Thursday, December 15, 2005

FRAMING: conflict + honesty = attention getting

I have often complained about the "happy talk" approach many Democrats, and especially the DLC take to presenting their case, and am invariably immediately accused of supporting the lies and personal attack tactics of the GOP.

I think there's a clear difference between stating the facts, including about who is opposing you and why, and lying and smearing your opponents.

People not only need facts, they need a STORY with good guys and bad guys and CONFLICT to get their attention. I didn't event this, it's as old as humanity and outlined by Aristotle, but for some reason, many Democrats stubbornly ignore this and want to pretend we are all one big happy family, and their pitches get about as much attention as those sappy watercolor birthday cards with a duckpond and frilly writing on front.

I'll use global warming as example because while serious, it can easily be presented in a deadly dull way.


Scientists agree global warming is a serious problem. We need to do something someday that doesn't offend anyone too much, so the Eskimos and penguins can play happily in their winter wonderland, and Florida continues to exist at high tide as well as low.


We need to do x,y, and z about global warming, but my opponents are being paid by some of the largest corporations in the world to pretend it doesn't exist in spite of overwhelming scientific consensus. We have the facts, they have the money and PR agencies. I care about how this will effect you and your family. They care about how fixing it will hurt their corporate donors. If you think your family's health is more important than corporations making a few extra points of profits, I need your support.


We know that global warming exists and is intent on destroying our way of life, and will do so within 30 days if we do not act. My opponents willfully drive Hummers to intentionally destroy the ozone. They hope that this will destroy the earth so they can meet Jesus in the sky sooner and the rest of us will be killed in the climate change apocalypse. In spite of their religious agenda, they have sex with farm animals and worship Joseph Stalin's exercise of naked power. Now you must decide, are you with us or on the side of the evil-doers?


Iraq is another constructive example.

The DLC and pro-war Democrats are lying by repeating the GOPs happy talk talking points.

But it is not enough to say we must get out. We have to show why some will oppose it and have a vested interest in staying.

You can't win over everyone, but even though you can be honest about who is opposing you, you can still give them room to join you and propose things that are fair to them without harming the rest of us.

Right now, letting oil companies and corporate America drive our foreign policy is like giving the keys to the family car to a drunken teenager. It's bad for everyone. Will you look mean if you don't let them drive the car? Yes, temporarily. Does that mean the kid will hate you for the rest of their life? No. They will respect you more.

The difference with corporate America is they are not that teenager.

They are like the Sopranos with more money, better lawyers who can write the laws to make their crimes legal, and PR firms to convince people to like their crimes.

It is even more dangerous to accomodate the Sopranos without acknowledging the harm they do and monitoring their actions to insure they don't continue to do it.

, , , , , public relations, ,

Sunday, December 11, 2005

The threat of the United States being occupied by a foreign power

It's ironic that these guys who are "strong on defense" have actually harmed our reputation in the world and our military by pursuing wars more motivated by corporate profits than actual threats to our security going back to at least Vietnam, and apart from Korea, World War II, and the Civil War, all of our other military actions were about hostile take overs of country's assets.

Marine Corps General and Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler said:
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

Our lack of success in occupying Iraq tells us exactly what the threat is of another country invading and successfully occupying the US. China, Russia, and the EU would be the only entities even remotely capable of trying, and they would have supply lines stretching across oceans, and at the end of them would be 290 million well-armed civilians who would make the Iraqis look quakers and Gandhi.

To calculate the odds of someone invading us, consider how gingerly we tiptoe around getting into a land war with China after Korea. In Korea, they were poorly armed and technologically well behind us, but they came close to chasing us off the Korean peninsula, and invading China itself would have been impossible.

We were so chastened by the experience that in Vietnam we didn't send ground troops into the North for fear of triggering another conflict with China.

Hitler and Napoleon had similar experiences with Russia. It was easy to invade and impossible to occupy--and they had the advantage of being able to walk there. If someone tried to invade us, they would have those oceans to contend with. And for what? Our oil supplies are declining, and if they want our coal, I think most countries have plenty of their own. The cost of trying to occupy us would break them if we can't afford to occupy a country the size of California.

The only reason another country would attack us is they perceive us as a threat to them. If communists (a boogie man still pulled out from time to time) or terrorists attacked the US, they would win no sympathy for their ideology, and in the case of terrorists, outright occupation would be impossible anyway. The terrorist threat is at best like a neighbor's rabid chihuahua. It might bite your ankle, but it ain't going to take you down and kill you. No amount of terrorist attacks will take down the US.

And of course, once an attack on the US starts, we would burn the attacking country off the map with our nukes, and still have plenty left over for their allies, neighbors, and the rest of the world, which is why no government would use or give to terrorists they thought even might use, nukes on us. The country using or who gave away the nukes that were used would be incinerated before the mushroom cloud formed here.

Those who are "strong on defense" are more worried about securing and occupying the world's oil reserves, making sure the banana pickers in Central America and the sweatshop workers in Haiti don't demand a living wage, and that all accept the privatization and corporate control of their electricity, water, and probably the hole they shit in. Read a history of our interventions in Central America, South America, and the Middle East, then watch the film THE CORPORATION.

Then look at how we react to a democratically elected president who tries to use his country's wealth to improve the lives of his people like Hugo Chavez. We have already backed a recall and a coup against him, and there's no chance Venezuela is ever going to try to invade the US or even attack us.

I have great respect for the military, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they are willing to make for us. I wish the civilians in charge, who are so eager to use them and profit from their efforts, were as admirable.

They incite fear so they can use our military to make money, and nothing else is going on.

We spend more than enough on the military for defense. For the purpose that it is used though, no amount of money will ever be enough.

, , , , public relations, ,

Saturday, December 10, 2005

FACTS that are missing from the Iraq debate

I don't know what the best way to end the war in Iraq is.

Some of the facts I have in mind have been covered in the press on page A13 or further back, but have only been acknowledged by a handful of Democrats, not the leadership, and NO republicans.

I'm willing to listen to any proposals provided they squarely and upfront acknowledge the FACTs. Conversely, the less I hear about these things, the more I suspect the person talking is lying.


  • If we just leave, the consequences could be far more severe than in Vietnam because of the OIL.

  • The world's oil supply has either peaked or is about to, and as it declines, the Middle East will be the last region sucked dry. Those who supported the war thought controlling that oil was important for continued US access and our national security as Colin Powell's chief of staff Col. Wilkerson recently said.

    Peak oil & Iraq articles:


    Neocons have gone further and said that being in control of the oil spigot gives us an effective veto over the growth of other countries including potential rivals like China.

    Oil companies probably wanted Iraq's oil for crasser reasons: stocks are low elsewhere so they need the product, and Iraq's oil will grow exponentially in value as other countries oil reserves dry up. Recent price gouging by oil companies shows how much they care about the rest of us.

    Background on oil company machinations regarding Iraq:

  • Restructuring Iraq's oil during a military occupation to favor our oil companies is probably a war crime.

    The Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) see articles 47, 53, 55

    The Geneva Convention of 1949 (IV) we've broken almost every section of article 147, and Bush has personally broken article 148.

    We cannot break such fundamental, long-standing treaties such as these and then complain when other countries violate the treaties we like.

  • Because of pressure from the oil companies, failure of the media to cover the issue adequately, and public inertia, we have failed to prepare for declining oil supplies by switchng to other energy sources, or even add them to the mix in a significant way.


  • 80% or more of Iraqis want us to leave according to a British intel commissioned poll. That Brit poll found that only 1% of Iraqis feel safer because we are there.

    This is pretty consistent with the spring 2004 polls by Gallup and the Bush appointed CPA. To Jack Murtha's credit, he actually acknowledged these polls in his floor statement.

    From the Gallup poll in Spring

  • The rest of the Gallup results:

    Bush appointed CPA poll spring 2004

    NOTE: the permanent government this refers to is the one elected in January 2005.

    The rest of the CPA poll:

  • Even Iyad Allawi, the thug who used to be an enforcer for Saddam that Bush appointed prime minister of the provisional government recently said the human rights situation in Iraq is at least as bad now as it was under Saddam.,,1651810,00.html

  • At the recent Cairo Conference on Iraq, the Iraqi participants from all factions agreed that while insurgent attacks on civilians were wrong, those on occupation forces are not.

  • We restructured the oil industry in Iraq to make it easier for the oil companies to screw Iraqis out of the income from their oil, and easier for Kurdish and Shi'ite provinces to screw Sunnis out of any oil income.

    Screwing Iraqis out of their oil income is so important to the Bushies they fired Gen. Garner, the first colonial governor of Iraq, when he correctly said delaying elections and privatizing oil would inflame resistance to the occupation.

    Watch interview with Jay Garner:


    Do you think that might piss people off enough to grab a gun?

  • Israelis and Saudis separately studied our interrogations of foreign fighters captured in Iraq and found that most had no prior connection to al Qaeda and were motivated by our invasion, not religious fundamentalism. /

  • The Iraqis are not apes who just descended from the trees, and can't figure out how to put a military and police force together. Bush fired all the qualified people as soon as we invaded. And the current problem is getting troops and cops to fire on their own people who they know may have a legitimate beef with us being there. Which sounds a hell of a lot like Vietnam. Wasn't that the big plan there? Train the Vietnamese to fight for us in our absence? Altough it was never put that bluntly, that's the real problem. When the perception and reality are we are there to screw them out of their natural resources and kill those who protest too much with either airstrikes or death squads, it's going to be tough to find people to consistently fight for us. Those who do are unlikely to be choir boys, and likely inspire even less love for the puppet government.


, , , , , public relations, ,

Monday, December 05, 2005

COUNTERPUNCH: What did the Democrats Know before Iraq War?

Like most people, I was glad that John Edwards admitted he was wrong to vote for the Iraq War resolution, but the excuse that he gives, that the Senate was not shown the same information as the president, while true, is dishonest.

The former chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham asked the obvious question of the CIA before the war:

If Saddam had nukes (or other WMD) would he have the will to use them against us?

CIA director George Tenet answered honestly:

He said


Saddam would only use them if attacked. Like every other country that has nukes.

Graham insisted that a version of Tenet's letter scrubbed of classified information be made available to the public and it was in the New York Times in October 2002, five months before the war. You can see it here:

Democrats on intelligence like Edwards saw the classified version of this in committee.

But you didn't need to be an intelligence expert to know that. You merely needed to be old enough to remember the Cold War and the last fifty years of the nuclear era. We had rough nuclear parity with the Soviets, and that was enough to keep us from attacking each other. If a bit player like Saddam got his hands on a dozen or even a hundred nukes, he would know that if he launched one at us, he would be dead and Iraq incinerated off the map before he even knew if his nuke hit us.

Every congressman and senator knows this calculus. Retarded people don't get elected to Congress (and only once to the White House).

My point is not to exonerate the GOP, but to be careful which Democrats we pin our hopes on.

If someone is still lying to us about why they voted for war, they are likely to tell lies to continue it or to start the next one when the oil companies ask for it.

December 5, 2005
What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?

The Lies of John Edwards



Edwards declared in an op-ed column in the Washington Post on November 13, 2005: "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war." Sounds simple enough. "Had I known then what I know now, etc." Poor John Edwards was deceived. But was he? How was it that 21 other Democratic Senators and 2 Republicans were not deceived and voted against the war?

Part of the answer arrived in another op-ed the Washington Post one week later, November 20, 2005, by another former Senator, Bob Graham, entitled: "What I knew Before the Invasion." Like Edwards, Graham was a member, in fact the chair, of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in the period leading up to the war and on October 11, 2002 when the vote on the war on Iraq was taken. In a nutshell, Graham tells us that everyone on that committee knew that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Graham begins like a good, loyal Democrat, telling us that his colleagues were deceived, at least "most" of them. But he then tells us that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew better. Here are some of Graham's words:

"At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used Senatorial authority, I directed completion of an NIE."

"Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE".

"There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked."

, , , , public relations, ,

Saturday, November 26, 2005

BIG OIL using a Hollywood scam to steal Iraq's oil profits

Of four possible models for business relationships between oil companies and oil countries, neocons wanted the worst for Iraqis and big oil wants the second worst.

The best for the oil country is a nationalized system, when the oil belongs to the country, and oil companies are just paid for pumping the oil out (and don't necessarily share in the profits).

The second best for the oil country is a concession, when the countries essentially lease out the rights to drill and get a royalty percentage for the oil pumped, so they get a cut of whatever the oil is worth.

The WORST was the original neocon plan to totally privatize Iraq's oil and open it for foreign investment. So if someone bought the land that had oil under it, they wouldn't have to share ANY of the oil money with the Iraqis.

As greedy as oil companies are, they are not as stupid as the neocons and knew that would provoke opposition from the Iraqis.

The option they propose a "production sharing agreement" (PSA), sounds reasonable. The oil company extracts enough oil to cover their costs, then splits "profit oil" with the Iraqis.

Since I live in LA, this sounded familiar. It's the same scam Hollywood pulls on writers who have "profit" sharing in their contracts. The books are cooked so that even the highest grossing movies make no profit. The most famous case of this was Winston Groom who wrote the novel FORREST GUMP and was told the movie didn't make a profit, so he got no points.

This is so rampant that stars in the know like Arnold Schwarzenegger demand "first dollar" points, based on box office grosses (the numbers printed in the newspaper) rather than profits after the accountants have done their voodoo.

Most of the oil countries grant concessions to pump oil with royalties that are calculated based on oil pumped NOT what the oil company accountants claim their costs and profits are. It's hard to fudge that too much, because you can count the number of tankers that pull out of port or how much oil gets pumped through your pipeline.

The Bushies appointed Ahmed Chalabi to the Iraqi oil ministry to make sure the oil companies get what they want--he promised to be their tool even before the war. Similarly, the Bushies have set up mechanisms in the Iraqi constitution that makes it difficult for them to undo the economic "reforms" forced on them during the occupation.

If we are really interested in reducing hatred of the US and spreading democracy, we would let the Iraqis decide who gets to pump their oil, and how to divide the income with the corporations that do it.

Given the silence of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue, that's not likely to happen.

But I will be sending this post to my senators anyway.


Crude Designs:
The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth

By Greg Muttitt


There are essentially three models a country may choose from for the structure of its oil industry, plus a number of variations on these themes.

1. The system currently in place in Iraq, which has been the case since the early 1970s, is a NATIONALISED INDUSTRY. In this model, the state makes all of the decisions, and takes all of the revenue. The extent of involvement of foreign private companies is that they might be hired to carry out certain services under contract (a technical service contract) – a well-defined piece of work, for a limited period of time, and for which they receive a fixed fee. This is the model used throughout most of the Gulf region.

2. In the CONCESSION model, sometimes known as the tax and royalty system, the government grants a private company (or more often, a consortium of private companies) a license to extract oil, which becomes the company’s property (to sell, transport or refine) once extracted. The company pays the government taxes and royalties for the oil.

3. The PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT (PSA) is a more complex system...The first proportion of oil extracted is then allocated to the company, which uses oil sales to recoup its costs and capital investment – the oil used for this purpose is termed ‘cost oil’. There is usually a limit on what proportion of oil production in any year can count as cost oil. Once costs have been recovered, the remaining ‘profit oil’ is divided between state and company in agreed proportions. The company is usually taxed on its profit oil. There may also be a royalty payable on all oil produced.


In the minds of some neo-conservatives, writing on Iraqi oil before the war, privatisation meant the transfer of legal ownership of Iraq's oil reserves into private hands. However, in all countries of the world except the USA (a), reserves (prior to their extraction) are legally the property of the state. This is the case in Iraq, and remains so under the new Constitution. There has never been a realistic prospect of US-style privatisation of Iraq’s oil reserves. But this does not mean that private companies would not develop Iraq’s oil.

, , , , , public relations, , ,

Friday, November 25, 2005

REUTERS: How big OIL will steal Iraq's wealth

This is somewhat technical, but the gist of it is that oil companies are still working on ways to screw Iraq.

The original plan was to privatize the oil rights and sell them off, completely cutting Iraqis out of the deal. This new proposal is more in line with how oil companies and other multi-national corporations screw the developing world.

If anybody was really concerned about fighting terrorism, they wouldn't do stuff like this.

But they aren't.

For more on Iraq's oil, see:



Big oil has crude designs on Iraq wealth - report
Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:51 AM GMT

Big oil firms may rob Iraq of billions and grab control of its oilfields unless ordinary Iraqis can have a greater say in how their country's riches are tapped, U.S. and British campaigners said on Tuesday.

Big oil is being lured by the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), promoted by Washington and London, which gives them huge returns on investment, but deprives Iraq of up to $194 billion (113 billion pounds), according to "Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq's oil wealth".

"Under the influence of the U.S. and UK, powerful politicians and technocrats in the Iraqi oil ministry are pushing to hand all Iraq's undeveloped fields to multinational oil companies, to be developed under production sharing agreements," said Greg Muttitt, the report's author.

For international oilmen, deprived access to vast Iraqi reserves for decades, long-term PSAs offer the ability to book reserves, protection from future adverse legislation and healthy profits during low oil prices.

If only the contracts were as lucrative for average Iraqis, still suspicious that the oil was the motive behind the U.S.-led war in 2003, said the report.

The massive loss from PSAs would amount to $2,800 to $7,400 per Iraqi adult over the 30-year lifespan of a typical deal, it said. By comparison, Iraqi GDP is now only $2,100 per person.


, , , , , public relations, , ,

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

BRIT MEMO: Bush wanted to bomb TV news in Arab ally country

I just heard this on Democracy Now, the best hour of news on the radio.

Bush wanted to bomb the headquarters of al-Jazeera, the Arab equivalent of the BBC, outside the combat zone in our ally Qatar.

This is disturbing for a couple of reasons.

Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Afghanistan and Iraq were hit by US air strikes. The incident on Iraq was caught on film. A reporter was on the roof of the Palestine hotel where most reporters in Baghdad stay. He was surrounded by satellite dishes with network logos on them. He saw and the camera caught an A-10 strafing across the river then turn toward him. He couldn't finish his commentary because he was shot by one of the milk bottle sized rounds of the A-10.

You can see the incident in the film CONTROL ROOM. The network producers were despondent; they couldn't figure out how this happened since they gave coalition forces their coordinates--just like they had in Afghanistan.

Also, more journalists have been killed during the two and a half years of the Iraq War than in all of Vietnam.

Both could be unhappy coincidences, and death of reporters could be the result of insurgent actions (though it would be to their advantage to let reporters see what's going on there), but this story makes both seem more like part of a pattern of controlling the news by killing the messenger. Literally.

At some point, Congress needs to set the policy for how journalists are treated in the combat zone and NOT leave it to the president and Pentagon to decide. As much as possible, the First Amendment should follow the flag.

Take a look at the Al Jazeera website and decide for yourself how many people should be killed for this kind of reporting:

The al-Jazeera coverage of this story:

You can also see an a summary of attacks on journalists at Reporters without Borders:

What does the rest of the world think of us when we spread democracy and freedom by killing those who practice it?

22 November 2005

Madness of war memo
By Kevin Maguire And Andy Lines

PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.

But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.

At the time, the US was launching an all-out assault on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.

Al-Jazeera infuriated Washington and London by reporting from behind rebel lines and broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers, private contractors and Iraqi victims.

The station, watched by millions, has also been used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to broadcast atrocities and to threaten the West.

Dozens of al-Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.

In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre.


control room , , , , public relations, , ,

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Grinch 2005: You're a mean one, Mr. Bush

MoPaul posted the above artwork and his verses at

MoPaul's Post

The Professor Smartass verses:

You're a coward, Mr. Bush...

Your daddy was a pilot,
was shot down in the Great War,
that really must have scared you
so you never left our shore
We had a hot war raging
but you faced the Mexican Air Corps,
Even then you couldn't show up
and stopped at the liquor store,
Mr. Bush...

You even fear real questions
from old ladies and boy scouts.
Before you go in public
fat Karl picks the critics out.
He's sees a bumper sticker that says Kerry or Gore,
He calls the Secret Service and that traitor is no more,
Mr. Bush...

When Cindy came to see you
you ran away in fear.
When a soldier dies,
you don't even shed a tear...
You'd like to sell the bodies
harvest kidneys, hearts, and ears,
Mr. Bush...

You're no Santa, Mr. Bush...

You say you're cutting taxes
but it's only for the rich
You scratch a corporation
before it even has an itch...

But when the poor need healthcare
you tell them not to bitch
If they want to go to college
they must kill Arabs in a ditch

When black folks were a-drowning
you though you got your wish
Cause you'd go through their pockets
then feed them to the fish,
Mr. Bush...

You're a liar, Mr. Bush...

When the towers were hit on 9/11
you said you didn't know
but the only thing you didn't
was which specific floor,
Mr. Bush...

Your friends they owned the buildings
and cleaned up all the mess.
They made the bombs and bullets
to split the Arabs chests,
No matter what disaster,
they'll profit in excess
Mr. Bush...

You said Saddam had nukes,
and he'd make our children die,
Then just a few months later,
You did a skit about your lie.
You made reporters laugh, and Iraqi mothers cry,
Mr. Bush...

You said Saddam was bad,
that he tortured and was vile,
and Rummy ought to know
cause he shook his hand and smiled.

You knew his words on weapons,
were only a deceit.
Cause when your daddy sold them
he kept a damn receipt.

You said Saddam invaded
his old neighbor Iran
But we gave him all the bullets
and said that plan was grand

And now you'd like to show him
how to kill those Shi'ites right.
Uncle Dick would like to nuke them
and take their oil without a fight
He hides in a dark hole
and only fresh oil lures him,
that pasty heartless troll,
Mr. Bush...

Mo at MoPaul's Post

, , , , , public relations, , ,

Friday, November 11, 2005

Powell aide says war about OIL so we can't leave

Colin Powell's chief of staff has been speaking out on the workings of the Bush administration, and confirming what critics on the left have been saying about Bush since the beginning: that they have subverted the way our government works, and that the checks and balances which Bush ignores are actually needed for our security.

More importantly though, he openly acknowledges the significance of OIL in the decision-making process to go to war and why policy-makers will not seriously consider a pullout, regardless of their public statements or party affiliation.

This article also recounts what Former Bush Treasury Secretary John O'Neill said about the extent of the oil planning before the war and even before 9/11.

Totally apart from whether we should stay in Iraq or go, it's a sad comment on our democracy that NONE of the real debate is going on in public, not by the rubber stamp republican congress, and not even by the supposed opposition Democrats.

I don't know what good it does, but I'm going to send this to every Democratic senator and bust their balls about lying to us as much as the Republicans do on Iraq.


So Iraq Was About the Oil

By Robert Parry

November 8, 2005

While bemoaning the administration’s incompetence in implementing the war strategy, Wilkerson said the U.S. government now had no choice but to succeed in Iraq or face the necessity of conquering the Middle East within the next 10 years to ensure access to the region’s oil supplies.

“We had a discussion in (the State Department’s Office of) Policy Planning about actually mounting an operation to take the oilfields of the Middle East, internationalize them, put them under some sort of U.N. trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly,” Wilkerson said. “That’s how serious we thought about it.


Active preparations for war with Iraq were soon underway. Behind the scenes, O’Neill said he watched as the administration refined its plans for how to divvy up Iraq’s oil reserves after the invasion.

“Documents were being prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency, (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld’s intelligence arm, mapping Iraq’s oil fields and exploration areas and listing companies that might be interested in leveraging the precious asset,” Suskind wrote in The Price of Loyalty.


On Feb. 3, 2001 – only two weeks after Bush took office – an NSC document instructed NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney’s Energy Task Force because it was “melding” two previously unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states” and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”




, , , , , public relations, ,