facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Poland


Residential
5 bedroom, 6 bath
$395000


Poland


Residential
4 bedroom, 7 bath
$899900


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
 

« Reason

So it is about oil

By Tyler S. Clark (Contact)


Published July 1, 2008

Throughout the planning, invasion and occupation, we've been assured the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was solely for reasons of national security. Oil had nothing to do with it.

There were skeptics and naysayers and conspiracy theories, oh yes. Here are a couple of example editorials from before the Iraq invasion:

Conspiracy theories are funny things: the wackier they sound, the more likely they are to be true. The fires of September were still burning when I, among others, suggested that the Bush regime's Afghan war might have more to do with old-fashioned oil politics than bringing the Evil Ones to justice.

Moreover, the American military strategy in Afghanistan -- dropping bombs without inserting a significant number of ground troops -- all but guaranteed that Osama would live to kill another day.

So the Third Afghan War obviously isn't about fighting terrorism -- leading cynics to conclude that it must be about (yawwwwwwn!) oil. Bush and Cheney were both former oil company execs, after all, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was corporate counsel at Chevron. Unbeknownst to most Americans, oil fields dot northern Afghanistan near its border with Turkmenistan. But the real jackpot is under the Caspian Sea. Between confirmed and estimated oil reserves, Kazakhstan is destined to become the world's largest oil-producing nation, and will one day dwarf even Saudi Arabia.

That was Ted Rall writing a piece titled "Bush Fuels Oil Conspiracy Theory" on January 10, 2002, three months after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

First, what is this war not about? It's not about terrorism (Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's Baathists don't even like each other). It's not about weapons of mass destruction; Saddam doesn't have any significant stocks of them, or we would have heard by now. It's not about democracy, either.

No, this is a war about oil. This is a war about Bush's friends making money from oil. This is the oil president, with his oil buddies Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice. The war in Afghanistan was about oil, and Bush's friends are now busy laying a pipeline across Afghanistan, to bring out Caspian Sea oil. As an oil man, Bush understands that the USA is never going to attain energy independence, unless the Persian Gulf states become American colonies. That's why there's talk of holding Iraq's oil revenues in trust for the Iraqi people. Translation: Once we're in charge, we'll decide what price Iraq should charge for its oil (cheap), and we'll buy it all. We'll keep the money, and some day maybe we'll give it to an Iraqi puppet, as long as he behaves.

This editorial was "Bush's Oil War" by J.H. Crawford, written February 9, 2003, more than one month before the March 19, 2003 Iraq invasion.

There were those who were practically bleeding red, white and blue in 2002 and 2003 and would crucify anyone who mentioned oil along with Afghanistan or Iraq for heresy. Oil has nothing to do with it, they insisted. This is about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Beware the mushroom clouds.

So here we are in 2008 and the oil deals are ready to be doled out. Western oil companies are favored in the bidding, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron. As recently as June 24, the Bush Administration insisted it was hands-off with those negotiations.

"Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources," Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman insisted. "I don't think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved."

The article linked above goes on to relate that a group of Democratic senators encouraged Secretary Rice to block the oil deals so that no appearance of impropriety resulted that might further inflame anti-American sentiment.

Perino shot back, "I'm curious as to why the Democrats seem to, on the one hand, want Iraq to take over more control of their own country, but on the other hand, want to continue to meddle in their business."

You know what happens next. We find out—shocker!—the Bush administration couldn't leave well enough alone.

"We pretend [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is," Frederick D. Barton, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in a telephone interview. "And we undermine our own veracity by citing issues like sovereignty, when we have our hands right in the middle of it."

Myself, I'm not big on conspiracy theories. I think it's likely Oswald acted alone. I don't doubt that four planes crashed into three buildings and one field on 9/11, and they were all piloted by terrorists under the sole direction of Al Qaeda. I don't believe the Illuminati rule the world.

However, I don't think it takes a leap of logic to see an administration run by oilmen—who marched into and illegally overthrew a sovereign Middle Eastern government on trumped-up evidence—now seeing their oil-company donors set up to reap huge dividends and suspect that if this wasn't the plan all along, it was at least at the top of the hoped-for spoils of war.


Comments

1fishingriver(1 comment)posted 6 years, 2 months ago

The most astounding part of all this is that the American people have accepted war for oil with hardly a murmur. We have more information than any society in history but are collectively unable to grasp the obvious truth. When we were going into Iraq, I thought people's denial was the result of a media complicit with white house propaganda. But now that all the evidence is in, we are to blame. We are why the president could lie us into war without being held accountable. We are why America can war for oil. The media can wave the victory cup of the oil war in our faces and laced with government supplied talking points... we swallow. We know but we don't move. It is as if our collective conscience is that someone else will have the strength of character to do the right thing. But nobody does. And sadly, no one is going to. As a matter of fact, we have a presidential candidate who is already espousing the need to attack Iran. We have graduated from being told that Iraq has WMD to Iran could have them some day. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Someone will surely have the strength of character to keep us from being fooled again.

Suggest removal:

2valleyred(1097 comments)posted 6 years, 2 months ago

Let's drill for more oil.. Increase supply... To lower costs.

Suggest removal:

3Andydoyouask(8 comments)posted 6 years, 2 months ago

Here's a better idea. Switch the fuel game to a different fuel, a more efficient fuel, fuel that is renewable and cannot be OWNED because of its locale and supply. How about solar and wind, people. Sheesh. Wake up. Oil is limited. One day it will be gone. We might as well be preparing for that now, so that we don't devolve any more than we already have thanks to the Bush administration stealing taxpayers money to fund a war that is run by private companies he and his cronies own.

Suggest removal:



News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport