At 01:09 22/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
Keith,
You are dreadfully wrong.
I should mention that LUKoil began their investment in 1997 with $3.8 billion - not nearly enough for what had to be done, but they were expecting others to join the investment. They couldn't do anything however because of UN restrictions.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
The story that hasn't been told yet is why Bush Senior and Kissinger were in St Petersburg just at the precise moment when all the Russian oil corporations were meeting there. The day after they returned from Moscow, Bremmer was suddenly recalled from Baghdad. What other inference is there that Bush knew he was no longer able to develop the oilfields in Iraq? The US and UK oil corporations had already turned him down. (And, of course, the French and the Chinese won't yet despite their previous contracts with Saddam until a legit government is in place.)
So, let's not give the impression that something was in full throttle - only slowed by the Iraqi situation. I suspect that now they want to get some use out of their (up to now)wasted $3.8.
Wasn't Bush's major speech a triumph! He spoke without a teleprompter (I think you call it an AutoCue, or something).
No! He had a script.
He also refused a beer in a British pub which is practically sacrilegious,
He had a beer -- of the non-alcoholic sort! Even more sacrilegious!
That must have been hard for him to do, Keith, as you've mentioned in the past that he'll return to drink and drugs at the first opportunity
I think he will in due course -- but not when he's being comforted by his best friend in the world. Now he's back in Washington Bush's dilemma will now intensify because, as Control Risks Group have said recently, big business wants Bush to get out. (And these are bigger businesses than Bechtel!)
Oh, and you did notice the Guardian poll that found 47% of the Brits were for Blair and the war, whereas 41% were against. The Guardian is a left wing paper, but I remember when it was a first class Liberal publication.
I expected this partial reversal of the tide going against Blair and Bush when Bush was here. But the tide is turning back again. C;lare Short has already blamed Bush abd Blair for mishandling Iraq and increasing terrorism. Back-bench Labour hostility to Blair's policies is rising and there are some hints that the new Tory leader will go towards Ken Clarke's opposition to the present policy.
I think Bush will get out of Iraq far quicker than people presently realise.
All this in spite of the bias of Brit papers against Blair - and mightily against Bush. I saw a BBC Newsnight the other day. A lone American faced someone who had written a book on Americans and Bush, and Shirley Williams (My God she's still alive! Great!)
The "impartial" moderator dismissed what the American said as "his hobbyhorse". The American was intelligent and moderate, but that didn't help him. The moderator wanted blood.
The tenor of the program was anti-American and particularly anti-Bush (the Baroness was pretty fair) because they were working their particular scenario.
I've often wondered how a an impartial point of view can be sustained in Britain considering the outright bias of the Brit papers.
I'll grant you that Newsnight is against Bush, but there's no outright bias in the UK papers -- a slight one, no more. But I'm sure opposition will increase from now onwards.
Keith
Harry
******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 <http://haledward.home.comcast.net/>http://haledward.home.comcast.net ********************************************
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:49 AM
To: Ray Evans Harrell
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hamer is not an Ambassador (was Re: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
Ray,
Hamer is Paul Hamer, the US Civilian Administrator in Baghdad, whom Bush has taken to calling Ambassador Hamer recently. This, of course, is a total misnomer because there is no legitimate government in Iraq to whom Hamer could be an ambassador to.
Just as a rider to what I wrote below, I would expect that there'll be some relative quietude for a day or two while the Governing Council mull over the message that Hamer has brought back with him from Bush (which is: "What the hell do I do now? It's up to you guys to pull something out of the hat.").
Of course, the Governing Council won't call for elections for a Constitutional Council in order to establish the ground rules for a General Election as Grand Ayatollah Sistani is calling for because it will produce a Shia majority -- and thus, probably a Shia government, which is the last thing that the Americans (or the Governing Council) would want. So they'll dither.
There are, of course, spies on the Governing Council despite being hand-picked by the Americans. When Wolfowitz went secretly to Baghdad a week ago, he didn't stir from the Al Rashid Hotel for security reasons, not did he even meet with the Governing Council. But Saddam's rockets almost got him all the same -- only one floor wrong. When the Council's state of dither and full extent of Bush's dilemma becomes known to Saddam's henchmen and the other terrorist groups (though they have certainly already guessed this) then I think we can expect terrorism to be ramped up from then onwards in the Arab Sunni triangle.
It is obvious that the American Army has been instructed to find and destroy Saddam at all costs (as they are also trying to do for Osama in Afghanistan right now). Bush is desperate for some success like this even though it will not help the main problem. Whether the troops succeed or not, it is sure that they will further alienate the Iraqi people in Baghad and environs by their activities. I cannot foresee anything that could stabilise the beginnings of civil war now except a fairly immediate announcement of an early General Election -- which, as suggested above, is exceedingly unlikely.
Now that the US, UK oil corporations and LUKoil will not move in and start developing the oilfields in northern Iraq, Bush has absolutely no more arrows in his quiver. He is on a hiding to nothing. This is very apparent in his conversations and announcements (as with Frost today). He hasn't got a complete sentence in his head. He can only refer in a jerky sort of way about the support of his only friend in the world -- Tony Blair. Except for a few Republican Senators, I think he will soon have almost no support from anybody at the highest levels of the American government and administration except his own immediate circle. He will be impeached or dethroned pretty soon I would guess. There's no other way out for the credibility of America. Putin can get away with these sorts of antics in what is still a totalitarian state, but surely not in America! Or am I dreadfully wrong?
Keith Hudson
At 09:06 14/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:Keith, who is Hamer?
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Keith Hudson
To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:17 AM
Subject: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
During the invasion, or a little beforehand (I forget now), I ventured the possibility on FW that Saddam would be a president long after Bush is not.
This is looking a little more possible now. At this moment I would love to be able to read the morning newpsapers in Baghdad because what at least two or three of them will be saying is that the Americans are about to flee Iraq (Ed: the Americans' hasty departure will be the only way in which Iraq will be similar to Vietnam!).
Although this is not his intent, Hamer will be effectively handing over power to the Iraqi Governing Council this morning. They will not want to write a constitution because (a) it will delay elections for a government until at least the spring or the summer; (b) it will probably be impossible anyway. I think it is slightly more likely that the IGC will assume -- or try to assume -- the powers of a Provisional Government and rule by decree.
But whether they do, or whether they fall out among themselves, I think this is when the civil war will start. That is, this morning. From last night, American troops are already desperately trying a last attempt to find and kill Saddam. It is possible that they might succeed. It seems slightly more possible that they will not. We are seeing TV clips in this country of American troops acting atrociously in rough-handling women and children in their own homes. But this will be a brief episode because they will be overtaken by events.
I think from today we will probably see the beginning of the emergence of armed militias of all sorts -- Sunni, Shia and Saddam+Fedayeen+Arab tribes -- as the American troops retreat behind barricades in their compounds and are then shunted out of the country by helicopter. This will be the first time that RPGs will not be fired at American helicopters because they'll be in too much use between militias on the ground.
Bush and Cheney have already been humiliated by the refusal of US and UK oil corporations and LUKoil to start oil development. His humiliation is about to be complete during the next few weeks. Goodbye George W. There'll be no library erected in your honour. Even in Texas.
Keith Hudson
P.S. Yesterday, on Pulteney Bridge in town, I was (courteously) accosted by four Americans who desired me to tell them where they could obtain a traditional pub lunch. In return, it was refreshing to hear what they thought about Bush, garnished by the fact that they were Texans! Yes, four live Texans in Bath! So I told them the old anti-Texan joke we tell over here that if they ever see a 50ft long red pantechnicon, ladders on the top, with bells jangling and roaring down the street, it was not a fire engine but a window-cleaner's van. We departed fom one each other in high spirits and I hope they had a fine lunch.
K
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 311636; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
