Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"The Surreal (Oil) Politics of Premeditated War"

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

"The Surreal (Oil) Politics of Premeditated War"

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 05 Dec 2006, 15:38:01

The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War by R.W. Behan

Common Dreams wrote:...When George W. Bush took office, a concern for the “significant portion of the world’s oil supply” was never far from view, because the Administration’s personal linkages to the oil industry were intimate, historic, and numerous. The president and vice president were just the first examples: eight cabinet secretaries and the national security advisor were recruited directly from the oil industry, and so were 32 others in the secretariats of Defense, State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.

The Bush Administration came to power anxious, we know from published sources, to fulfill the PNAC’s vision of regime change in Iraq.

In his second week in office, President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney to chair a National Energy Policy Development Group. The supersecret “Energy Task Force,” as it came to known, was composed of officials from the relevant federal agencies and beyond question heavily attended by energy industry executives and lobbyists. (The full membership has yet to be revealed, but Enron’s Kenneth Lay was conspicuously present.)

One brute fact had to be apparent to the Task Force: in the Caspian Basin, and beneath the Iraqi deserts there are 125 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and the potential for 433 billion barrels more. Anyone controlling that much oil could break OPEC’s stranglehold overnight.

By early March, 2001, the Task Force was poring over maps of the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, tanker terminals, and oil exploration blocks. It studied an inventory of “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts”—dozens of oil companies from 30 different countries, in various stages of exploring and developing Iraqi crude. (These documents were forced into view several years later by a citizen group, Judicial Watch, with a Freedom of Information Act proceeding. It wasn’t easy—the Bush Administration appealed the lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court—but the maps and documents can now be seen and downloaded at : http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml.)

Not a single U.S. oil company, however, was among the “suitors,” and that was intolerable. Mr. Cheney’s task force concluded, “By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.”

Condoleezza Rice’s National Security Council, meanwhile, was directed by a top secret memo to “cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas of policy.” The NSC was ordered to support “the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

The Bush Administration seemed clearly to be drawing a bead on Iraqi oil—long before the “global war on terror” was envisioned and marketed. But how could the “capture of new and existing oil fields” be made to seem less aggressive, less baldly in violation of international law?


Good article. Same thesis as "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors". And Common Dreams has a very large readership of people on the Left mostly.

It's amazing how slowly (yet surely) it has taken for this view to get wide support.

Seems totally obvious to me.
Last edited by Carlhole on Tue 05 Dec 2006, 18:10:42, edited 1 time in total.
Carlhole
 

Re: "The Surreal (Oil) Politics of Premeditated War&quo

Unread postby NEOPO » Tue 05 Dec 2006, 15:47:38

Yep - the people at common dreams.org have been dishing out truth for quite some time.

Senator Byrd, Major Media Spread Coverage of Bush-Nazi Nexus

Couple good PO articles there as well yet nothing peakers dont know or havent thought and a few even fly in the face of this very good article yet we are all learning and I wont hold that against Common dreams 8)
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX

Re: "The Surreal (Oil) Politics of Premeditated War&quo

Unread postby zoidberg » Sat 09 Dec 2006, 01:29:25

Its too bad the Caspian bay has proved so disappointing in oil reserves. Nothing to sneeze at for sure, but not on Iraqi scale in quantity or quality. However it may account for America's lack of resolve in taking the lead in the Afghan operation.

I'd be much more willing to believe in the incompetence of the American Government to effectively protect its citizens than to believe they planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. That kind of secret is hard to keep, unless you kill everyone with knowledge of it. And that dork Bush would almost certainly blurt it out, in a Freudian fashion.

9/11 was an opportunity for them to enact their plans for World Domination yes, but that is all.

So I cant see such a thing being enacted as government policy, or even a conspiracy in the executive branch. No-one can completely dismiss a loose conspiracy of government officials and private citizens provinding aid and intelligence to the highjackers though.
User avatar
zoidberg
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed 23 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Center of north america

Re: "The Surreal (Oil) Politics of Premeditated War&

Unread postby Carlhole » Sat 09 Dec 2006, 02:32:31

zoidberg wrote:So I cant see such a thing being enacted as government policy, or even a conspiracy in the executive branch. No-one can completely dismiss a loose conspiracy of government officials and private citizens provinding aid and intelligence to the highjackers though.


It's one thing to have that opinion about a massive crime when a thorough and pain-staking investigation of it has already been accomplished and all reasonable questions have been asked and answered to the satisfaction of the great majority of people.

It's quite another thing to have that opinion in the absence of a decent investigation. About 40 percent of the population does not believe the official story according to multiple polls.

The 911 Truth community has a set of questions that have been asked since the beginning by many different people. Ther is intense curiosity about these questions. And they are too numerous to list here completly. They are the same set of questions that appear over and over again. Any decent investigation would address them.

For example, what was the molten metal seen in all three rubble piles by multiple separate observers? How did it arrive at its molten state? And, for that matter, why such high, never-before-seen rubble pile temperatures? 1200 degrees F according to NASA.
There has been no investigation or explanation.

Or, why did WTC7 collapse? The official answer is "We don't know".
Yet, if a 47-story building had collapsed like that solely due to fire in an incident not related to any terrorist attack, it would have been a fabulously interesting and well-covered story by all the major news networks. Yet, it was not mentioned in the 911 Commission Report and has been shown on national TV perhaps only two or three times. It is never mentioned. Why?

Or, to take another example, many people have looked at the collapses of the twin towers and noted their collapse times - officially 10 seconds and 12 seconds for each of the two towers. They have all recognized that this is only slightly longer than freefall speed. This means that the supporting structure of the two towers put up hardly any more resistance to the falling debris than the surrounding air. How do the official investigations explain this major discrepency? They don't.

The NIST report only looks at the events up until the initiation of collapse. They fail to explain the full collapse. The 911 Commission's computer models failed to duplicate the collapses.

No structural engineering firm anywhere has come forward to offer their own explanation for the total progressive collapse of the buildings. One would think that given the acute controversy, that a structural engineering firm would immediately step in to give a systematic, mathematically and logically sound analysis of the collapses. They have not.

Instead, we have had three separate, conflicting theories for the collapses none of wich explain all the observed phenomena.

Your idea that, if this were an inside job, it would be impossible to conceal, is a priori reasoning. It serves to avoid a logical and sound analysis of the events of 911 from beginnning to end that accounts for all the observed phenomena accounting for all the evidence.

Also, your criticism has been around ever since the beginning right along with all the complaints about unanswered questions, a whitewashed investigation and withheld evidence.
Carlhole
 


Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests