What should Wikileaks leak NEXT?

Assuming they had access to everything, what would be most vital to the public interest and cutting through the lies and crap from DC?

My top three:

1. every shred of paper from the Cheney Energy Task Force in early 2000. One of the few documents that was released in response to a FOIA request was a map of Iraq's oil fields divided up and a list of foreign suitors for those fields. What role did this play not only in our Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but seeking bases and political machinations in Central Asia, where we are trying to wrestle the Caspian pipeline business away from Russia. Did they do this solely for the benefit of oil and energy companies, or out of a misguided sense of seeking energy security? Were there dissenting voices in the military and foreign policy establishment that said this would make a LESS secure world since Russia and China might not like us having that degree of hegemony?
   
   
2. The Saudi pages Bush classified in a panic in the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 Report. It is already a matter of public record that we were attacked by terrorists given logistical help by an agent of our ally Saudi Arabia, who also funneled money to the terrorist and was in constant phone contact with their embassy and consulate before the attack. The piece that is missing is why they would do that and why the Bush administration didn't even skip a heartbeat before defending and embracing them.
   
   
3. Likewise, why did our government initially ignore the documented financial help and direction Pakistan gave to al Qaeda and the Taliban, including evacuating key leaders from Tora Bora? In the last couple of years, they seem to be noticing, though the most damning evidence was available immediately after 9/11. What was the reason for the selective outrage? or more importantly, why the long delay before the outrage? What other issues did we have with Pakistan then and now that would explain it?
   
   OK, I lied. A fourth I'd like to see:
   
   
4. Has the Pentagon done an assessment of the security threat Wall Street's shorting of other countries economies and/or how the gutting of our industrial base have created? Are they monitoring the threat and have they prepared contingency plans to neutralize it?

There's probably a whole lot that could be asked on the domestic front as well, but I'm curious to hear what other's want leaked.

Prosecuting Bush administration not politics, but matter of national security

After ignoring the grassroots movement to impeach Bush, which had twice as much support as impeaching Clinton and about as much as impeaching Nixon the night before he resigned, the mainstream media is now pooh-poohing the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials for their domestic and war crimes.
If restoring Constitutional checks and balances and showing that the rich and powerful aren't above the law, especially laws of basic human decency like the Geneva Convention, isn't reason enough, there are some very immediate national security reasons to do so, related to 9/11 and the Iraq War.

In the case of 9/11, that day George W. Bush said,

I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

LINK

The Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 found that the Saudi government helped the hijackers, and declassified FBI documents show a Saudi agent picked up two of the hijackers at LAX, set them up in an apartment in his own building, and funneled checks to them from the Saudi ambassador's wife.

Did the Bush administration use this information to punish Saudi Arabia or change the nature of our relationship with them in any way?

No.

He even protected them by classifying the Saudi pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry's report and tried to smooth over uproar caused by the sketchy details that did leak out.

He likewise said little to nothing about Saudi terrorists entering Iraq even though more came from there than any other country according to Israel, our Pentagon, and even the Saudis themselves.

Why didn't Bush do anything about this? Even if you don't believe the Bush administration was involved in 9/11, covering up the Saudi role is at least a bigger crime than Richard Nixon covering up a second rate burglary.

Worse, it means that we may be vulnerable to another terrorist attack because for all the Patriot Act bluster and trampling of our civil rights, the Bush administration did nothing punish or restrain the real perpetrators.

There is a similar issue with how we became involved in the Iraq War. What was once considered a conspiracy theory, that the Bush administration intentionally lied to get us into the war, is more or less accepted as fact by the mainstream media now.

However, if we don't prosecute those responsible, they are free to return to government at a later date, and do the same thing. That is exactly what Cheney and Rumsfeld did after lying about the nature of the Soviet threat in the 70s.

While the lies and liars from within the administration are pretty well documented, their helpers outside the administration, like those who forged the Niger document claiming that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake, have not been outed and put out of business.

Perhaps most importantly, we have not had a public airing of WHY Bush bothered to trump up a war against Iraq and who it was meant to benefit. There are some clear clues like Cheney's secrecy about the energy task force he led that was pouring over maps Iraq's oilfields, and the Bush commissioned Hydrocarbon Law that would have given 88% of Iraq's oil income to foreign oil companies, a law that Iraqi legislators refused to pass even after being offered millions in bribes each by the oil companies. But those are just clues.

Without a definitive record of who lobbied for the war, who listened to them, and how they got their way, we are vulnerable to being misled into a war again in the future. If those who planned to profit from the war were punished, we would be even less likely to see it happen again.

It is a matter of public record that Bush diverted our attention from those responsible for 9/11 and fabricated a case for war, leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks from those he protected and squandering military resources we should have saved for real threats.

We are less safe because of it, and without the complete investigation and prosecution of those responsible, we will continue to be at risk.

If it does not happen, it would be because our government is looking after the interests of the very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.

The Myth of the Oil Weapon vs. Reality of Corporate Oil Thieves

Someone at the American Conservative took the time to debunk one of the less embarrassing lies about why we invaded Iraq: to secure "strategic access" to their oil in case some future Iraqi government or other producers threaten to cut us off or dramatically increase prices.

The author points out the obvious problem that if your economy depends on the sale of one product, you can't cut off the customer who uses 25% of it and expect to make money. Likewise, the more one player tries to jack up the price, the more temptation there will be for competitors to produce more to capture those added profits, and the price will go back down as demand increases.

He leaves out the other effect of high prices: it will make alternative fuel and energy sources more attractive to more people.

If we really just wanted "strategic access," we would go after it the way China is doing in Iran, Canada, and Africa: with long term contracts and inducements to friendship not wars, which tend to alienate people and cost more than paying them.

I don't believe those in the White House actually believe they need to seize the oil to prevent a future embargo. They just want to give a $10-30 trillion gift to their friends in big oil, and control of the spigot, so they could control how much is produced and therefore the price.

EVIDENCE FOR WAR TO KEEP OIL PRICES HIGH

VALUE OF IRAQI OIL

This is the ultimate in corporate welfare. We pay for the war, and oil companies collect the profits, which they don't have a very good track record of sharing with us.

The Myth of the Oil Weapon
November 5, 2007 Issue
The American Conservative

Our foreign-policy establishment believes the U.S. must intervene to keep oil flowing from the Mideast. In reality, all America needs to do is demand it.

by David R. Henderson

In a recent interview with Charlie Rose to drum up publicity for his book, The Age of Turbulence, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that the reason to make war on Iraq was that an unchecked Saddam Hussein would have threatened the world’s oil supply. Greenspan gave no evidence or argument for his assertion. But in making it, he confirmed the views of many opponents of the war, and even some supporters, that the Iraq War was, or at least should have been, about oil. He also joined a long list of prominent people who have made the case for war for oil ever since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries formed an effective cartel that raised the world price from $3 a barrel to $11 in the fall of 1973.

That’s too bad, because the case for making war for oil is profoundly weak. The pragmatic case against war for oil, on the other hand, rests on a few simple facts. First, no oil-producing country, no matter what it does to its oil supply, can cause us to line up for gasoline. Second, an oil-producing country cannot impose a selective embargo on a target country, because oil is sold in a world market. Third, the only way one country’s government can hurt another country using the “oil weapon” is by cutting output, which hurts all oil consumers, not just the target country; helps all oil producers, friend and foe alike; and harms the country that cuts its output.

Consider how long the foreign-policy establishment has taken as accepted the idea that the U.S. government needs to use military force to keep the world’s oil supply flowing. In March 1975, Harper’s published an article, “Seizing Arab Oil,” authored by “Miles Ignotus.” The author’s name, Harper’s explained, “is the pseudonym of a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policy makers.” Many insiders speculated that the piece was written by Edward Luttwak, still a prominent military analyst. In it, the author expressed frustration at the high price of oil and argued that no nonviolent means of breaking the cartel’s back would work. Even massive conservation, he argued, was unlikely to solve the problem. Moreover, he claimed, “there is absolutely no reason to expect major new discoveries.” So what options were left? “Ignotus” wrote, “There remains only force. The only feasible countervailing power to OPEC’s control of oil is power itself—military power.” He argued at the time that military force should be exerted on Saudi Arabia.

***

When many Americans over age 50 worry about Middle Eastern producers playing havoc with the world oil supply, they think back to the gasoline lines of 1973 and 1979. But those fiascos weren’t forced by a foreign producer. The U.S. government was responsible. President Nixon had imposed a freeze on all prices on Aug. 15, 1971. He gradually decontrolled prices, but when OPEC raised the price in the fall of 1973, Nixon’s price controls prevented the price of oil and gasoline from rising sufficiently. Whatever else economists may argue about, they agree that a price control that keeps the price below what would have otherwise existed in a competitive market will cause a shortage. The reason is that at a price below the competitive price, consumers will demand more and producers will supply less. President Ford and Congress altered the price controls, and President Carter inherited and kept them. When the world oil supply tightened again in 1979, we had another shortage. Simply by refraining from controlling the price, therefore, we can avoid, and have avoided, gas lines.

FULL TEXT

MORE IRAQ OIL THEFT RESOURCES

Impeaching only Cheney good on principle AND politics

It is fairly obvious that the only reason the Democrats are holding back on impeachment is they are afraid it will hurt their political chances in 2008, whether they remove Bush or not.

The Democrats want Bush and Cheney in place so 2008 will be a referendum on their corrupt, destructive government. If they are removed, they will be history, and for Americans, history is anything that isn't in the current news cycle, and only a handful of eggheads care about history.

They also mistakenly believe the rest of us are so stupid we can't tell the difference between the politically motivated impeachment of Bill Clinton and trying to remove the most dangerous, reckless, and corrupt president in our history.

However, if they impeached Bush & Cheney and they was NOT removed, they would not only still be in place, but the media would be forced to cover the hearings and a lot of the public would be hearing about their impeachable offenses. That would make the anti-republican tsunami even greater in '08.

But it would also make the Bush & Cheney offenses so obvious, enough republicans would vote to impeach,just to get the albatross off their neck, and they would be removed.

While I would prefer to see both removed, and sent to prison here or sent to the Hague, impeaching just Cheney could meet the needs of our constitutional system for accountability, and still leave an emasculated Bush in place as the political punching bag they want. With Cheney gone, half of Bush's brain would be gone.

And impeaching just Cheney is exactly what Dennis Kucinich proposed in his bill.

The objection to this is it may give Bush a chance to give one of the GOP candidates for president some prestige by appointing them as VP, and possibly catapult some seeming moderate to the GOP nomination who might otherwise not have made it through the gauntlet of American Taliban voters (if Bush appointed a far righty, that would be the best of all possible worlds since the guy would have the same pedestal, but be doomed in the general election no matter what). A 'moderate' VP would have a real problem as long as Bush was in office though--he would have to defend the corruption, destruction, and failure of his boss, so his appointment would only be a gift if Bush resigned or was impeached himself.

I doubt that Bush would do something as selfless as resign just to help the party.

Al Gore: Iraq War about OIL THEFT

Most of the Democrats in congress and even those running for president seem to agree with the Bush administration on a fairly crucial issue: by omission, they imply that the Iraq War is not about oil. The Democrats in Congress even went as far as including as including a benchmark in their Iraq funding bill requiring Iraq to pass a Hydrocarbon Law that gives up to 80% of their oil income to American oil companies, claiming that the law was about dividing the money between ethnic groups even though that is only 3 lines of a 33 page document.

Al Gore is seen as the natural candidate for president by many Democrats, so when his book THE ASSAULT ON REASON came out, I wanted to see if he was honest about the oil motive for the Iraq War or gave the same evasions or vague statements of other like "We wouldn't be there if their main product were coconuts," the equivalent of a cop investigating the murder of a loved one never getting past saying "He was in a dangerous neighborhood."

To my surprise, he was honest.

What he says is not new, but he is the highest ranking American establishment figure to acknowledge these facts.

For example on page 118, he talks about the Cheney Energy Task Force looking at the map of oil exploration blocks in Iraq, and quotes a Canadian journalist as saying it looked like "a butcher's drawing of a steer with the prime cuts delineated by dotted lines." On the next page, he mentions the Bush administration blending its policy toward rogue nations with the energy policy of capturing new oil reserves.

On page 119, he says the Hydrocarbon Law was written in Washington, DC for the benefit of oil companies and given to the Bush approved government to pass.

He revisits the Hydrocarbon Law on page 195:

EXCERPT:

Later, during the invasion itself, even as looters were carrying off many of Iraq's priceless antiquities from the museums designed to commemorate the "cradle of civilization," only one government building was protected by American troops: the petroleum ministry. In 2007, even as Iraq was disintegrating into sectarian violence, the Bush administration was carefully crafting legal documents --while the United States was still the occupying power--guaranteeing preferential access to the enormous profits expected from production of Iraq's vast oil reserves for ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell.

Critics like Greg Muttitt of the human rights and environmental group Platform, which monitors the oil industry, described the proposed law as a terrible deal for the Iraqis and regional citizens, who were totally cut out of the process. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July [2006]," Muttitt said in January 2007, "and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of twenty Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and asked them how many has seen the legislation. Only one had."

I would like a president who speaks this bluntly about who is buying our foreign policy. Corporate American would not, and would likely try to ridicule, taint with scandal, or kill him to keep him out of the White House.

IRAQ OIL THEFT RESOURCES

Iraqi Prime Minister: Bush will fire me if oil law fails

Even the appearance of democracy is sacrificed so Bush can give his friends that oil.

KEY EXCERPTS:

Al-Maliki tells aides U.S. benchmark deadline is June 30 or his ouster possible

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
The Associated Press Tuesday, March 13, 2007

BAGHDAD: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fears the Americans will withdraw support for his government — effectively ousting him — if parliament does not pass a draft oil law by the end of June, close associates of the Iraqi leader told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The legislature has not even taken up the draft measure for a fair distribution of the nation's oil wealth — only one of several U.S. benchmarks that are now seen by al-Maliki, a hardline Shiite, as key to continued American support for his troubled government.

***

The al-Maliki associates said U.S. officials, who they would not name, had told the prime minister that President Bush was committed to the current government but that continued White House support depended on positive action on all the benchmarks — especially the oil law and sectarian reconciliation — by the close of this parliamentary session on June 30.

"Al-Maliki is committed to meeting the deadline because he is convinced he would not survive in power without U.S. support," one of the associates said.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/13/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Oil.php

OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html

maliki iraq war privatization jim mcdermott oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips republican antonia juhasz greg palast GOP conservative corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law grover norquist jay garner professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news

JUHASZ: Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?

Usually, I just post excerpts of articles, but just about every word of this is essential to understand how central oil is to the war in Iraq, what the Bush administration is doing there on behalf of oil companies, and the degree of hatred it will earn us.

The crucial elements are how different the Hydrocarbon Law the Bushies are forcing on Iraq is from how Iraq's neighbors oil industries are set up, and how the Cheney Energy Task Force's recommendation to get Middle Eastern countries to "open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment" which was gone with the war in Iraq. Elsewhere this seems to be confirmed by a memo to Condi Rice when she was national security advisor directing her to cooperate with the energy task force in “the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

Juhasz brought up one angle I hadn't heard yet: that oil companies could get the rights to an oil field then NOT drill for a couple of years. Ironically, the Shah of Iran was offered a similar deal in the 70s. The British wanted exclusive rights to purchase Iranian oil, but not be obligated to do so. So if Britain decided to purchase little to drive up prices, Iran wouldn't be allowed to sell to someone else and would be starved of income. This was a deal even the corrupt Shah couldn't take, so he didn't.

FULL TEXT:





March 13, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor
Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?

By ANTONIA JUHASZ

TODAY more than three-quarters of the world’s oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn’t always this way.

Until about 35 years ago, the world’s oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They are among the world’s largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.

Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.

The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.

The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.

The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.

The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.

Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.

Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.

Iraq’s five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.” They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.

Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group, is the author of “The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html

Alternative links:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/13/opinion/edjuhasz.php

OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html


iraq war privatization jim mcdermott oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips republican antonia juhasz greg palast GOP conservative corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law grover norquist jay garner professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news