I applaud Hitchens’s concerns about dirty deals between Saddam Hussein’s regime and unscrupulous Western interests that attempted to subvert the U.N. “Oil for Food” program. As Hitchens rightly says, these deals helped simultaneously prop up a vicious dictatorship and enrich these Western interests at the direct expense of the poorest and most endangered members of Iraqi society. If Galloway was involved in such crooked deals, an 18-day suspension from Parliament is indeed insufficient.

And while we’re at it, let’s not play favorites. Any and all entities who cooperated and colluded with Saddam should be prosecuted as well. Take for example Chevron oil. As a story in the International Herald Tribune informed its readers in May, 2007:

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.

The penalty, which is still being negotiated, would be the largest so far in the United States in connection with investigations of companies involved in the oil-for-food scandal.

…

As part of the deal under negotiation, Chevron . . . is not expected to admit to violating the United Nations sanctions. But Chevron is expected to acknowledge that it should have been aware that illegal kickbacks were being paid to Iraq on the oil, the investigators said.

The fine is connected to the payment of about $20 million in surcharges on tens of millions of barrels of Iraqi oil bought by Chevron from 2000 to 2002, investigators said.

As an interesting coincidence, did you know that current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was a director at Chevron between 1991 and 2001, which appears to overlap with the period of Chevron’s deals with Saddam—you know, the ones where they “should have been aware that illegal kickbacks were being paid?” A company press release lauded Rice and her services to Chevron upon her transition into the Bush administration (her first appointment, of course, was National Security Adviser, from which she eventually got promoted to Secretary of State):

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 16, 2001 -- Condoleezza Rice, a Chevron Corp. director since 1991, resigned from the company's board, effective Jan. 15. Rice was named President-elect George W. Bush's national security adviser-designate. "Condi is extraordinarily capable," said Chairman Dave O'Reilly. "Her leadership skills and breadth of experience in government, academia and business have been a tremendous asset to Chevron and will serve her well in the new administration."

For the past two years Rice chaired the board's Public Policy Committee.

I heard that Chevron even tried to name an oil tanker after her . . .

So, Chris, if, as you say, “The 'anti-war' movement is not blameless in all this,” wouldn’t it have been fair—as well as intellectually honest—to note such a “complication” affecting a prominent American oil company and a prominent member of the Bush administration’s inner circle? Is it about a sincere concern for right and wrong, and the terrible suffering that was inflicted on Iraqis during Saddam’s regime, or is it just about fricking politics and personal pissing matches with people like George Galloway?

Hey, that was pre-SOX, back when directors didn't realize that they had any actual responsibilities.

/sarcasm

Terrific post. Thanks much.

Your post exhibits the typical lefty view that business corporations are inherently criminal conspiracies and that all Republicans are corporate lackeys. To compare Rice's stint as an outside director of Chevron to Galloway's participation in the Oil-for-Food scandal is idiotic.

Condi's full-time jobs were being professor and Provost of Stanford. Her sidelines included directorships of Chevron, Rand, Charles Schwab, Hewlett-Packard, and Transamerica. To blame her for anything and everything that might have happened at any of those companies while an outside (non-management) director, as if she were running their day-to-day operations, just shows how little you know apart from your partisan and anti-business prejudices. The compliments you received from other Fraysters, just show you're in good company here.

Very well said, fingerpuppet. It amazes me that a man of Hitchens' intellectuall prowess hasn't realized the horrible mistake he's made regarding Iraq. Oh, well.

Your post exhibits the typical lefty view that business corporations are inherently criminal conspiracies. To compare Rice's stint as an outside director of Chevron to Galloway's participation in the Oil-for-Food scandal is idiotic.

Condi's full-time jobs were being professor and Provost of Stanford. Her sidelines included directorships of Chevron, Rand, Charles Schwab, Hewlett-Packard, and Transamerica. To blame her for anything and everything that might have happened at any of those companies while an outside (non-management) director, as if she were running their day-to-day operations, just shows how little you know apart from your partisan and anti-business prejudices. The compliments you received from other Fraysters, just show you're in good company here.

What a funny coincidence that you apparently just posted your reply a few weeks ago to this ancient thread, and that I was just taking a rare tour down memory lane and stumbled across it this evening.

Now that we know so much about the many ways in which the Bush administration acted in bad faith regarding Iraq, it surprises me that anyone would have the gall to pretend that Condi Rice or any other member of the Bush inner circle has anything like "honor" to defend. Rice was not only on Chevron's board, she was also the head of their public policy committee, whose job it was to monitor politically sensitive issues that could affect Chevron's business. Presumably the main reason Condi was making the big bucks in service to Chevron was because of her expertise in foreign affairs. Is it really conceivable that they never discussed the political sensitivity of their business dealings with Iraq during her stint? It seems pretty naive to automatically assume that she knew nothing. But then again, she also pleaded ignorance when the issue was Osama bin Laden flying planes into buildings when she was National Security Advisor. Maybe she's not worth the big bucks after all.

My original post is ancient history. And thankfully, so too are the neocons and their hubris and hypocrisy. Condi will go on to a leisurely life on wingnut welfare and probably only have to occasionally defend her history with the Bush administration, like she did a month or so ago when some brave Stanford students took her on. I'm glad to know that she'll be reminded of her past every now and then.