A friend of mine recently mentioned that some of Saddam's bribe-money had been siphoned off into the United States. So I thought I'd take a few minutes to look to see where it ended up, to what effect.
There are two names on the list to be found in the US:
- Samir Vincent - received 7 million barrels
- Shakir Al-Khafaji - received 10.5 million barrels
Assuming a profit of 50 cents per barrel for this "right to resell", that's a lot of cash.
Samir Vincent
Illinois businessman Michael Saba and Boston College graduate and one-time Iraqi Olympic athlete Samir Vincent first gained public exposure in 1990 in reports that they'd pooled their resources and "escaped" from Saddam's Iraq.
But the truth, it turned out, was somewhat different: The story was a ruse. Instead, Saddam had sent Vincent and Saba to approach the White House and various other Bush (41) administration officials with an offer -- purportedly directly from Saddam -- to pull out of Kuwait in return for complete control of the Ramallah oil fields (shared by Iraq and Kuwait), and access to the Persian Gulf.
Ultimately, the offer fell flat, and, after the attempt at back-channel negotations came out in the media, Iraq was advised to make future offers through normal diplomatic channels.
Afterwards, Silflay Hraka reports, Saba got a different career:
Saba stayed in the news, appearing on Larry King and founding the Coming Home Committee, a group ostensibly created to support the families of hostages in Iraq and Kuwait, but used instead by Saba as platform to inveigh against the U.S. and its position on Iraq while the crisis continued. He now writes for Aljazeerah and a Saudi news organization. He's best known for inventing the charge that the American neo-cons are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, a theory which he began pushing as far back as 1984 in his book, The Armageddon Network. No wonder Saddam perceived him as an ally.
Vincent, on the other hand disappeared for a while until he resurfaced in the late 90's, again working to sway American public opinion in favor of Saddam's desired policy: to have sanctions unconditionally lifted, allowing him to reaccumulate wealth and arms. Of course, the argument was to be couched in humanitarian terms...
Vincent, described as a Chaldean Catholic (a sect descended from Nestorians), approached Jimmy Carter and Billy Graham, using stories of the suffering of Iraqi people to pursue the political goal of sanction removal.
In response to Vincent's stories of suffering Iraqis, Billy Graham pledged to "take up their cross". Though he did not speak out politically against sanctions, he did apparently accede to Vincent's request to invite a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders, headed by Patriarch Raphael, to vist the US. At the time, Patriarch Raphael was a known opponent of sanctions and other US Iraqi containment policies, and was criticized in the west as a Saddam apologist. (Though in all fairness, his stances may been partially motivated by a desire to protect the lives of his flock.)
The delegation arrived in the US and visited a number of lumnaries, including Jimmy Carter. Carter then spoke publicly, invoking Billy Graham's name, and demanding the Clinton administrations lift sanctions.
Raphael also met with Cardinal John O'Connor, who Vicent quoted as agreeing that the sanctions must end. O'Connor pledged his support. "In its November meeting, which Cardinal O’Connor was unable to attend, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) spoke out once again against economic sanctions and against American and British air attacks, which have harmed Iraqi civilians."
[Editorial: It is understandable to oppose a policy which one believes is starving millions of Iraqis to death -- to oppose economic (though not military) sanctions -- a policy later pursued by the next Presidential administration in the days before 9/11.
But what yours truly finds appalling is way the above statement exactly echoes Raphael's talking points, down to condemning the US and UK air strikes, which the US and UK said were in response to being fired upon while policing the no-fly zone (which protected the lives of the Kurds), strikes in which Saddam alleged two civilians were killed.]
Samir's take was worth $3.5 million dollars.
Shakir al Khafaji
Remember UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter?
I remember him, at one point, as insisting that the Iraqis were hiding weaspons of mass destruction, and charging them with obstruction. He spoke out against Saddam, and painted a picture of dire consequences if the situation continued, unchecked.
Later, I remember him doing a sudden about-face, now insisting that there never were any weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam's regime had been nothing but cooperative. He became a darling of the left, and many left-leaning friends of mine cited Ritter's stance as "proof" that Saddam had nothing to hide, ignoring his earlier testimony to the contrary. Instead, I wondered if he'd been bought.
Later we learned Ritter had been arrested for attempting to lure underage girls (as young as 14 years) into having sex with him. Regarding the possibility that through his proclivities Ritter himself, and his testimony, may have been compromised, Accuracy in Media adds some related information which could hint at a pattern:
Ritter insists the case was dismissed, and the records were sealed. He reportedly underwent sex offender counseling but doesn't want to talk about it. Before that, he worked in the old Soviet Union as a "disarmament specialist," where he met Marina Khatiashvili, a young woman from Soviet Georgia who would later become his second wife. She served as a Russian-supplied "escort" and translator, and reported to the KGB.
Although during the Clinton administration Ritter had demanded strong measures be taken against Iraq, under Bush Ritter spoke out vehemently against any consideration of military action, predicting it would be impossible for the US to ever take Baghdad; the US would leave in abject defeat.
During this time, Ritter was paid $400,000 by an Iraqi-born American businessman to produce a brief 30 minute documentary promulgating his claims, "In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq", which was shown at UN and slated to be run on Al Jazeera. Scott Ritter vehemently denied acting as an Iraqi agent.
The businessman who provided the financing was, of course, Shakir al Khafaji, and the money paid to Scott Ritter was offset by $5 million dollars' worth of oil-for-food vouchers from Saddam. Al Khafaji's influence in the production was strong enough that Ritter credited him as the documentary's "Senior Executive Producer."
Ritter also acknowledged that al Khafaji had been "instrumental" in arranging the travel and interviews for his subsequent trip to Baghdad, where he appeared before the Baathist "rubber stamp" parliament and echoed official Iraqi policy before an international audience.
When information regarding al Khafaji's oil-for-food funds became public, Ritter again protested innocence regarding any knowledge of the source of al Khafaji's support -- although he admitted knowing full well that al Khafaji was "openly sympathetic" to Saddam's regime, and was also aware al Khafaji had many high-level friends within the Baathist Party.
Al Khafaji also helped support and influence several prominent American politicians. According to Robert Pollack, he donated to help re-elect John Conyers and Minority House Whip David Bonior, both prominent Democratic congressmen:
Public records show a contribution of $500 in 1992 and $1,000 in 1999 to Mr. Conyers, an early and vocal proponent of lifting sanctions on Saddam. Mr. Conyers said through a spokeswoman that he has no recollection of ever having met Mr. al-Khafaji.
Mr. al-Khafaji was a much more regular contributor to Mr. Bonior: $1,000 in 1994, $250 in 1996, $500 and $1,000 in 1998, $1,000 in 1999, $1,000 in 2000, and $1,000 each from Mr. al-Khafaji and his wife in 2001.
Al Khafaji's relationship with Representative Bonior went well beyond campaign donations; later, al Khafaji did most the legwork to arrange a trip to Baghdad for Bonior and several other prominent Democratic congressmen, sometimes dubbed the "Baghdad Democrats", during which he served as their escort and arranged their schedule:
As war loomed in September 2002, Mr. al-Khafaji escorted Mr. Bonior on a high-profile trip to Baghdad, along with Washington Rep. Jim McDermott and California Rep. Mike Thompson. Mr. Bonior, whose office handled the arrangements, told me last month that Mr. al-Khafaji "was part of the trip and he obviously knew people, and he was connected quite well so we could get the meetings that we wanted." Mr. McDermott's spokesman likewise recalls that Mr. al-Khafaji played a central role, adding that a Michigan-based charity called Life for Relief and Development organized and paid everything. Mr. al-Khafaji told me that he'd been a financial supporter of that organization, too, though he said he couldn't remember how much--not even ballpark--he'd given over the years.
The trip proved something of a propaganda coup for Saddam, with Mr. McDermott suggesting in a televised interview from Baghdad that President Bush "would mislead the American people" while saying "I think you have to take the Iraqis at face value." Mr. al-Khafaji seems to have taken a particular shine to Mr. McDermott, resulting in another contribution--$5,000--to a legal defense fund that had been set up for the congressman in an unrelated case. "He's a friend and he gives me money," Mr. McDermott told Roll Call in February 2003.
Some Closing Thoughts
One wonders why this story gets very little, if any play on the mainstream media, other than a few openly-conservative publications such as the Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal who are willing to discuss it. If the rest of the media are really middle-of-the-road, and not strongly left-biased, then ask yourself: Why isn't this getting play?
It's not because the story isn't fascinating. It's not because it isn't contemporary -- the investigations continue apace, and it looks like top members of the UN may have been bribed as well.
Of course, it could be because a number of the those involved played a key part in shaping American perception of Bush and other member of the coalition as being, as Pollack mentions, "The Coalition of the Bribed." News that the oil money trail actually led to the doorstep to those who opposed a military solution to the Iraq problem could undermine that perception.
If the media truly doesn't have a vested interest in either opinion, then why the long silence on this part of the story?
Sources and Further Reading