I am going to agree with Julia here and finish my response to Dan about Iraq.
On 12/7/05, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Um, would it have anything to do with the energy companies in question > having "helped" write the "deregulation" legislation in CA? (Doug?) > > Julia > > possibly about to regret getting into this Yeah, I regret getting back into the Iraq part. >>I am not sure what you mean here. >>Which of my statement are you denying or feel my views are incorrect. >>That most of the Cheney team - shorthand - did not plan for years to >>take over Iraq? >The strongest paper that I saw at the project for a new American Century >suggested that we actively support a rebellion in Iraq...up to the point of >preventing a slaughter if the Republican guards attacked the rebellion. There was a seperate report that supposes or proposes that a "new Pearl Harbor" would galvanize Americans toward their goals. You seem to be unaware of Wolfowitz presenting a proposal before Congress calling for the invasion of Iraq's Southern oil fields in 1998 purely for the oil for the US. "Wolfowitz long advocated for the Iraq invasion, partly on the basis that Saddam Hussein controlled a lot of the world's oil. In 1998, he advocated the creation of a "liberated zone" in Southern Iraq, and the creation of a "provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes," in testimony before Congress. "Saddam's supporters in the Security Council—in particular France and Russia—would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq. "" The neo-cons were interested in Iraq for oil, not as a commercial product but as a strategic commodity. There has been a series of reports with the usual suspects names on them advocating this precise policy since not the 90's but since the 70's. > >That Cheney did not meet with the oil company executives before the > >war began to divvy up oil contracts for Iraq? > > I don't think that happened. OK i already answered this part of Dan's incredible post earlier by citing 3 domestic reputable sources, two Bush administration officials and the BBC and providing links to the maps. I also provided four books titles .No response from him, but moving on... >>That the CPA was intent on securing American long term contracts? >The members of the CPA were mainly concerned with bugging out. <snip> An independent groups that monitors UN foreign policy issues has a large collection of news articles on US contracts in Iraq. They start with "This report, by the Institute of Policy Studies, investigates the "revolving door" between the Bechtel Group and the Reagan administration that drove US policy towards Iraq in the 1980s. The authors argue that many of the same actors are back today, justifying military action against Iraq and waiting to reap the benefits of post-war reconstruction." and continue... "The Bush administration has added to the profound international divisions surrounding the US war against Iraq by deciding to invite only American companies to bid on contracts for the "rebuilding" of Iraq. Several of the companies that have been invited to bid have important connections to the Bush administration, the Republican Party, and the Pentagon. (New York Times) " "Richard Perle's resignation as chairman of the Defense Policy Board raises questions about US economic involvement in postwar Iraq. According to a report by the Center for Public Integrity, at least 10 of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board are executives or lobbyists with companies who have contracts with the US Defense Department and other government agencies. (Guardian) " "According to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years. Two members of Congress have asked the General Accounting Office to investigate how the Bush administration is awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. (New York Times) " Halliburton and its KBR subsidiary received Iraqi oil field contracts without competitive bidding... Bechtel Group won the contract to rebuild Iraq without open competitive bidding.... A contract to improve Iraq's public health system was awarded to a research and consulting firm, Abt Associates Inc, from Massachusetts....Halliburton's KBR, closely linked to Vice President Dick Cheney, was given exclusive contracts in Iraq, including renovating presidential palace to be used by the US. The company was also given the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program that will "set up, cater to and care for the Iraq-based officials and it has no cost ceiling." ... A Washington report lays out the groundwork for potential contractors and outlines the steps that will launch Iraq as a test case for exporting neoliberal economic models to the Middle East....Members of the Iraqi Governing Council expressed grave concern over the $1.2 billion cost of police training in Iraq and the list of sub-contractors approved by Bechtel... According to Christian Aid, the Coalition Provisional Authority has accounted for only one fifth of Iraq reconstruction funds.... On the first day of the [Iraq Development] Fund's existence, May 22, 2003, US President George Bush issued an Executive Order that seems to formalize "crony capitalism" in Iraq by substantially protecting US oil corporations.... The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has been unable to account for billions of dollars transferred by the UN to the Development Fund for Iraq. Furthermore, the CPA has stymied the work of the International Advisory Monitoring Board (IAMB) created to provide transparency... The law firm headed by former US Secretary of State James Baker will "restructure" Iraq's debts. Greg Palast points out that the US-influenced Iraqi Governing Council made the appointment, thereby preventing the US Congress from demanding accountability... .Funds for the reconstruction and development of Iraq will pay for 26 contracts in the electricity, oil and water sectors, but the Pentagon will not permit French, Russian and German firms to take part.... and I'll stop with a partial listing just through 2003. There is a long article there recently on the total inappropriateness and the looting of Iraq by the US forcing Production Sharing Agreements for the oil contracts. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/contractindex.htm http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm BTW, Republicans voted as a bloc against any oversight on Pentagon spending for Iraq and Afghanistan through the first two supplementals. It wasn't until the third supplemental, and constituents throwing hissy fits over run away spending, that some oversight amendments were finally added - after the damage had been done. >>That profit considerations are not a higher concern for companies than >>overall US economic and foreign policy? >That's probably true. So, why would they support an action that would cut >their profits? That's the part of the claim that totally baffles me. Because it is a strategic imperative for the neocon's, an article of faith, that the US must control the oil and that while the oil industry as a whole would be hurt with more oil available specific companies would make up for it with new oil infrastructure contracts and all would at least have a secure US controlled source. >>What are you saying I am you all are dead wrong about. Very often I >>feel we are talking past each other. >That the war in Iraq would have a positive effect on the profits of oil >companies and oil service firms. Everyone thought that, if Iraq's >production were to get back on line, oil companies would be hurt. You basically agree with Jim Lobe, your opposite in politics but who argues it was strategic considerations that drove the US Middle East oil policy even as oil companies fretted about excess production. -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 Houston Party Dec. 17 - http://elemming.blogspot.com "The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C. Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
