Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

conspiracy nuts: "Bush Admin had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil".....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-05 08:30 PM
Original message
conspiracy nuts: "Bush Admin had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil".....
Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 08:48 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
In fact, there were TWO plans!.... by Greg Palast

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=418&row=1

Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons - and OPEC is the winner.

"…For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan for Iraq's oil …."

Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. In fact, there were TWO plans. In a joint investigation with BBC Television Newsnight, Harper's Magazine has uncovered a hidden battle over Iraq's oil. It began right after Mr. Bush took office - with a previously unreported plot to invade Iraq.

According to insiders and to documents obtained from the State Department, the neocons, once in command, are now in full retreat. As of today, Iraq's system of oil production, after a year of failed free-market experimentation, is being re-created almost entirely on the lines originally laid out by Saddam Hussein. Even Hussein's Baathist technocrats are back at the helm of the Ministry of Oil and the State Oil Marketing Organization. Under the quite direction of US oil company executives working with the State Department, the Iraqis have DISCARDED the neocon/bush vision of a liassez-faire, privatized oil operation in favor of one shackled to quotas set by OPEC, which have been key to the 121% rise in oil prices since the begining of 2002.( BUSH IS TO BLAME FOR HIGH GAS PRICES!!!!) This rise has cost the US economy 12% of its GDP, or 1/4 of its total growth since 2002.


Now we know why bush is sucking on the Royal Saudi terrorist's tit at the Crawford Pig Farm today!...because he is a miserable total failure! everything he touches turns to SHIT!

BUSH IS TO BLAME FOR THE HIGH PRICE OF GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-05 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. anybody with a functioning brain knew there was a plan to invade iraq
and steal their oil the minute the chimp dragged his knuckles into the WH. no need to put on a tinfoil hat to figure that one out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-05 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. There were so many indicators. You had to be politically blind to
refuse to acknowledge it. That is why I am so angry at our Dem leaders. There is only one reason they voted like they do - they were more loyal to the corporations than they were to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightfire Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Fraid not - if you are paid or indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
In late February 2003 while visiting London I happened to be invited to be an audience member at a television program called 'Question Time," where the imminent attack on Iraq was the topic. An hour or so before the main program began we were divided into groups of 30 or so and sent off to separate small studios to observe two-person debates of sub-issues. In my case the subject was, paraphrasing: "Is the (coming) Iraq Intervention about Terrorism or Oil?"

In a half hour exchange with a young smug Tory, a left-wing politician made an excellent case that oil was a major, if not the only, concern, or so I thought. In the audience were academics (a lot of economists), business people, staff journalists, civil servants, and other upper middle class sort of folks. At the end of the session, when the moderator asked how many believed that oil was the driving force behind Bush's rush to war, not a single hand went up (other than mine).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. They obviously
didn't know the Bush family like we do I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. He was talking
about invading Iraq in 1999 when he was campaigning! There's an article about that at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info He was also talking about them having WMD's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-05 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Actually, blame CHENEY (the REAL president).
In November 2003, McKee quietly ordered up a new plan for Iraq's oil. For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan, but when I threatened legal action, I was able to obtain the multi-volume document describing seven possible models of oil production for Iraq, each one merely a different flavor of a single option: a state-owned oil company under which the state maintains official title to the reserves but operation and control are given to foreign oil companies.

According to Ed Morse, another Hess Oil advisor, the switch to an OPEC-friendly policy for Iraq was driven by Dick Cheney. "The VP's office not pursued a policy in Iraq that would lead to a rapid opening of the Iraqi energy sector… that would put us on a track to say, "We're going to put a squeeze on OPEC."

Cheney, far from "putting the squeeze on OPEC," has taken a defacto seat there, allowing the cartel to maintain its suffocating grip on the U.S. economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-05 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Read Amy Goodman's interview with Palast for more!
Edited on Mon Apr-25-05 09:36 PM by Carolab
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=419&row=0

AMY GOODMAN: That report by investigative journalist Greg Palast, who joins us now in our Democracy Now! studio.

Welcome, Greg Palast.

GREG PALAST: Glad to be here, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: An explosive report on these two plans. And tie them in now to the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.

GREG PALAST: Well, only in weird Bush world is nomination to the presidency of the World Bank considered a punishment job. Basically Wolfowitz is being tossed out head first out of the Pentagon because he decided to take on one enemy too big for his own teeth, which is big oil.

The main spoils of the war in Iraq is a seat on OPEC. It's not just the fields; it is a seat on OPEC. What do we do with that seat? The neo-cons wanted to use our control of Iraq's oil to smash OPEC, to smash the power of what they see as an Arab-controlled monopoly and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, that also meant smashing $56-a-barrel oil prices, and the oil industry was deeply unhappy.

So, there was a neo-con plan put out. In fact, you broke the report here two years ago when we were on the air saying that there was a plan to privatize and sell off all of Iraq's oil fields. There was. Then Phil Carroll of Shell Oil was assigned by George Bush to baby-sit the situation in Iraq. The oil man went in and said there ain't going to be no privatization on my watch. We don't work that way.

You have to understand, oil companies, when they privatize, the big oil companies never get it, it’s always the cronies of Chalabi and who’s ever in power in any country. So, the oil companies did not want to be locked out, so they weren't going to go along with it.

Plus, they didn't like the neo-con idea that if there was privatization, and production would be ramped up, OPEC would be destroyed, oil prices would fall apart, and that would be the end of record profits for the oil companies.

So, a new report was secretly ordered up by a guy named Rob McKee, who took the Shell man's place. McKee is from ConocoPhillips, paid $25 million by Conoco in his last year there, assigned by Bush to Iraq to the oil ministry there. And he ordered up a new study which was done by the Jim Baker Institute.

Now Jim Baker represents Exxon and the Saudi government. And the Baker Institute people, and the people they worked with, came up with a report that said that there would be a state-controlled company, which would be very OPEC-friendly, very oil company-friendly and would establish profit sharing agreements with international oil companies. And that was their recommendation. Privatization was dead out, and they were just livid about Wolfowitz.

The woman who is the chief guider on that project said, you know, here's Wolfowitz talking about democracy, yet he wants to do what 99% of Iraqis don't want. The oil companies don't want to own oil fields in flames. So, basically Wolfowitz came up against big oil and his cronies, Doug Fife and the others. So, their privatization plans, because they kept pushing them, just absolutely killed them off.

And we also got, of course, a story that you saw at the beginning, that at the very beginning of the war, in fact, even before Bush was inaugurated, but within a couple of weeks, there was a meeting of oil industry people, associated with Iraq, planning the overthrow of Saddam. An invasion which would look like a coup d'etat. We would actually send in the 82nd Airborne and replace Saddam, just give a new dictator his mustache, the Baathists would stay in power, nothing would change. It was in and out.

I think people got the wrong impression with Bob Woodward's book: Colin Powell did not oppose the invasion of Iraq. They were planning this from, like I say, the second week in office. Powell and the State Department people were opposing a long occupation and a remaking of Iraq. They just wanted to get rid of the top guy. They were quite happy with the Baathists, and they wanted to keep the oil flowing, and they didn't want this type of situation we have now with a bloody, brutal occupation, which is also, you know, jamming up the oil fields and creating a major problem.

So that, again, it is the State department simply had a different plan for invasion than the neo-cons. But after September 11, the neo-cons kind of seized control of policy. Now we've had a new kind of policy coup d'etat by big oil and the -- and OPEC allies in the government. They're in charge now.


AMY GOODMAN: It's also hard to believe that John Bolton becoming U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is any kind of step down.

GREG PALAST: For them, you know, it is pushing the Bush policy. But you have to understand that the real levers of power are not in these public jawboning jobs. The real levers of power are behind those closed walls. So Wolfowitz had his power. He now has to take his hands off the levers, and Bolton is now in a position where he is told what to say, and he is not a person setting policy.

The neo-cons understand what's happening here, and they are screaming bloody murder. But they’re all being purged. This is a very big change in U.S. policy toward people like Negroponte, who are State Department establishment, oil-friendly, OPEC-friendly, Saudi-friendly.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, on that note, I want to thank you very much for being with us. The investigation, a joint BBC-Harper’s magazine investigation. Greg Palast’s latest piece out today in the April edition of Harper's magazine, called "OPEC on the March: Why Iraq Still Sells Its Oil a la Cartel."

Thank you, Greg.

GREG PALAST: You're welcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. wow thanks for the link of the Amy Goodman interview with Palast.....
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. yes-good interview
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Oh wow
So basically Bush and his buddies were using the neocons for policy here in the States and now they're angry cause they're not having any say in anything. I think Bush and camp are planning to try for their next phase and that's why they had to get rid of Wolfowitz. He has lost credibility with Iraq and they need Bolton. And don't forget Bolton is a member of PNAC and he has shown himself to be a "yes" person (such as the 2000 election).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-05 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. what's so secret about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. Oh wow
So it does make sense why the Saudi's would be coming to visit. Gas!! He's doing some major ass kissing. Go figure. And of course he won't ever clean up the mess. Who's going to believe this though?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'm guessing the plans didn't
Edited on Tue Apr-26-05 01:13 AM by zidzi
involve.. insurgents blowing up the gas lines!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. They knew
I think they knew all a long what the plans were. What else would they have? They more then likely knew their country didn't have anything to attack the States with and they're just a little country compared to others. Now that makes sense. Don't forget they don't give our military ANY protection at all but they do the people working for Halliburton. Talk about having your priorities in order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
14. Thank god for Greg Palast. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. He's truly the best
definietly my favorite reporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Oh, those wacky conspiracy theorists!
Edited on Tue Apr-26-05 01:47 AM by sfexpat2000
We're just in Iraq to dismantle the Axis of Evil! We're going to suck that evil right out of the ground, all of it.

It gets really tiresome to predict what this Cabal is up to, being discounted, then having to deal with the GP's surprise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. Palast contradicts himself? not Bush to blame, but OPEC
"quotas set by OPEC, which have been key to the 121% rise in oil..." (BUSH IS TO BLAME FOR HIGH GAS PRICES!!!!)

Or is the bit between parenthesis yours and not Greg's?

What happened is that Bush failed to bring down oil prices by means of stealing Iraq's oil.
Rising of oil prices is the natural order of things, since it is running out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. yes that bit in ( )'s is mine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
18. It would have been SO much easier if we had just pulled a
secret coup.

It would have been so much easier if we had grabbed a hold of Tariq Aziz, "jawboned" him, got him to get a few Generals in line, and have someone slip Saddam a Mickey. Call it a heart attack, everyone boo hoos, he gets a fine funeral--autopsies are not done in that culture, no one would ever know.

Then, quick as a wink, kill off Uday and Qusay, claim that they were killed by radical Islamists sensing weakness due to the passing of Saddam, and of COURSE we would find a way to insure these imaginary Islamists were associated with Usama, guaranteeing that the people of Iraq would hate them forever (Iraq was secular, remember?), buy the silence of the Generals with generous Swiss bank accounts, install Tariq as a puppet leader with perks and (seeming) clout, a real counterbalance in the region to Saudi, and we'd have all the oil we needed.

Then, the Saudis and Iraqis would be falling over themselves to be our favorite. And Iran would be nervous, and more cooperative, as a result. Best of all, not too many people would have to die, and the ones that did would not be missed.

Instead, our dead are creeping up in number every day, our wounded too, and let's not even think about the number of Iraqis who have been brutalized by this foolish war.

It would have been so much easier had we played it smart, if we had to play it at all. The chimp is an idiot, and so are his neocon thugs. They know how to be wicked, but they don't know how to be smart-wicked. Dumbasses!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
19. He's referring to PNAC and Cheney's Energy Task Force
BACKGROUND:

NOVEMBER 2000 - Saddam may have sensed an ill wind in the air when he made the first strike, turned his back on the U.S. Dollar and accepted only Euros as payment for his oil. This had the potential of seriously destabilizing the U.S. economy and the PNAC considered this an hostile act of aggression towards their personal and business interests. The heat was on for them to make their first move.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp

DECEMBER 2000 - In a highly contentious Presidential vote battle on the home turf of PNAC-Jeb Bush, the Supreme Court decided that George Bush was the new President.

Bush now had the green light to seamlessly merge members of the PNAC into his Administration with no one the wiser. PNAC members elevated to the Bush hierarchy include, among others:

  • Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

  • Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense

  • Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council

  • John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and InternationalSecurity

  • Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board

  • Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State

  • John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament

  • Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition


An Honorable Mention was awarded to Condoleezza Rice - National Security Advisor - who is a former oil-company consultant having been on the board of directors of Chevron as its main expert on Kazakhstan.

The PNAC agenda had now passed "Go". The most powerful military machine in the world stood at their ready and Saddam was in the crosshair.

Wasting no time, Cheney secretly assembled an advisory panel of oil and gas executives from Enron, Dynergy, Shell Oil, Chevron/Texaco and British Petroleum under the direction of James Baker (former Secretary of State under George Bush Sr.) to help shape our national energy policy and justify the PNAC's anticipated war with Iraq.

Contributing substantially to the task force discussions and recommendations was a shadowy group of unidentified observers who still remain unknown. Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister, also made a contribution to the group's final report which was funded through Khalid Al-Turki (a Saudi Arabian oil and gas enterprise) and the Arthur Ross Foundation (a non-profit organization that - on the surface - appears to be a supporter of the Arts.)

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm

MARCH 2001 - Cheney closely guarded the details surrounding his energy task force but documents released through the Freedom of Information Act reveal a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

As one internet poster pointed out:

"The Iraq map is not a map, it's a plan

"There are several areas marked 'earmarked for production sharing' (look at the map
legend), which means privatized oil fields. Iraq did not have privatized oil fields and
production sharing agreements before the US took it over.

"There are also parcels marked on the Iraq oil field and exploration map (numbered
'Block 1' through '9'). Iraq did not have an active, privatized oil exploration program
going on before it was conquered by the US.

"If you read the footnotes and entire contents of the other documents, there is a heavy
emphasis on business concerns, such as contracts and vendors over items one might
think would be more important in a government discussion, such as capacity, long term
reserves, etc...

"One footnote (in UAEOilProj.pdf) even contains investment advice for the participants
at the meeting, suggesting opportunities in downstream projects, such as power
desalination and pipeline projects.

"These are not 'just maps'. Read them."

It can be argued that the spoils of war were being doled out two years before Iraq once again became a household word. Perhaps this explains why Cheney worked so hard and so long to keep this information suppressed until Iraq was under U.S. military control...by then it would be too late for the public to object to the invasion.

Full story at link in sig line.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
20. an administration of traitors, thieves and whores . . .
what a country! . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. How stupid can this country get???
Edited on Tue Apr-26-05 06:08 AM by Tesla
I just want to tell someone off!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. well, we have been on the stupid side for 4 1/2 years now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC