Welcome to Baghdad, Mr Cheney
Kavips lays it down.
1) Republicans want the surge to last till September. Why?
2) Dick Cheney is off somewhere in the middle east, on another secret mission, immediately just after Rice got back. Why?
3) We still do not have oil flowing from Iraq, four years after ‘mission accomplished”, Why?
Is there a connection between these three threads?
Now four years after the war was won, we still do not have a contract with a legitimate Iraqi government to remove the oil from Iraqi sands. What is wrong with those Iraqi’s. Don’t they want our oil revenues to rebuild their country?
The holdup seems to be what is known as the PSA’s (production sharing agreements). These clauses guarantee US oil companies 70% of the profits up to amortization and 20% after that, whereas the going standard rate is 10% of profits to oil companies, and 90% to the country. This oil bill must be passed before the Iraqi congress goes on recess May 31st, just 21 days from the date of this posting.
The oil companies estimate that it will cost between 1$ and 1.50$ to extract a barrel of Iraqi gold, the premium of all crudes. At today’s prices of 75$ a barrel this rate of return would be equivalent of kicking a baby in its face and stealing its candy.
Iraqi resistance understands this. And yet this insider’s fact has not even made our evening news. Why?
Tags: Bush's FUBAR War
Interesting THEORY. But equally interesting is that all the facts quoted come from very left leaning websites.
If I were to try to back up my theories with stories from something more main stream like Fox News, I would have my butt handed to me for quoting a “propoganda mouthpiece”.
Well, turnabout is fair play. I don’t abide double standards. Try quoting sites that at least pretend to be fair (i.e. CNN,MSNBC, NY Times)
Another take on why we still don’t have oil flowing from Iraq after 4 years is that (gasp..he is actually going to say it), maybe it really wasn’t about the oil. In fact, we have gone to great lengths to avoid taking any oil from there, even at market rates, because the left was so sure that was what it was about.
IF there is any truth to the whole “tech meter” thing, perhaps it was to make sure the oil did not flow until we were sure which Iraqi hands were gettting it.
Sure, you will say mine is a hack theory from right-wing nut job. But it is no less a realistic theory than Kavips’s if you strip all ideology out of the equation.
maybe it really wasn’t about the oil.
Ha!
“maybe it really wasn’t about the oil.
Ha!”
Wow Jason. Remind me to never debate you….you are to eloquent with your arguments.
What else is there to say?
Maybe you were not born when the war started, but the brainiacs who started were pretty sure it would AT LEAST pay for itself.
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very — an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]
State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don’t believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]
I’m convinced Rove has a plan to pull out of Iraq and take credit for ending the war.
Dude,
Cheney had to tell the Iraqi government not to go on their planned two month vacation.
With every word that gets out about this debacle, the DEMs get a million votes.
Our money? Our sacrific? Our war?
“With every word that gets out about this debacle, the DEMs get a million votes.”
I hope you and the rest of the DEMs keep believing this. PLEASE KEEP BELIEVING THIS.
I know you are still riding the 2006 election high under the misguided notion that all those people turned liberal. 2006 wasn’t about electing senators and Representatives, it was about a populous being fed some much crap propoganzied CRAP from the so called mainstream media, that that, combined with the normal phenomenon of “War weariness” led to people feeling like they needed to “send a message” to the government. But that message has been sent, and things are just more contentious.
Besides, you guys seem to forget that Bush is not running in 2008 (don’t know how you forgot, you would think the bumper stickers on your cars with the inauguration date would remind you). Many of the GOP candidates are quite different from Bush while still maintaining his toughness on terrorism. This may surprise you, but most of the population really does want someone that won’t surrender the US every chance they get. Voters also look for candidate who take a stand and don’t constantly vary their votes with the political wind. Except for the most radical among them, you can’t name one front running Dem candidate that does blow in the wind.
I don’t know yet who the GOP will choose as the candidate. If it is Rudy, you will be in for a big surprise on election day. I will rather enjoy that. If Romney or Fred Thompson gets the nod, we still stand a good chance.
The others would give you guys a fighting chance. McCain won’t be able to swing it, and the others are virtual unknowns.
So get out your “Vote for Brownback” signs. That mights just be the best hope you have for getting what you want.
You’re doin’ a (living) helluva job, Dick(head)!
Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says
Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq’s declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.
Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was valued at $5 million to $15 million daily.
The report does not give a final conclusion on what happened to the missing fraction of the roughly two million barrels pumped by Iraq each day, but the findings are sure to reinforce longstanding suspicions that smugglers, insurgents and corrupt officials control significant parts of the country’s oil industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html
Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says
*
the trick is in making it stick to the GOP when elections roll around
“the trick is in making it stick to the GOP when elections roll around”
It is so nice to have Howard Dean’s personal secretary join us. By the way, were you the one that called the Kansas governor and told her not to ask for Fed help after the tornado devestated the entire town so she could then complain that there was no federal help because all the National Guard equipment was in Iraq?
If so, you did hear that she admitted to what she did and ratted you out. Said that she was just following orders from Mr. Dean himself.
You have to respect a party that has such dedication. To take peoples tragic misery and play politics with it is pure genius and the mark of a true leader. I guess he figured it worked in New Orleans (refresher for those that may have missed it. Kathleen Blanco, madame governor, did not make the requisite call for Fed help for nearly two days, despite Bush’s people calling her every two hours and asking if they could start the help on the way. “No Thanks” was her reply. When she finally did call, the first fed roled in less than two hours after the call and the media ripped Bush for the federal help taking so long. Dean was in on that one too). Glad to see you are a just as dedicated Dem. Does ones heart good.
By the way, if I failed to make it clear, there was plenty of National Guard equipment for the job, but Federal Law prohibits the mobilization in state without the Governor requesting it.
Thanks class. You are dismissed.
To Chris, Jason, Nancy, Anon’s, and all:
Thanks for your comments. A lot of research was done by each of you to flush so much out in just 10 comments.
To Chris: Thanks for providing your perspective. Your arguments are not necessarily “those from a right wing nut job”, they are actually very valid arguments and quite possible interpretations. In fact, just a year ago I would have probably agreed this Cheney for oil thing was too far fetched. But,…….. as an old man once told me, when too many random events line up either for or against you, there is probably an invisible hand guiding them……..As for some of my sources being left wing based, you are correct. However, the one source that first convinced me to dig through this story, was Judicial Watch, which, based on the thorn in the side they provide the Democrat party, would probably cringe at being considered “left-leaning”. If you are implying that “left-leaning” sources provide less credibility to these charges, you are mistaken. For when investigating truth within a cover-up, one must always go to the opposite source to find information. Remember it was not the left that researched and brought up the Swift Boat incident. It was the opposite side, digging for dirt that found something. When doing raw research, you can not trust the large news organizations who are too intent on maximizing their bottom lines, to break new stories. When they try to break out a story, as did CBS and Dan Rather, it is a disaster. Essentially the mainstream media receives their breaking news from sources, who call them to spread their side of the story……….
This story has not broken yet…..
As for not being about oil……there is too much evidence pointing otherwise. No doubt the propagandists (Rove) spun the war so it hit our patriotic nerve. They did a good job. But, oil = Cheney. And Cheney pulls the strings in this administration.
Let me clarify….From America’s, the soldier’s, Republican’s point of view we are fighting for what used to be considered democracy for the Iraqi people, which would protect us here on these shores and prevent another 9/11. But, this heavy handed attempt to force the oil bill down Iraqis throat, that is so NOT beneficial to those people we went to save, is the crux of the problem. This is the smoking gun……it is, alas, for oil.
Jason: thanks for posting your quick research of all those administration comments that show the “clean smell” of oil has permeated the New American Century’s holdovers lurking inside the Bush administration.
Nancy, thanks for your quick responses with hard facts. There is so much to this story that needs to get out there. And it needs to get done before “he” gets back.
The story you mentioned, siphoning off Iraqi oil, is only a small part of the damage being done to this struggling nation. It is small compared to what is rumored to be taking place. That is the pilfering of Iraq’s crude, from the western desert, far from prying eyes. Recent photos show massive activity, oil camps, rigs, drills, and pipelines to Saudi Arabia. Since this oil has not yet appeared on the market, the best guess is that the oil is being pumped back down underground on the Saudi side of the border.
This was Halliburton’s area of influence. Their primary job is to rebuild oil infrastructure.
Again, I’ll close with the provocative final lines from my post.
In the meantime, people who we were told are terrorists, continue to fight a nation who seems intent on stealing their livelihood from out of the very ground they stand on.
Thanks to Chris, Jason, anon, and Nancy. A lot of research was packed into just 10 comments.
To Chris, your metering idea could be a good idea if other things were not happening. It may fall into the category of “wishful thinking” since it does not take into account the heavy pressure being laid down upon the Iraqi parliament, to pass and sign the Oil Bill that gives 70% of the profits to the oil companies.
The heavy handed effort currently being used to get this bill passed, that is so NOT beneficial to the Iraqis, goes to show that, alas, perhaps it was for oil after all.
Of course we were told otherwise. Donviti described yesterday just how the propaganda affected him. He was not the only one who was played. We all were suckered pretty much. But after not seeing a single WMD, biological or chemical weapon, it is relatively obvious to anyone but the most ardent detractor, that we invaded on false pretenses.
Jason: thanks for the research outlining those sources that prove without a doubt, that the “clean smell” of oil predominated those New American Century holdovers lurking within the administration.
Nancy, thanks for posting hard facts so quickly. The siphoning you mention is just a small part of what is going on. Photos from the supposedly empty Iraqi western desert showing massive oil camps, drilling rigs, roads, and pipelines to Saudi Arabia, reveal a larger problem. Far from prying eyes, we are bypassing the Iraqi point of control at the mouth of the Euphrates by funneling sweet Iraqi crude into Saudi Arabia. Since this surplus oil has not yet hit the marke, most analysts guess the oil is being pumped underground on the Saudi side of the border.
Since no agreements have been signed, this action should be illegal under international law.
Halliburton was the sole company in charge of replacing and building the oil infrastructure following the invasion.
Finally,a note of caution. When one digs deep, one tends to get myopic vision. It is fine to criticize and poke ideas to say “it isn’t true.” but I challenge you to find sources proving it such. Of course, the proof you provide, we will approach skeptically, because we already saw how this administration “proved” that chemical weapons were being developed inside of two trailers inside of Iraq, as well as how nuclear material was smuggled in from Niger
To be honest, I am hoping someone steps up to the challenge. Most people like to be always right, but in this case, I am sincerely hoping I am wrong. Because if my argument bleeds true, and we really did go to war for Iraqi oil, and several Delawarean families have shared the personal burden of that conflict,….. this country is indeed treading on immoral ground.
Well said, kavips. I have always been disturbed by how quickly and easily so many intelligent, patriotic Americans were sucked into this engineered middle east debacle.
I opposed this war from its first foreshadowing for two primary reasons :
1. I believed it would be a colossal tactical, strategic, and diplomatic failure to even launch it, much less invite the ensuing entrenchment and chaos I thought inevitable.
2. In my own understanding and knowledge, historical and political, about its promoters and players I believed their nefarious ulterior motives were as blazingly transparent as they were utterly treacherous.
It dismayed me over the last several years that even sharing this view risked marginalization of all sorts. Nonetheless I did, simply because I thought it just seemed so obvious.
My extreme opposition to the Bushies and their neocon network has as much grown out of the fact that they actually succeeded in manipulating this country into war as from the fact that they have waged it as lawless opportunistic profiteers.
We will never see our nation’s resources or the lost lives recovered, but we must see justice done to those who deceitfully traded on in service to to raw greed and megalomania.
OK Tyler… I appreciate your take on Bush. But do you not see that the current Bush administration is at the end of an arc that begins with Reaganism? “Stand tall…” “America First…”
Or do you see Bush as representing a break with Reaganism? and if so when did it happen and why did the Republicans so enthusiastically allow it to happen, let alone the Democrats?
isn’t their a pretty famous quote from Cheney himself saying something along the lines that part of the reason they were going to Iraq was to stabilize the oil?
I see it as (hopefully) the end of an arc that begins with Truman in Korea, goes right through Texas/Oil LBJ to VietNam, and now persists with another oily Texan into Iraq.
Without trying to shoot down your question, assuming it was not rhetorical, I have to take issue with these fabricated “isms” that get thrown around. Adding an “ism” to the name of an historic figure or political groups does not magically create some sort of coherent ideology. Loaded terms like “Reaganism” and “Republicanism” are not objectively definable and serve only to divert the dialogue into useless partisan bickering.
No doubt Reagan would scoff at the fabrication of such a thing as “Reaganism” for any purpose. I am certain that no matter what definition gets conjured for it, pro or con, Reagan himself would not subcribe to it.
If you want to discuss policy, ideas, or ideology let’s discuss them without the crude shorthand of meaningless “isms”. How many “isms” can anyone rationally accommodate anyway?
But if you have to have “isms” at least make them descriptive. For example the term “Bushism” doesn’t tell you anything (except possibly to remind of an endlessly idiotic cavalcade of sputtering gaffes).
If you are going to invent “isms” why not make them more self-evident and even creative….like Global Oilism….or Texas Moronicism…or War Profiteerism…or South Asia Warmongerism (that would encompass Truman, LBJ, and Bush in one fell swoop)…or Big Governmentism….or Pseudo-Religious Fundamentalism….or maybe use a real one like National Socialism.
Certainly none of these would apply to anything Reagan was about.
Here is a brief distinction between Reaganism and the “W” administration.
In 1981 Reagan had preconceived ideas about South Africa, and tried to support them. But as raw intelligence came in, he quietly realized his mistake and said nothing more about them in public. He recognized the intelligence did not agree with his philosophy.
In this current administration, if the intelligence does not match the preconceived ideas, then it is the intelligence that has to be faulty.
To sum up, the difference lies in the different amounts of “wisdom”, embedded in each.