papers" are Chalabi who
has refused to hand over the originals to Volker doing the UN Audit. France has pledged support and cooperation with Volker as well as the congressional investigations. The French consul
in S.F. has stated that the Duelfer report blanked out US collaborators but refused to do the same for any other countries. US Oil companies since implicated said their deals were strictly above board. The Oil for Food program had an oversight board for each deal signed and the US representative had the ability to veto any of them.
The UN isn't perfect but in many ways it is what we want it to be. It is as powerful as the members let it be and as resourceful as its members contribute.
A quick and cursory look at history shows that all powers/empires that became dominant did so because of a certain dynamism within their internal system that gave them advantages over other powers. Now you could say they all had aspects that made them the envy of the rest of the world. At a certain point that dynamism or appealing structure failed or was surpassed. In time the power was no longer dominant.
All the great things that gave rise to US hegemony are now being "defiled". It could be that US power is starting a slow decline, or could it be that there still is a dynamism somewhere in the US which will show what is happening now to be a temporary hitch in the further development of the truly great US ideals?
This election could go a long way to giving us an insight into which way the US will go.
To add to what Dirk said,does the administration agree that there is an Oil-for-Food scandal?
At the Committee for Govt reform hearings in April, the only representative of the Executive who testified, Patrick F. Kennedy, United States Representative for United Nations Management and Reform, told Fox News that reports that some U.N. career officials -- including Benon Sevan -- directly benefited from the program "are unsubstantiated allegations without any evidence to support them."
Why would, in effect, the State Department of this administration, give such a categoric response?
This whole OFF thing seems like an example of the Freeper echo chamber at work, passing a smear from the Newsmax-Washington Times-Fox-WSJ axis into the discourse. Most serious papers are entitled to be a bit circumspect about painting the story as damningly as Rosett does.
Does Ahmad Chalabi still have the alleged documents that allegedly support these allegations against the UN in the Al-Mada list in Jan 2004?
Just before he was so unfortunately discovered to be an Iranian intelligence asset, as Chairman of the IGC Finance Committee, he had control of the alleged documents.
It was a personal friend of his, Claude Hankes-Drielsma, who testified that Chalabi's Committee needed $20 million to investigate the alleged abuses allegedly based on the alleged documents, and whined that the nasty Mr. Bremer wouldn't give it to them to the House Committee on Govt. Reform on April 21st. Less than a month later, of course, Chalabi was outed as an Iranian asset, ...
In quiet moments, I wonder where Mr. Hankes-Drielsma went to...
Why would, in effect, the State Department of this administration, give such a categoric response?
All the allegations against UN officials illegally and deliberately aiding Hussein's acknowledged gaming of the system in everything I've been able to find on the subject seem to stem from a list published in the Al-Mada newspaper in Baghdad in Jan 2004 with no other corroborating evidence to date. The alleged documents that allegedly support the allegations of alleged abuses are supposedly still allegedly housed with the alleged Iranian spy, Ahmad Chalabi. Even their existence is, at present, still an allegation.
On Aug 10th, Paul Volcker, former head of the Federal Reserve gave a press conference outlining the progress of his research.
If you read the article written by Judith Miller, the reporter who was fed bogus WMD stories by Ahmad Chalabi, in the NYT
the final paragraph makes it clear that a number of Journalists at the Press Conference have their suspicions about the validity of the alleged documents, as la Miller reports that procedures to establish whether the documents are forgeries or not have not yet been established.
So, who has the documents?
Why does the State Dept think the allegations are bogus?
Do the documents actually exist?
Why a small Baghdad newspaper in 2004?
You have to be able to answer these questions before parroting with easy certainty . Please, go out there and find any factual backing for these allegations that are not based solely on the Al-Mada story, which is based on documents whose actual existence remains unverified, let alone that prove the allegations that are being made.
Was their corruption inside the Oil-for-Food scheme to swell Saddam's coffers? Undoubtedly. Were the UN officers on the ground directly complicit? Possibly, but on balance I'll take their word for it over the Washington Times and Newsmax until some proof exists. Did the scheme, which was largely set up on conditions negotiated by the Iraqi,US and UK governments through the UN, lack effective oversight? Perhaps. Do the people who rail at the UN for allowing the trades realise that the 661 committee that had oversight was made up of representatives of Security Council members, and not staffed by UN Secretariat officials? Maybe, but if they do, they are inclined to imply that the Secretariat had control of this process in order to
discredit the UN Secretariat. Were the amounts of money that allegedly went to alleged bagmen for Putin and Chirac really enough to "buy them off" supporting the American invasion in Iraq? I think this is laughable, as if there weren't enough good reasons already for them not to be involved.
At the Congressional Hearings, "expert" testimony was provided by Rosett, Dr Nile Gardiner from the Heritage Foundation and Dr Nimrod Raphaeli from MEMRI.
As Chalabi was involved as well, is there another rationale to explain the various elements of this scandal?
If you know of any information which can dispel my obvious suspicions here, I'd like to hear them.
There is also one absolutely glaring falsehood in her assertion of relative corruptness in her article. I am not sure if it is accidental, or trying to gloss over a truth she'd rather ignore.
Can you find the error?
Silly me. You need the link to the table to spot the error.
Alan -- I have not found the error but havent had time to look carefully. I did, however, look at this Transparency International link on corruption and it looks like an excellent resource for people interested in this question. Thanks for suggesting it,
Steve Clemons
It seems to me strange that she says France is perceived more corrupt than Israel and Japan when this is not what the table actually says.
Presumably, if France can occupy Banana Republic status at 22nd place, then so can Israel, and another of the US allies in Iraq, Japan.
Seeing as her aim is to attack Annan, she can't use his words, and his argument against him without also categorising Israel and Japan as being (at least as likely to be perceived as capable of the same thing.
Josh Marshall has in the past noted Chalabi's connection to this scandal, a fact that is never noted by Newsmax, the editorial page of the WSJ, or William Safire.
BushCo forgot to account for and guard 350 tons of high explosives in Iraq. Now we know where the "bomb" in car bomb is coming from. Will this put an end to invading a country with a force too small to secure the peace?
Marky -
Read the Madsen piece and then dug and found this on the same site:
About the Centre for Research on Globalization
The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) is an independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of "globalisation" and "disarming" the New World Order. The CRG webpage at http://globalresearch.ca based in Montréal publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focussing on the interrelationship between social, economic, strategic, geopolitical and environmental processes.
This isn't to say that Madsen is wrong, but it seems clear that this site has an agenda.
But on its merits, I think a pre-election attack on Iran is too risky. In an election as close as this one, an attack could lose votes for Bush as easily as gain them. An attack might feed the growing skepticism voters have for Bush and swell Kerry's support. At least that's how I see it.
Reader Comments (16) - post a comment