Putting some context to the DSM: Cheney's March 2001 Iraq Oil Maps

[EarlG]

I know this is old news to a lot of people, but I wanted to repost it because of the DSM hearings today. On July 17, 2003, Judicial Watch obtained some of Dick Cheney's energy task force documents, which included maps of Iraq's oil fields.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.

The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_pr.shtml

Here's one of the documents:



So in MARCH 2001, six months before September 11, Dick Cheney was hawking maps of Iraq's oil fields as part of an American energy policy. One year later, using the September 11 terrorist attacks as a catalyst, the Bush administration was rushing headlong into an Iraq invasion. But the American people would never accept the idea that Iraq should be invaded so their oil fields could be divided up among energy companies, so therefore "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." And thanks to the numb-nuts media, more than 50% of Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attacks.

The documents Judicial Watch uncovered from March 2001 give some useful context as to WHY Bush was rushing to war.

[Stephanie]

1. And that's why Cheney's fighting to the death not to release more docs

That's why he is battling all the way to the Supreme Court to keep the documents from his secret energy panel meetings secret. They were divvying up Iraqi oil fields. Months before 9/11. They had a list of "suitors." All they needed was a pretext for war. Such as a New Pearl Harbor.

[leftchick]

2. One of the very first dots to connect!

There are so many dots that connect all by themselves.
Excellent repost EarlG! Thank you.

:)

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Yup, carving up Iraq for US oil co's was job #1 for Bushco.

[indepat]

7. I would argue massive tax cuts for the most affluent as job # 1 followed

by the carving. Destruction of SS (raiding of the lock box) and Medicare along with all other entitlements and welfare except corporate welfare and welfare for the most affluent would be # 3. With such astounding accomplishments, let's repeal the 22nd Amendment so W can be president for life.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. OK, you win. 8^)

[Stephanie]

4. Here's a New Yorker article that didn't get enough attention >

Discussion at this old DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1125619

====================================================

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

CONTRACT SPORT
by JANE MAYER
What did the Vice-President do for Halliburton?
Issue of 2004-02-16 and 23
Posted 2004-02-09

<snip>

For months there has been a debate in Washington about when the Bush Administration decided to go to war against Saddam. In Ron Suskind’s recent book “The Price of Loyalty,” former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill charges that Cheney agitated for U.S. intervention well before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

A source who worked at the N.S.C. at the time doubted that there were links between Cheney’s Energy Task Force and the overthrow of Saddam. But Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.” He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”

<snip>

After months spent trying to obtain more information about the classified Halliburton deals, Representative Waxman’s staff discovered that the original oil-well-fire contract entrusted Halliburton with a full restoration of the Iraqi oil industry. “We thought it was supposed to be a short-term, small contract, but now it turns out Halliburton is restoring the entire oil infrastructure in Iraq,” Waxman said. The Defense Department’s only public acknowledgments of this wide-ranging deal had been two press releases announcing that it had asked Halliburton to prepare to help put out oil-well fires. The most recent budget request provided by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq mentions the building of a new oil refinery and the drilling of new wells. “They said originally they were just going to bring it up to prewar levels. Now they’re getting money to dramatically improve it,” Waxman complained. Who is going to own these upgrades, after the United States government has finished paying Halliburton to build them? “Who knows?” Waxman said. “Nobody is saying.”

<snip>

It is not surprising that Cheney, after five years of running Halliburton, a company that considers war as providing “growth opportunities,” regards winning the peace in Iraq as a challenge for private enterprise as well as for government. Yet it is reasonable to ask if Cheney’s faith in companies like Halliburton contributed to his conviction that the occupation of Iraq would be a tidy, easily managed affair. Now that Cheney’s vision has been shown to be overly optimistic, and Iraqis and American soldiers are still getting killed ten months after Saddam’s overthrow, critics are questioning the propriety of a reconstruction effort that is fuelled by the profit motive. “I’m appalled that the war is being used by people close to the Bush Administration to make money for themselves,” Waxman said. “At a time when we’re asking young men and women to make perhaps the ultimate sacrifice, it’s just unseemly.” Many of those involved, however, see themselves as part of a democratic vanguard. Jack Kemp’s spokesman, P. J. Johnson, told me, “We’re doing good by doing well.” Joe Allbaugh, Bush’s former campaign manager, who has established New Bridge Strategies, a firm aimed specifically at setting up for-profit ventures in Iraq, makes no apologies. “We are proud of the leadership the American private sector is taking in the reconstruction of Iraq,” he said.

<more>

[Stephanie]

16. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force

quote from above article - sorry ran out of room for quote marks

[Twist_U_Up]

5. Great Catch recommended

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. "Do not destroy oil wells"

"And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_031703.html

re-reading the entire speech is... :cry:

[Dinocrat]

9. 9/11 was such a farce...........

It makes connecting these dots much easier. I had my suspicions that BushCo was behind 9/11 as soon as I heard those terrorists were Saudis. This is a great piece of the puzzle, hopefully we can get those energy policy documents released! I wonder if we'll see representatives from India at some these meetings and similar resource maps of Indonesia and Thailand. I've heard that since the "earthquake-caused" tsunami there have been American oil/gas prospectors imbedded with some of the Red Cross personnel. We'll see if history repeats itself.

[slor]

10. Good find...will Conyers discuss...

this, it certainly adds to the drive to illegal war.

[Coexist]

11. I hope so

anyone know if this is part of his press package for today?

On another note - the Downing Street hearings were the opening blather on the news from Imus this morning.

[cyberpj]

12. Nominated -- and thanks for bringing it back again -- there's so much

it's hard to keep a handle on all the evidence. Hopefully, once there's a real investigation (oh please let there be one) we can all empty out our coffers and backup files to one source. And won't they be overwhelmed by what we know?

[CantGetFooledAgain]

13. Recommended. To me, THIS is the smoking gun.

The DSM points to the "what" and the "how": Bush and Blair fixed the facts to justify invading Iraq. What's missing from the DSM is the "why": to steal Iraq's oil (among other reasons, but that by itself is enough).

What is needed is solid proof that this was the plan all along. And that proof, I'm convinced, is somehere in the unreleased Cheney energy policy documents. Were any agreements made on how to divvy up the oil under the ground of a sovereign nation? Were any promises made that an invasion would take place? These are high crimes.

And most importantly: how does 9/11 tie into all of this?

[holboz]

14. Operation Iraqi Liberation! (OIL)

I remember seeing this map last year during a late, late night session in Congress...part of a presentation by some Democratic members. I can't remember if it was in the House or Senate or even who the presnters were. But they called it "Operation Iraqi Liberation" and my jaw dropped, as did my husband's. We both predicted that MSM would not bring this up at all.

On Edit: spelling

[Karenina]

20. *blivet 'splains

[kitkat65]

30. Brilliant n/t

[paineinthearse]

15. BUT...BUT...BUT...this is OLD NEWS

Corporate media did not cover it then, it's too old to be brought up today. Nothing to see here, move along!

[formercia]

24. Ausweiss Bitte

lol

[katinmn]

17. Cheney is a real-life Mr. Burns

Can't wait to see him behind bars!

[radfringe]

18. it's what I've been saying since bush inc. was selected

with Nixon and his plumbers it was FOLLOW THE MONEY

with the bushies it's FOLLOW THE OIL SLICK!

[stubtoe]

19. Hot Stuff!

THANKS for posting this.

[Gregorian]

21. And remember- Executive Order 13303.

This gave the oil companies imunity. It paved the way for virtually "anything goes", in my limited knowledge of it.

http://www.earthrights.org/news/eo13303.shtml

[Al-CIAda]

22. Yes sir -good post. Rec'd & kick.

[Maddy McCall]

23. If you look at the plat above, it's easy to see that the oil fields were..

the main consideration in the entry of US forces. We entered from the south, and secured oil fields along the way. How anyone can say that this war is not about oil is beyond me.

[joanski0]

25. Well, way back when, I heard Rummy

testify before a Senate Committee that we didn't want anybody's oil and we didn't want anybody's territory. Another crime! Lying to Congress -- again.

[Toots]

36. We secured every oil field first thing but never did secure nuclear facili

Now there is radiation problems all over Iraq "from plundered radio-active material" they say. And I thought nuclear material was the purpose for the invasion and occupation, silly me.

[wiggs]

26. More early 2001 Iraq oil stuff

Two notes I have from a while ago regarding capturing Iraqi oil:

Paraphrase from New Yorker Magazine: Cheney apparently advocated intervention in Iraq well before 9/11. A recently unearthed memo (from early 2001) reflects direction from Cheney for the National Security Commission to coordinate with his new Energy Task Force (the one that was secret and that he refuses to discuss) in the effort to MELD TWO PREVIOUSLY DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS: 1) DEALING WITH ROGUE STATES AND 2) CAPTURE OF NEW AND EXISTING OIL AND GAS FIELDS.

Price of Loyalty, Suskind (p 96): By early 2000, Rumsfeld already mapped Iraq’s oil fields and developed a list of potentially interested companies and countries in sharing oil production, Iraq planning was underway within a month of election.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Thank you, Earl

Any plans to invade Iraq prior to September 11 have to be considered nebulous, but just exactly why Mr. Cheney pulled out this map at a meeting of his energy task force, which comprised of energy corporation executives, is an intriguing question.

The neoconservative agenda, which is detailed on the website for the Prohect for the New American Century (PNAC), involves US total dominance in three spheres: economic, military and political. Such a bold agenda presumes that the mission of the military goes somewhere beyond national defense: it must be able to defend American control of economic resources beyond the borders of the United States; keep friendly regimes propped up, even at the expense of the welfare of the people whom the regime governs; and, if necessary, seize resources by force when all else fails.

I, for one, believe Osama bin Laden is responsible for the coordinated attack on two US targets on September 11, 2001; however, I also believe that the neoconservatives would like to send him a dozen roses for the service he inadvertently provided them. A PNAC document stated that it would take a "catastrophic and cataclysmic event--like a new Pearl Harbor" (in this PDF document at page 63) to galvanize Americans into retooling the military according to their vision. No one can dispute that the September 11 attack was that event.

On the other hand, the goals put forth in the PNAC document to which I linked don't present any good solutions to the problem of preventing a repeat of the kind of catastrophic and cataclysmic event that took place three and a half years ago. A spiffy new missile defense system isn't going to stop a small band of fanatics armed with box cutters from hijacking a passenger jet and plunging it into an office building. It may, however, be useful to threaten a potential economic or military rival into submission.

Consequently, it was necessary to morph Osama into something else. He had to become Saddam, a brutal dictator sitting on the world's third largest reserve of oil. Saddam may not have had a hand in the September 11 attack, but he was a villain out of central casting.

There is ample evidence to show that the Bush regime never really wanted to go after Osama, but respond to the attacks of September 11 by going directly after Saddam. Prime Minister Blair may have performed one good service to the world in his otherwise unfortunate alliance with the tyrant Bush by persuading Bush to attack Afghanistan before Iraq. Why on earth did Bush need persuaded? Osama, the criminal we needed to bring to justice, was in Afghanistan.

The terrorist attack of September 11 was a flimsy excuse for invading Iraq. Ousting Saddam from power was a goal not even remotely related to the war on terror. It was also a betrayal of the American people and of US national security; we are still at risk from Osama, but were never at risk from Saddam.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Kick

:bounce:

[blm]

29. And they refused to read the HartRudman Report on Global Terror handed to

them on Jan 30, 2001.

They ALLOWED the murder of 3000 American cirizens so they could have the excuse to invade Iraq and take its oil for their robber baron oil cronies.

[proud patriot]

31. looking at this listening to the witnesses at the DSM hearing

I need to have a primal scream or something .

[AuntiBush]

32. Cheney was MORE Interested in the OIL then WMD! They're ya go.

What more do people need. This backs-up the "DSM" documents. No wonder they "fixed around the policy..."

How much more of our troops deaths do we allow to get the MSN to get this stuff on the air!?! Because what you state is absolutely correct: Our numb-nut media stations "know" more then 50% watch Faux/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN and believe still Saddam is connected to 9/11.

Note: C-SPAN 2 will re-air the radio conference from today's "DSM" meeting Friday night, 8:00 pm EST.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1554832

[AuntiBush]

33. That Explains This Today: House Might Take Away Whistleblower Protection

House lawmakers spar over whistleblower protections...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1554902

[dpbrown]

34. Thank you for promoting this link

I've been saying all along that Cheney and Bush decided to invade Iraq illegally before they were even sworn into office. The Iraq division maps and now the DSM memos prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[realFedUp]

35. Maybe we need a new forum

that connects all the dots on the pre-planning
of the invasion...timeline etc.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Evening bump

:bounce:

[Blue_Roses]

38. kick

:kick:

[Scout1071]

39. March 2001? I've had enough. IMPEACH NOW.

[Synnical]

40. I think Palast connected the dots

Edit for detail

February 2001 - Only one month after the first Bush-Cheney inauguration, the State Department's Pam Quanrud organizes a secret confab in California to make plans for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. US oil industry advisor Falah Aljibury and others are asked to interview would-be replacements for a new US-installed dictator.

On BBC Television's Newsnight, Aljibury himself explained,

"It is an invasion, but it will act like a coup. The original plan was to liberate Iraq from the Saddamists and from the regime."

March 2001 - Vice-President Dick Cheney meets with oil company executives and reviews oil field maps of Iraq. Cheney refuses to release the names of those attending or their purpose. Harper's has since learned their plan and purpose -- see below.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=437&row=0

[EarlG]

42. Yup - I saw that

It's what prompted me to go dig up the documents again.

[Nothing Without Hope]

41. thank you. Bookmarking. Will recommend if still time. n/t