Kucinich says it on the House floor thursday: Soldiers dying for oil.

[jazzjunkysue]

KUCINICH: "Is it possible that our troops are dying for the profits of oil? "


PRIVATIZATION OF IRAQI OIL RESOURCES -- (House of Representatives - December 07, 2006)


GPO's PDF
--- (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has cited oil as a reason for our continued presence in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group is recommending that Iraq oil law be changed to facilitate privatization of Iraq's oil resources. The Iraq report says as much as 500,000 barrels per day, that is $1.3 billion per year in Iraqi oil wealth, is now being stolen, which is interesting since the oil ministry is the first place our troops were sent after the invasion. And we have 140,000 troops in Iraq.

How can we expect the end of the Iraq war and national reconciliation in Iraq while we advocate that Iraq's oil wealth be handled by private oil companies? And it is ironic that this report comes at the exact time that our Interior Department's Inspector General says that oil companies are cheating us, the U.S. people, out of billions of dollars and the administration is looking the other way. Is it possible that Secretary Baker has a conflict of interest, which should have precluded him from co-chairing a study group which promotes privatization of Iraq oil assets, given his ties to the oil industry? Is it possible that our troops are dying for the profits of oil?

[Make7]

1. Is it possible? It is not only possible, it is the primary reason.

Gotta love Kucinich - he is so often at the forefront in saying the things that need to be said.

Somewhat related:

I remember an interview that James Baker did with Frontline a few years back about Saudi Arabia, he basically stated that oil is the primary American interest in the Middle East. Here is the quote that stood out for me from that interview:

"Why are we their [Saudi Arabia's] security? We're their security because we have a self-interest in making sure that those energy reserves in the Persian Gulf don't fall under the control of a country that is adverse to the United States.

As I told you, I worked for four administrations under three presidents. And in every one of those, our policy was that we would go to war to protect the energy reserves in the Persian Gulf. That is a major and very significant national security interest that we have."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/baker.html

Of course the previous two Presidents were not so dumb as to actually invade Iraq in order to overthrow Saddam and protect those oil interests. Perhaps they realized that taking things from people at the point of a gun is not as simple as it looks on paper.

- Make7

[thingfisher]

17. As I told you,

I worked for four administrations under three presidents. And in every one of those, our policy was that we would go to war to protect the energy reserves in the Persian Gulf.

That is a lot of years of policy. All during those years since the 70's the US could have been setting priorities for alternate energy sources, higher fuel economy (I mean real effort), bio-deisel, etc. But for some reason (big oil interests) this was never seriously persued, thus leaving us totally dependent on foreign oil imports for our survival.

That's what we get when big oil dictates policy for their benefit rather than policy being set by the people for the people and the general welfare of the country. And the beat goes on.

[EVDebs]

19. So you saw the end of the movie Three Days of The Condor ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Days_of_the_CondorThree Days of The Condor

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo

Lizette Alvarez, New York Times

Friday, January 2, 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

Substitute 'Iraq' for 'Saudi Arabia' and voila !

The sad part of this story is that, in real life, the NY Times doesn't print the story....

[jazzjunkysue]

27. Right. We didn't need to occupy Iraq to secure the oil. We were securing the price.

Every time Saddam opened up the tap, the price would drop, screwing with the OPEC price and all the business surrounding it. The oil was available. We wanted the price to rise and stay there. That's why we invaded.

[jarab]

2. Admirable rhetorical questions from Kucunich. n/t

...O...

[nolabels]

3. The plain ugly truth

Exxon Mobil Profits, Consumer Gas Prices Near Record Highs


By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.Com

July 27, 2006

Exxon Mobil has made more than $20 billion in profits in just six months. The world's largest publicly traded company reported a near-record quarterly profit of $10.36 billion on top of the record $10.7 billion quarterly profit the oil company reported three months ago.

The enormous profit surprised even Wall Street as analysts there were expecting $9.9 billion from Exxon Mobil.
(snip)
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/exxon_profits.html

[annabanana]

4. If "Civics" was on the SAT,

Would people watch their employees in Congress, do you think?

[Danascot]

5. Once that may have been true

The hope of locking up the region's oil for US companies has failed. Now our young men and women simply are giving their lives because the psycho-resident in the WH can't admit he made a mistake. Is it worth the lives of our children so this asshole can save face? (... and BTW, it's not even working.)

[Printer70]

18. Yeah

I agree, it may have been an early motivator, but now its more hard-headed stuborness about not backing down. Beating the "blood for oil" drum, believe it or not, alienates moderates, who just don't buy it. Kucinich, while noble in his cause, will invite criticisms of demeaning the soldiers' sacrifice in Iraq. The emphasis should be: Americans are dying, Iraqis are dying, Iraqis want us to leave, and we're only making the situations worse. We need to leave.

[LWolf]

6. How many of his fellow Democrats are ready

to confront big oil? Anybody else out there willing to stand with him?

[Beam Me Up]

9. It's going to take a LOT of people standing to confront not only big oil

but big banking. How many people are willing to go into that fight? I live meagerly now but a lot of people don't and they want to maintain their life style. I think everyone knows on some level that 'standing up' means changing the way we live -- and THAT is a big part of the problem. No one wants to risk that because they fear they're going to be worse off afterward than they are now. I don't happen to share that opinion BUT, to an extent it is true. SOME people will have less than they had before and they, however consciously is debatable, don't want to risk that. It's all me me me, my my my, mine mine mine -- and all of us can relate to that at least to some degree.

[LWolf]

16. I can relate.

I would just like to reserve my political support for those with the courage to move forward and work for needed change anyway.

Perhaps if the masses who stand to benefit from standing up to big oil, big banking, big money, big corporations were to ALL reserve their support for those with the courage to do so, we might find more reps willing?

[MadHound]

7. This is why I like Kucinich for president, he tells the truth.

A rather refreshing concept in a politician, and a real shame that our other "more electable":eyes: candidates seem to have absolutely no ability to do the same.

[robinlynne]

8. I love it when people speak the truth.

Funny how simple honesty is just so very refreshing. It has become so rare.

[FredStembottom]

10. Exactly, robinlynne!

Little, simple sentences that buck you up like nothing else.
That's honesty.

So potent that it can be "administered" by anyone - reporter, gas station attendant, even senator - and it still has that bracing, refreshing effect.

:hi:

[Strelnikov_]

11. Specifically, It Is About Peak Oil

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2881626&mesg_id=2881626

[malaise]

12. Kick for truth

It was always about oil.

[Strelnikov_]

13. More Wisdom From Darth Cheney . .

From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world often greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow..

- Cheney At London Institute of Petroleum, 1999

[Strelnikov_]

14. Article From '04 That Addresses 'Big Oils' Need To Penetrate The NOC's

Following is an older article that sums up the motives of ‘Big Oil’ and their Quislings in politics regarding the NOC’s.

Today, state-owned companies (NOC’s) control the vast majority of the world's oil resources. The major international oil companies control a mere 4 per cent.

Crude Dudes
The Toronto Star
Sep. 20, 2004

http://www.energybulletin.net/2156.html

. . .

Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

. . .

One reason that regime change in Iraq was seen as offering significant benefits for Big Oil was that it promised to open up a treasure chest which had long been sealed — private ownership of Middle Eastern oil. A small group of major international oil companies once privately owned the oil industries of the Middle East. But that changed in the 1970s when most Middle Eastern countries (and some elsewhere) nationalized their oil industries. Today, state-owned companies control the vast majority of the world's oil resources. The major international oil companies control a mere 4 per cent.

The majors have clearly prospered in the new era, as developers rather than owners, but there's little doubt that they'd prefer to regain ownership of the oil world's Garden of Eden. "(O)ne of the goals of the oil companies and the Western powers is to weaken and/or privatize the world's state oil companies," observes New York-based economist Michael Tanzer, who advises Third World governments on energy issues.

. . .

[maryallen]

15. Thank you, Rep. Kucinich for speaking TRUTH TO POWER!

Oh, that we had a hundred more just like you ...

[Jcrowley]

20. K & R n/t

[L0oniX]

21. Gee someone just woke up huh ...DOH!

stupid ass carrots

[noise]

22. IMO, not just oil though that is a large factor.

1) MIC.

2) Oil.

3) Corporate globalization.

4) Crime networks...drugs, weapons, money laundering and terrorism.

Bush has played the role of ignorant, stubborn front man since day 1. The difference now is that the corporate media and authoritarian right wing pundits cannot successfully spin the reality in Iraq. So propping up their heroic pal W doesn't play anymore. However, their propaganda is still working because Bush is still in office. If we take the narrative at face value (Bush's incompetence led to the situation in Iraq), it is astonishing that Bush hasn't been pressured into resigning.

Of course, I would argue that incompetence is BS. The occupation policy (implemented by Bremer) fed the insurgency. Meaning, the civilian chain of command betrayed the military and the Iraqi people. What we are now seeing is a shameless attempt to get the oil regardless of the consequences (paid in blood by American soldiers and Iraqi citizens)..."Sure, we got greedy (by valuing profiteering over stability) but dammit we really, really want the proceeds from all that oil."

PNAC (ideology) and incompetence (from "the decider") have been used (quite successfully) to fool some of the public. I agree with Greg Palast's theme in Armed Madhouse. This was a class war.

Nothing noble about the intent of those who came up with the Iraq policy.

[buddysmellgood]

23. Oh Dennis! Stop that tin-foil-hat conspiracy stuff. We just want Iraqi babies to

live in the free and tolerant society that George Bush grew up in. Now stop that silly slandering and go to sleep.

[nannah]

24. Kucinich is a giant of a man eom

[MasonJar]

25. Thank you, Dennis

[jazzjunkysue]

26. Wow! 23 votes! Yikes! n/t.

[IWantPeace]

28. 500,000 barrels per day, that is $1.3 billion per year in Iraqi oil wealth, is now being stolen,

yikes!

Isn't Halliburton pumping the oil unmetered, because the meter has been broken the entire time they have been there?

When one steps back and really looks at what we have done here...attacking an innocent nation for their oil....hundreds of thousands dead and horribly maimed....depleted uranium spread all throughout their country....there are no words.....