Monkey wisdom

[shereads]

Well crap. In recognition of the 4th anniversary of Shock & Awe, Bush is giving a press conference. I had hoped for a parade or fireworks.

Seriously, after watching dozens of Bush apologists explain the necessity of winning the war in Iraq (just as it's necessary for the human race to develop gills) I think I finally understand:

We invaded Iraq because Iran is so dangerous.




Meanwhile, Time and Newsweek have Condi Rice distancing herself from Cheney and being assisted by former Clinton advisors in dealing with North Korea.

This would all be funny if not for the dead bodies, and the sense that we're in a pit so deep the nearest exit is someplace in China.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It's not funny at all. Yesterday this city looked like the 1960's with 15-20,000 marchers wending their way through the streets yelling "NO MORE LIES!" This followed by the police weilding night sticks beating and arresting scores of marchers.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, GW is asking for "patience." He's had four years to fix the mess he's made, for shit sake. Yesterday on "Meet the Press", Tom (Why isn't he in jail for influence peddling, fraud and money laundering) Delay of Texas claimed that "everyone knew the Iraq resolution was really about the war on terror." So, um, didn't he read it before he voted the party line? And how has he now come to the conclusion the "everyone" (who is everyone, BTW?) knew this was not about Iraq? And if it wasn't about Iraq why are we still there?

This morning in the new, the White House said they were "hopeful Attorney General Gonzoles would stay on." Two comments about that. Does the Bush Administration want him to stay on long enough to be indicted for lying to congress or what? And, if experience is any measure, that comment is the precursorer of a cabinet level firing.

On the Valery Plame thing, I've seen Bush replayed over and over saying, "Anyone in my administration who did anything wrong in this will no long be working here." I believe he still has Chaney and Rove and others there after throwing their sacrifice, Scooter Libby to the wolves.

There just isn't any integrety left in the White House so no one is still believing their bullshit.

 

[rgraham666]

There just isn't any integrety left in the White House so no one is still believing their bullshit.

Left?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Left?

Yeah. There was a bit of integrety when Powell was Sec of State, before he was perverted by the White House Gangsters, that is. And I don't even care for the guy.

 

[Evil Kirk]

Anyone notice the price of gas lately?

 

[shereads]

Yeah. There was a bit of integrety when Powell was Sec of State, before he was perverted by the White House Gangsters, that is. And I don't even care for the guy.

No, there was only the illusion of integrity when Powell was Sec. of State. Reading "The Price of Loyalty," it's clear that Powell, Price and whatshername who headed W's EPA so briefly she's just a blur, had less influence on policy than my dog has on the brand of corn flakes I buy. They were Token Moderates.

Sometimes the truth is hidden in the phrasing, as in James Price's interview with GWB after Cheney urged Price to become Sec. of Treasury. Price cautioned W that he would always speak his mind, even if it didn't fit an existing agenda.

W replied, "That won't be a problem."



If you didn't know any better, you might think that was Bush's way of saying, "That's exactly why Dick thinks we should bring you on," or "Good, I look forward to an honest exchange of ideas."

What it really meant was, "Did you say something? I was just remembering something funny Dick said about that girl who thinks she's in charge of the EPA."

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

No, there was only the illusion of integrity when Powell was Sec. of State. Reading "The Price of Loyalty," it's clear that Powell, Price and whatshername who headed W's EPA so briefly she's just a blur, had less influence on policy than my dog has on the brand of corn flakes I buy. They were Token Moderates.

Actually, I find myself in the weird position of defending Powell on this. He was out of the loop and being fed what info the gang wanted him to have so he would speak the party line.

At the same time, as Sec of State, he had the responsibility of finding out for himself which he didn't do until after he made his "yellow cake" speech at the U.N. At that point, he found himself embroiled in the gangsters plot. Then rather than speaking out, he went along with them until he was replaced by Rice.

Since then he has spoken out on several occasions. Then, oddly, he became very silent. Makes me wonder if he wasn't threatened by the gangsters.

 

[jomar]

It's all very disturbing. GW is as much of an "evildoer" as the ones standing in front of the oil that he wants.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It's all very disturbing. GW is as much of an "evildoer" as the ones standing in front of the oil that he wants.

Over the past few years, watching GW and his gang operate, I've come to see it as if the White House were a cruel father who drags his kids to the woodshed for a whipping, even though they've done nothing wrong. But he does it "for their own good." That's egotism at its highest degree.

 

[rgraham666]

It never, in my opinion, had much to do with the oil.

The Iraq war was straight out of the Old West. A gunfighter walks into town and shoots somebody dead. Just to show who's in charge.

The Iraq War was about overturning all the international conventions and laws. The current U.S. administration was telling the rest of the world, "The rules don't apply anymore. We're back to the law of the jungle."

 

[drksideofthemoon]

This morning in the new, the White House said they were "hopeful Attorney General Gonzoles would stay on." Two comments about that. Does the Bush Administration want him to stay on long enough to be indicted for lying to congress or what? And, if experience is any measure, that comment is the precursorer of a cabinet level firing.

There just isn't any integrety left in the White House so no one is still believing their bullshit.

Oh hell yes, he wants Gonzales to stay on as long as possible. As long as Gonzales is taking heat, Bush isn't.

Was there ever any integrity in the Bush White House?

 

[shereads]

Makes me wonder if he wasn't threatened by the gangsters.

What Powell did - or failed to do - makes him even more complicit in some ways than Bush. Dubya was gullible enough to believe. Powell knew better, but let himself be used to sell a lie.

In Richard Clarke's book, a Powell aide who was present the night before the U.N. presentation alleged that the Sec. spent the evening waiting for new intelligence. When he read it, he tossed the file on the desk and said, "This is it? This is bullshit."

He predicted a disaster with no end in sight, and had the credibility to prevent it. Not by changing W's mind - Cheney limited access to the president as if he were protecting him from contagion - but by ending the public's support for the war before it was too late.

Imagine if Powell, instead of going before the U.N. that day to present this "bullshit" as damning evidence, had called a press conference and resigned in protest. Maybe we'd have used these wasted resources to finish the job we began in Afghanistan, secure our borders, bring Bin Laden to justice, bring closure to the survivors of 9/11.

Instead, he toed the party line. Maybe his background led him to follow orders no matter the consequences. Or maybe he was protecting his son's job with the FCC. (Powell 2 was briefly in the limelight during NippleGate, if you recall). Or maybe Powell lost a coin toss. Whatever. He spent a lifetime earning a name that meant something, to the extent that even racists were quiet about him. Then he sold himself cheap.

 

[shereads]

"We're back to the law of the jungle."

In W's defense, Rob, he is part monkey.

 

[shereads]

Oh hell yes, he wants Gonzales to stay on as long as possible. As long as Gonzales is taking heat, Bush isn't.

Was there ever any integrity in the Bush White House?

Richard Clarke, until he resigned. But of course, he was a Clinton hire.

 

[3113]

In W's defense, Rob, he is part monkey.

Don't insult the monkeys. If we make them mad, who will type up all our stories

 

[3113]

Over the past few years, watching GW and his gang operate, I've come to see it as if the White House were a cruel father who drags his kids to the woodshed for a whipping

Yeah, but you know those kids wanted it.

John Stewart pointed it out the other night...they all keep saying, "I serve at the pleasure of the President."

 

[jomar]

It never, in my opinion, had much to do with the oil.

I guess it could have been an accident they attacked a country with oil. They probably got lost on their way to Korea.

The Iraq war was straight out of the Old West. A gunfighter walks into town and shoots somebody dead. Just to show who's in charge.

I'll buy that. Getting Saddam back for threatening Daddy.

 

[rgraham666]

I guess it could have been an accident they attacked a country with oil. They probably got lost on their way to Korea.

They had considered that. A few problems though.

A million man army. Lots and lots, and lots of mountains. If they didn't get all of NK's nukes in the first strike Seoul or Tokyo might end up glowing in the dark.

And China's right next door. They might not be happy with a U.S. invasion. Last Korean War they came in on North Korea's side.

A war in NK would have been very expensive in lives and taxes, something the American public would not have liked.

I'll buy that. Getting Saddam back for threatening Daddy.

Actually, it was entirely that Iraq would be easy to beat. See my line about death and taxes above.

The war was to send the world a message, as I said. "Pax Americana begins today. We don't care if you hate so long as you fear. This is what happens to nations that get in our way. Beware!"

Silly little glory hounds.

 

[jomar]

Whatever the true motivation for going into Iraq, the politicians sure did underestimate the resistance. You'd think someone would've mentioned Vietnam in the pre-war meetings.

The next president had better be good at foreign policy and building bridges because this one sure has rubbed the world the wrong way.

 

[3113]

The war was to send the world a message, as I said. "Pax Americana begins today. We don't care if you hate so long as you fear. This is what happens to nations that get in our way. Beware!"

I'll grant that Iraq was a tempting target in many respects for a war-lusting president like Bush. It had:

1) A hated dictator that we'd beaten before--hence, easy win, and the natives would like us.

2) Had been under sanctions, so it probably didn't have sophistocated weapons to use and it's army was likely pretty bad too.

3) No real friends (or so we assumed) as other Arab nations didn't much like it. So no worries about fighting Iraq and having all the other Arab nations mad at us--nor any other big country. It's not like in the Korean war where China was supporting NK.

All this I grant you, but you gotta admit...Oil really was the icing on the cake even if it *might not* have been the actual cake itself. The one thing I heard over and over again when GW was posturing and saying we were going to invade, and the people of the U.S. had a chance to vote--to say, "We're not behind this!" or "Go for it George!"...the one thing I kept hearing...

"It won't cost us anything because Iraq oil will pay for it."

Again and again, I heard something like this, not from the Government, but from average Americans. Somehow they'd gotten this idea in their minds, and stupidly assumed two things:

1) That Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11--and thus, we could get payback for it by bombing the shit out them (and if the Neo-Cons got anything right, they sadly got that right. Americans can't stand to feel like victims--hit us and we have to hit back. And if we can't hit the ones who really deserve it, we'll hit anyone we can scapegoat!)

2) That Iraq wanted Saddam gone and so would pay us for doing it with lots of cheap oil.

And, certainly, George took full advantage of the war to get his oil buddies in there and in control of the oil.

What I really despise is that he stole our credit card. He took this U.S. credit card, the one with all the tax money, the one with all our credit with other nations, the one with all good will towards us, the one with all our army and firepower...and he sqandered it all NOT to buy the country anything...but to buy his buddies an oil-rich country that they could exploit and use to make more money.

And the worst thing? It didn't work. He spend all that credit...put us into debt on every front...and not only have we nothing to show for it, but the oil buddies don't either.

Which is all to say that, IMHO, had there been no oil in Iraq, I suspect that George would have been happy spending the credit on an Afghanistan war because, yes, he certainly wanted to buy himself glory and additude. Iraq's oil, however, along with everything else, made it too temping to resist once the American people had blindly handed him that credit card in hopes of buying revenge for 9/11.

 

[shereads]

T

Actually, it was entirely that Iraq would be easy to beat. See my line about death and taxes above.

Or, as Rumsfeld expressed it in Clarke's book, "There are no good targets in Afganistan."

Cheney and co. probably expected iraq to be an impressive beginning for the new American imperialism (google "Project for the New American Century," a neocon foreign policy bible, which bore Cheney's and Wolfowitz's names long before there was a Bush/Cheney presidential ticket). But having failed to impress, they still achieved one major goal: removing a business impediment, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

Consider that Cheney, as a director of Halliburton Industries, bypassed sanctions against Saddam by using foreign-flagged subsidiaries. As business practices go, it was legal but by no means ideal. (What if people had found out? Well, okay, people did find out. But what if people had cared?)

Saddam was a problem, all right, and not because his justice system was heavy on torture and light on due process. (Torture, as we now now, is just an ugly name for Q&A via cattle prod.) No, Saddam was nominated for the Permanent Dirt Nap because (a) he was a magnet for trade sanctions; and (b) that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam on behalf of Ronald Reagan was being googled way too often!

For Cheney and co., victory in Iraq was achieved when the rebuilding contracts were awarded, and will continue to be celebrated while the cash flows. The $300 billion cost of the war so far is only depressing until it shows up in corporate annual reports as new income.

It's pretty ingenius, really, from a global wheeler-dealer standpoint. Not only has the Bush/Cheney administration placed a larger share of the tax burden on the middle class; they've managed to funnel a chunk of the money into the coffers of their cronies who were awarded those no-bid rebuilding contracts. And where traditional wars have benefited only the so-called defense industries and a few carpetbaggers, this one involves engineering a new infrastructure for an entire country - much of which had been awarded before the first bombs fell. The fact that the destruction has been bigger and gone on longer than expected can be looked upon as a windfall.

If you own a piece of Halliburton - or if you define Freedom as the freedom to make money where and how you can - your grief as you watch the nightly news can be mitigated by the realization that those blown-up buildings and highways might show up as new line items on a contract. Whether Iraq ends up as a democracy or a half-dozen warring theocracies doesn't matter, as long as someone in a position of power is willing to accept the gift of free replacement cities, highways, etc.

What might look like a lost war might actually be the successful execution of a corporate mission statement.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip] ...the successful execution of a corporate mission statement.

And how many times have we all dreamed of being on a death squad tasked with just such a hit?

 

[Seattle Zack]

(google "Project for the New American Century,").

Nail on the head. This war was drawn up by Scooter, Cheney, Wolfie, & Co. long before Clinton left the White House. It would have happened without 9/11, although that provided a convenient excuse. All they needed was a monkey to head the ticket. Big Oil bought and paid for the 2000 election (probably still unopened boxes and boxes of electoral ballots rotting in Biscayne Bay) and look at the record oil profits. Exxon/Mobil made more in one recent quarter than any corporation in history.

It cost 3000 American kids their lives, but capitalism is a dangerous business. Besides, if they didn't want to get their legs blown off by a land mine Rummy sold to Iraq 20 years ago, they shouldn't have joined the National Guard.

The antiwar demonstration here was pretty lackluster, actually. I was watching while on my laptop working at Starbucks, but no hippies got tasered or anything. Ever since WTO, they've been reluctant to use the teargas.

 

[shereads]

Ever since WTO, they've been reluctant to use the teargas.

Where's the challenge in protesting if there's no tear gas? Might as well stay home and watch Oprah.

 

[shereads]

News From The War On Terror

I hope you're all sitting down for this shocking new development:

One of the "performance benchmarks" by which the current gov't of Iraq must prove itself worthy of continued U.S. support is the passage of a new national petroleum law that will be significantly friendlier to western oil companies than policies elsewhere in the middle east.

Take that, terrorists!

Particularly helpful to the Iraqi people are stipulations that free the oil companies from having to hire any Iraqi people (jobs = less leisure time = stress) or to reinvest earnings in the Iraq economy.

I'm not clear on how that second one benefits Iraq... Maybe it's feared that an influx of oil money would tempt the young to waste their allowance on $270 blue jeans and designer water.

Whatever. What matters is that that the law will strike a blow against cave-dwelling evildoers. They get zilch!

Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?

By ANTONIA JUHASZ
Op-Ed Contributor
Published: March 13, 2007
San Francisco

TODAY more than three-quarters of the world’s oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn’t always this way.

Until about 35 years ago, the world’s oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP. They are among the world’s largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.

Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”

A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.”

SR notes: I can't find a definition for "initiatives" that mentions the use of military force. Is my dictionary obsolete?

One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.

The administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.

The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.

The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq’s oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country’s economic development.

The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.

Iraq’s neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.

Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.

Iraq’s five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.” They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.

~ Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International, a watchdog group, is the author of “The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.”