Cheney , Halliburton, and Iraq

[jokerswild]

http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=35

A great place to start

[jokerswild]

.

[GWB]

Reading some of the silly articles in your link makes me appreciate Cheney even more. Despite distorted and phony conspiracy charges, Cheney continues to work tirelessly for the good of the USA.

Truth is he lost a lot of potential income by leaving the corporate world to serve his country, but to some people like Cheney and myself, serving your country is more important than money or the fact that you will be unfairly attacked.

[Stu Pidasso]

The article does not explain how the war in Iraq is an oil grab. That was your original assertion.

It only accusss the Bush administration of using the war to pad the pockets of certain politically connected companies at the expense of American Tax payers. Sadly there may be some truth to that. Such behavior, however, is not new to politics or limited to just one politcal party.

Stu

[jokerswild]

Fresh concern has been raised that the American vice-president, Dick Cheney, may have played a role in the decision to award his former company Halliburton a $7bn contract for work in postwar Iraq. According to a congressional investigation, Mr Cheney's top aide, Lewis Libby, was involved in high-level talks in October 2002 which led to the firm securing the contract.
Although there is no evidence that Mr Cheney wielded any influence, the inquiry's findings appear to undermine claims that he had no prior knowledge of the contract.

Halliburton was handed the work for emergency repairs on Iraq's oilfields without a competitive tender.

The company has become a political liability for Mr Cheney, who pocketed $36m when he quit the firm to join George Bush's election campaign in 2000. The administration was accused of cronyism after the contract was announced and the firm has since been dogged by claims of overcharging and bribery.

In the midst of the din over the oilfields contract in September last year, Mr Cheney told NBC television that he had "absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of, in any way shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government".

In a letter to Mr Cheney, the California democrat Henry Waxman, who has led the congressional investigation, said the circumstances "appear to contradict your assertions".

He said that the process for awarding the contract also countered the administration's repeated assertions that no political appointees were involved in the decision.

Mr Waxman said the process had been managed by a team of political appointees led by Michael Mobbs, a special adviser to Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's under-secretary for defence policy.

He detailed a meeting in October of a foreign policy body in Washington, attended by Mr Libby, where Mr Mobbs had put forward plans to hand the contract to Halliburton.

Mr Waxman asked Mr Cheney to hand over any records of meetings or discussions his office might have had in which the contract was discussed. He also asked for clarification on an email that recently surfaced from Stephen Browning, of the Corps of Engineers, to Mr Feith on March 5 2003, which said the contract "has been coordinated with VP's [vice-president's] office".

In another blow to its reputation, Halliburton confirmed at the weekend that the US securities and exchange commission is investigating claims that a consortium it was part of bribed Nigerian officials to win a contract to build a natural gas plant.


This site has about 30 links to actions taken by Cheney prior to the invasion of Iraq which directly display a profit motive for the war. Halliburton, by the way, acquired Proesser industries while Cheney was ceo. This subsidiary has a long known relationship with the Bush family. It seeded GHWB with money when he founded Zapata oil in the 1950's.

[jokerswild]

HI Stu,
The website has links to about 30 other articles.
You are correct about this behavior not being solely a Republican problem. People like Noriega, the Shah, Somoza,Diem, Marcos, Gen. Pinochet, Gen Rios Mount and Saddam all received aide and support from the US government. These people were clearly murderers that span decades of cold war policies in which the USA had no qualms
about financing repressive regimes.

As a Congressman, Cheney voted in favor of a bill supporting the incarceration of Nelson Mandela. He staunchly supported apartheid.

Nevertheless, I respect your opiniion. Your argument that the USA had a responsibility to remove a monstor that it created is the most cogent argument that I have heard for the war. I don't agree with it, but I respect it for its informed integrity.

The link posted about George Shultz, Iraq, and Bechtel is from the NY Times. It discusses further the economic motives for the war.

[Stu Pidasso]

Still waiting patiently for the info on the oil grab. An alternative is that you could just admit that you were wrong about the war being an oil grab and run with the war being a way for Bush to pad the pockets of his cronies through lucrative no-bid reconstruction contracts.

Stu

[jokerswild]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

[MMMMMM]

Corruption and cronyism are as old as the hills and not restricted to any specific groups.

The answer to reducing government waste and corruption is as obvious as the button nose on your cute furry little face, jokerswild.

Give them less money to monkey around with--a lot less.

Want to cut government corruption by 80%? Cut taxes by 80% and they'll have 80% less money to monkey around with. Problem largely solved.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct about this behavior not being solely a Republican problem. People like Noriega, the Shah, Somoza,Diem, Marcos, Gen. Pinochet, Gen Rios Mount and Saddam all received aide and support from the US government.

[/ QUOTE ]

That north korean guy, the one who's always drunk and has more chemicals than Dupont, Kim Il something. He'd fit in well in that list. Another murder who would fit well is Yassir Arafat. I think we gave these murders aid under the Clinton administration.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Want to cut government corruption by 80%? Cut taxes by 80% and they'll have 80% less money to monkey around with. Problem largely solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your theory has some problems MMMMMMM.

First, lowering taxes has been shown to increase treasury revenues over the long run.

Second, In the short run, they would just borrow the money to monkey around with if it wasn't coming in from tax revenues.

It should be completely obvious that the real solution lies in increasing the tax rate to 100%.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

Good observations, Stu.

Well then...do whatever it takes to reduce revenues to the government by 80%, prohibit deficit spending except in war emergency, and voila!...problem solved!!!

[jokerswild]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
More to follow on Peak Oil. Zbignew Brezinxki's bbok is worth a read. This book isn't bad. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict" by Michael T. Clare
Here's another atricle:

U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

By James Kirkup

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ''a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

"I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.

Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.

Blair has said he wants Iraqi oil revenues to be held in a United Nations-run trust fund and spent on rebuilding Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday the U.S. may encourage Iraq to set up an oil revenue-sharing system that would distribute some proceeds from what he called the ''marvelous treasure'' to Iraqi citizens.

Oil production in Iraq was halted before the U.S.-led attack that toppled President Saddam Hussein. According to UN data, the nation is losing about $55 million a day in oil revenue as the U.S., the European Union and the Iraqi people debate postwar reconstruction plans.

Porritt's commission was set up in 2000 to advise the U.K. government on making economic and business activity compatible with environmental-protection policies. The body reports directly to Blair.

[MMMMMM]

Fine--but that article does not reference any "oil grab" by the USA--nor do we see any evidence of one.

Saying oil may well have been a factor is not at all the same thing as saying the purpose was to steal Iraq's oil.

Sometimes, jokerswild, it really isn't such a terrible thing to admit you were wrong.

[jokerswild]

Wrong, you haven't read the PNAC material, nor the UK report. This is typical uninformed MMM debate.I'm not talking to you anymore. You are an ignornant fascist.

[jokerswild]

Hey Stu, since I am cooperating with you and giving you tons of material to read. Please be civil and read it. Further, please provide links to economic articles (both Monetarist and Kaynsian) which either support or critic your position on the Bush tax cuts. Please explain from a monetarist point of view how the deficits will be paid without destroying Social Security.

Oh and please explain to MMMMMMMMM the definitions of Keynsian and Monetarist economic policy. M is too lazy to read and makes up his mind by what Limbaugh says on the EIB netowrk.

[MMMMMM]

I don't listen to Limbaugh and I loosely consider Keynesian theory to be largely a crock.

[MMMMMM]

"Wrong, you haven't read the PNAC material, nor the UK report. This is typical uninformed MMM debate."

I did peruse the PNAC document a while back, and thought it was generaly a good idea and wise strategy. I don't recall anything in there about stealing Iraq's oil, though.

"I'm not talking to you anymore."

One can only hope;-)

"You are an ignornant fascist."

I have explained several times that you are confusing anti-fascism with fascism. My positions are anti-fascist, not fascist.

[jokerswild]

http://www.underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid= 1028&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


A smoking gun executive order.
Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products [...]


How he implemented this executive order is turn over all the Iraqi oil fields to Halliburton and Bechtel.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Stu, since I am cooperating with you and giving you tons of material to read. Please be civil and read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read lots of it. Thanks. Some of it I agree with. Particularly, that it is of vital US interest that we have access to middle east oil. Unfortunately, this country can not do with out it.

One thing I like about Bush is that he is always looking to the future and trying to prepare for it. Here is and example of what I am talking about. One of the first things he did in office was get us out of the ABM treaty with Russia. He then started to implement a rudimentary missle defense system in Alaska on an extermly quick timetable. There was a real sense of urgency to this whole process. When I read these things I knew some danger was quickly gathering on the horizon. It wasn't long before I knew what that danger was. North Korea, its missles, and its nukes. I became angry at Clinton for not giving a [censored] about defending us against this threat.

Another thing that I find interesting is that Bush has been steadily building up the national oil reserves. Currently the reserves are at record levels and climbing. When put under pressure to release some of the reserves to slow down the escalating prices at the pump, Bush refused on the grounds that the reserves are to be used in times of emergency and not to control the price of gasoline at the pump. Now I wonder about the stability of the Saudi Monarchy.

I never for one minute believed the war in Iraq was about WMD. I always figured it was just the selling point for the war. The sad truth is, peace loving nations, will not go to war unless their own skins are threatned. If Germany didn't threatned its neighbors, the world would have stood by and not lifted a fingure as every jew in Germany was killed. The US is just as guilty of this as all the other nations. Hell, we didn't get we didn't get into the ring, until we were bombed, until our own skin was threatned.. You can say we didn't know the germans were sluaghter the jews, but you and I know that is a bunch of BS.

Bush, although he looks pretty dumb, is actually a pretty smart dude. He knew the only way to get some sort of coalition(and thus some sort of legitamacy in the minds of other nations) was to sell a war against Iraq, as a war to eliminate a threat to all nations. I agree whole heartedly that Bush's true motivations for going to war in Iraq had very little to do with WMD, and the WMD was a selling point.

Nevertheless, I see the war in Iraq as a just war for a couple of reasons. First, Saddaam simply needed to go. He was a thug in a area of the world ruled by thugs. At one time he happened to be our thug, and thus we bear much responsiblity for the crimes he committed in Iraq. We simply owed it to the people of Iraq to remove him. Second, 911 showed we have true enemies in that part of the world who can hurt us. Those enemies are Iran, Syria, and Suadi Arabia(certain elements). Iraq just happens to be situated rigth smack in the middle of those countries. Iran and Syria had better watch thier Ps and Qs if we are sitting in Iraq with 100,000+ troops. Third, we need access to middle eastern oil. Millions of other around the world need us to have access to middle eastern oil. This country feeds the world, we would be hard pressed to continue doing that if we did not have access to middle eastern oil. If we absolutely had too, we could keep that oil flowing because we have 100,000+ troops in Iraq(by letting the rest of the country go to complete [censored]).

[ QUOTE ]
Further, please provide links to economic articles (both Monetarist and Kaynsian) which either support or critic your position on the Bush tax cuts. Please explain from a monetarist point of view how the deficits will be paid without destroying Social Security.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made that response to MMMMMMM as a joke. It was not a post that I expect people to take seriously therefore I will not take the time to back it up. That whole subject(economic effects of tax cuts) belongs in its own thread.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

^

[ACPlayer]

Cut taxes by 80% and they'll have 80% less money to monkey around with.

Which is it? Usually you argue that cutting taxes will raise revenues. See if you cant see reason, you get all confused and tied up in knots.

[jokerswild]

I'm dissapointed. You acknowledge now that I was right all along. Further, you support military aggression for economic reasons (the enhancement of corporate profits). It appears that you tend towards fascism.

I'm also disspointed that you back down from your claim about economics. I could show you critiques from a Keysian point of view which state that the monetarist policies of the current administration have no hard data to back up its claims. That the current bust the budget is nothing more than wishful thinking. I won't , though. I'm through educating you folks until you do some of your own leg work.

MMMMMMM is still waiting to be told in two paragraphs the history of economic theory. If you can't explain it to him in that short space, then he'll return to Limbaugh and Drudge as his main source of information.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"Cut taxes by 80% and they'll have 80% less money to monkey around with."

Which is it? Usually you argue that cutting taxes will raise revenues. See if you cant see reason, you get all confused and tied up in knots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect example of shallow thinking, although it should be true that cutting taxes by 80% wouldn't cut revenues by a full 80%. Cutting taxes spurs growth which raises revenues, but OBVIOUSLY this can only work to a certain point of cutting taxes; there has to be a crossover somewhere, eh, ACPlayer? Cutting taxes to zero cannot raise gov't. tax revenues, right? So mightn't it be likely that 80% is a deep enough cut that revenues would actually decline, since 80% could easily be over the fulcrum point?

Anyway, as posted above: do it 'til revenues are about 20% of what they are now, prohibit deficirt spending except in emergency, and there will be far less room for financial monkey business with our tax dollars.

[adios]

Which should have a higher priority expanding social programs or paying off the deficit? Just curious as to which you believe is bigger problem if either one is indeed a problem in your opinion.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You acknowledge now that I was right all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but in no way did I acknowledge you were right.

[ QUOTE ]
Further, you support military aggression for economic reasons (the enhancement of corporate profits).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't support military aggression for corporate profits. I just like to eat. I'm not a glutton or anything, I'm content with just three squares a day. Apparently people in the rest of the world like to eat too because they seem to be buying all the grain this country produces. Take petroleum products away from a farmer and see how much he grows.

Visit Los Angeles sometime or any other big city. Imagine how it would function if petroleum products suddenly became scarce. The truth of the matter is modern cities cannot exist with out petroleum products.

This nation is dependent on foreign oil. It is something we absolutely have to have or millions would die(Here and abroad).

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that you tend towards fascism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jokerswild, do you need to eat? Do you need to drink? Do you need a place to sleep? Do you need the utility modern transportion gives you? Do you need foriegn oil? Admit it, you need all those things. Just admit you have to have them. Perhaps all this pent up aggression you have is becuase you are a facist too, but you won't admit to it. You're a closet facist, just like all those people in the McDonalds accross the street.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also disspointed that you back down from your claim about economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was dissapointed in myself too, but I got over it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't explain it to him in that short space, then he'll return to Limbaugh and Drudge as his main source of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm....I'm pretty sure MMMMMMM's main source of information comes from here. (http://www.theonion.com/) Its a very informative site once you get past the premecials.

Stu