The most electric snippet that has so far come out of ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's revelations of the workings of the Bush National Security council was mentioned in the Financial Times today:
"And Mr O'Neill's criticism has underscored the image of the oilman-turned-president with an unhealthily close relationship with corporate America. He has revealed to Mr Susskind [the author of the newly-published The Price of Loyalty] thousands of pages of documents, including a Pentagon memo entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" dated more than a year [my emphasis] before the start of the Iraqi war -- that includes a list of foreign companies eyeing Iraqi oilfields and it maps potential areas of exploration."
I have been writing for over two years now on the Internet that the only plausible (and powerful enough) reason for the American invasion of Iraq was the rich, but as yet undeveloped, oilfields of northern Iraq. And at times I have felt rather lonely -- even though I was not, of course the only one to believe this.
But, surely, "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" is the smoking gun. (I imagine that there was an imaginary subtitle to this: "After US oil corporations have had first pick.") Will it be permissable now for the next batch of thousands of articles to be written about the Iraqi invasion, and the hundreds of speeches and press statements by US and UK politicians in the coming year or so, to mention the word "oil" just once or twice?
Keith Hudson
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
