EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Greenspan Misses Cheney's Memo: Spills the Beans on Oil
For those still wondering why President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sent our young men and women into Iraq, the secret is now "largely" out.
No, not from the lips of former secretary of state Colin Powell. It appears we shall have to wait until the disgraced general/diplomat draws nearer to meeting his maker before he gets concerned over anything more than the "blot" that Iraq has put on his reputation.
Rather, the uncommon candor comes from a highly respected Republican doyen, economist Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, whom the president has praised for his "wise policies and prudent judgment." Sadly for Bush and Cheney, Greenspan decided to put prudence aside in his new book, The Age of Turbulence, and answer the most neuralgic issue of our times-why the United States invaded Iraq.
Greenspan writes:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Everyone knows? Would that it were so. But it's hardly everyone. Sometimes I think it's hardly anyone.
There are so many, still, who "can't handle the truth," and that is all too understandable. I have found it a wrenching experience to be forced to conclude that the America I love would deliberately launch what the Nuremburg Tribunal called the "supreme international crime"-a war of aggression-largely for oil. For those who are able to overcome the very common, instinctive denial, for those who can handle the truth, it really helps to turn off the Sunday football games early enough to catch up on what's going on.
60 Minutes
On January 11, 2004, viewers of CBS' 60 Minutes saw another of Bush's senior economic advisers, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill discussing The Price of Loyalty, his memoir about his two years inside the Bush administration. O'Neill, a plain speaker, likened the president's behavior at cabinet meetings to that of "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." How does he manage? Cheney and "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" help Bush make decisions off-line, blocking contrary views.
Cheney has a Rumsfeldian knack for aphorisms that don't parse in the real world- like "deficits don't matter." To his credit, O'Neill picked a fight with that and ended up being fired personally by Cheney. In his book, Greenspan heaps scorn on that same Cheneyesque insight.
O'Neill made no bones about his befuddlement over the president's diffident disengagement from discussions on policy-except, that is, for Bush's remarks betraying a pep-rally-cheerleader fixation with removing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.
Why Iraq? "Largely Oil"
O'Neill began to understand better after Bush's inauguration when the discussion among his top advisers abruptly moved to how to divvy up Iraq's oil wealth. Just days into the job, President Bush created the Cheney energy task force with the stated aim of developing "a national energy policy designed to help the private sector." Typically, Cheney has been able to keep secret its deliberations and even the names of its members.
But a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Commerce Department to turn over task force documents, including a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and potential areas for exploration; a Pentagon chart "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts;" and another chart detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects-all dated March 2001.
On the 60 Minutes, program on December 15, 2002, Steve Croft asked then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "What do you say to people who think this [the coming invasion of Iraq] is about oil?" Rumsfeld replied:
"Nonsense. It just isn't. There-there-there are certain............. things like that, myths that are floating around. I'm glad you asked. I-it has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."
Au Contraire
Greenspan's indiscreet remark adds to the abundant evidence that Iraq oil, and not weapons of mass destruction, was the priority target long before the Bush administration invoked WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq. In the heady days of "Mission Accomplished," a week after the president landed on the aircraft carrier, then-deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz virtually bragged about the deceit during an interview. On May 9, 2003, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason..."
That was seven weeks after the invasion; no weapons of mass destruction had been found; and Americans were growing tired of being told that this was because Iraq was the size of California. Eventually, of course, Wolfowitz' boss Rumsfeld was forced to concede, as he did to me during our impromptu TV debate on May 4, 2006: "It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there."
But three years before, during that heady May of 2003 when all else seemed to be going along swimmingly, the inebriation of apparent success led to another glaring indiscretion by Wolfowitz. During a relaxed moment in Singapore late that month, Wolfowitz reminded the press that Iraq "floats on a sea of oil," and thus added to the migraine he had already given folks in the White House PR shop.
But wait. For those of us absorbing more than FOX channel news, the primacy of the oil factor was a no-brainer. The limited number of invading troops were ordered to give priority to securing the oil wells and oil industry infrastructure immediately and let looters have their way with just about everything else (including the ammunition storage depots!). Barely three weeks into the war, Rumsfeld famously answered criticism for not stopping the looting: "Stuff happens." No stuff happened to the Oil Ministry.
Small wonder that, according to O'Neill, Rumsfeld tried hard to dissuade him from writing his book and has avoided all comment on it. As for Greenspan's book, Rumsfeld will find it easier to dodge questions from the Washington press corps from his sinecure at the Hoover Institute at Stanford.
Eminence Grise...or Oily
The other half of what Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department, calls the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" is still lurking in the shadows. What changed Cheney's mind toward Iraq from his sensible attitude after the Gulf War when, as defense secretary, he defended President George H. W. Bush's decision not to attempt to oust Saddam Hussein and conquer Iraq? Here is what Cheney said in August 1992:
"...how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?...not that damned many. So I think we got it right...when the president made the decision that we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Cheney's rather transparent remarks as CEO of Halliburton in autumn 1999 suggest what lies behind the cynical exploitation of genuine patriotism to recruit throwaway soldiers to trade for the chimera of control over the oil in Iraq:
"Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand...So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. The Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Not only Cheney, but also many of the captains of the oil industry were looking on Iraq with covetous eyes before the war. Most people forget that the Bush/Cheney administration came in on the heels of severe shortages of oil and natural gas in the U.S., and the passing of a milestone at which the United States had just begun importing more than half of the oil it consumes. One oil executive confided to a New York Times reporter a month before the war: "For any oil company, being in Iraq is like being a kid in F.A.O. Schwarz."
Canadian writer Linda McQuaig, author of It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil, and the Fight for the Planet (2004) , has noted that decades from now it will seem to everyone a real no-brainer. Historians will calmly discuss the war in Iraq and identify oil as one of the key factors in the decision to launch it. They will point to growing US dependence on foreign oil, the competition with China, India, and others for a share of the diminishing world supply of this precious, nonrenewable resource, and the fact that Iraq "floats on a sea of oil." It will all seem so obvious as to provoke little more than a yawn.
Other Factors Behind the Invasion
There were, to be sure, other factors behind the ill-starred attack on Iraq-the Bush administration's determination to acquire large, permanent military bases in the area outside of Saudi Arabia, for one. But that factor can be viewed as a subset of the energy motivation-the need to have substantial influence over the extraction and disposition of the oil in Iraq. In other words, the felt need for what the Pentagon prefers to call "enduring" military bases in the Middle East is a function of its strategic importance which, in turn, is a function-you guessed it-of its natural resources. Not only oil, but natural gas and water as well.
I find the evidence persuasive that the other major factor in the Bush/Cheney decision to make war on Iraq was the misguided notion that this would make that part of the world safer for Israel. Indeed, the so-called "neo-conservatives" still running U.S. policy toward the Middle East continue to have great difficulty distinguishing between what they perceive to be the strategic interests of Israel and those of the United States. And in my view, they show themselves extremely myopic on both counts.
Why Are Americans Silent?
Could it be that most of us Americans remain "good Germans" because we are unwilling to recognize the moral implications of starting what is likely to be the first of the resource wars of the 21st century?; because we continue to be comfortable hogging far more than our share of the world's natural resources?; and because we prefer to look the other way when our leaders tell us that aggressive war is necessary to protect that siren-call, "our way of life," from attack by those who are just plain "jealous?"
Perhaps a clue can be found in the remarkable reaction I received after a lecture I gave two and a half years ago in a very affluent suburb of Milwaukee. I had devoted much of my talk to the implications of what I consider the most important factoid of this century: the world is running out of oil.
Afterwards some twenty folks lingered in a small circle to ask follow-up questions. A persistent, elegantly dressed man, who just would not let go, dominated the questioning:
"Surely you agree that we need the oil. Then what's your problem? Some 1,450 killed thus far are far fewer than the toll in Vietnam where we lost 58,000; it's a small price to pay... a sustainable rate to bear. What IS your problem?"
I asked the man if he would feel differently if one of the (then) 1,450 already killed were his own son. Judging from his abrupt, incredulous reaction, the suggestion struck him as so farfetched as to be beyond his ken. "It wouldn't be my son," he said.
And that, I believe, is a HUGE part of the problem.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
68 Comments so far
Show AllWell, we're all gathered at this forum to display just how informed we are and have been all along regarding this "Takeover" of Iraq.
Bush, Chaney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the many other minions all orchestrated this violation of the People of America's Economic and Military resources to "Overtake" Iraq, a weak nation. Very well known by all involved was the fact that Iraq is sitting on " a sea of Oil" and void of WMD's.
Reflecting upon the conversations of my associates during the 2000 Presidential election:
"Oilmen have take over the Whitehouse"
It was and is obvious that the primary motives for "murder in Iraq" is OIL.
Now the time has come where the true Patriots of this country We THE PEOPLE must, as authorized by the Preamble to the Constitution, remove the Elected Representatives from the post they swore to honor. Any gain realized from this Iraq Episode must be confiscated and the punishment must be to the fullest extent of the Law.
While the famalies of those serving and having died in Iraq suffer to recieve the basic benefits as survivors, the people responsible for this situation in Iraq are getting richer, their children will inherit all of the benefits of their parent's theft, deception and murder.
How much longer will we sell our souls for the worthless dollar of this hypocritical nation?
The attack on and occupation of Iraq is unprecedented in this one essential respect: this was a "war" launched by our government for the purpose of looting both the victim country AND the perpetrator country. That was the whole point: to loot Iraq's oil and simultaneously loot the U.S. treasury. Mark Morford said it well the other day when he wrote that our true enemy in this war/occupation is not Iraq but America itself. The war/occupation was launched to destroy Iraq AND destroy the U.S.
RIP America. Despite your many faults, you were a magnificent country.
fuck the oil...you cannot drink it ! shouldnt every car in florida be running on solar power ?where is the technology?we better hurry while we still have the sun,the wind and the water.ultimately war will be over water.doesnt mitt romney have 4 or 5 sons old enough to serve their country ?oh,that's right..mitt said they were serving their country by helping with his campaign..that arrogant bastard !it could get worse..mercenary outfits might soon replace the regular military.and that is already on our domestic agenda,in the event of'disaster'
An honest public discussion of the roll of oil in the Iraq war? Forget it. It's like discussing sex in Sunday School.
Pearl Harbor ws an attack by a Nation on another Nation.
Twin Towers was a terror attack decision by ONE person on the administration of another nation.
Osama Bin Laden said this--
"I HAVE HAD NIGHTMARES SINCE WATCHING TALL BUILDINGS FALL IN BEIRUT FROM AMERICAN SHIP SHELLINGS.
I HAVE DREAMED SINCE OF WATCHING TALL BUILDINGS FALL IN AMERICA."
OSAMA GOT HIS REVENGE PLUS
Gates, our Secretary of Defense, disagrees with Greenspan, saying it was not oil at all; the primary reasons for our involvement in the Mid-Esat, specifically Iraq, was to insure the region was stabalized and because of the dangers of weapons of mass destruction.
We certainly have insured the region is now 'stable'. As for weapons of mass destrution? ____ Oh my God, who has used the worst type of WMDs in Iraq and Afganistan, FOREVER polluting those land areas with deadly atomic waste?
Greenspan also let slip that they sky is blue, fish are wet, bears crap in he woods and that the Pope is a known Catholic
Thank you, Ray McGovern; you're the best! Your article today is one I plan to forward to many friends and will urge them to pass it on. You've explained in clear and simple terms what I believe we all need to hear.
Peace
Gates, our Secretary of War, is on the board of directors of many of our Oily Merchants of Death.
As Governor of Texas, What would Bush do with people who lied and deceived the people of the world into war. Violating U.N. conventions, for the purpose of controlling others energy resources. Murdering and causing the deaths of over 1,000,000 people. I am not a big supporter of capital punishment, but in this situation, I vote to give him and Cheney a fair trial and then HANG THEM BY THE NECK UNTILL THEY ARE DEAD. WE have and had other options for energy and even if we did not, this won't stand.
WMDs???? ___ One year after 9-11, George Tenent, the Director of the CIA, briefed president Bush, and read directly from a top secret intelligence document, that Saddam Hussein, DID- NOT- HAVE- ANY- WMDs.
In anger, Bush informed Tenent that he did not want to hear that type of information and to not repeat it again. A month later, Congress was briefed with the NIE intelligence report, however the top secret document which had been read to President Bush and some of his staff, was NOT in that report. Instead, the NIE report stated that Saddam DID-HAVE-WMDs. President Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were all fully aware of the fact, that the NIE intelligence report concerning the issue of WMDs ___ was a lie.
Colin Powell was not aware of the true T/S report when he testified before Congress. Congress voted to approve taking strong measures against Iraq, (as a last resort), if Saddam did not surrender the WMDs. Of course he could not do that, as there were none to surrender. George Tenent could have blown the whistle to Congress prior to their most important vote. ____ He chose not to.
Shortly after the vote by Congress, Bush forced the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq and the rest is history. WMDs, was the first and primary reason given for the invasion of Iraq and Congress and the citizens of the world were lied to. By and large, most believed, perhaps the most important and devistating lie told, since Satan told Eve that the apple would not hurt. She believed him, and that's why this planet is now over populated.
Most believed the NIE report, and that's why the United States is broke, our militay is broke, we still have troops in Iraq, they won't be coming home any time soon, the war drums to invade Iran are beating and we will continue the utter stupidity of it all.
We are gonna lose our freedoms, our stature as a respected world power and perhaps our country, because of one man's lie. A lie from a weak minded man who has no common sense, lttle character, ___ a man who listens to and obeys Dick Cheney, __ who nas none.
~praise the lord~ and pass the DU ammunition, "Iran" is building an atomic bomb and Bush is gonna stop em. As soon as that mission is accomplised, he's gonna hunt down and arrest bin Ladin. ____ Somebody please, tell me ___ this is all a bad script, that would never ever sell.
this is an excellent article.
"its the crude dude" (very good title) asserts that years from now this whole oil gambit will be clear as the nose on your face. i say that it is clear now. what will change in years to come we will be our comfort factor in talking about it.
i also remain with this nagging feeling that many americans, though they may not admit it like the guy at the end of the discussion, feel that - while crude, unamerican and embarrassing, the securing of the oil is a good thing for the country, generally speaking (pardon the pun).
while there is regret about the american casualties, the iraqi casualties seem to be of no consequence to these people.
neither do the political consequences.
it is myopic and self-centered but then doesn't that describe so many americans.
looking forward, the attack on iran will be the "bridge too far" of this regime.
the fallout from that will see the suv's parked and the houses cold in the heartland.
based on the blunders, miscues and outright screw ups of iraq campaign i don't feel that the american public should be so sanguine about the prospects of a larger war, or as the neocons like to flesh out - some kind of war with the world that never ends.
orwellian madness.
what if, i ask, we lose that one.
then what?
Just as corporations are masters of externalizations of costs, such as, polluting with impunity, denying promised health and retirement benefits, exporting jobs, etc. American politicians have externalized the sacrifices of war by using mercenaries and a small minority of American citizens to immunize the American public.
Well, NOW Greenspan speaks out. Where was he when it really mattered? Maybe he's having trouble with his own conscience for being quiet when the treasury was being plundered and wars for oil being started. Better late than never, I suppose, but it's very difficult to have any respect for him. He played the role of an enabler for a very destructive administration. Is there anyone left anymore with REAL honor and integrity?
"Is there anyone left anymore with REAL honor and integrity?"
Anyone with an ounce of honor and integrity can't get within 10 miles of this administration.
And yeah, chessgames, it frustrates me to no end the complicity these powerful men show as long as they're employed. It's only *after* they leave office, and with a book to sell, that they find a bit of spine. It's despicable.
Has anyone ever considered that the war IS ultimately about American "security?"
Consider the fact that economists are predicting a massive recession/depression in 2008/2009, which I think could possibly be worse than the great depression 30's? At least thats the way they're making it sound.
9-11 "happened" (I subscribe to the theory that they, the administration, let it happen) because the economy was receeding then, and would have kept going into the tank unless something was done. The excuses for the Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, for this whole war on terror, and "war" and "oil" economy (which is what our economy is now based on) could all be simply to PROLONG the next great depression (which they know is going to occur).
For anyone who knows anything about the great depression it's that the powers that be, the insanly wealthy/rich elite all sold their stocks and investments weeks before Black Monday in 1929. They knew it was coming, and they knew precisely when and how it would occur. Point is, unless you're in the loop or in the upper 1% income bracket, it's only a matter of time before you will begin to suffer.
So in sum, the war is about prolonging the inevitable for a few years so they can put all of the pieces in place possibly for a fascist police state once the great depression of the 21st century occurs. The government and elites know full well that there may well be anarchy, rioting, and belligerence towards the wealthy elites- and they will seek to quell the uprising and anyone who gets out of line.
Hey Mr. McGovern, very well thought out. If you can contact the gent you mention at the end of your article will you suggest to him that he and Bush and Bush's Mommy check out the arrival of our children in coffins.
It may be that in the near future the lice at the head of our government will require that his son go out to the pointy end. What will his answer be then?
Dear MasterShake, a better title for the people you refer to as 'elite' might be just 'greedies'. Elite sounds as if they are somehow superior in some way. Avarice and utter indifference to the pain of others is what sets these lice apart from the rest of us.
Greenspan is beginning the process of getting Americans familiar to the idea that the US can and will go to War for resources. This all started with the Gulf War and 10 years of sanctions while oil was being pumped out of Iraq to American and other European companies illegally under the watchful eye of the US military and the UN.
George Bush & Co is the 2nd phase of this current glute for Oil in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa. Currently, the oil has been flowing illegally again through Kurdish handlers to American companies. Although, the US is hoping to establish contracts that can last 30 years or more with the latest Iraqi government.
The 3rd phace is coming with Iran and it appears as though France has just signed on. Many more innocent bystanders will die just because we just do not have the capacity to resist anymore.
Canuckchuck,like your stuff.
Really, who cares what Greenspan has to say.
He's just another enabler who's already backtracking...
from demerara:
The 3rd phace is coming with Iran and it appears as though France has just signed on. Many more innocent bystanders will die just because we just do not have the capacity to resist anymore.
--------------------
we do have the capacity to resist.
don't give up.
as i have posted before: take care of yourselves, do not become bitter.
be with your loved ones and in their faces you find the will to resist.
there are many of "us".
comfort yourself and the ones you love. we need you in the days to come, no matter what they are like.
smile, though your heart is breaking.
Spike September 17th, 2007 2:19 pm
IMO It was necessary to refer to them as elites, or elitists. Yes they are greedy, but these greedy people view themselves as inherantly superior to all of us who, in their view, are mere peons and ants- and we deserve what we get because we are inferior, and they are inherantly entitled because they are superior.
It's really quite sick on their part.
"Class" is the other 800-pound gorilla in the room. Americans were so brain-washed during the anti-Communist cold war era to deny every truth coming out of the left, that they believe unconditionally the myths of capitalism. The absurd extreme of these myths argues that a single payer health care plan is "communism." Well, if you get the society you create, then illiterate, ignorant Americans deserve this social, political, and economic mess their votes have created.
It doesn't matter what it's about anyway. Since nobody in the Administration has to answer for any action, lie, or crime, so what? So it's about oil. Good thing nobody's going to do anything about it. Our justice system has all but evaporated. Oh unless you're poor. If you're poor you still go to jail.
The last paragraph with the well-to-do gent's comment on his son never being killed in a war is also revelatory. Even if there were a draft his son would probably not see combat because strings would be pulled to get him a nice job behind the lines.
I like Jim Kunstler's take on it. What the war in Iraq is all about is NOT oil. It's about us Americans not being willing to change our suburbantopia lifestyles. We've built megamansions coast-to-coast that are expensive to heat and cool and now may even be impossible to pay for, and turned much of America's open space into an SUV parking lot, jammed with commuters coming in and out of these ugly, amorphous business centers. We can't seem to get over this style of living we've been courting since the 1940s, and into something less energy-intensive and designed on a more human scale. Yea, we like the mideast oil, but only because of our own laziness and reluctance to make long overdue and healthy change.
I think it's a very sad thing when ideas like social justice and economic fairness get casually tossed to the side by supposed "realists" who patronize us with condescending, hypocritical nonsense.
"WAKE UP, you SISSIES! This is the REAL WORLD! Sometimes we have to FIGHT for things like resources, so our country can SURVIVE!"
I'm sure Greenspan would go crying like a big wuss to the police if I adopted his wordly view, and subsequently knocked him over, and took his wallet.
Take heed, world! Behold the unwavering faith of the high priest of the free market! Supply and demand, my ass...if the price isn't right, apparently it's perfectly OK to just knock the seller senseless and take what he has!
I wonder...if enough of us don't like the price of what our government is selling us, couldn't we just...???
Thanks, Alan. You've given me a terrific idea.
...and oil is why there will be no drawdown in Iraq until that oil bill is signed -- the one authored by the 4 British and American oil companies that gives them a 40-year theft of 95% of Iraqi oil profits.
...and oil is why regime change in Iran is an absolute necessity, for can you imagine the Ayatola volunarily turning over 95% of Iranian oil profits to Big Oil?
It's not that the US needs the oil -- goddess knows, Canada's tarsands can provide the US market for the next 100 years. It's that Washington needs the power to turn off the oil spigot that fuels the Chinese industrial revolution.
This is an absolutely brilliant article, which says what we've known, but so much better, because it is concise and understandable, even for those who hang tightly to the denial, and won't change the channel on the remote.
The comments from all of you make it that much more valuable for me to pass along to my attention deficit deniers, whom I dearly love, but still have been unable to dislodge from the Big Lies.
I know that it's understandable to remain in such denial, because the truth is so overwhelmingly ugly.
Still. We all just keep going right over the cliff, if we stay in the darkness of denial.
Thanks Mr. McGovern, (and the staff at Common Dreams), for making this commentary available to us in a format so easily shared.
I suffered through ABC's This Week on C-Span radio last night, what a bunch of pompous ass holes, not a one of them worth listening to, yet there they are telling the country what and when to think, did you know that move on is a liberal anti-war group? Anyway during the round table discussion George Stephanopoulos asked about Greenspans "Iraq war is largely about oil" comment. You should have heard old George Will go off on that, "We did not go to war in Iraq over oil" he asserted, and then went on to pontificate about our great moral reasoning. It funny since he was simultaneously discrediting Bush's unrealistic assessment of Iraq last week, George Will is really good at talking out of both sides of his face at the same time.
"I asked the man if he would feel differently if one of the (then) 1,450 already killed were his own son. Judging from his abrupt, incredulous reaction, the suggestion struck him as so farfetched as to be beyond his ken. "It wouldn't be my son," he said." I would love to be locked in a room with this guy for 20 minutes. My son went to Iraq twice.
There is a scene in "The Maltese Falcon" where Humphrey Bogart is talking to Sidney Greenstreet about the Crusades. Greenstreet tells Bogart, "We all know that to them (the crusaders) the holy wars were largely a matter of loot." In the case of Iraq, that is oil, not to mention no-bid contracts, billions in weaponry, etc. It's too simple, too Republican, however, to say that's all it's about. It is . . . was . . . about creating the Thousand Year Republican Reich by scaring the shit out of most Americans and engaging us in permanent war, then getting Fox News to call the occupation's opponents traitors, faggots and yellow-bellies. It is about George Wanker Bush's tinhorn, arrested adolescent visions of being JohnWayneTopGunDirtyHarry who lands on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit and a codpiece. And lastly, it is equally about Christian religious/political fanaticism. The knuckle dragging, sweaty, ass-kicking evangelicals believe that Islam is a satanic force in the world that must be destroyed. George Wanker Bush is one of these knuckle dragging, sweaty, ass-kicking fanatics. Killing wogs is as important to him as controlling oil or having his great great great grandson be a future president. In the end, though, this invasion and occupation, and the upcoming assault against Iran, has already driven the United States over the cliff. We are now in free fall. The only question is: where exactly is the bottom?
The war is actually about control of Iraq's oil. Right now the spigot has been tightened so less oil flows out of Iraq. The result is higher oil prices which spell larger profits for big oil and financial relief for Saudi Arabia. When the demand increases, Iraq will pump just enough to offset the demand and prices will remain high. Iraq can easily pump millions of barrels of oil per day bringing in large sums of money to the country but if allowed to do so the price of oil will fall and you know who gets hurt. So we stay there "guiding" Iraq's oil resources for "their own good."
Even though Greenspan played his "It's the oil" riff (the guy played in jazz bands as a young man), the MSM hasn't played it up.
From what I read, the MSM reveals that Mr. G thinks Bush's economic policies suck...and Big G had nut'n to do wid it.
Again, it is considered a breech of good breeding if one brings up the oil grab card during any public discussions about Iraq.
Remember your manners!
Of course, oil, gas and all the other liquid minerals are what lube the brains of U.S. policymakers and their masters -the Big Oil honchos.
(At the same time, I have no ideas what lubes their...)
As mentioned above, another topic only the most ill mannered boars add to public discussion is social class.
One aspect of social class that many of you describe is arrogance.
But why do rulers and their spawn typically display arrogance and a sense of entitlement?
If you take a peek at any society's (or the international) power pyramid, you will probably notice that all the hierarchy's benefits go up while all of its costs go down.
One of the many benefits that accrue to our masters is constant positive feedback. You can be a certifiable idiot or incompetent like Quayle, George or Neil Bush, etc. and you will always be: surrounded by toadies that suck up to you, mechanisms that block any negative consequences your actions evoke, and people who will do whatever you tell them to do.
What average or below average person wouldn't let that constant barrage of positive feedback go their head. Jesus! I mean you can be as stupid as a turd and you can always buy the brains of well trained and intelligent people to do your bidding. Such hired brains will even tell you that everything that drops from you mouth has the stink of genius about it.
You can be as ugly as mud and have the most beautiful people surround you like planets around the sun. Any of them eager to offer any orifice for your inspection or pleasure.
In fact, being a member of the power elite, means you control the orifices of all those around you, or within your reach: mouth, sexual organs, ears, and so forth. (The possible exception is the anus; your parents have to take of that one.)
I would like to hear what Ray McGovern (as a former intelligence officer)has to say about the Kirkuk to Haifa oil pipeline discussed in a Jane's Security News story:
see Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream? Jane's Security News
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml
"All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill. "
"US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. "
"Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment. "
Thanks Ray!
If Iraq was largely about oil, and since America's oil companies are not state-owned, then I guess we're led to conclude (the obvious): the White House is industry-owned.
Clearly, Bush & Co. didn't "commit Iraq" out of a principled stance on national policy. One look at the remainder of their legacy and their M.O. is clear: they plunder everything for their own gain.
Anyone that was in washington d.c. this weekend have any stories? I so wanted to be there. I would love to hear what happened. Thanxs, Rainbow.
did my post go through?
I have been pushing this idea in hopes that it will traction. As an american it sems that concerned individuals seem to have little effect in bringing about change. Many individuals of character (Cindy Sheehan/Nader) and many groups (ACLU/Anti-War movement) can not penetrate the blanket of dollars that corporations use to suppress meaningful change and more importantly even let fellow american understand how many americans do NOT approve of the direction, ethics and policy of this once great nation.
I suggest that a a coalition of ALL groups (Immigration/Anti-War/Anti-globalization Healthcare/Free Speech/Free Press- and just concerned Americans in general) combine and simultaneously withdraw an average of 10,000 dollars oout of the banking/brokerage section of this country for sa one week. If a combined group of 10,000,000 people withdrew an average of $10,000 dollars - we would effectively have removed 100 billion in cash - but due to fractional reserve banking as much as 10 TRILLION dollars out of the economy.
OUR MONEY - they use to finance deadbeat corporations (such as Enron and worldcomm amongst many other corupt anti-american people corporations) -not to mention the governement who would rather show 50 people protesting in Burma a dozen times in a day - but not the 100,000 in Washington DC on September 15th or the one million in NYC during the Republican National Convention - as well as countless other examples. They are using OUR MONEY as collateral to do harm to US.
If -it is possible to combine our goals into one goal - which is to let these corporations/governmets KNOW that we KNOW - they are sing OUR MONEY to finance a WAR against US - and we will move it to Switzerland or some other country - just like they outsource oor jobs - we could single handly achieve the greatest worldwide non-violent most effective protest in the history on mankind.
We already know - that Mexico's biggest foreing exchange generator is immigrants sending money back home - more than oil!! - Imagine the message we would be able to send to all oppressed people everywhere - if we could successfully withdraw upto 10 trillion dollars in funds from the worlds largest economy !! All of a sudden the contempt from our congressman, senators, police, banks, corporations and brokerage houses would shrivel to the size of a raisun in the sun.
What do you guys think! I see no other way for americans to restore their voice in thie governance of our country - with out getting arrested/fired/balcklisted ad nauseum!!!!!
Mussolini first demostrated the modern fascist state. Franco and Hitler eagerly emulated it. American elites saw what Mussolini described as the merging of corporate power and government power" as the wave of the future. And so began the corporatist aka fascist love affair with this method of cornering power and wealth. Admittedly, Hitler demonstrated all too clearly the downside and the characters of those who pursue corporatism. And so it went underground. Ike warned us, naming the US movement the "military-industrial complex." Now we see the legal controls on governments by the World Trade Organization with its ultra-elite corporate power structure. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have done their own numbers on third world nations. Read Nobel laureat Joseph E. Stiglitz sometime. And big oil and chemicals have all been a part of it.
mastershake writes:
So in sum, the war is about prolonging the inevitable for a few years so they can put all of the pieces in place possibly for a fascist police state once the great depression of the 21st century occurs. The government and elites know full well that there may well be anarchy, rioting, and belligerence towards the wealthy elites- and they will seek to quell the uprising and anyone who gets out of line.
------------------
read about the new accomodations folks (fema prison camps - 800 of them built and fully operational):
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps1.htm
if you have some time check out this posting from wiki on the subject of eugenics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
mastershake discusses the attitude of the upper 1% briefly but well.
they, the rich folks, would like to see the population of the world reduced by about 75%.
from wiki (about eugenics):
Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[2] Its scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.
-------
a little more:
Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors that often correlated strongly with social class. Many eugenicists took inspiration from the selective breeding of animals (where purebreds are often strived for) as their analogy for improving human society. The mixing of races (or miscegenation) was usually considered as something to be avoided in the name of racial purity. At the time this concept appeared to have some scientific support, and it remained a contentious issue until the advanced development of genetics led to a scientific consensus that the division of the human species into unequal races is unjustifiable. Some see this as an ideological consensus, since equality, just like inequality, is a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively.
-------------------
now we see in the government's intent: motive (racial purity), means (fema prison camps) and opportunity (the war against terrorism).
seems like someone is guilty of something.
Remember, Greenspan is a banker. Thus, in the long history of bankers dating back to the Knights Templar, he knows exactly what war is good for .... making money. Anytime a banker sees a ruler who wants to go to war, they probably have to try hard to keep the grin off their face. Because wars need money, lots of money. And during most wars the people in the country are already a least a little pissed off, so the ruler wants to keep taxes low. Thus for hundreds of years rulers turn to their bankers to borrow the money to pay for the war. And for hundreds of years, bankers have gotten very rich.
Greenspan is more than happy to say this is a war about oil. For his purposes, that diverts attention from another reason for war .... making bankers rich.
I wouldn't trade my bicycle for all the oil wells in Israel..
So, can we expect Mr.Greenspan to testify against Bush and Cheney at the international war tribunals to be held in Hague to prosecute them for committing the supreme crime against humanity?
signmaker September 17th, 2007 4:38 pm
Take some time to read more than sound bites. Greenspan was warning about the destabilization of oil sources in the area, leading to global economic issues, not that the US invaded so the US can control it all.
Leave it to Ray to read only the parts of a book that suit his purpose, and ignore the parts that don't.
Yes.... And as Bob Woodward wrote on Sept. 17, "GREENSPAN: IRAQ WAR WAS A NECESSITY-He Told Bush That Hussein Threatened Oil Markets" and I quote: "Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. 'I wasn't arguing for war per se' he said. But 'to take [Hussein] out, in my judgement, it was something important for the west to do and essential, but I never saw plan B' - an alternative to the war." Later in the article Woodward continues quoting Greenspan: " 'If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands,'Greenspan said, 'our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17,18,19 million barrels a day' passing through. Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 dollars a barrel - far above the recent highs of $80 set last week - and the loss of anything more would mean 'chaos' to the global economy. Given that, 'I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential,' he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab." (Excerpts taken from Bob Woodward, Washington Post, Sept. 17, 2007)
A few thoughts: US oil production peaked in 1972, world oil production will peak by 2020 if it hasn't already. US prices WILL rise in line with demand, especially if available resources are completely out of our control, and we continue to avoid exploring alternatives, changing patterns of consumption and conserving.
Cheney has said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable."
The western industrial economies are oil-based economies. The wars of the 21st Century will be "resource wars" according to every expert. Since the Gulf War, we've kept Iraq and its 2nd largest in the world oil reserves on ice, money in the bank. There was a worldwide oil glut most of the 90s. Post 9/11 it became low hanging fruit, name your provocation, open the vault.
If we fail to change in a big way, our efforts to delude our own thinking about our consumption habits will have to become ever more tortured as the resource wars of the coming century become more frequent. Maybe "WMD" can continue to be code for a truth that's more like, "Look, we would be stupid not to pursue this once in a lifetime opportunity to steal resources and maintain our lifestyle. It's either invade or $6 a gallon gas. What'll it be?" While I despise that "truth" it would be refreshing for this administration to be forthright about its philosophy.
It helps the status quo to have something like a "mushroom cloud" or a "Saddam" to fear rather than realizing the real costs and consequences of stepping on the gas pedal. By maintaining this thin illusion of threat, we can continue to "kick ass" in some foreign land rather than adopt rational, even painful, alternatives to our patterns of resource consumption.
Greenspan sounds a lot like the general played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" who said, "You can't handle the truth!" The general's truth was that people in polite cocktail party conversation can't fathom that the freedoms we cherish are protected at the barrel of a gun by soldiers standing watch on hostile fence lines around the world. Greenspan said the Iraq war was about oil. He also admits that he suggested that Saddam be "taken out." By revealing those thoughts now, in 2007, instead of in 2003, he's saying his assessment in 2003 was that we "can't handle the truth." We couldn't handle HIS truth.
As an anonymous sage once said: "When somebody says it's NOT about the money, it's ABOUT the money." It's about the OIL!
THANK YOU,MR. GREENSPAN !!I HOPE YOU WILL INSPIRE MANY MORE TO SPEAK OUT!!NEVER IN OUR HISTORY,HAVE WE NEEDED HEROES,MORE THAN WE DO,NOW...
The problem is that Greenspan:
(a) didn't tell us anything we didn't already know and (b) didn't speak out until after retirement.
it is NOT about Oil, its about MONEY
it is also about the power that these BILLIONS will wield into the future.
The stage is set for Fascism to flourish, their long thought out think tank plans to steamroll whats left of Democracy.
As a wise journalist friend of mine once said about another plain as the nose on your face political situation, "O.K, Now we have clearly seen the alligator. We know how big it is, how long it's tail is, how many inches it's snout is, how tall it is, how long and sharp it's teeth are, and how many scales it has. NOW, what the hell are we gonna DO about it?"