The Power Of Nightmares

To further add to the discussion on the way the world is today, and why, let me contribute another film to consider watching.

It's called "The Power of Nightmares" , and is a set of three one hour documentaries done by the BBC. Again, you can watch all of them for free by clickling the above link.

It's a rather fascinating look at the roots of both the Islamic fundamentalists, and the neo-conservatives. Ironically, in some ways, those roots are the same.

It also speaks of the sudden discovery of our politicians of the "politics of fear", and the reasons that this occurred.

It's quite an eye opening look at the world, in a manner that's seldom expressed by our main stream media. I find myself agreeing with it's premise, and consider it an important tool to starting to see the forces at work today upon our societies.

Without that understanding, without seeing the concepts expressed in these three documentaries, is to miss a side of the debate that is critical if one wants to better understand the bigger picture involved.

Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War

After that last post on propaganda, watching this one hour film will be perfect timing. It features people with intelligence backgrounds openly and honestly discussing what happened in the lead up to the Iraq war.

If you click on the link above, you can watch it for free.

In his documentary feature, UNCOVERED: The War on Iraq, filmmaker Robert Greenwald chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001. The film deconstructs the administration's case for war through interviews with U.S intelligence and defense officials, foreign service experts, and U.N. weapons inspectors -- including a former CIA director, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and even President Bush's Secretary of the Army. Their analyses and conclusions are sobering, and often disturbing, regardless of one's political affiliations.

Since this film was first released in November 2003 via thousands of house parties organized by MoveOn.org, the issues addressed have become well known, and the arguments made by the experts in the film have been proven. Most recently, by the Downing Street Memos.

This is an important film documenting exactly how the Bush administration hoodwinked the American people into supporting an unnecessary war. A war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, and continues today.

Edward Bernays, the most influential man you never heard of

It's actually quite funny when you think about it, Edward Bernays was a master of public relations and propaganda - and yet his name is largely unknown today outside of a small group of people.

His influence, however, is felt everyday by most of us.

He was the nephew of Sigmund Freud.

Born in Vienna, Bernays was both a blood nephew and a nephew-in-law to Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, and Bernays's public relations efforts helped popularize Freud's theories in the United States. Bernays also pioneered the PR industry's use of psychology and other social sciences to design its public persuasion campaigns. "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits." (Propaganda, 2005 ed., p. 71.) He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the "engineering of consent."

One of Bernays' favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead for his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway," he said. In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat hearty breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a hearty breakfast.

Bernays drew upon his uncle Freud's psychoanalytic ideas for the benefit of commerce in order to promote, by indirection, commodities as diverse as cigarettes, soap and books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

In Propaganda, his most important book, Bernays argued that the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in society:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Or another quote :

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society," Bernays argued. "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

href="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html

Interestingly, Goebbels studied his work - and used his concepts.

In his memoirs, Bernays wrote that he was "shocked" to discover that Goebbels kept copies of Bernays' writings in his own personal library, and that his theories were therefore helping to "engineer" the rise of the Third Reich.

The propaganda campaign he created for the United Fruit Company actually helped the CIA overthrow it's government.

The term "banana republic" actually originated in reference to United Fruit's domination of corrupt governments in Guatemala and other Central American countries. The company brutally exploited virtual slave labor in order to produce cheap bananas for the lucrative U.S. market. When a mildly reformist Guatemala government attempted to reign in the company's power, Bernays whipped up media and political sentiment against it in the commie-crazed 1950s.

"Articles began appearing in the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the Atlantic Monthly, Time, Newsweek, the New Leader, and other publications all discussing the growing influence of Guatemala's Communists," Tye writes. "The fact that liberal journals like the Nation were also coming around was especially satisfying to Bernays, who believed that winning the liberals over was essential. . . . At the same time, plans were under way to mail to American Legion posts and auxiliaries 300,000 copies of a brochure entitled 'Communism in Guatemala--22 Facts.'"

His efforts led directly to a brutal military coup. Tye writes that Bernays "remained a key source of information for the press, especially the liberal press, right through the takeover. In fact, as the invasion was commencing on June 18, his personal papers indicate he was giving the 'first news anyone received on the situation' to the Associate Press, United Press, the International News Service, and the New York Times, with contacts intensifying over the next several days."

The result, tragically, has meant decades of tyranny under a Guatemalan government whose brutality rivaled the Nazis as it condemned hundreds of thousands of people (mostly members of the country's impoverished Maya Indian majority) to dislocation, torture and death.

Bernays relished and apparently never regretted his work for United Fruit, for which he was reportedly paid $100,000 a year, a huge fee in the early 1950s. Tye writes that Bernays' papers "make clear how the United States viewed its Latin neighbors as ripe for economic exploitation and political manipulation--and how the propaganda war Bernays waged in Guatemala set the pattern for future U.S.-led campaigns in Cuba and, much later, Vietnam."

Bernays proved that selling ideas was no different than selling soap, and could be equally effective.

Bernays insisted that public relations is the science of creating circumstances, mounting events that are calculated to stand out as newsworthy, yet, at the same time, which do not appear to be staged. The field of public relations continues to hold to this dictum, routinely mapping out pre-arranged occurrences that are projected to look and sound like impromptu truths.

The calculated simulated of enthusiasm...is also common within contemporary culture. In a variety of configurations, the applause sign has become a social principle. Statistical poll results are continuously broadcast, emphasizing the popularity (or lack thereof) of politicians, policies, products, and of course wars. Grassroots expression is now being manufactured by firms specializing in the generation of extemporaneous public opposition or support. In the PR industry, such orchestrated grassroots mobilizations are referred to as Astro Turf Organizing.

The use of unspoken visual techniques to create a mood is pervasive in our society: dramatic backdrops, logo designs, recycled paper and "green" graphics. Implicit in all this is a public relations truism: It's not what you say, but how you say it that matters.

In a democratic society, the interests of power and the interests of the public are often at odds. The rise of public relations is testimony to the ways that institutions of vested power, over the course of the twentieth century, have been compelled to justify and package their interests in terms of the common good.

href="http://www.mala.bc.ca/~soules/media205/pr.htm

Shortly before his death, at 98, he said this :

"There is propaganda and what I call impropaganda," said the 98-year-old Bernays impishly, a few years prior to his death. Propaganda originally meant promoting any idea or item, but took on its current pejorative sense following the extensive use of sinister propaganda for malicious goals during World War I and World War II. While all persuasion uses the techniques of traditional propaganda, what Bernays called "impropaganda" is "using propaganda techniques not in accordance with good sense, good faith, or good morals" Bernays, who was called the "father of public relations," was worried about the increased use of "impropaganda" in political campaigns and has spoken out against it. "Politicians who use techniques like these lose the faith of the people," said Bernays.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (not related to Bernays, but rather warning against the dangers of propaganda) provided a lit of ways to determine and see the process of propaganda at work.

The Lees also discussed the Institute's symbols for the seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative propagandist:

Name Calling: hanging a bad label on an idea, symbolized by a hand turning thumbs down;

Card Stacking: selective use of facts or outright falsehoods, symbolized by an ace of spades, a card signifying treachery;

Band Wagon: a claim that everyone like us thinks this way, symbolized by a marching bandleader's hat and baton;

Testimonial: the association of a respected or hated person with an idea, symbolized by a seal and ribbon stamp of approval;

Plain Folks: a technique whereby the idea and its proponents are linked to "people just like you and me," symbolized by an old shoe;

Transfer: an assertion of a connection between something valued or hated and the idea or commodity being discussed, symbolized by a smiling Greek theater mask; and

Glittering Generality: an association of something with a "virtue word" to gain approval without examining the evidence; symbolized by a sparkling gem.

The Institute's last newsletter reflected that "in modern society an element of propaganda is present in a large portion of human affairs...people need to be able to recognize this element even when it is serving 'good' ends."

href="http://www.publiceye.org/media/logic96.html

So, the next time you reach for that soap in the supermarket...or go to vote....think about Bernays. His legacy lives on behind the scenes in both markets.

The Ugly Truth About Everyday Life in Baghdad ( US embassy document)

Here's an insider's look, from the American Embassy in Iraq, at life there. It seems to have been written, or at least approved, by the american ambassador there.

Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad was nominated Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Iraq by President Bush on April 5, 2005. Dr. Khalilzad was sworn in on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 in Baghdad and presented his credentials to President Talabani the same day.

http://baghdad.usembassy.gov/iraq/ambassador.html

Zalmay Khalilzad, the most senior Pashtun-American and highest-ranking Muslim to serve in the Bush administration,became the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan in November 2003. He headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department in 2000 and has been a Counselor to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

He is a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, PNAC Letter sent to President William Jefferson Clinton.

Mr. Khalilzad, a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz since long before Mr. Bush took office, served as a senior director on the president's national security council staff during the early years of Mr. Bush's first term."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad

It may not have actually been written by him, as all cables are sent under the Ambassador's name.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A recent cable to the State Department from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad outlines a litany of fears and misery among Iraqi employees at the American diplomatic mission that threaten "objectivity, civility, and logic" among workers.

The collection of anecdotes from Iraqi workers in an undisclosed office in the embassy paints an extraordinarily bleak picture of life in the capital, where local employees do not dare reveal where they work, even to family members, for fear of retribution.

"Employees all share a common tale: of nine employees in March, only four had family members who knew they worked at the embassy. Iraqi colleagues who are called after hours often speak in Arabic as an indication they cannot speak openly in English," said the memo.

The author was not known. All cables from U.S. embassies to the State Department are sent under the ambassador's name, but there was no indication that the top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, had written the document.

It was first published on June 19th by The Washington Post.

A PDF copy of the cable shows that it was sent to the SecState in Washington, D.C. from "AMEmbassy Baghdad" on June 12. 2006. The typed name at the very bottom is Khalilzad -- the name of the U.S. Ambassador, though it is not known if this means he wrote the memo or merely approved it.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002690071

It's a confidential memo to Condi Rice,and I doubt that just anyone is writing her from the embassy there.

The Ugly Truth About Everyday Life in Baghdad (by the US Ambassador)
by Zalmay Khalilzad

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO
FROM: US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Baghdad
TO: Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
SUBJECT: SNAPSHOTS FROM THE OFFICE
SENSITIVE
Published: 20 June 2006

1. Iraqi staff in the Public Affairs sector have complained that Islamist and Militia groups have been negatively affecting daily routine. Harassment over proper dress and habits is increasingly persuasive. They also report power cuts and fuel prices have diminished their quality of life.

Women's Rights

2. Two of our three female employees report stepped up harassment beginning in mid-May. One, a Shia who favors Western clothing, was advised by an unknown woman in her Baghdad neighborhood to wear a veil and not to drive her own car. She said some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative.

3. Another, a Sunni, said people in her neighbourhood are harassing women and telling them to cover up and stop using cell phones. She said the taxi driver who brings her every day to the green zone has told her he cannot let her ride unless she wears a headcover. A female in the PAS cultural section is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.

4. The women say they cannot identify the groups pressuring them. The cautions come from other women, sometimes from men who could be Sunni or Shia, but appear conservative. Some ministries, notably the Sadrist controlled Ministry of Transportation, have been forcing females to wear the hijab at work.

Dress Code For All?

5. Staff members have reported it is now dangerous for men to wear shorts in public; they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts. People who wear jeans in public have come under attack.

Evictions

6. One colleague beseeched us to help a neighbor who was uprooted in May from her home of 30 years, on the pretense of application of some long-disused law. The woman, who is a Fayli Kurd, says she has nowhere to go, but the courts give them no recourse to this new assertion of power. Such uprootings may be response by new Shia government authorities to similar actions against Arabs by Kurds in other parts of Iraq. (NOTE: An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militias are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq.)

Power Cuts and Fuel Shortages a Drain on Society

7. Temperatures in Baghdad have already reached 115 degrees. Employees all confirm that, by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without. By early June, the situation had improved slightly. In Hal al-Shaab, power has recently improved from one in six to one in three hours. Other staff report similar variances. Central Baghdad neighborhood Bab al-Nu'atham has had no city power for over a month. Areas near hospitals, political party headquarters, and the green zone have the best supply. One staff member reported a friend lives in a building that houses the new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day.

8. All employees supplement city power with service contracted with neighborhood generator hookups that they pay for monthly. One employee pays 7500 Iraqi dinars (ID) per ampere to get 10 amperes per month (75,000 ID = $50/month). For this, her family gets eight hours of power per day, with service ending at 2am.

9. Fuel queues. One employee told us that he had spent 12 hours on his day off waiting to get gas. Another staff member confirmed that shortages were so dire, prices on the black market in much of Baghdad were now above 1,000 ID per liter (the official, subsidized price is 250 ID)

Kidnappings, and Threats of Worse

10. One employee informed us that his brother-in-law had been kidnapped. The man was eventually released but this caused enormous emotional distress to his family. One employee, a Sunni Kurd, received an indirect threat on her life in April. She took extended leave, and by May, relocated abroad with her family.

Security Forces Mistrusted

11. In April, employees began reporting a change in demeanor of guards at the green zone checkpoints. They seemed to be militia-like in some cases seemingly taunting. One employee asked us to get her some press credentials because the guards held her embassy badge up and proclaimed loudly to passers-by "Embassy" as she entered. Such information is a death sentence if heard by the wrong people.

Supervising Staff At High Risk

12. Employees all share a common tale: of nine employees in March, only four had family members who knew they worked at the embassy. Iraqi colleagues who are called after hours often speak in Arabic as an indication they cannot speak openly in English.

13. We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their "cover." A Sunni Arab female employee tells us family pressures and the inability to share details of her employment is very tough; she told her family she was in Jordon when we sent her on training to the US. Mounting criticism of the US at home among family members also makes her life difficult. She told us in mid-June that most of her family believes the US - which is widely perceived as fully controlling the country and tolerating the malaise - is punishing the population as Saddam did (but with Sunnis and very poor Shia now at the bottom of the list). Otherwise, she says, the allocation of power and security would not be so arbitrary.

14. Some of our staff do not take home their American cell phones, as it makes them a target. They use code names for friends and colleagues and contacts entered into Iraq cell phones. For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff for translation at on-camera press events.

15. We have begun shredding documents that show local staff surnames. In March, a few members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate.

Sectarian Tensions Within Families

16. Ethnic and sectarian faultlines are becoming part of the daily media fare in the country. One Shia employee told us in late May that she can no longer watch TV news with her mother, who is Sunni, because her mother blamed all the government failings on the fact that Shia are in charge. Many of the employee's family left Iraq years ago. This month, another sister is departing for Egypt, as she imagines the future here is too bleak.

Frayed Nerves and Mistrust

17. Against this backdrop of frayed social networks, tension, and moodiness have risen. A Sunni Arab female apparently insulted a Shia female by criticizing her overly liberal dress. One colleague told us he feels " defeated" by circumstances, citing the example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in the stifling heat.

18. Another employee tells us life outside the Green Zone has become " emotionally draining." He claims to attend a funeral "every evening." He, like other local employees, is financially responsible for his immediate and extended families. He revealed that "the burden of responsibility; new stress coming from social circles who increasingly disapprove of the coalition presence, and everyday threats weigh very heavily."

Staying Straight with Neighborhood Governments and the 'Alama'

19. Staff say they daily assess how to move safely in public. Often, if they must travel outside their neighborhoods, they adopt the clothing, language, and traits of the area. Moving inconspicuously in Sadr City requires Shia dress and a particular lingo.

20 Since Samarra, Baghdadis have honed survival skills. Vocabulary has shifted. Our staff - and our contacts - have become adept in modifying behavior to avoid "Alasas," informants who keep an eye out for " outsiders" in neighborhoods. The Alasa mentality is becoming entrenched as Iraqi security forces fail to gain public confidence.

21. Staff report security and services are being rerouted through "local providers" whose affiliations are vague. Those who are admonishing citizens on their dress are not well known either. Personal safety depends on good relations with "neighborhood" governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. People no longer trust most neighbors.

22. A resident of Shia/Christian Karrada district told us "outsiders" have moved in and control the mukhtars.

Comment

23. Although our staff retain a professional demeanor, strains are apparent. We see their personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels. Employees are apprehensive enough that we fear they may exaggerate developments or steer us towards news that comports with their own world view. Objectivity, civility, and logic that make for a functional workplace may falter if social pressures outside the Green Zone don't abate.

(This is an edited version of the memo)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0620-01.htm

Since this is a breaking news story, I'd like to see the veracity of this memo verified by independant sources. Based on the sources publishing it, it seems to have some authenticity.

We now have confirmation from the State Department that it is an official document, but not written by the ambassador himself.

The June 6 memo entitled "Snapshots from the Office" was sent by the Public Affairs Office staff at the American Embassy in Baghdad to the State Department in Washington and painted a bleak picture of the security situation in and around Baghdad.

The six-page message, obtained by ABC News and whose authenticity has been confirmed by the State Department, is in stark contrast to the rosy image of Iraq frequently depicted by American and Iraqi government officials.

The cable's author remains unknown, but State Department officials told reporters that U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad was not the author. Although Khalilzad's name appears at the bottom of the message, it is standard practice for an ambassador's name to appear below all such correspondence leaving the embassy.

When asked to respond to the cable today, a State Department spokesman responded broadly, saying: "Yes, there are problems. Yes, there are challenges. We are working to solve them. The Iraqi government is working to solve them. But broadly speaking, you've got some very positive things going on.

"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2098207

The Dark Side

There's a PBS documentary that's just become available online.

Click on the link above, to see it on your computer now.

If you want to understand the Iraq war, this is a must see piece of information.

There is a wealth of information in interviews and background information here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside

Iraq - and the 2000 presidential debates.

Taking into account my last post on the fact that Iraq was on the table in the first meetings this administration had when coming into power - perhaps a look back at the 2000 election campaign might be in order, starting with the debates.

Here's one exchange, in the first Gore-Bush debate :

BUSH: Well, I'm pleased with the results of the election. As the vice president said, it's time for the man to go. It means that the United States must have a strong diplomatic hand with our friends in NATO. That's why it's important to make sure our alliances are as strong as they possibly can be to keep the pressure on Mr. Milosevic. But this will be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well. Be a wonderful time for the Russians to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic that it's in his best interest and his country's best interest. The Russians have sway in that part of the world. We would like to see the Russians use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold. It's an encouraging election. It's time for the man to leave.

MODERATOR: What if he doesn't leave? What if all the diplomatic efforts, all the pressure and he still doesn't go? Is this the kind of thing, and be specific, that you as president would consider the use of U.S. military force to get him gone?

BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force.

MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force?

BUSH: No.

MODERATOR: Why not?

BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals.

Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.

- October 3, 2000

The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

Yet a few months later, as shown above, the president is doing EXACTLY what he said he wasn't going to do. He's starting to plan to attack Iraq.

That implies :

- nation building

- destroying alliances (as was the case)

- no clear mission going in (the initial mission was against a threat that wasn't there)

- no exit strategy ( we still don't have one, three years into the war)

The result ? Even more problems with morale, and recruitment - and an overextended military.

He also said this that night :

BUSH: I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today. We need decisions made on sound principles. I've been the governor of a big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I've had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that's an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I've shown I know how to do so.

Who has divided the nation more, who has made decisions without 'basing them on solid principles" ?

Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay more tax, the poorest of Americans, six million families, won't pay any tax at all. It's a huge difference. A difference between big exploding federal government that wants to think on your behalf and a plan that meets priorities and liberates working people to be able to make decisions on your own.

Are the wealthiest Americans now paying more tax ? They actually received a huge reduction in this latest budget - and in a recession, and in a government that is in fact larger than it was under Clinton.

Perhaps we should now apply this part of the Bush doctrine, as he expressed it in that first debate :

BUSH: I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote.

Now onto the second debate:

BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.

BUSH: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that's the Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example. Now there are some places where I think -- you know, I've supported the administration in Columbia. I think it's important for us to be training Columbians in that part of the world. The hemisphere is in our interest to have a peaceful Columbia. But --

MODERATOR: The use of the military, there -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.

October 11, 2000

The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is.

Your question was deployment.

It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world.

See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.

There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often.

The Vice President mentioned my view of long-term for the military. I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace. This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace. Spending money is one thing. But spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I'm going to do is ask the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world.

Again, months later - he's completely changed his tune. US troops are being considered not to be peacekeepers, but to engage in an all out war to invade Iraq. Insufficient amounts of troops will be used, and lack essential equipment to portect themselves - like body armour and armoured vehicles.

The result will be a lot of men injured and killed, in a rush to war.

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: What would you make -- what would make you the best candidate in office during the Middle East crisis?

BUSH: I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I've got a strategy for the Middle East. And first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president for working hard to diffuse tensions. Our nation needs to be credible and strong. When we say we're somebody's friend, everybody has got to believe it. Israel is our friend and we'll stand by Israel. We need to reach out to modern Arab nations as well. To build coalitions to keep the peace. I also need -- the next leader needs to be patient. We can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It's got to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace, which means that you have to be steady. You can't worry about polls or focus groups. You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it.

October 17, 2000

The Third Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000c.html

There is no mention of any impending war on Iraq, and actually that answer seems to negate the idea totally.

Now let's move on to the last debate, between the Vice-Presidential candidates. Here we start to see the path being laid out, a far different one than the President has previously spoken about in regards to the Middle East.

In fact, it's almost a polar opposite - strange as it seems.

CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We'll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in the box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition raid against them, effective economic sanctions, and an inspection regime was in place under the U.N. and it was able to do a good job of stripping out the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, the work he had been doing that had not been destroyed during the war in biological and chemical agents, as well as a nuclear program.

Unfortunately now we find ourselves in a situation where that started to fray on us, where the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together. Recently the United Arab Emirates have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The Russians and French are flying commercial airliners back into Baghdad and thumbing their nose at the international sanctions regime.

We're in a situation today where our posture with Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. It's unfortunate. I also think it's unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq. I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability, but if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you would have to give very serious consideration to military action to -- to stop that activity. I don't think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

MODERATOR: Your question, Mr. Secretary. You and Governor Bush charge the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the deterioration and overextension of America's armed forces. Should U.S. military personnel be deployed as warriors or peacekeepers?

CHENEY: My preference is to deploy them as warriors.

There may be occasion when it's appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role, but I think the role ought to be limited, a time limit on it. The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars.

And to maintain with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war in the first place. I think that the administration has, in fact, in this area failed in a major responsibility. We've seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War.

At the same time we've seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world as troops have been sent hither and yon. There was testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Armed Services Committee that pointed out a lot of these problems. General Mike Ryan of the Air Force with 40% fewer aircraft, he's now undertaking three times as many deployments on a regular basis as he had to previously. We're overcommitted and underresourced.

This has had some other unfortunate effects.

I saw a letter the other day from a young captain stationed in Fort Bragg, a graduate of West Point in '95 getting ready to get out of the service because he's only allowed to train with his troops when fuel is available for the vehicles and only allowed to fire their weapons twice a year. He's concerned if he had to ever go into combat there would be lives lost. It's a legitimate concern, the fact the U.S. military is worse off today than it was eight years ago. It's a high priority for myself and Governor Bush to rebuild the U.S. military and to give them good leadership and build up the forces.

CHENEY: When we don't give them the spare parts they need, when we don't give our pilots the flying hours they need, when we don't give them the kind of leadership that spells out what their mission is and let's them know why they're putting their lives at risk, then we undermine that morale. That's an extraordinarily valuable trust.

There is no more important responsibility for a President of the United States than his role as Commander in Chief. When he decides when to send our young men and women to war. When we send them without the right kind of training, when we send them poorly equipped or with equipment that's old and broken down, we put their lives at risk. We will suffer more casualties in the next conflict if we don't look to those basic problems now.

This administration has a bad track record in this regard, and it's available for anybody who wants to look at the record and wants to talk to our men and women in uniform, and wants to spend time with the members of the Joint Chiefs, wants to look at readiness levels and other -- other indicators.

Final point, the issue of procurement is very important because we're running now off the buildup of the investment we made during the Reagan years. As that equipment gets old, it has to be replaced. We've taken money out of the procurement budget to support other ventures. We have not been investing in the future of the U.S. military.

CHENEY: You have to go back to 1954 to find a time when we produced as little oil as we do today. Our imports are at an all-time record high. In June we imported almost 12 million barrels of oil a day. We have other problems. We don't have refinery capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for ten years. They're operating at 96% or 97% capacity. Even with more crude available they're probably not going to be able to do very much by way of producing additional home heating oil. We have a growing problem with our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy. We ought to be able to shift the trend and begin to move it in the right direction.

CHENEY: Partly because he didn't point the finger of blame looking for scapegoats he was quick to share the credit. He ended up, as a result of that activity, having the top Democrat in the state, Bob Bulloch, endorse George Bush for reelection.

It's possible to change the tone. It is possible to get people to work together and to begin to focus on achieving results.

I think it will take new leadership. I don't think you can do it, with all due respect to Al Gore, with somebody who spent all the last 24 years in that Washington environment and who campaigns on the basis of castigating others, pointing the finger of blame at others in terms of blaming business or various groups for failings. I think you have to be able to reach out and work together and build coalitions. I think George W. Bush has done it in Texas and can do it at the national level.

October 5, 2000

The Lieberman-Cheney Vice Presidential Debate

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000d.html

These debates were a perfect opportunity to start to voice the need for intervention in Iraq, as we see Cheney slowly starting to in this last debate. The American voting public, in listening to these words, makes a choice to believe their words - and elect them to power.

The future president has told the American people he does not want to nation build. He's also intimated that negotiation is better than warfare.

The second he is elected - it all changes overnight.

The first meetings held discuss war,and oil. Cheney's viewpoint is magnified, and Bush's disappears. Nothing in Iraq changes in those few months between the debates, and that first meeting of the administration. No mention is really made of any serious threat from Iraq during the election, and the debates. Yet suddenly, war is on the table the minute they get elected into power, as shown in those FOIA documents.

The American voter was deceived,never stood a chance, and was given a completely wrong picture of what was to come at the end of the first term in office. The plans for that started the first day they met, and go against everything that was presented to the American people in the election campaign - and in the debates.

How oil greased the road to the Iraq war.

The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there. O'Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to "take out" Saddam. Rather, after CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb. Again, neither O'Neil nor the other participants asked the obvious questions. Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq's oil wealth.

The revelations are contained in the book "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill" by Ron Suskind, which hit the bookstores on Jan. 13. In preparation for the book, O'Neill turned over 19,000 documents and 7,300 diary entries to Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former international editor of the Wall Street Journal. Suskind interviewed hundreds of people, including present government officials, beginning in Feb ruary 2003. It was the best-selling book on amazon.com well before being published.

O'Neill was a standing member of the National Security Council, a long-time friend of Vice President Dick Cheney and a protégé of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the Ford administration. He met one-on-one with Bush weekly during his two years as secretary of the treasury before he was fired for objecting to Bush's tax cuts. Rumsfeld called O'Neill beforehand and warned him not to publish the book.

The controversy flared even higher when CBS, on the program "60 Minutes," aired interviews with O'Neill and Suskind by Leslie Stahl. Excerpts from the transcript speak for themselves.

At another point in the book, Suskind recounts that "One document, headed 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,' lists companies from 30 countries--including France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom--their specialties, and in some cases their particular areas of interest. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for 'supergiant oilfield,' 'other oilfield,' and 'earmarked for production sharing,' while demarking the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine 'blocks' to designate areas for future exploration." (p.96)

Suskind recounts that at the start of 2001, "Actual plans, to O'Neill's astonishment, were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it--complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals--carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war." (p. 129)

If you click the link at the top of this post, you will see the actual document, released under the Freedom of information act.

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain 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.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.

March 2001 - MONTHS before 9/11....and they have already decided what's about to happen.

So let's review things, and take a look at Iraq in another light.

This administration has many members with oil industry backgrounds.

WASHINGTON -- As a White House task force drafts national energy policy,President Bush, Vice President DickCheney and top administrationofficials face conflict-of-interest questions because of their deep
connections to oil and gas companies expected to benefit from the newagenda.

Bush's Texas oilman past is well-known, as is to a lesser degreeCheney's tenure as the highly compensated head of a large energy-relatedfirm. But a Mercury News review found ties to the industry throughout
the highest levels of the administration, including key appointees whohave served as energy company executives, invested in the field orreceived large campaign contributions from it.

Cheney and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans both ran energy-relatedcompanies, earning millions of dollars. National Security AdviserCondoleezza Rice spent 10 years as a Chevron director before resigningto assume her new post.

Among the others with connections are Christine Todd Whitman, theadministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and DefenseSecretary Donald Rumsfeld. Whitman owns interests in oil wells in Texasand Colorado valued at between $55,000 and $175,000. She has promised todivest of them to meet ethics guidelines. Rumsfeld has between $3.25million and $15.5 million worth of investments in energy-relatedcompanies. He is divesting himself of many financial holdings but has not provided details.

Source: http://greenyes.grrn.org/2001/02/msg00097.html

The Task Force meetings were attended by members of the new Bush Administration's Department of Energy, and the report was read by members of Vice-President Cheney's own Energy Task Force. When Cheney issued his own national energy plan, it too declared that "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." It agreed with the Baker report that the U.S. is increasingly dependent on imported oil and that it may be necessary to overcome foreign resistance in order to gain access to new supplies.

Later the point was made more bluntly by Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves."


Greg Muttitt’s bombshell paper confirms what many have long suspected -- the big US and UK companies have enormous interest in Iraq’s giant untapped oilfields. He shows clearly how the companies have been angling to gain control of those fields and now, under the occupation, they are closing in on their goal. Production Sharing Agreements, the companies’ favorite legal ploy, have already been negotiated with pliant Iraqi officials. Likely to be rushed-through after the December 2005 elections, these contracts may lock Iraq into decades-long arrangements that siphon as much as $200 billion from the Iraqi government into company coffers.

As noted above, only 17 of Iraq’s 80 known fields are currently in production. As these 17 fields represent only 40 billion of Iraq's 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, the policy to allocate undeveloped fields to foreign companies would give those companies control of 64% of known reserves. If a further 100 billion barrels are found, as is widely predicted, the foreign companies could control as much as 81% of Iraq's oil; if 200 billion are found, as the Oil Ministry predicts, the foreign company share would be 87%.

About three months after taking power, Allawi issued a set of guidelines to the Supreme Council for Oil Policy, from which the Council was to develop a full petroleum policy. Pre-empting both the Iraqi elections and the drafting of a new constitution, Allawi’s guidelines specified that while Iraq’s currently producing fields should be developed by the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC), all other fields should be developed by private companies, through the contractual mechanism of production sharing agreements .

Iraq has about 80 known oilfields, only 17 of which are currently in production. Thus the Allawi guidelines would grant the other 63 to private companies.

Allawi also added that:

New fields would be developed exclusively by private companies, with the policy ruling out any participation of INOC;

The national oil company INOC, which manages existing oil fields, should be part-privatised;

The Iraqi authorities should not spend time negotiating the best possible deals with the oil companies; instead they should proceed quickly, agreeing whatever terms the companies will accept, with a possibility of renegotiation later.

Signing of contracts for extraction of oil and other natural resources is not listed as one of the exclusive powers of the federal authorities – the implication is thus that on new fields, it is the authority of the regional governments.

Our analysis shows that production sharing agreements have two major disadvantages for the Iraqi people:

1. The loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in potential revenue;

2. The loss of democratic control of Iraq's oil industry to international companies;

Using an average oil price of $40 per barrel, our projections reveal that the use of PSAs would cost Iraq between $74 billion and $194 billion in lost revenue, compared to keeping oil development in public hands.

This massive loss is the equivalent of $2,800 to $7,400 per Iraqi adult over the thirty-year lifetime of a PSA contract. By way of comparison Iraqi GDP currently stands at only $2,100 per person, despite the very high oil price

Our figures show that under any of the three sets of PSA terms, oil company profits from investing in Iraq would be quite staggering, with annual rates of return ranging from 42% to 62% for a small field, or 98% to 162% for a large field. This shows that under PSAs, Iraq's loss in terms of government revenue will be the oil companies’ gain.

By way of comparison, oil companies generally consider any project that generates an IRR of more than a 12% to be a profitable venture. For Iraqi oil fields, even under the most stringent PSA terms, it is clear that the oil companies can expect to achieve stellar returns.

Even at prices of $30/barrel, profits are excessive on all fields, with any terms, ranging from 33% on a small field with stringent terms to 140% on a large field with lucrative terms. At $50/barrel, the profits are even greater, ranging from 48% to 178%.

Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil...rudedesigns.htm

Suddenly, upon taking office, this same admnistration starts a drive towards the invasion of Iraq - months before 9/11. Part of that plan includes the division of Iraqi old fields - as I have proven here, using the official papers.

They know that "regime change" will not work as a justifiable cause to invade, because the American people would not support a war just for that reason.

Suddenly, after 9/11, they see their chance to score big.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m. (on 9/11, while the fires are still burning) , the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

The American people have been attacked. The man in charge of leading the defense of the nation, instead of just concentrating on the culprits, takes time to tack on Iraq in the plans.

Suddenly, Iraq is promoted as being a huge threat to America.

The CIA Director himself said there was no imminent threat.

Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

Source: www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

The administration said EXACTLY the opposite, and used every piece of information ( no matter how invalid the source) to justify the decision they were already planning for months before 9/11.

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Source: www.americanprogress.org/site/pp....JRJ8OVF&b=24970

And any information that DISPROVED what they wanted to hear was ignored.

The end result ?

Multi-national oil companies are given control of the second largest oil fields in the world.

The Bremer laws remove all sorts of restrictions for those same multi-nationals.

One of the CPA's most important tasks was the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure. While Iraq's oil infrastructure was rapidly repaired -- with the notable exception of the meters -- the progress of the reconstruction of Iraq's potable water, sewage and electricity systems was disappointingly slow. Defenders argued that this was due to the unanticipated volume and fierceness of those resisting the Coalition's occupation. Critics argued that the manner in which Bremer and his aides, awarded reconstruction contracts played a big role. Most contracts were awarded to well connected US firms. Only 2% of the reconstruction contracts in 2003 were awarded to Iraqi firms.

Those who are more critical of the American's efforts to fix Iraq believe the Bush administration's issued certain Orders to maintain varying degrees of economic and political control even after sovereignty has been established in Iraq. Those who are more suspicious believe there were 100 Orders enacted by Bremer before his departure. These alleged orders are listed as followsOne interpretation of international law is that Bremer's orders are illegal as they fundamentally alter Iraq’s existing laws. This as transformation of an occupied country’s laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), and the U.S. Army’s Law of Land Warfare.One interpretation of international law is that Bremer's orders are illegal as they fundamentally alter Iraq’s existing laws. This as transformation of an occupied country’s laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), and the U.S. Army’s Law of Land Warfare.

* Order #39 allows for the following:

1. privatization of Iraqs 200 state-owned enterprises;
2. 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;
3. national treatment of foreign firms;
4. unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and
5. 40-year ownership licenses.

* Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

* Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat rate of 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

* Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspended all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods.

* Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq s laws.

* Order # 81 prohibits Iraqi farmers from using the methods of agriculture that they have used for centuries. The common worldwide practice of saving heirloom seeds from one year to the next is now illegal in Iraq.

One of the concerns the IAMB kept raising was that the CPA had repaired the well-heads and pipelines for transporting Iraq’s oil, but they had stalled on repairing the meters that were necessary to document the shipment of Iraqi oil, so it could be demonstrated that none of it was being smuggled.

In their final press release before the CPA’s authority expired, on June 22, 2004, the IAMB stated:

The IAMB was also informed by the CPA that contrary to earlier representations the award of metering contracts have been delayed and continues to urge the expeditious resolution of this critical issue.

The CPA has acknowledged that the failure to meter the oil shipments did result in some quantity of oil being smuggled -- an avoidable loss of Iraq's oil that was Bremer's responsibility. Neither Bremer nor any of his staff has offered an explanation for their failure to repair the meters. Neither Bremer nor any of his staff has offered an explanation for why they misrepresented their progress in repairing the meters.

By failing to repair the meters, and failing to honestly report the lack of progress, Bremer violated UN Security Council resolution 1483, under which he was accountable to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board for his expenditures of Iraqi resources.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer

Meters that monitor oil pumped are mysteriously allowed to remain broken.

Army has to turn over Halliburton docs

WASHINGTON, June 7 (UPI) -- A U.S. district court judge has ordered the Army to release 14 documents, including six emails, dealing with the Halliburton oil contract in Iraq.

U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina also ordered the Army to give to the court an additional six documents for the court to review to make a further determination.

At issue is a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, an anti-corruption public interest group. Judicial Watch believes the award of a multi-billion contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR for the restoration of Iraq's oil fields may have been unduly influenced by Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed Halliburton for five years prior to joining President George. W. Bush's campaign.

The documents amount to 100 pages, according to Judicial Watch.

Three years ago Judicial Watch obtained and released an e-mail between the Army Corps of Engineers and another party that referenced the fact that the deal -- awarded in secret, without any competition, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq -- had been coordinated with the vice president's office.

The Army fought Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit, but failed to provide enough information to the court for it to make its decision. Therefore, the judge had to review the documents in person to determine whether they were exempt from FOIA requirements. Urbina was not happy.

"The court undertook an onerous in camera review of the defendant's documents in large part because of the defendant's failure to provide an accurate Vaughn index" listing the contents and relevance of each document.

Source: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060607-023522-7802r

At the same time, Iraqi police forces (the ones that must defend this delicate democracy we are trying to start there) are relying on hand-outs to get the equipment they need to even begin to protect themselves.

What you may not know is that there is a severe shortage of equipment for our fellow Iraqi police officers. America Supporting Americans, a 501 © organization that was designed to encourage cities and towns across our nation to adopt military units, has teamed up with the armed forces to solicit used equipment for Iraq.

Equipment in need include, old leather or web gear, boots, shoes, handcuffs, flex cuffs, helmets, face shields, batons, etc. Especially requested is body armor. This humanitarian program is a direct donation from the American Police community to our Iraqi police brothers, who even though they have been fighting and dying doing their duty, still have thousands who line up everyday to join in serving their communities. Since the fall of Baghdad, over 280 Iraqi police officers have been killed. They have earned and deserve our support.

You may now send equipment DIRECTLY to Baghdad for distribution. The APO address is: CPT Liz Young, HQs, MNSTC-I/Baghdad, APO AE
09316

The web site address for American Supporting Americans is: www.asa-usa.org/

“This will be an exceptional gift to the Iraqi people and more importantly, show resolve between American and Iraqi citizens versus our military. It is the decisive point in this war right now and this will make a tremendous difference. General Petraeus will take any equipment---simply telling the Iraqi police and their families it’s from Americans who want to help make all the difference in the world.”

Very Respectfully

LTC Chris Hughes

Note: LTC Hughes is the former commander of a battalion of the 101st Airborne, which served in Iraq. He is now at the War College.

“We would love to have the equipment and would be very grateful for it. The Iraqi police will put it to great use.”

Sources: http://www.policeone.com/policeone/front...wsline&id=93844

http://home.att.net/~steven.newton1/donate.html

Again, if the Iraqi people were the prime focus here, things like the Bremer laws would not be in place.

Iraqi police would be one of the first things seen as being a priority, and equipped with the best training and gear possible by the American government. They clearly are not, otherwise these handouts would not be even necessary.

Where are they on the list of priorities ?

Where are the interests of the oil companies,and the multi-nationals, on that same list ?

Who benefits ?