er... I meant a tad more than a week. Here's some more, Sam... though I know Greg Palast is contrary to your religion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm.. Last Updated: Thursday, 17 March, 2005, 15:41 GMT E-mail this to a friend Printable version Secret US plans for Iraq's oil By Greg Palast Reporting for Newsnight The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming Mr Falah Aljibury An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. Secret sell-off plan The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department. Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces. "Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco. "We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming." Privatisation blocked by industry Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme. Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved." Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision. Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain." New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government. View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves. Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company." The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology." A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005. Newsnight is broadcast every weekday at 10.30pm on BBC Two in the UK. Dana On 7/9/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it was a tad more than a link, if the following is accurate: > > http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill > > The Other Bomb Drops > Jeremy Scahill > > > > PRINT THIS ARTICLE > EMAIL THIS ARTICLE > WRITE TO THE EDITORS > TAKE ACTION NOW > SUBSCRIBE TO THE NATION > It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes > flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft > were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles > and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped > precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western > air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters > that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out > against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, > Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile > air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's > ability to resist. This was war. > > But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not > officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted > to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two > months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more > than six months before "shock and awe" officially began. > > At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent > of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the > so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in > response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the > war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than > the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq > > The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing > that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were > dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein > into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly > released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that > "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of > 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air > offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially > begun. > > The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It > was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic > circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was > not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that > while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to > war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing > Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an > eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full > combat mode--not just building the dossier of manipulated > intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on > it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times > article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam > into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration > was struggling to sell. > > On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in > his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid > war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will > be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of > systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already > being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By > the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, > offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone. > > "It reminded me of a boxing match in which one of the boxers is told > not to move while the other is allowed to punch and only stop when he > is convinced that he has weakened his opponent to the point where he > is defeated before the fight begins," says former UN Assistant > Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck, a thirty-year career diplomat who > was the top UN official in Iraq from 1998 to 2000. During both the > Clinton and Bush administrations, Washington has consistently and > falsely claimed these attacks were mandated by UN Resolution 688, > passed after the Gulf War, which called for an end to the Iraqi > government's repression in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. Von > Sponeck dismissed this justification as a "total misnomer." In an > interview with The Nation, Von Sponeck said that the new information > "belatedly confirms" what he has long argued: "The no-fly zones had > little to do with protecting ethnic and religious groups from Saddam > Hussein's brutality" but were in fact an "illegal establishment...for > bilateral interests of the US and the UK." > > These attacks were barely covered in the press and Von Sponeck says > that as far back as 1999, the United States and Britain pressured the > UN not to call attention to them. During his time in Iraq, Von Sponeck > began documenting each of the airstrikes, showing "regular attacks on > civilian installations including food warehouses, residences, mosques, > roads and people." These reports, he said, were "welcomed" by > Secretary General Kofi Annan, but "the US and UK governments strongly > objected to this reporting." Von Sponeck says that he was pressured to > end the practice, with a senior British diplomat telling him, "All you > are doing is putting a UN stamp of approval on Iraqi propaganda." But > Von Sponeck continued documenting the damage and visited many attack > sites. In 1999 alone, he confirmed the death of 144 civilians and more > than 400 wounded by the US/UK bombings. > > After September 11, there was a major change in attitude within the > Bush Administration toward the attacks. Gone was any pretext that they > were about protecting Shiites and Kurds--this was a plan to > systematically degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself from a foreign > attack: bombing Iraq's air defenses, striking command facilities, > destroying communication and radar infrastructure. As an Associated > Press report noted in November 2002, "Those costly, hard-to-repair > facilities are essential to Iraq's air defense." > > Rear Admiral David Gove, former deputy director of global operations > for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on November 20, 2002, that US and > British pilots were "essentially flying combat missions." On October > 3, 2002, the New York Times reported that US pilots were using > southern Iraq for "practice runs, mock strikes and real attacks" > against a variety of targets. But the full significance of this > dramatic change in policy toward Iraq only became clear last month, > with the release of the Downing Street memo. In it, British Defense > Secretary Geoff Hoon is reported to have said in 2002, after meeting > with US officials, that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' > to put pressure on the regime," a reference to the stepped-up > airstrikes. Now the Sunday Times of London has revealed that these > spikes "had become a full air offensive"--in other words, a war. > > Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers has called the latest > revelations about these attacks "the smoking bullet in the smoking > gun," irrefutable proof that President Bush misled Congress before the > vote on Iraq. When Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force > in Iraq, he also said he would use it only as a last resort, after all > other avenues had been exhausted. But the Downing Street memo reveals > that the Administration had already decided to topple Saddam by force > and was manipulating intelligence to justify the decision. That > information puts the increase in unprovoked air attacks in the year > prior to the war in an entirely new light: The Bush Administration was > not only determined to wage war on Iraq, regardless of the evidence; > it had already started that war months before it was put to a vote in > Congress. > > It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, > and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would > certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary > Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the > military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings > going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and > received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment. > > But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for > the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and > unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it > might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? > Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing > Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A > real probing of this "smoking gun" would not be uncomfortable only for > Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton > before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since > Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US > mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch. > > > Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week! > > If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation. > > > > On 7/8/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gee I'd like to but you didn't provide a link. > > > > They were firing at us every day and ignored the terms of the > > cease-fire agreement for 13+ years. Do you think that's justified > > because we starting a war a week earlier than they expected? > > > > On 7/8/05, Jennifer Larkin wrote: > > > Technically, if you read the information that was recently released, > > > we invaded Iraq long before Bush even went to Congress for war > > > authorization (which he said he wouldn't use). We had already started > > > bombing their telecommunications systems and electric plants and other > > > infrastructure to pre-emptively take out their ability to fight back. > > > We bombed things in Iraq outside the no-fly zone without provocation, > > > although this was covered up at the time. > > > > > > So in reality, they may have been fighting back against a foreign invader. > > > > > > I'm not saying that they didn't do anything wrong, but I am saying > > > that WE did and the public (and congress) were misled about that. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164118 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
