Bush and Blair help Big Oil grabbing at Iraq

This video is called The Battle For Haditha.

From The Observer in Britain:

Iraq poised to hand control of oil fields to foreign firms

Baghdad under pressure from Britain to pass a law giving multinationals rights to the country’s reserves

Heather Stewart, economics correspondent

Sunday February 25, 2007

Baghdad is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass an oil law which would hand long-term control of Iraq’s energy assets to foreign multinationals, according to campaigners.

Iraqi trades unions have called for the country’s oil reserves – the second-largest in the world – to be kept in public hands.

But a leaked draft of the oil law, seen by The Observer, would see the government sign away the right to exploit its untapped fields in so-called exploration contracts, which could then be extended for more than 30 years.

Remember how hysterical Bush supporting pundits went whenever you doubted their wisdom?

Like that the Iraq war would be a ‘cakewalk’, that Iraqis would throw flowers at invading US soldiers, that it was ‘mission accomplished‘ in 2003?

Remember their hysteria whenever you doubted their certainties on ‘weapons of mass destruction‘?

And whenever you doubted their talk on the supposed 9/11-Iraq connection?

Well, the Bush administration has admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction, the only official reason for the war.

And no 9/11-Saddam Hussein connection (there were Saddam-Rumsfeld, and CIA-Al Qaeda connections, but they do not want to talk about that.)

George W Bush himself has admitted US forces are not winning the war in Iraq.
Cheney and the Iraq war
And, Bush said, yes, Iraq is comparable to Vietnam (a comparison for which not that long ago Senator Edward Kennedy and others had been attacked in McCarthyite Inquisition style).

The peace movement really touched a raw nerve of the Right when they said: No blood for oil in Iraq.

For, ‘of course’, nothing, according to Bush and Cheney’s sycophants, like Tony Blair, could be further away from the minds of oil dynasty scion George W and Dick of Halliburton than oil.

They started war for unselfish humanitarian reasons, ‘of course’ not for oil.

In reality, there is a complex of causes for the Iraq war.

The major importance of oil within that complex is by now at last admitted by Bush’s Republicans.

By the way, one of Bush’s loudest warmongers, Paul Wolfowitz, had already admitted the war was about oil and Washington’s relations to number one oil producer Saudi Arabia, and that “weapons of mass destruction” had just been a “bureaucratic” excuse.

16 thoughts on “Bush and Blair help Big Oil grabbing at Iraq

  1. Vigils for Peace on March 16th
    Posted by: “bigraccoon” bigraccoon@earthlink.net redwoodsaurus
    Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:39 am (PST)
    Vigils for Peace on March 16th

    Join thousands of Christians in Washington, D.C., on the
    evening of March 16th for the Christian Peace Witness for

    Click here to register for the Christian Peace Witness in
    Washington, D.C.!

    On the evening of March 16th you’ll be joined by Jim Wallis of
    Sojourners/Call to Renewal and faith leaders from across the
    country including: Rev. Bernice Powell Jackson of the World
    Council of Churches; Rev. Raphael Warnock, senior minister
    at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia; and Celeste
    Zappala, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace and the
    mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, who was killed in Iraq in
    April of 2004. Following the worship service we’ll process
    nearly four miles downtown (transportation will be available
    for those who request a ride) where we plan to surround
    the White House in a circle of light and prayer. More
    information about the evening’s events, workshops, and
    nonviolence trainings can be found on the Christian Peace
    Witness Web site

    We’ve heard from many of you who cannot make the trip to
    Washington, D.C., but still plan to mark the fourth
    anniversary of the war in Iraq with vigils and prayers for
    peace. In some cities, churches have agreed to ring bells
    every hour on the hour during the day; other citizens have
    agreed to place “peace candles” in the windows of their
    homes; and churches and individuals across the country are
    inviting their communities to join them for vigils and worship
    services. Please consider hosting a local vigil
    and inviting others in
    your city or town to join you. Registering your event on the
    Christian Peace Witness for Iraq Web site is easy, and you’ll
    find a downloadable toolkit to help plan your event:

    Click here to host or search for a peace vigil in your
    hometown or city!

    Whether you’ll be joining us in person in Washington, D.C.,
    or joining us in spirit from across the country, we thank you
    for your deep and abiding commitment to peace. We pray for
    the personal and political transformation that will bring the
    whole world closer to fully knowing the peace that passes
    all understanding.


    Kim, Adam, Kevin, Robin, Gini, Bob, and Amy
    The Sojourners Organizing Team


  2. Who Is Really Supporting the Troops?
    Posted by: “Corey” cpmondello@yahoo.com cpmondello
    Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:54 pm (PST)
    Who Is Really Supporting the Troops?
    by Randolph T Holhut

    Feb 22 2007


    The recent votes in Congress on a non-binding resolution regarding President Bush’s deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq may be symbolic, but not for the reason you think.

    Yes, the resolution that the House passed and the Senate refused to vote upon has no teeth. It amounted to no more than a no-confidence vote on the way the Bush administration has conducted the war.

    But now, the Democrats have nearly all the Republicans in Congress on record as saying they support the present course, even though a majority of the American people do not.

    The American people have had enough of the lies and the false optimism. They’ve have had enough of the “six more months, and things will turn around” nonsense we keep hearing from the supporters of this war. They are sick of the human and economic drain that this war has had on our nation. Most of all, they are sick of not having a say in this war.
    Yet all but 17 Republicans in the House voted against the resolution against escalating the war. In the Senate, only seven Republicans and one independent — Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew who broke his observance of the Sabbath to cast a vote — supported ending a filibuster to allow a vote on the House measure. Even worse, nine Republicans — including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — skipped the vote.

    The symbolism that now on display for everyone to see is that the Republican Party in Congress supports the status quo in Iraq.

    The GOP supports seeing more of our young men and women die to continue an occupation of a country whose citizens want us to leave as soon as possible. They support having our troops caught in the crossfire of a civil war. They support sending more troops to Iraq, even though many of the reinforcements have not been fully trained or equipped to fight. They support the Bush administration’s many failures in Iraq and will stand behind the president even as more failures occur.

    Do Republicans really support the troops? The heartbreaking stories that appeared this week in The Washington Post and the Army Times would make one question their devotion to the morale and welfare of those who paid a high price for President Bush’s war.

    Both publications told stories of badly wounded men and women who had their lives saved on the battlefield, only to be trapped in what the Post called “a messy bureaucratic battlefield nearly as chaotic as the real battlefields they faced overseas.”

    Walter Reed Army Medical Center has become “a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients,” the Post reported. Some have languishing in crumbling, squalid buildings infested with mice and cockroaches for months, and in some cases, years, for the military to process their paperwork and determine disability ratings and future treatment for their injuries.

    The Army Times reported that the military has gotten as good as civilian insurers in the area of what’s become known as “denial management,” or making sure clients don’t get the benefits their entitled too.

    A 30 percent or higher disability rating entitles a wounded soldier to a lifetime pension and medical benefits. Less than that, and you receive a lump sum payment and no medical help.

    Even though there have been thousands of badly maimed soldiers from more than six years of war, the Army is handing out fewer permanent disability benefits than ever. The Army Times reported that in 2001, 10 percent of the soldiers going through the medical retirement process received permanent disability benefits. By 2005, only 3 percent got benefits. And, as of last year, the Veterans Administration has a 400,000-case backlog on new medical claims.
    So much for supporting our troops.

    Any Republican running for re-election in 2008 should be continually reminded of the gulf between their words and actions regarding the Iraq war and the intolerable treatment of the men and women maimed fighting it.
    If the 2006 election wasn’t enough of a wake-up call for the Republican Party, the GOP has positioned itself to electoral oblivion in 2008. If the Republicans still want to stand shoulder to shoulder behind a failed president and his failed war, they will pay a steep price at the polls in 2008.


  3. Posted by: “bigraccoon” bigraccoon@earthlink.net redwoodsaurus
    Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:17 am (PST)

    Watch 60 Minutes:
    Military Members Speak out against the war

    On Sunday February 25th, 60 Minutes (on CBS at 7 p.m. ET/PT) will air a segment about the Appeal for Redress. The segment will feature a number of the service members who have signed the Appeal. The Appeal states; ³As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.² Navy Petty Officer Johnathan Hutto, one of the Iraq war veterans who started the drive, along with others, spoke to 60 Minutes off duty, off base and out of uniform as a concerned citizen. Hutto says ³But at the same time, as citizens, it’s our obligation to have a questioning attitude Š about policy.² A co-founder, Marine Sgt. Liam Madden states, ³Just because we volunteered for the military doesn’t mean we volunteered to put our lives in unnecessary harm and to carry out missions that are illogical and immoral.² Many of the signees have similar feelings and in addition want to protect their rights to voice their own opinions regarding the war.

    On January 16th 2007, representatives of the Appeal for Redress publicly voiced their opposition to the war in Iraq by bringing the individual petitions of over 1,300 active-duty and reserve members of the military to the attention of Congress. The Appeal for Redress, was started by active duty service members. About 60% of signees have served at least one tour of duty in Iraq. The service members who started this ongoing appeal felt that it was important for them to take a clear stand on the issue.

    The Center on Conscience & War was there to support the actions of these members of the military in their attempt to make it clear to Congress that they will no longer stand quietly and while fighting in an illegal war. Executive Director J. E. McNeil has been instrumental in providing legal advice to the group and individual signees. A 1995 law called the Military Whistleblower act enables military personnel to express their own opinions about Iraq in protected communication directly to Congress. The Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to their Congressional Representative and US Senators to urge an end to the U.S. military occupation.

    Many of these service members are considered selective objectors. If enacted, the Military Conscientious Objector Act would provide protection for such service members.

    We encourage all of you to pass on information regarding the Appeal for Redress to anyone you know who is a service member or to their family and/or friends.

    For further information on the Appeal for Redress you can visit their http://www.appealforredress.org/

    Center on Conscience & War
    1830 Connecticut Ave.
    NW Washington, DC 20009
    Ph: 202-483-2220


  4. Halliburton involved again? You don’t say….
    Posted by: “Corey” cpmondello@yahoo.com cpmondello
    Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:14 am (PST)
    KBR’s $400 Million Iraq Question

    There’s a $400 million question facing the Pentagon’s largest contractor, KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary responsible for more than 50,000 personnel in Iraq and billions in government contracts: Will the mammoth corporation be forced to repay the government nearly half a billion dollars because it hired private security forces in Iraq, including Blackwater USA, when the Army itself was supposed to be providing it with protection?

    It’s a scandal that has been brewing for more than two years, kept alive largely through the efforts of Representative Henry Waxman. The California Democrat has been on a warpath against Halliburton and KBR almost since the Bush Administration took power in 2000. But it was actually an incident involving the private military company Blackwater USA that sparked the current controversy, which could result in the hefty KBR repayment to the government.

    It began with one of the most iconic incidents of the Iraq War: the March 31, 2004, ambush of four Blackwater contractors in the Sunni city of Falluja. The men were burned, dragged through the streets and strung from a bridge. For many in Congress–and the broader population–it was the first they had heard of private soldiers operating in the war zone. Finding out who exactly they were working for in Falluja that day would take nearly three years.



  5. Pingback: US Republicans admit Iraq war was about oil | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: USA: former Reagan aide compares Bush to Hitler | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: UK: Blair government helps Shell, BP, grab at Iraqi oil | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: Illegal abortions rise in Bush’s ‘new’ Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: George W Bush: 600, 000 dead Iraqis, 3,000 dead US soldiers, are still not enough | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: Fox News warmongering in the USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. Pingback: The Iraq war, more blood for more expensive oil | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  12. Pingback: Iraq war: Blair government tries to censor Turner-prize winning artist Steve McQueen | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  13. Pingback: Wolfowitz nepotism scandal and World Bank meeting | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  14. Pingback: Wolfowitz resigns in nepotism scandal | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  15. Pingback: Bush plans United States war on Iran, Seymour Hersh writes | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.