In this video from CNN in the USA, ‘Tom Lantos Quotes Greenspan as saying the War is about Oil.’
Iraqi oil workers against occupation: here.
London Review of Books on the war for oil: here.
The Baker Agenda: Troops out, Oil Companies in?
This was denied in the first years of the war, but this week the President confirmed his belief that Islamic extremists will “gain access to vast oil reserves and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments all across the broader Middle East.” [LAT, 12-6-06].
Then James Baker revealed the interest of his longtime oil industry allies, as well as key financial and corporate interests, in an Iraq resolution favorable to their narrow interests.
Recommendation 62 says the US government should help draft an oil law that “creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment.”
It further recommends that the US, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund [IMF], should “press Iraq to continue reducing subsidies in the energy sector…until Iraqis pay market prices for oil products…”
That is, in a country besieged by civil war, bombings of infrastructure, unemployment at 50 percent levels, and the lack of necessities, the Baker Report proposes to make everyday life harder for average Iraqis so that the oil industry profits.
Recommendation 63 says the US should “assist” Iraqi leaders in privatizing the national oil industry into a “commercial enterprise” to encourage investment by the multi-national oil companies.
Who said it was not about blood for oil?
There’s more to uncover.
But at this point we know that the Baker commission is sprinkled with heavyweights from oil, construction, and financial entities with interests in Iraq.
Baker is a Texas oilman whose law firm has interests in debt repayment to Kuwait and other Gulf States.
Lawrence Eagleberger has ties to Halliburton and Philips Petroleum, and is a former head of Kissinger Associates, a corporate consulting firm whose clients remain secret [Paul Bremer was managing partner of the Associates].
Vernon Jordan is a power lawyer at Akin Gump who is closely associated with the secretive Bilderberg Group [as well as the Clinton circle and civil rights firms].
Leon Panetta served on the board of the New York Stock Exchange.
The expert working groups for the ISG include leaders of Bechtel, PFC Energy, and two representatives of Citygroup, Inc., the firm of Robert Rubin, leading neo-liberal advocate and member of Clinton’s cabinet.
Not a single person from the peace movement, women’s, environmental, civil rights or labor organizations were among the “expert” consultants listed in the ISG Report, although the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute were there.
See also here.
As, ‘of course’, the war was not about oil, but about Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction … oops …
As, ‘of course’, the war was not about oil, but about Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11 in New York City and Al Qaeda … oops …
And then, as an afterthought after these two official reasons were admitted to be lies by the Bush administration itself, the war was supposedly about bringing democracy … ‘democracy’ including raping children in Abu Ghraib jail and killing over 600,000 Iraqis.
Another thing Bush’s cheerleaders went so ballistic about: comparing the Iraq war to the Vietnam war. Well, now Bush himself does it; so does this.
Blair and ISG report: here.
*They Told You So*
Posted by: “hapi22″ firstname.lastname@example.org robinsegg
Fri Dec 8, 2006 8:00 pm (PST)
I’ll take one of the bows for being right about the war in Iraq.
And I imagine most of you should take one of those bows as well.
So how come Tom Friedman is still a respected commentator and columnist
for The NYTimes, when he was SO wrong for SO long about the Iraq war?
I, along with many others, wrote endless letters to Friedman trying to
open his eyes, but to no avail. But I have to say Friedman’s reputation
doesn’t seem to have suffered for the fact that he was completely wrong
about everything about Iraq.
And how come Charlie Rose still has ANY credibility? He, too, egged on
the war. In fact, in the last weeks prior to the invasion, one was hard
pressed to see or hear one dissenting voice on the Charlie Rose show.
Nevertheless, people bow and scrape and say how smart Charlie Rose is.
He’s just one more overpaid nincompoop.
The current polls indicate that, at last, 71 percent of Americans think
Bush doesn’t have a clue about the war in Iraq; 27 percent are still
hanging in there with Bush.
*They Told You So*
by Paul Krugman
The New York Times
December 8, 2006
Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly
Standard published a jeering article titled, “The Cassandra Chronicles:
The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers.” Among those the article mocked
was a “war novelist” named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from
The article’s title was more revealing than its authors knew. People
forget the nature of Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe
her, all her prophecies came true. And so it was with those who warned
against invading Iraq. At best, they were ignored. A recent article in
The Washington Post ruefully conceded that the paper’s account of the
debate in the House of Representatives over the resolution authorizing
the Iraq war — a resolution OPPOSED by a MAJORITY of the DEMOCRATS
– gave NO coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem
At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their
patriotism and/or their sanity questioned. The New Republic now says
that it “deeply regrets its early support for this war.” Does it also
deeply regret accusing those who opposed rushing into war of “abject
Now, only a few neocon dead-enders still believe that this war was
anything but a vast exercise in folly. And those who braved political
pressure and ridicule to oppose what Al Gore has rightly called “the
worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States” deserve
Unlike The Weekly Standard, which singled out those it thought had been
proved wrong, I’d like to offer some praise to those who got it right.
Here’s a partial honor roll:
Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in
1998 why they didn’t go on to Baghdad in 1991: “Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land.”
Representative Ike Skelton, September 2002: “I have no doubt that our
military would decisively defeat Iraq’s forces and remove Saddam. But
like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider
what we would do after we caught it.”
Al Gore, September 2002: “I am deeply concerned that the course of
action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the
potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against
terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new
Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: “I don’t
oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed
to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard
Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this
administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our
throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships
Representative John Spratt, October 2002: “The outcome after the
conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less
Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002:
“When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the
liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could
Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: “I am increasingly troubled by the
seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. … When
the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I
think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its
urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has
much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning
the administration’s motives.”
HOWARD DEAN, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, February 2003: “I firmly believe that the
president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence
agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. …
Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that
share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”
We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should
also ask why anyone who didn’t raise questions about the war — or, at
any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly –
should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national
- – -
[NOTE FROM ME: For more on the snide remarks, insults and
rightwingers' assertions that we were all cowards, friends of
terrorists, or enemies of democracy, see:
Film The Oil Factor: here.