Isreali op? Well I somehow agree that it is very unlikely this lady
tells more than she is meant to tell. Greg Palast portrait of her is
not more a caricature. I somehow see her laughing reading it:

But beside that Kris seems to have read a different article. No doubt
oil does matter in these games. It's a part of the power plays. What
is the real interest of the religious players, I am not talking about
the things they tell their sheep.

These circles consider it a much older strategy:


> Greg Palast is an Israeli op, and an Israeli gatekeeper on the left.
 How do we know this:
>   1. He goes to great pains not to discuss the key neoconservative
players behind the Iraq War and World War III -- Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Commentary, JINSA, AEI,
WINEP, AIPAC and hundreds of other key neocons and neocon think tanks
and media outlets.
>   2. He fails to explain why the mainstream media, especially media
outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post, promoted the
Iraq War so heavily without any calculations of oil profits in mind. 
How are Thomas Friedman, Judith Miller and Charles Krauthammer
connected to oil interests?  They are not.  They are heavily connected
to Israeli interests.
>   3. He fails to provide any specific facts and documentation about
the role of the oil industry in promoting the Iraq War, the Iran War,
the Syria War, World War III, World War IV and all the rest.  He
merely speculates.
>   4. He fails to explain why Bush 41 interests, which are intimately
tied to oil interests, have opposed neoconservative warmongering in
the Middle East.
>   Greg Palast is working for Israeli interests, no doubt for
intensely emotional reasons.  His analysis of Mideast politics is
highly unreliable.
> Let's see if Kris Millegan can answer the four points above with any
reliable facts and logical arguments.  Since he is unfamiliar with the
history of conflict between realists and neoconservatives in American
foreign policy in the Middle East,  which has played itself out in
hundreds of articles in scholarly journals over the last four or five
decades, it doesn't seem likely.
> RoadsEnd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>           Howdy folks,    
>   Here is a major troll trick that is used to hijack a thread and
slow down the spread of information.
>   Stripped the original message and adding "noise."
>   This "noise" although noble sounding, is a distraction. 
>   Why, because if you actually read the post  "Bobby Kennedy and
Greg Palast on Iraq," one finds information that is counter to the
"controlled dialectic" that is being used. 
>   Pro-Israel/Anti-Israel
>    One must choose a side.
>   Then if one is Pro-Israel they are Zionist.
>   And if one is a Zionist the support the neo-cons and official
story of 9-11.
>   The article  Bobby Kennedy and Greg Palast on Iraq includes
material from Palast new book that shows the oil companies are major
actors in the move to get rid of Sadam and the Iraq war. Why ? For
oil? No. To control the oil supply, ergo prices. 
>   The neo-cons are "oven-mitt" proxies. 
>   And Bush, Baker and Carlyle are laughing all the way to the bank
while the neo-cons take the heat.
>   Since the original article has been "stripped."
>   I am adding it back.
>   Please, read, if you want to truly understand and not just play
two-step games. 
>   Peace, 
>   K
>     On 3.8.2006 at 5:37 Greg Palast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   Greg Palast
>   August 3, 2006
>   … Bobby Kennedy and Palast on why Saddam had to go.
>   "This war in Iraq has been the best thing in the world for Big Oil
and OPEC. They've made the largest profits in the history of the
world. The interesting thing about your book is you show how it was
all planned from the beginning. The story is like a spy thriller." --
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
>   Listen to RFK and Greg Palast on Iraq, a 20-minute conversation
about blood and oil, the podcast of 'Ring of Fire' from Air America.
>   The following is part of the story referenced in their discussion:
>   by Greg Palast
>   Excerpt from 'Armed Madhouse'
>   The 323-page multi-volume "Options for Iraqi Oil" begins with the
expected dungeons-and-dragons warning:
>   The report is submitted on the understanding that [the
>   State Department] will maintain the contents confidential.
>   For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White
House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq's oil. They told us so
in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving
that, and getting a copy, became the near-to-pathologic obsession of
our team.
>   Our big break came when James Baker's factotum, Amy Jaffe, first
reached on her cell in Amsterdam, then at Baker's operation in
Houston, convinced herself that I had the right to know about the
plan. I saw no reason to correct her impression. To get the plan's
title I used a truly dumb trick, asking if her copy's headings matched
mine. She read it to me and listed its true authors from the industry.
>   The plan carries the State Department logo on the cover,
Washington DC. But it was crafted in Houston, under the tutelage of
the oil industry -- including, we discovered, Donald Hertzmark, an
advisor to the Indonesia state oil company, and Garfield Miller of
Aegis Energy, advisors to Solomon Smith Barney, all hosted by the
James A. Baker III Institute.
>   After a year of schmoozing, Jaffe invited me to the Baker lair in
>   The James A. Baker III Institute is constructed a bit like a
church or mosque, with a large echoing rotunda under a dome at its
center, encircled by memorabilia and photos of the Great Man himself
with the world's leaders, about evenly split between dictators and
>   And there is the obligatory shot of a smiling Nelson Mandela
shaking Baker III's hand. (Mandela is not so impolite as to remind Jim
that he was Reagan's Chief of Staff when Reagan coddled the regime
that kept Mandela imprisoned.)
>   For tax purposes, it's an educational institute, and looking
through the alarm-protected display cases along the wall was
unquestionably an education. You could virtually write the
recommendations of the 'Options for Iraqi Oil' report by a careful
inspection of the trinkets of Baker's travels among the powerful.
>   There is the golden royal robe given Baker by Kazakh strongman
Nazerbaev, the one who shared in the $51 million payment from
ExxonMobil -- a James A. Baker client -- and alongside it a jeweled
sword with a note from Nazerbaev, "Jim, there will always be a slice
for you." (I made that up.)
>   Who is this James A. Baker III that he rates a whole institute,
and one that will tell Iraq its oil future? Once Secretary of State to
Bush Sr., Baker was now promoted to consigliere to ExxonMobil, the
Republican National Committee and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
>   In Houston, I found in Jaffe a preppy, talky Jewish girl with a
Bronx accent like a dentist's drill who, stranded in a cowboy world,
poignantly wanted to be one of The Boys. She thinks she can accomplish
this through fashion accoutrements -- she showed me her alligator
cowboy boots and rolled her eyes -- "for Rodeo Day!"
>   Lucky for me and my (hidden) recorder, she did not learn from
Baker and the boys' Rule #1 for rulers: shut up.
>   So while Amy was in the mood to say too much, and before I got
into the details of Big Oil's plan for Iraq, I needed Amy's help in
finding the answer to the question that was just driving me crazy: why
did Saddam have to go? Why did the oil industry promote an invasion of
Iraq to get rid of Saddam?
>   The question is basic but the answer is not at all obvious.
>   We know the neo-cons' answer: Their ultimate target of the
invasion was Saudi Arabia, which would be cut low by a Free Iraq's
busting the OPEC oil cartel. But Big Oil wouldn't let that happen. The
neo-cons' scheme ended up an unnoted smear under
>   Amy's alligator boot heels.
>   And we can rule out Big Oil's desire for Iraq's oil as the
decisive motive to invade. The last thing the oil industry wanted from
Iraq in 2001 was a lot more oil.
>   Neither Saddam's affection for euro currency nor panic over oil
supply 'peaking' ruffled the international oil industry. What, then,
made Saddam, so easy to hug in the 1980s, unbearable in the 1990s?
>   Saddam had to go, but why?
>   Amy told me they held meetings about it.
>   Beginning just after Bush's Florida 'victory' in December 2000,
the shepherds of the planet's assets got together to plan our energy
future under the weighty aegis of the "Joint Task Force on Petroleum
of the James A. Baker III Institute and the Council on Foreign
Relations." The master plan makers included Paul Bremer's and
Kissinger's partner, Mack McLarty, CEO of Kissinger McLarty
Associates; John Manzoni of British Petroleum; Luis Giusti, former CEO
of the Venezuelan state oil company (until Hugo Chavez kicked him
out); Ken Lay of Enron (pre-indictment); Philip Verleger of the
National Petroleum Council, and other movers and shakers crucial to
such bi-partisan multi-continental group gropes -- all chaired by Dr.
Edward Morse, the insider's insider, from Hess Oil Trading.
>   Their final report detailed Saddam's crimes. Gassing Kurds and
Iranians? No. James A. Baker was the Reagan Chief of Staff when the
U.S. provided Saddam the intelligence to better target his chemical
weapons. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not since this crowd stopped
selling him the components.
>   In the sanitary words of the Council on Foreign Relations' report
(written up by Jaffe herself), Saddam's problem was that he was a
>   Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability
>   to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential in-
>   fluence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key
>   "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S.
>   government.
>   Now hold on a minute: Why is our government in a "difficult"
position if Iraq is a "swing producer" of oil?
>   The answer was that Saddam was jerking the oil market up and down.
One week, without notice, the man in the moustache suddenly announces
he's going to "support the Palestinian intifada" and cuts off all oil
shipments. The result: Worldwide oil prices jump up. The next week,
Saddam forgets about the Palestinians and pumps to the maximum allowed
under the Oil-for-Food Program. The result: Oil prices suddenly
dive-bomb. Up, down, up, down. Saddam was out of control.
>   "Control is what it's all about," one oilman told me. "It's not
about getting the oil, it's about controlling oil's price."
>   So, within days of Bush's election in November 2000, the James
Baker Institute issued this warning:
>   In a market with so little cushion to cover unexpected
>   events, oil prices become extremely sensitive to perceived
>   supply risks. Such a market increases the potential lever-
>   age of an otherwise lesser producer such as Iraq...
>   I met with Falah Aljibury, an advisor to Goldman Sachs, the
Baker/CFR group and, I discovered, host to the State Department's
invasion planning meetings in February 2001. The Iraqi-born industry
man put it this way: "Iraq is not stable, a wild card." Saddam cuts
production, or suddenly boosts it, playing games with the U.N. over
the Oil-for-Food Program. The tinpot despot was, almost alone, setting
the weekly world price of oil and Big Oil did not care for that. In
the CFR's sober language:
>   Saddam is a "destabilizing influence... to the flow of oil
>   to international markets from the Middle East."
>   With Saddam out of control, jerking markets up and down, the price
of controlling the price was getting just too high. Saddam drove the
oil boys bonkers. For example, Saddam's games pushed the State
Department, disastrously, to launch, in April 2002, a coup d'etat in
>   This could not stand. Saddam delighted in playing cat-and-mouse
with the USA and our oil majors. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't
playing with mice, but a much bigger and unforgiving breed of rodents.
>   Saddam was asking for it. It was time for a "military assessment."
The CFR concluded:
>   Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to
>   threaten to use the oil weapon to manipulate oil mar-
>   kets... United States should conduct an immediate pol-
>   icy review toward Iraq, including military, energy,
>   economic, and political/diplomatic assessments.
>   The true motive to invade Iraq, Saddam's "manipulation of oil
markets," was there, but not yet, in April 2001, the official excuse.
>   Not surprisingly, the desires of the "Project for a New American
Century," the neo-con field of dreams, of remaking Arabia, was not in
the Baker Institute-CFR plan. However, the conclusion, Saddam must go,
matched the neo-con's policy demand, if for highly different reasons.
The Baker-CFR panel had a limited concern: Get rid of the jerk, the
guy yanking the market.
>   Morse was close-lipped about who saw and used the 2001 Baker-CFR
report, but Amy Jaffe could not help telling me that Morse reported
its conclusions in a briefing at the Pentagon.
>   More important, back in early 2001, the initial Baker-CFR report
(another participant tipped me) was handed directly to Vice President
Dick Cheney. Cheney met secretly with CFR task force members
(including Ken Lay) to go over the maps of Iraq's oil fields. That,
apparently, sealed it. Cheney took the CFR/Baker recommendations as
his own plan for dissecting Iraq, I'm told, beginning with the
none-too-thinly-veiled take-out-Saddam "assessment."
>   And whose plan was it? I knew the membership of the Baker-CFR
group was Big Oil and its retainers. But I was curious to know who put
up the cash for drafting the extravagant report that was so protective
of OPEC and Saudi interests. This document was, after all, the outline
on which the Bush administration drew its grand design for energy,
from Iraq to California to Venezuela. According to Jaffe, the cost of
this exercise in Imperialism Lite was funded by "the generous support
of Khalid al-Turki" of Saudi Arabia.
>   **********
>   Excerpt adapted from Greg Palast's just-released New York Times
bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats
Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other
Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War."
May be reproduced without permission.
>   Special thanks to investigator Leni von Eckardt for preferring
documentation over sleep.
>     On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:13 AM, judson witham wrote:
>     Kicking Some Ass LEGALLY is the Objective
>   You do KNOW the Pen Is Mightier Than The SWORD
>   I HAVE A 30 Year Background In LAW and Federal Court procedures
>   I am looking for some HEAVY LIFTERS to FORCE THE FOIA on NTSB Et Al
>   The Time For Chatter IS OVER 
>   Class Action Federal Court Petition for STARTERS
>   NOW Get Ready  -  This Is Gonna Get A Little Messy
>   Write your own FOIA  to the NSA,  FBI,  NYC Port Authority,  DOD,
 NTSB,  FAA ,  NORAD  all of them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>   and
>   Repost and Disseminate PLEASE
> Support our Petition to Congress
> Support our Petition to Congress
> Cathy Garger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>         Hi Judson,
>   Good to see you here.  I know you are more than knowledgeable on
how to research the law. As you probably know, these groups have some
parameters, and if I am not mistaken, we can not engage in discussions
of any unlawful activity on this group.
>   That being said, we still can - actually, I believe, *must* - find
ways to get more veterans and active military to join us here at this
>   Do you have any ideas how to get them to join us?
>   Thanks much in advance,
>   Cathy
> judson witham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SOME PB you know, Lock & Load !!!!!
>   Make That 101 times ten thousand.  I met at BYU with Steve Jones
and He Was Concerned About Getting FBI, NTSB, DOD, White House, NORAD,
NYC Police, NYC Port Authority etc., et al to FULLY Comply with FOIA
>   The Information Sought By Me over 6 weeks ago IS NOT FORTHCOMING
from NTSB.  FOIA has been VIOLATED by Agency of the US Government
>   CC:
> James H. Fetzer 
> (608) 835-2707 
> jfetzer@ 
> Steven E. Jones 
> HardEvidence@
>   Take some time and watch this !!!!!!!!!!!!
>   Write your own FOIA  to the 
> judson witham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   The People Of America HAVE THE RIGHT TO FOIA release of ALL Video
>   Repost and Disseminate PLEASE
> Support our Petition to Congress
> Support our Petition to Congress
>   Judson Witham
>   911 Scholars For Truth
>                        Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request
> Be sure to read what's available under FOIA before making a request.
  Please specify as much detail as possible about the item(s) you are
requesting. Depending on the complexity of your request, turnaround
could range from 3 weeks to 1 year or more. For assistance, please
contact the Records Management Division at (800) 877-6799 or (202)
>      [input]          First Name:  [input] 
> Last Name:  [input] 
>         Street:  [input] 
>            City:  [input] 
>          State:
            Zip:  [input]   Email Addr:  [input] 
> Phone No:  [input] 
> Business/Affiliation:    [input]  
> Country:   [input]           Transportation:  - Select Mode
-AviationHighwayHazmatMarineRailroadPipeline    Please describe your
request or comment below - be specific about dates, locations, etc.,
where applicable: 
> Who is currently in possession and control of the NTSB's
investigation resords on the Plane Crashes which occurred on September
11, 2001 in NYC the World Trade Centers, Washington DC the Pentagon
and the Pennsylvania Crash ? Who currently has access to and control
over the United State's Government's video, photo and radar etc.
collections regarding the four crashes of 9-11-01 listed above ? Who
exactly within your agency has the authority to access all FEMA, NASA,
DOD, Homeland Security collections for the above CATEGORIES of
information and data ? This is an FOIA request for INFORMATION
regarding custody  and control         of said records. Please list
what records your agency does have access to and control over. Thank
You. Judson Witham  Judson Witham
>   Universal Liberty and Freedom Coalition
>   911 Scholars for TRUTH
>   All Peoples Congress
> ---------------------------------
>   Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes
to Yahoo! Groups. 
> =

Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to