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 ?
No comments:
Post a Comment