It's The Oil, Stupid!

[unhappycamper]

It's The Oil, Stupid!

Here is the sentence in The Age of Turbulence, the 531-page memoir of former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, that caused so much turbulence in Washington last week: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Honest and accurate, it had the resonance of the Bill Clinton's election campaign mantra, "It's the economy, stupid." But, finding himself the target of a White House attack -- an administration spokesman labeled his comment, "Georgetown cocktail party analysis" -- Greenspan backtracked under cover of verbose elaboration. None of this, however, made an iota of difference to the facts on the ground.

Here is a prosecutor's brief for the position that "the Iraq War is largely about oil":

The primary evidence indicating that the Bush administration coveted Iraqi oil from the start comes from two diverse but impeccably reliable sources: Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary (2001-2003) under President George W. Bush; and Falah Al Jibury, a well-connected Iraqi-American oil consultant, who had acted as President Ronald Reagan's "back channel" to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-88. The secondary evidence is from the material that can be found in such publications as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

According to O'Neill's memoirs, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, written by journalist Ron Suskind and published in 2004, the top item on the agenda of the National Security Council's first meeting after Bush entered the Oval Office was Iraq. That was January 30, 2001, more than seven months before the 9/11 attacks. The next National Security Council (NSC) meeting on February 1st was devoted exclusively to Iraq.

Advocating "going after Saddam" during the January 30 meeting, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, according to O'Neill, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about." He then discussed post-Saddam Iraq -- the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, and the reconstruction of the country's economy. (Suskind, p. 85)

Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry.


Rest of article at: http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070926&fname=hiro&sid=1&pn=1

[ShortnFiery]

1. It's truly OUR TAX DOLLARS for Oil Corporations' Profit and Obscene Contracts = War Profiteering!

[liberal renegade]

2. Bingo!

[reprobate]

3. Read Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" . He makes just the opposite arguement.

Saddam had to go because he did just the opposite of what OPEC told him to do.

He produced more oil than they alloted to him. The more he produced the lower the price, which meant that the Major Oil Cos could charge less for each barrel.

Read the book. It'll open your eyes.

[IDemo]

4. Palast did tremendousl work on election fraud, but flopped with the Peak Oil chapter

Even wrongly defining Peak Oil as when "we will have used up every last drop of crude oil on the planet".

Read an open letter to Greg Palast by Richard Heinberg, who actually understands the issue.