home

All About Oil?

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 09:53:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Dick Cheney stands at the intersection of the war in Iraq and secret meetings with oil company executives to shape energy policy. The administration’s consistent denials that the war had anything to do with oil may unravel if the oil executives are placed under oath and compelled to answer questions about the meeting with Cheney -- questions they evaded during their unsworn congressional testimony.

The Senate is demanding that executives from Big Oil return to testify about a secret meeting with Cheney on energy policy that took place soon after Bush came to office. The Big Oil men denied knowledge of the gathering in earlier testimony. But that testimony was not under oath so they cannot be charged with perjury. Cheney has been vigorously trying to keep secret what happened at this meeting. It is suspected the vice president and the oil companies hammered out an aggressive energy policy, and possibly discussed the administration’s plans to go to war in Iraq, well before 9-11.

Cutting up Iraqi oil and the future of OPEC would certainly have been on the table. The new administration would certainly have needed the acquiescence of the oil industry in waging war in an area where the companies are so deeply involved. Oil has always been the bottom-line issue in the Iraq war—although in public Bush eschewed any interest in the subject, arguing instead he was just pushing the spread of democracy.

< Another Change of Heart | There's Still Time to Stop Patriot Act Renewal >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • All About Oil? | 17 comments (17 topical)
    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    I find is amusing that as time passes by all the leftie Lunatics are becoming sane and correct in their so called rantings. There are many, Cindy Sheenan and the "It's all about Oil crowd" are not so wacky any more are they!

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Um, yeah, they are. The idea that the energy planning task force was behind the war in Iraq is beyond wacky. It's contemptible. Jeez - all you have to do to refute this whole theory is to ask: 1. How much oil has shipped from Iraq since the invasion? 2. How much oil is going to be shipped from Iraq in the next 5 or 10 years? Since the answers appear to be "negligible" and "slightly more than negligible" I'm not going to lose much sleep over the idea that Exxon was behind the invasion.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    What's the price of a barrel these days, Michael? Compared to pre-invasion? But let's back up. Shipping oil out of Iraq, that was the plan. Remember? Kisses and flowers and how the Iraq reconstruction would pay for itself by oil revenues? No matter that we liberals were telling anyone who would listen - ie, no one - the idea was nuts, but they really planned to pay for the invasion out of future oil profits. Well, okay it didn't go entirely according to plan. No biggie, oil just has to get more expensive until Iraq's online. Not that oil was the only reason. But to deny it was a major reason is a liittle bizarro world.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Actually I have a different take that would explain these comments by Powell and Rice early in 2001. “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Colin Powell – February 2001 “We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” Condoleezza Rice – July 2001 My speculation goes like this: One thing that has not been reported on very much is the recommendations of the CFR Energy Report to the Energy task force which was put together by James Baker III. In that report which was submitted to the task force in early 2001, the recommendation concerning Iraq was for the US to reimpose an inspections regime on Iraq with the explicit goal of getting the sanctions dropped so that investment in the Iraqi oil infrastructure could commence and production in that country could be ratcheted up to pre gulf war levels. Here is a PDF of the original report is gone and now this one is in it’s place stripped of the proposal to get the sanctions dropped: The post 9/11 version is here. I have the original .pdf however (I could not find it anymore online - imagin that!). I have wondered aloud if this proposal was actually going to be adopted as policy given the fact that at the time there was no real way the administration could have justified invading Iraq at the time. Of course this is all just speculation on my part, but if this was true it would be not just embarrassing for the administration, it would show that the all the talk of Mushroom clouds and WMDs was a covenant rationalization for what the administration really wanted, the free flow of oil at market prices coming out of Iraq (I say convenient because I personally feel that a world without Saddam can’t be any worse off in the long run). Now if we assume for the moment that this is true, then these two statements by Powell and Rice (in light of the Recommendations in Bakers report) make perfect sense as foreshadow a plan to “market” the notion of dropping the sanctions in Iraq.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Posted by Michael Heinz: "The idea that the energy planning task force was behind the war in Iraq is beyond wacky. It's contemptible." That's hilarious. MURDERING 130K innocent people is what is contemptible. "Jeez - all you have to do to refute this whole theory is to ask: 1. How much oil has shipped from Iraq since the invasion?" That is the stupidest rebuttal in the history of mankind. Are you really that facile in your ignorance? • The USPNAC invasion was not based on acquiring Iraqi oil. It was based on acquiring TAJIK oil. • The twin invasions are to INSTALL AIRBASES, not primarily to steal Iraqi oil, although plenty of that has gone on. • We now have 15 permanent airbases in Iraq, a new huge base in Qatar, and at least 10 airbases in Afghanistan, which surprisingly follow the new pipeline paths. • The Tajik oil has to be moved through Afghanistan through Pakistan to the Persian Gulf. • Bush admin. friendship with Pakistan's military dictatorship, which harbors the criminal who armed both Iran and N. Korea with nuke tech and materiel, which nearly set off a nuclear war with India in late 2003, WHICH STILL HARBORS OBL, is based entirely on the need for that pipeline port -- it has ZERO (actually minus numbers) to do with US national security. • There are several more obvious major divergences from Michael's retarded appraisal of the USPNAC purpose. • UNOCAL's pipeline project was stopped by the Taliban -- no more Taliban (supposedly, of course, the issue is US terrorism to stop the Taliban from blocking the pipelines). In July 01, the Bush admin. told Taliban "You can have a carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs," and that Afghanistan would be invaded in OCTOBER. Bush then took a five week vacation, after threatening our enemies militarily. Taliban offered to turn OBL over to the US, but USPNAC refused the offer. USPNAC subsequently failed to capture OBL, through underdeployment, and trusting Taliban warlords to guard the Pak border. • Hussein blocked the Jordanian pipeline project, which immediately preceded the Gulf War, during which GHWB LIED TO THE UNITED STATES via a publicity company, that Hussein was intending to invade Saudi Arabia (FALSE), and that Iraqi soldiers were tossing out infants and taking the incubators (FALSE -- lie told to the US Congress by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, who pretended to be an eyewitness and an ordinary Kuwaiti citizen, under a false name). There are several more well-documented aspects to this. Michael's IQ score on this issue = 50.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Hey Rick, nice job pulling that info together. Perhaps a wider web search might find the original in a 'memory hole'. Failing that maybe TL or Mike Ditto will host the doc if you email and ask them nicely.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    TChris writes in the post:
    possibly discussed the administration’s plans to go to war in Iraq, well before 9-11.
    Do you mean like this?
    ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
    So, in your view, that is supported by supposition only, Cheney was telling the oil executives. In Rockefeller’s own words he was telling Nations on the terror watch list what Bush was going to do. Where is a SP when we need one?

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    so rockefeller spoke the truth and you see something sinister in that. BTW, the terror watch list is INDIVIDUALS, not states. Try to be more accurate in your unpatriotic lies.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Jim: "In Rockefeller’s own words he was telling Nations on the terror watch list what Bush was going to do." While the entire WHIG was LYING TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about their (obvious) intentions. Rockefeller told a VERSION of the truth, a version which hid the conspiracy, in favor of the 'hot-headedness' of Prince Georgie. The facts are quite a bit more obvious than that. The coup that stole the election using R vote-fraud companies and their secret, untested, uncertified software, counted in secret, and announced in complete disagreement with exit polling, to worldwide shock -- THAT was to initiate the USPNAC plan, complete with "New Pearl Harbor" and hot pursuit that turned into a pogrom on innocent Iraqis. Clinton and most of Washington turned down USPNAC as the tactics of "CRAZIES." But being crazy never stopped racists yet, as Jim demonstrates over and over.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Um, yeah, they are. The idea that the energy planning task force was behind the war in Iraq is beyond wacky. It's contemptible. Jeez - all you have to do to refute this whole theory is to ask: 1. How much oil has shipped from Iraq since the invasion? 2. How much oil is going to be shipped from Iraq in the next 5 or 10 years? Since the answers appear to be "negligible" and "slightly more than negligible" I'm not going to lose much sleep over the idea that Exxon was behind the invasion.
    Um... so your argument is that, to the oil industry, the war was a collossal failure. You say this proves the oil companies had absolutely no interest in it Iraq. People have walked head-on into failure in the past. The neocons assured the oil companies that the pumps would start flowing by day three, which keeps getting postponed somehow. Now when would a prominent neocon have met with energy executives... I coulda sworn I heard something about this, possibly in this very post.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Cheney was pushing for an end to the Iraq sanctions in the late '90s when he was with Halliburton. In fact, Halliburton got burned for doing an end run around the sanctions on Cheney's watch. So the fact that Cheney was going to try to get the sanctions lifted is no surprise and in fact, I believe was reported on circa April 2001.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    All about profit. Oil profits, rebuilding profits, military supplier profits. As always, follow the cash.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Sailor - According to you, the truth Libby spoke when he discussed Mrs. Wilson is bad because it was classified. Now. Why isn't telling our enemies what the President believes just as bad? Remember Logan? Where is a SP when you need one? ernie - Any proof that Cheney ws trying to get them lifted? No? I didn't think so. Just a smear.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    nobody fakes outrage like the GOP: "Why isn't telling our enemies what the President believes just as bad?" :-0 Oh, my! Rockefeller spilled the beans! He compromised national security! Gasp and jeepers! But anyway, in the real world, it "wasn't as bad" as outing a spy--how sad that this must be explained to an adult--because it wasn't classified. What was said by Rockefeller we all knew by the time he said it, those among us who weren't fools anyway.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    So ppj, why don't you provide links to that 'terror watch list' that has Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria on it. And while you're at it, why don't you learn some VERY recent history about the veep of torture
    Cheney Panel Seeks Review Of Sanctions Iraq, Iran and Libya Loom Large in Boosting Oil Supply [...]
    An influential energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney has broached the possibility of lifting some economic sanctions against Iran, Libya and Iraq as part of a plan to increase America's oil supply. According to a draft of the task force report, the United States should review the sanctions against the three countries because of the importance of their oil production to meeting domestic and global energy needs.


    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    "Any proof that Cheney ws trying to get them lifted? No? I didn't think so. Just a smear." ~The King Of Smear PPJ...I forgot that some people have selective memories when it comes to the sordid history of people like "Uncle" Dick Cheney.

    Re: All About Oil? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    This article makes for some interesting reading: The divestiture, however, was not immediate. The firms traded with Baghdad for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, according to U.N. records. ........ A long-time critic of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he has argued penalize American companies while failing to punish the targeted regimes, Cheney has pushed for a review of U.S. policy toward countries such as Iraq, Iran and Libya. In the first expression of that new thinking, the Bush administration is campaigning in the U.N. Security Council to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil-related equipment, to Iraq. ........ Confidential U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had broad, and sometimes controversial, dealings with the Iraqi regime. ........ Iraq's power to entice foreign investment, meanwhile, has increased with the soaring demand for oil. U.S. companies, which have been able to trade with Iraq only through foreign subsidiaries and middlemen, are wary of dealing with Baghdad but eager to get a piece of the action, according to industry sources. "The American oil industry is very interested in trying to enter Iraq," said J. Robinson West, chairman of Petroleum Finance Co., a consulting firm. "But I think that they are quite respectful of U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein. There is a very strong feeling that in fact he is the greatest threat to oil production in the Middle East." .......... So the threat has been eliminated. But a new threat has taken his place. Which is why there are those who want the occupation to go on...and on...and on... But it has NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL...NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL...NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL...

    All About Oil? | 17 comments (17 topical)