Last updated July 18, 2008
This is a
long post. I've tried to organize it as well as I can; you should just read it, though -- there is essential information throughout. Enjoy!
Table of contentsI. Prologue
II. Our Premises for the Invasion of Iraq
III. Republicans, the Bush Administration, and Big Oil
IV. Why Write this Now? It's All Happening
Right Now.
I urge you to read to the end -- that's where all the current events are, and they are perhaps the most frightening aspect of the whole picture (i.e. what we may be planning for Iran).
I. PROLOGUE
From its very beginning of the war in Iraq, people other than those in the Bush administration have been saying that the underlying reason for the war in Iraq is oil.
I've said it, and so have a lot of people I've spoken with.
Alan Greenspan said it: "“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” (full story
here, from his book
The Age of Turbulence).
The BBC reported it.
Yet from the beginning of the war, we were reassured by this administration that oil was not our priority in Iraq. When asked by Steve Kroft (CBS radio) in November 2002 about the role of oil in policy toward Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld replied, "There are certain things like that, myths, that are floating around... [our interest in Iraq] has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil" (
Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2006).
Indeed, 0n February 26, 2003, George Bush promised that "we will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people" (from the
White House website).
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In this post my aim is to demonstrate that our military presence in Iraq is a mission based on false premises, and that American soldiers Iraqi civilians have died by the thousands for the economic interests of the very rich and the very powerful. The invasion of Iraq is all about oil. Keep reading, and find out why.
I. OUR PREMISES FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ
Not only has this administration used outright denial to try to conceal their true intentions, but little mention has been made lately of their previously-stated positions. During the Gulf War, our leaders openly acknowledged the strategic significance of the area in terms of oil; in an address to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1990, future vice president Dick Cheney spoke in rather straightforward terms: "We obviously also have a significant interest
because of the energy that is at stake in the gulf... Once [
Saddam Hussein] acquired Kuwait and deployed an army... that gave him a
stranglehold on our economy and on that of most of the other nations of the world" (emphasis added). Paul Wolfowitz was on the very same wavelength in 1994 (Antonia Juhasz,
The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (2006), 35).
What "stranglehold" was Cheney talking about? The United States' economy was, as far as I remember, doing rather well in the 1990's. In addition, Iraq's oil production hasn't been operating anywhere near its capacity for quite some time. That is, until now. With Saddam out of power, oil companies are bartering directly with the Iraqi government; this signals the end of a 36-year drought on American oil companies drilling in Iraq... ever since Saddam came into power. The whole deal is being presented as an innocent and friendly gesture. But are we really interested in "helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry" (
New York Times, June 19, 2008)?
As it turns out, the only hindrance to Big Oil's completely open and unregulated production of Iraqi crude was the presence of Saddam Hussein. The only way they could think of pulling this off was to simply remove him from power. However, our premises for invading Iraq have now proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, false.
The yellowcake uranium from Niger? The documents turned out to be forged.
The WMD's? We never found them. But when you've received bad information, as the
administration has so defensively claimed, it's still not too late to amend your actions accordingly. We've been "staying the course" for too long. Mr. President, it's almost time to fess up and apologize to the American people.
What about Iraq's direct association with Al Qaeda? The close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? Iraq being the deserved recipient of our retaliation for 9/11? All of this was nonexistent from the very beginning, yet for the administration's public image it all boiled down to this. The "rebuilding" of Iraq was not designed to radically improve the lives of the people who are directly faced with this conflict every day: the Iraqi people. It seems likely the first major conflict over the earth's dwindling oil reserves is happening right now, and we started it.
The supply of oil worldwide has peaked. The supply of oil is dwindling at the same time that demand is at an all time high and is only going to go up. The impetus behind this war has really been the belief that an outdated energy source is worth fighting for, and is even worth preemptive war on country that was not in direct hostility towards us, and losing the support of our international allies in the process. Instead of making the wise decision -- i.e. listening to the scientists and others who know what they're talking about -- we are going to risk it all; and for what? Tell me, what is the price we have to pay for more oil?
4,100 deceased American soldiers?
Nearly a quarter of a million deceased Iraqi civilians?
$533 billion (and counting) of
our money that is not going to our health system and our schools and our communities? Less money for the environment and more for Big Oil? Really?
Yes, really. That is the sad reality.
If you ask me, the most disgraceful, turn-the-other-cheek justification out there, and one that I hear it all the time, runs something like this: "Isn't the removal of a horrible dictator who murdered his own people a good thing?" Under different circumstances it might have been: I can't deny that Saddam was brutal and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. I've seen estimates of 600,000 civilian executions under Saddam, as well as 100,000 Kurds who were brutally murdered. There were certainly more than that. Stephen Cass of the
Global Business Network, who would likely agree with the administration's justifications for invasion, estimates "between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power." That is a lot of people dying.
However, this is essentially a cop-out answer. It looks only at the ends, and not at all at the means. We have still not provided the reasons that could possibly justify our actions. In addition, the Iraqi death rate is just about the same now as it was under Saddam. According to the
World Health Organization, 151,000 Iraqis died violent deaths from March, 2003 -- the start of the American invasion -- to June, 2006. That's 1,218 days. Well, I pulled out my calculator, and found that the average number of Iraqis civilian deaths during that time turns out to be just under 124 per day. To project that average over the next two years,
the number of Iraqi civilian deaths since the start of the war to the present is approximately 241,520. In the interests of fairness, let's take those 700,000 civilian deaths under Saddam as a low-end figure, and approximate about 1,000,000 civilian deaths over the course of his 24-year (1979-2003) dictatorship. In the 5 years of American military presence in Iraq, we've reached almost 25% of Saddam's civilian death count. By my estimation, it will take about 21 years of U.S. military presence in Iraq for the same number of civilians deaths in 24 years under Saddam. With no real end in sight, that is a very plausible outcome. Now, we're not directly responsible for each of those 241,250 deaths, but by our very presence the United States has a hand in every single one. It is pure ignorance to think that we've significantly improved the situation in Iraq. As a matter of fact, it's probably worse.
I am not alone in thinking this.
A 2005 United Nations report found that the quality of life for Iraqi civilians had not improved one iota: "'This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq,' Barham Salih, Iraq's minister of planning, said in statement, adding: 'If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration'" (
story here). Well, guess what?
Saddam spent ALL of the 1980's fighting a brutal war with Iran. More on that in a bit.
In 2006, Hans Blix, former chief weapons inspector for the U.N., had this to say: "Saddam would still have been sitting in office. OK, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse" (
Associated Press, Oct. 26, 2006).
Plus, "according to a [2007] poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center,
90 per cent of [Iraqi civilian] respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion" (emphasis added;
Angus Reid, Jan. 3, 2007).
So, to recount: there were no WMD's, Saddam Hussein was not associated with Al-Qaeda or the September 11 attacks in any way, yet these were the reasons our president gave for a preemptive war without the support of our international allies. So, what was the
real reason? I don't think I've heard it put in better terms than those of Derrick Jackson of the
Boston Globe. Within the past couple weeks he wrote, "It took five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers, and the wounding of 30,000 more
to make Iraq safe for Exxon. It is the inescapable open question since the reasons given by President Bush for the invasion and occupation did not exist, neither the weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks" (emphasis added; June 24, 2008).
Well, at least one person agrees with me.
We are not actually on a peacekeeping or nation-building campaign in Iraq. We're not trying to "spread freedom" or institute real democracy in the Middle East -- the administration has been doing anything and everything since taking office in 2001 to consolidate the power of the Executive branch and to weaken
American democracy. They can't even get the process correct at home. The Patriot Act and the consolidation of the national media are just drops in a rather large bucket. Quite simply, we are in Iraq for the oil.
The president doesn't care about you or your family, he just cares about helping his Big Oil friends and the lining of his, and their, pockets. The chaos we've created, the perpetual state of war, was the
strategy from the beginning; we're not bringing our soldiers home, we're staying in Iraq, because that's where the
oil is.
Worldwide, Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in potential for oil production. The Bush administration has done its darnedest to turn the nation of Iraq into a commodity, or better yet, an oil colony.
Did I mention that
Big Oil is bargaining directly with the Iraqi government? Negotiations are
happening right now to allow Big Oil to unrestricted access to Iraq's oil reserves.
II. REPUBLICANS, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND BIG OIL
Just in case you don't think Republicans and the Bush administration are closely associated with Big Oil, think again. Big Oil surely helped put Bush and Cheney in office: from 1998 to 2004, Bush received
more than $1.7 million in donations from oil and gas companies alone. And, according to the (nonpartisan)
Center for Responsive Politics, Republicans received more than $160 million in donations from the oil and gas industries in all presidential and congressional elections since 1990, while the Democrats have received less than $54 million over the same span. With the way political campaigns are financed, it is no surprise that the pander to Big Oil has been so consistent since 2001.
From the very beginning of the Bush administration, Iraqi oil was a top priority (I'll get more into that when I get to Dick Cheney). Diverting attention away from the relationships between the White House and Big Oil was indeed necessary, if the premises for invading Iraq were going to be terrorism, horrible dictators, and national security -- with everything carefully concealed by false patriotism and an elaborate campaign of fear.
The relationships between our leaders and Big Oil have been in place for quite some time. I think it's time for a breakdown.
Condoleezza Rice:
Ms. Rice was a member of Chevron's board of directors from 1991 until president Bush appointed her to be his National Security Adviser in 2001. That very same year, Chevron quietly made the decision to rename one of their oil tankers, which had been fittingly named the USS Condoleezza Rice. It wo
uld simply be too easy for Americans to make the connection between Rice and Big Oil if her name was plastered on the side of an oil tanker. Fred Gorell, a spokesman for Chevron, said in 2001:
"We made the change to eliminate the unnecessary attention caused by the vessel's original name" (San Francisco Chronicle, May 5, 2001). Maybe she wanted to focus on her new job and not think too much about oil.
Now, Ms. Rice was not
terrible at her job. She knew that Iraq was not a real threat to the United States from the very beginning
(see this clip from John Pilger's documentary Breaking the Silence). Somehow, Bush didn't get the memo. She even reported directly to Bush the intentions of Osama bin Laden. This happened well before September 11, 2001. "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'" -- those were her
official statements to the 9/11 Commission in May, 2004.
Richard Clarke, the former head of counter-terrorism for G.W. Bush (and Clinton and G.H.W. Bush) has told us of Bush's true intentions -- his book,
Against All Enemies, is phenomenal. It turns out that Bush wanted a reason to invade Iraq from very beginning of his presidency; he just needed to find an excuse.. In an interview with Lesley Stahl, Clarke spoke of what happened during the days immediately following September 11, 2001:
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' ... I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. Mr. President, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq. Saddam. Find out if there's a co
nnection.' ... We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. They all cleared the report, and we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the national security adviser [
Condoleezza Rice] or deputy [
Paul Wolfowitz]. It got bounced and was s
ent back saying, '
Wrong answer. Do it again.' ... I don't think he, the president, sees memos where he wouldn't like the answer" (emphasis added;
60 Minutes, CBS, March 2004).
It may just be a coincidence that she was so closely involved with Chevron, and that one and a half years after 9/11 we invaded Iraq on false premises with an Oil Baroness as our National Security Adviser. But maybe, just maybe, she was directly involved in the decisions that led up to the invasion of Iraq. In either case, Ms. Rice is just as culpable as anyone else, and the American people deserve an explanation from her.
Donald Rumsfeld:
As Bush's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld had less of a direct association with Big Oil than Rice or Cheney. He did own millions of dollars in oil company shares in 1990's, and he may still.
More importantly, Rumsfeld is better known for his role as Reagen's special presidential envoy to Iraq in 1983 and 1984. This picture was taken in March, 1984. The plan was to help Saddam Hussein fight Iran. So what was this infamous handshake all about? Well, the Reagen administration had been publicly condemning Saddam's use of chemical and biological weapons against Iran
, but at the same time they were giving support (in the form of weapons) to both Iraq and Iran. On March 24, 1984, a U.N. report revealed that Saddam was using mustard and nerve gas on Iranians. A mere 5 days later, the New York Times reported that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name" (March 29, 1984). Rumsfeld was just delivering the message in person: that the United States would condemn Saddam's actions publicly, but were actually in support of his efforts against the radical Islamic revolution under the Ayatollah in Iran.
And where were Saddam's biological weapons agents coming from? The United States' Centers for Disease Control, that's where. In a letter to the Senate in 1995, the admission came out about what we had actually been giving to Saddam over the period of a decade. This was no common cold: they admitted that they had "supplied Iraqi scientists with nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples in the 1980s, including the plague, West Nile, and dengue fever" (emphasis added; Business Week, Sept. 20, 2002). Yes, the United States did this under the Reagen administration, and Rumsfeld was the courier.
In a radio interview on the 5-year anniversary of 9/11, Rumsfeld had this to say: "
The fact of the matter is - if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq, he would be rollin
g in petrol dollars. Think of the price of oil today. He would have so much money. And he would be seeing the Iranians interested in a nuclear program, he would be seeing the North Koreans developing a nuclear program, and he'd say well why shouldn't he - and he would. So we're fortunate that he's gone" (WLS 890 AM, Chicago; transcript on U.S. Dept. of Defense website). Indeed, the Bush administration intended those "petrol dollars" to go elsewhere -- into their own pockets and those of their friends.
The rabbit hole with Saddam actually goes much much deeper -- the United States had been associated with Saddam Hussein since 1959, when the CIA secretly employed him to assassinate the Iraqi prime minister, General Abd al-Karim Qasim. Saddam missed. Later, in the midst of the Cold War, he was employed to fight Soviet expansion in the Middle East: in 1963 "CIA officers in Baghdad provided Saddam with lists of 'communists' whom he then assassinated" (Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, 2004, p. 66). To tell the whole story would take volumes -- but the information is out there for those interested enough to find it.
Donald Rumsfeld has really just been a pawn of the various administrations he has served under, including his role as Secretary of Defense for both Gerald Ford and G.W. Bush. He has helped facilitate conflict in the Middle East for most of his political career, and has been compliant to the wishes of those who seek to advance the interests of Big Oil worldwide. A person like him has no business of being put in charge of anything -- not even the Bluth family's banana stand, let alone the national security agenda for the United States.
When asked in 2003 about Saddam's supposed WMD's, Rumsfeld responded, " We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat" (ABC News, March 30, 2003). Does that sound like someone who actually believes those weapons existed? Or, was he afraid that news of his direct involvement in Saddam's chemical and biological weapons stockpile back in the 1980's would someday jump up and bite him?
Dick Cheney:
Vice President Cheney goes way back with Big Oil, and played an instrumental role in the early energy policies of the Bush administration.
In the year before he was elected to office, while still the CEO of the energy services company Halliburton, Che
ney asked, "So where is the oil going to come from? ... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies" (London Institute of Petroleum, 1999). Cheney's primary interests then, as they do now, lay entirely with special interests. This man is selling out the American people for the benefit of big oil at a time when we are in dire need of real leadership.
When Cheney sold his stock in Halliburton, in 2000, the Associated Press had this to report: "Vice President Cheney sold his stock in Halliburton in June 2000 for $5.1 million and his stock increased $1.4 million in value due to rising gas and oil prices that drove up the value of Halliburton stock" (Associated Press, July 25, 2000). It would look very bad for Cheney to be benefiting directly at the moment, but he has been directly influencing policy decisions that benefit Big Oil since entering office in 2001. My boldest of predictions: after his Vice Presidency Cheney will once again be involved in the business of Big Oil. I give it 6 months at most -- right around summer 2009.
Four thousand, one hundred 4,100 American soldiers have died to secure Dick Cheney's retirement plan. Perhaps he'll be moving to Dubai, where construction continues on a paradise for oil exec
utives to retire to -- right in the friendliest and most Westernized country in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates. After all, Halliburton moved its world headquarters to Dubai from Houston just last year (See the
CBS news article and video). Perhaps all of Big Oil is really looking forward to a permanent relocation to the Middle East -- see this
Time Magazine article as well.
Apparently Cheney and his oil chums look fondly upon buildings in the shape of flickering flames -- but we'll have to wait to see which businesses will eventually occupy the Dubai Towers, pictured here. It's slated to be done by 2014.
Back in 2001, Cheney was appointed to head the now-infamous Secret Energy Task Force, which would act as an advisory committee to the President on matters of energy use, acquisition, and even conservation. Al Gore writes, "We now know... from a document dated just two weeks to the day after Bush's inauguration, that his National Security Council was ordered to meld its review of operational policies toward 'rogue states' (including Iraq) with the secretive Cheney Energy Task Force's 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil a
nd gas fields'" (
The Assault on Reason, 2007, p. 117). That certainly sounds like an energy policy that takes military intervention into account, if you ask me.
In fact, Cheney and his Task Force, which was largely comprised of oil executives (
Washington Post, Nov. 16, 2005), perused maps of Iraqi oil fields that look a lot like this, with the countries of Syria and Iran sandwiching an apparently unnamed U.S. oil colony. The black splotches are the oil (originally obtained from
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf). Here's some more insight into the secretive nature of Cheney's Task Force:
Washington Post (July 18, 2007).
On May 16, 2001, the Secret Energy Task Force did give the president a report -- but I could only find the cover letter and table of contents (
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Forward.pdf). There is one sentence that is especially troubling to me. Cheney writes, "To meet our energy challenge, we must put to good use the resources around us and the talents within us."
But what do those words mean when they come from the pen of a man whose "resources" for making crucial energy decisions are a conference room of oil executives, and whose "talents," whatever they may be, have yet to be applied effectively beyond the world of big business? What about the president's "resources"? Well, they just happen to be the United States military, and obviously he hasn't squandered his opportunity to play with them as though they were little green Army Men.
Just recently, Cheney was quoted as saying: "We have to recognize that there isn't anything out there that is going to get us away from a hydrocarbon economy anytime in the near future. There really isn't anything on the horizon that today is economic, relative, for example, to basic, good old oil and gas" (from Barbara Boxer,
The Huffington Post, June 12, 2008). It is so very convenient for Cheney to feed the American people this garbage, especially when we're finding out just how much of a boon the green movement could -- and should -- be for the U.S. economy (see especially my post on Ron Paul, which is mostly about refuting the idea that the green movement would harm the economy). It's unfortunate, really, that we still have Oil Men dictating our energy policy, especially when that policy has completely failed.
The Bush Family:
This section could be
much longer, but I will try to keep it brief. It turns out that the Bush family is not just friends with Big Oil, they're a bona fide family of Oil Men. That is how they've always made their money, and is how they will continue to make their money. The same bold prediction I had for Cheney, that he will once again be directly involved in the business of Big Oil after the end of his term, will likely be the case for George W. Bush as well. It just may take a little longer and be a little more hush-hush.
To give you a taste of the Bush family's oil connections, here are some basic facts:
George H.W. Bush:* G.H.W. Bush, just after moving his family from Connecticut to Texas, formed Zapata Petroleum in 1953 with a businessman named Hugh Liedtke; drilling attempts in 128 wells were 100% successful in the company's first year, and by 1954 they were exploring offshore opportunities (Unger, 2007, p. 38-9). Zapata was merged with Penn Oil in 1963, to give us the Pennzoil we know and love today.
* The Bush family has cultivated close personal relationships with the Saudi royal family for decades. Members of the Saudi royal family are among the richest people in the world, and rule the country with the largest oil reserves in the world. Again, Craig Unger's book,
House of Bush, House of Saud, is a great read on the subject.
* G.H.W. Bush was instrumental in securing military bases in Saudi Arabia when he was the vice president under Reagen. In a shady deal in 1981, Bush I pressed Reag
en to approve the $5.5 billion sale of 5 AWACS (airborne warning and control systems) planes to Saudi Arabia (Bob Woodward,
The Commanders, 1991, p. 200). The planes were actually valued at $110 million apiece. So, where was the
additional $5 billion going? It turns out that the money went toward building American military infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, with the sole purpose of securing our future oil interests in the region. Scott Armstrong, a reporter for the Washington Post, tried to get this out to the public before the Senate narrowly voted (52-48) to approve of the transaction. In an interview on PBS's
Frontline, Armstrong would later say that the Reagen-Bush administration was "creating a new theater of war" (PBS, Feb. 16, 2003). Bush I is still friends with the Saudis -- this photo of G.H.W. Bush and King Abdullah was taken on August 1, 2005 (
White House website).
* G.H.W. Bush was the vice president of the United States when we were carrying on our shady chemical and biological weapons deals with Saddam back in 1983 and 1984 (see the Rumsfeld section above).
* Now, I've heard a lot of the same people who justify the current war by citing Saddam's cruel dictatorship also talk about him gassing Iraqi Kurds at the end of the 1980's, just as the Iraq-Iran conflict was coming to a head. That's true, Saddam did use toxic nerve gas on the Kurds; a notable example was on August 25, 1988, when Saddam attacked the Kurds on Iranian soil just five days after he signed a cease-fire with Iran.
George H.W. Bush was fully aware of what happened to the Kurds, yet U.S. funding to Iraq was actually increased after Bush was inaugurated as president in 1989. Bush's rationale for giving more money to Saddam, who had repeatedly proven himself ruthless and unreliable, was given in an interview with Larry King (Oct. 2, 1992): Bush maintained that "we were trying to work with Saddam Hussein and... to bring him along into the family of nations," (Murray Waas and Craig Unger, "In the Loop,"
New Yorker Magazine, Nov. 2, 1992).
* G.H.W. Bu
sh declared war on Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. We all know of the first Gulf War -- the very man we had funded to fight Iran in the 1980's had now gone too far. The chemical and biological weapons were fine in 1984, but in 1990 we just didn't like the idea of Iraq having all the Kuwaiti oil in addition to their own vast supply. Kuwait's sovereignty, like the "freedom" movement of our current war, was the ideological veil that generated considerable support from American citizens. If only it were that easy. If only we had leaders who weren't just glorified businessmen. (Here's a nice photo of Bush overseeing his future assets first hand.)
The assessment from the CIA was that "Baghdad almost certainly believes it is justified in taking military action to reclaim its 'stolen' territory and
oil rights" (emphasis added; here is the
official CIA report from 1997 -- look on the first page, at the top of the right-hand column). Bush had been working long and hard to ensure that oil interests were secure for the United States, and he simply couldn't allow Saddam to get even more (Kuwaiti) oil. The premise for going to war was then, as it is now, exactly the same -- to protect
"our" oil.
George W. Bush:Our leadership in Iraq has been steered by a man who clearly has a direct interest in ensuring the increase of oil company profits. It doesn't matter to him if your health is in jeopardy because of ballooning medical costs. It doesn't matter to him if your child relies on a public school system that is literally crippled because of an inadequate budget. It doesn't really matter to him that our soldiers are dying by the thousands; otherwise he'd be pushing for soldier safety and veteran's benefits as
the #1 priority of our military budget. Unfortunately that is not the case (see my post on the current G.I. Bill for more on that subject.
Quite simply, George W. Bush wanted to go into Iraq from the very beginning. He did not hesitate to lie about the supposed Al Qaeda - Iraq connection. He ignored the advice of his counter-terrorism czar, Richard Clarke, and gave no thought to whether his claim to Iraq was a legitimate one.
Oh, I've also heard Richard Clarke's testimony about Afghanistan: that we waited 2 months to get in there, and that it then happened too slowly and with too few soldiers to actually find Osama bin Laden. I also recall president Bush saying on national television that he 'doesn't really think about Osama that much' (that's not exact, but it's something like that). Could this have anything to do with the Bush-Saud family/business connection, or our extremely close involvement with the Saudis throughout the Reagen - Bush I years (including the Iraq-Iran war and Iran-contra)? To write about all of that would be too long, but the information is out there. I've mostly just read Craig Unger's book. Also see the Condoleezza Rice section above.
If that weren't enough, George W. Bush has gutted the EPA (the
New York Times reported that the White House refused to open emails about the EPA's conclusion: "that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled"), he has passed phony plans like the "Clear Skies" initiative and the "Healthy Forests" initiative (which only decreased our air quality standards and increased the logging in our national forests) and he has done everything in his power to kill the modern environmental movement and help the oil companies amass tremendous profits -- according to
U.S. News and World Report, Exxon Mobil alone made $40.6 billion in 2007, a new record. They're right on the same track in 2008, where they posted
$10.9 billion in profits in just the first quarter.
Carl Pope, the executive director if the Sierra Club, cited the Bush administration as having "the worst environmental record in American history." I got that from the
Natural Resources Defense Council (for environmental news, I also like
Grist.org quite a bit). Bottom line -- Bush has been absolutely atrocious with his environmental policy. In the midst of a mounting energy crisis, the president is doing the only thing he knows how to do: if you're out of oil, just go dig for more oil. I'll return to this one a bit later, in Current Events.
Here are some facts on: the president's background with the oil industry, his handling of the aftermath of 9/11, and a mere fraction of his record on energy and environmental policy. We already know he's just a oil-slobbering warmonger, there is just way too much for me to put everything here.
* In 1977, Bush started a tiny oil company named Arbusto Energy; it was extremely unsuccessful, and mostly lost money in its first few years of operation. This and other small oil operations (such as Spectrum 7) occupied the majority of G.W. Bush's life until the age of 40.
* In 1986, Harken Energy, an oil and gas company from Dallas, bought Arbusto for $2.25 million -- Arbusto was only worth around $500,000 at the time. Bush got about $600,000 up front, plus about $80,000 per year to work as a consultant and serve on their board. Now, why would an oil company be interested in employing someone who was obviously awful at the oil business? "Some productive oil wells, to be sure, but mostly they saw the son of the sitting Vice President. 'His name was George Bush. That was worth the money they paid him,' says Harken founder Phil Kendrick" (
Time Magazine, June 14, 1999). Harken Energy obviously saw the benefit of employing the son of the Vice President of the United States --
much easier access to the top levels of government.
Harken wasn't exactly a financial powerhouse. In fact, it was in serious financial trouble at about the same time they hired the younger Bush. But then, investments and drilling rights began pouring in from mysterious sources. One of them was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which at that time was the preferred bank for the wealthiest Saudis. Through third-party transactions, Saudi money began flowing into Harken's coffers. So what was the reason for wealthy Saudis investing in a tiny Texas oil company whose assets were laughable by their standards? Again, George W. Bush sat on the board of directors.
Another investor in BCCI was Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, the prime minister of Bahrain. With Bush on the payroll, Harken, miraculously, was able to secure exclusive rights in Bahrain for offshore drilling, beating out a much larger company -- Amoco -- in the process.
When the United States Senate conducted an investigation of BCCI, one of the investigators commented, "It was not just that the Saudis used BCCI to buy power. There were people in the United States who saw the opportunity to make scads of money" (Unger, 2004, p. 119).
Here are a couple precious moments with George Bush and the king of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. Aren't they the cutest couple?
Craig Unger also writes that the G.H.W. Bush admi
nistration repeatedly tried to block the Senate investigation into BCCI (2004, p. 126); according to the Senate report, the Justice Department "sought to impede the investigations of others through a variety of mechanisms, ranging from not making witnesses available, to not returning telephone calls, to claiming that every aspect of the case was under investigation in a period when little, if anything, was being done" (U.S. Senate,
The BCCI Affair, Report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).
For all of this there is no definitive smoking gun; it does make one wonder, though, why Saudi money would start pouring into a small Texas oil company only after George W. Bush joined its board of directors. It seems that all these oil guys, American and Saudi alike, were all too eager to go to bed with one another.
* George W. Bush was the one who told Dick Cheney to get his oil executives together and have their "Energy Security" powwow. I just wrote about it -- see above, in the Dick Cheney section. Bush obviously approved of their findings.
* Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton received no-bid contracts in Iraq, and there was a complete lack of transparency with the whole deal. The FBI conducted a special investigation (
Associated Press, Oct. 28, 2004), and the U.N. said the deal looked a lot like "highway robbery" (
The Observer, Nov. 6, 2003) -- remember that? I'm including it here because I'm pretty sure W was just fine with it.
* Bush appointed an arms dealer (specifically, the guy responsible for Patriot missiles) to head up the "reconstruction" of Iraq. The U.N. said that the "appointment of an American linked to the arms trade is the 'worst case scenario' for running the country after the war" (
The Observer, March 30, 2003). This article is astonishing, and is part of the reason that I am coming to rely on British journalism.
* John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) clean air program, spoke before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who were discussing the "Clear Skies Act of 2005." This is the air quality plan favored by Republicans. His assessment (indeed, in big bold letters) was, "
SUMMARY: THIS BILL HARMS THE PUBLIC, HELPS BIG POLLUTERS, AND WORSENS GLOBAL WARMING" (
NRDC, Feb. 2, 2005). I had to give you just one environmental blunder -- after all, oil is pretty bad for the environment, yet Bush keeps making sure oil is our top priority.
* Just this year, Bush threatened to veto a bill that would repeal $18 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil companies: "the revenues from oil companies would be used to pay for tax incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, including for ethanol produced from feedstock other than corn, and tax breaks for energy-efficiency programs" (
CNN, Feb. 26, 2008). God forbid we take measures to avert the global energy crisis. At a time when oil companies are making record profits and gas is soaring above $4.00 per gallon, this is certainly the most sensible course of action.
Plus, Bush has been
terrible for the environment: take a look at
NRDC's rundown of the Bush energy and environment agenda since 2001; nearly every line is just awful.
Holy shit, I've written all of this and not a
word about Enron! ENRON! There is so much there, including all about Ken Lay (Bush's biggest single contributor in 2000), but again, it's a little off target. See
Timothy Egan's latest column for a little taste. The highlight of the piece is where he writes about "the oversized influence of speculators in a market where few used to tread. B
ig investors are free to run up oil futures contracts thanks in part to former Senator Phil Gramm. He is the Texas Republican who co-sponsored the so-called Enron loophole in 2000 at the behest of what was later found to be one of the nation’s biggest criminal enterprises" (emphasis added; New York Times, June 25, 2008).
* Just recently, Bush gave his timetable for pulling our troops out of Iraq -- he agreed to consider a "general time horizon" (
New York Times, July 119, 2008). This is so vague that it seems obvious enough: he fully intends to keep "staying the course." Don't look for anything to change if McCain is elected in November. More on that in a bit.
There is so much more out there, I just can't write the entire thing for you. But, since Bush is still the president, he's still making all sorts of crappy decisions. Let's take a look.
IV. WHY WRITE THIS NOW? IT'S ALL HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
If you've paid attention to the news lately, you may have noticed that things are really going the way of Big Oil lately -- disturbing, once you look at it all together. Here's a brief rundown:
* Again, for the third time in this post,
Big Oil is discussing no-bid contracts directly with the Iraqi "government." This is the story:
it's one of the most jaw-dropping I've read in a while.
* The president is pushing Congress hard to open up offshore drilling. More on that in the mini-John McCain section.
* Our now-strongly-conservative Supreme Court just cut back Exxon-Mobil's fine for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill...
from $2.5 billion to $500,000 (
Associated Press, June 25, 2008)
-- it was initially $5 billion, but got cut in half in 2006. Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but 20 years later the oil is not all gone, and it is
still having a terrible effect on Alaskan citizens who live there. Of course, the ecosystem hasn't even come close to a full recovery. But most shocking it what is seldom reported:
people are dying there.
"In the time span of the battle -- 14 years after the verdict, nearly two decades since the spill itself -- claimants' lawyers say there is a new statistic to add to the grim legacy of the disaster in Prince William Sound: Nearly 20 percent of the 33,000 fishermen, Native Alaskans, cannery workers and others who triumphed in court that day are dead. 'That's the most upsetting thing, that more than 6,000 people have p
assed and this still isn't finished,' said Mike Webber, a Native Alaskan artistic carver and former fisherman... 'Our sound is not healthy, and neither are the people. Everything [i.e. oil] is still on the surface, just as it was'" (
Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2008).
Going back to that Associated Press article, it reports: "Nearly 33,000 plaintiffs are in line to share in the award approved Wednesday, an average of about $15,000 a person." But if more than 6,000 people have died because from the oil spill, don't you mean 27,000 people? (This used to be a beach, by the way.)
So, let me get this straight: $40.6 billion in profits in 2007 alone, and Exxon can't accept responsibility for a disaster that happened 20 years ago? I can imagine it now, a board room full of whiny assholes crying about how they've already given enough -- $3.4 billion, to be precise. So, tell me,
Rex Tillerson, how much is one life worth? How about 6,000 lives? That's 50% more people than we've lost in Iraq, and twice the number that were killed on 9/11. So, you're going to fight tooth and nail like a toddler having a temper tantrum over a paltry sum like $1.6 billion? How about accepting some responsibility before the last thread of your remaining dignity vanishes.
This, along with the D.C. gun decision (
Associated Press, June 26, 2008), is making the Supreme Court look just awful. We're sitting with a clear 5-4 conservative advantage -- a bunch of mini-Bushes playing with their gavels. How embarrassing.
* As if that weren't enough, the federal government "has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years" (
New York Times, June 27, 2008). Record profits and a lack of oversight is fine for oil companies, but when it comes to technology that is truly emission-free, it gets stymied by our elected representatives? And who is in charge of the investigation? The Bureau of Land Management, that's who. And what else are they in charge of? Approving natural gas drilling in the American west, where most of the solar panels would go, that's what. This was written back in 2006: "Now, as prices for natural gas explode, the question is how quickly, cheaply and efficiently the bureau can make the application decisions, which means, generally, approving them" (
New York Times, March 5, 2006). Ri-goddamn-diculous.
And now, a little on
John McCain. He simply does not make me optimistic that he really wants to turn this country in a better direction. That's all I want -- someone who is going to get out there and put our energy and resources toward things that really matter: education and awareness (including literacy, public schools, making college more affordable, increased and more effective grassroots efforts, national media reform, repealing the Patrotic Act, etc.), public health, the environment, renewable and sustainable energy infrastructure, public safety, less guns.
He likes guns -- I wrote a post on it.
Here are some recent developments on McCain, foreign policy, and energy:
* Watch this clip from Chris Matthews on
Hardball:
John McCain basically says the whole war is about oil. This has been the reason our soldiers are dying, but he's still supported it from the beginning? Oh, god.
* I cut and paste this from my other note, "John McCain and the environment": McCain just supported ending the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, the same course of action recommended by Bush and Cheney. The funny thing (or not so funny) is when you compare this to his statements during election season in 2000. This is quoted from the official January 18, 2000, report by the
Sustainable Energy Coalition:
"Senator John McCain, who criticized the Clinton Administration for its decision to extend 36 offshore oil leaves along the central California coast over the objections of that state's Governor and Attorney General, has promised to 'never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home.'"
What do Californians think about all this? Well, here's a headline for you:
Californians Object to McCain’s Drilling Plan. Here's my favorite part of the article: "'Santa Barbara has among other things a great natural beauty — one of our great natural beauties lies before you out there to the South,' said Dan Secord, who attended the event. 'We’re really kind of goosey here about oil spills, and we’re goosey here about federal drilling and oil lands, which are abundant offshore,' he said. 'So we ask you to look out there to the south and the southeast and remember the greatest environmental catastrophe that’s hit this state and then balance that with the notion of winning California. This is a vibrating blue city and a vibrating state, and it’s gonna be a tough haul.'
'This gathering is adjourned,' McCain joked" (
New York Times , June 24, 2008).
Now I'm not sure what 'goosey' means, but I think that is just Malibu yuppie Democrat for: "not happy." I'm also unsure why he chose "vibrating."
And what is Barack Obama saying about offshore drilling? Well, here's another headline for you:
Obama Assails Remarks by McCain on Offshore Oil Drilling (
New York Times, June 25, 2008).
* McCain supported Bush in opposing the windfall profits tax for Big Oil companies. Barack Obama spoke out about this, but again I had to go digging in British news sources: "Obama charged that McCain's support for extending President George W. Bush's tax cuts means he is in favor of $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks, including $1.2 billion for Exxon Mobil Corp. 'If John McCain's policies were implemented, they would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That isn't fiscal conservatism, that's what George Bush has done over the last eight years,' Obama said" (
Reuters, June 9, 2008).
It turns out McCain is quite the adept double-talker. This was written just a week later: "[McCain] criticized Obama for proposing a windfall profits tax, despite saying last month he would consider the same proposal" (
Associated Press, June 17, 2008). I just have to agree with Obama on this one.
* What about
John McCain being interviewed by the late Tim Russert? He kinda gets pwned here.
* OK, NOW PAY ATTENTION: Is it just me, or is this the scariest image of things to come? McCain's latest political advertisement is all about his plan to achieve "Energy Security" (see it at
his campaign website -- you may have to look for it among the videos). Did you notice how, in the very title of his plan, further oil production, and the means we are using to obtain it -- i.e. the military -- are not only in the same phrase, but are being used as a single fixed concept. What can that do to the minds of the American people? After 5 years, we have become desensitized to the war. Most of the stuff on the "news" nowadays is pure fluff. It really looks like McCain is following right after the Bushes.
Now, when watching this ad
, pay close attention to the imagery of Iran. Did yo
u see this man in the advertisement? The guy hugging Hugo Chavez? It's
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran
. John McCain says: "Much of the world's oil supply is controlled by states, regimes, and
a cartel [pan over map of Iran] for which America's well-being [pan to Hugo and Mahmud hugging] is not exactly a priority [pan to grim-faced McCain]" (emphasis added). This is so unbelievable I want to spit. And then he talks about three forms of renewable energy
that aren't anywhere in his energy plan: wind, solar, and biofuels (see my post on McCain and the environment for more).
EXTREMELY NEW DEVELOPMENT: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh is now reporting that Congress agreed to fund a "major escalation" in secret operations against Iran, and that Bush is supporting this. I'll try to find out what McCain's said on this, if anything. What if McCain not only wants to remain in Iraq, but to extend the theater of war into Iran? Lord help us if that is the case. Look at the "Energy Security" video again. What do you think?
Also, according to Hersh, "the covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations" (
The New Yorker, July 7, 2008 -- dated to my birthday that hasn't yet happened at the time of my writing this). Please, Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, please don't try to fund military operations for small military groups who ideologically hate you. Do you remember the Mujahideen? Do you remember how we gave them as many stinger missiles as they could swallow, to help them fight both the Soviet Union and the Afghani government at the same time -- and win? Wait, didn't that contribute
directly to the rise of the Taliban? Aren't we to blame for the distribution of American-made weapons to groups like this, who were eventually taken over by Osama bin Laden? Or, what about playing both sides in the Iraq-Iran conflict in the 1980's? Was that
really a wise decision in the long run?
It turns out we're looking to buddy up with certain fringe groups in Iran. Peter Philipp reports that the U.S. "is supporting groups that Washington would normally classify as Islamist and terrorist."
Here's the story. He describes just one of these groups as "a small, yet extremely militant Sunni group whose ideology is remarkable similar to that of the Taliban and al-Qaida and is characterised by an extreme propensity to violence."
There has to be a better way to remedy our approach to the war on terror. What is the risk in exercising "tough diplomacy," as I've seen some phrase it. Why do we think we can keep striking preemptively and maintain our position in the world. It's time to pull back, re-mobilize, and re-group. We can't do that with so many of our young, brave citizens spread around the world unnecessarily.
IT'S ALL HAPPENING ALL OVER AGAIN. According to Hersh's article, “the Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” Then, near the end, we get this little nugget: "The Administration downplayed the significance of the National Intelligence Estimate [N.I.E.], and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat... President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions... Condoleezza Rice... made similar statements... So did Senator John McCain."
My mind is officially blown. This is truly frightening. And what are Iranians saying? Well, Iranian General Mohammed Ali Jafari was quoted as saying, "'Any action against Iran is regarded as the beginning of war...
Iran's response to any military action will make the invaders regret their decision and action.' In a newspaper interview last week, Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would barrage Israel with missiles and choke off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for
oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf" (
Associated Press, July 4, 2008).
Who out there still believes in "Energy Security"? It's the biggest load of horse shit I've seen this election year -- yes, worse than anything that went on between Hillary and Barack, worse than Rev. Wright, worse than Wesley Clark. McCain's campaign is all about staying the course in Iraq; he even thinks 100 years is a reasonable time frame to withdraw from Iraq. At one of his lauded "town council" meetings, this one in Derry, NH, the exchange went like this: (Citizen of Derry, NH): "President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years..." (John McCain, interrupting): "Make it a hundred" (
see the video here). John McCain, were he elected, would probably not only "stay the course," but would make our situation in the Middle East even worse. I think he is a frightening candidate for the presidency of the United States.
So, what does
Barack Obama say about the so-called "war on terror" we've been waging? Let me remind you, he's opposed the invasion of Iraq from day one. He also wants to expand
our military presence in Afghanistan, where the true terrorist threat lies. He has proposed pulling troops out of Iraq within 16 months, which may be too ambitious, but still shows his eagerness in bringing this war to a close. He advocates persistent yet firm diplomacy, even with states that may assist terrorists. He has 300 people working for him on national security alone, and he's only the
candidate for President. Among them are former Secretaries of State Madeline Allbright and Warren Christopher. It also looks like Colin Powell could sign on to the Obama team (
New York Times, July 18, 2008).
After all, aren't things always better when we get some teamsmanship going? McCain's squad is an unorganized 75 deep. Where's that 'experience' I've been hearing so much about?
[
(This section added July 22, 2008) One thing I do wonder, though, is what Barack Obama talked about when King Abdullah of Jordan personally gave him a ride to the airport -- on his way to Israel, no less (
New York Times, July 22, 2008).]
***
So, who are the reasonable voices speaking out against all of this? I liked these recent editorials: one of them is anonymous (
New York Times); and
Thomas Friedman just wrote this one on June 22, 2008 (also New York Times). Timothy Egan is also awesome:
The Petro-Manipulators is the title of his recent column (New York Times, June 25, 2008).
I hope you enjoyed this post. Please, make as many comments as you want, and I will continue to read and update.
Is anyone else pissed, or is it just me?
ing. That's using a hatchet to cut the federal budget. I want to use a scalpel so that people who need help are getting help and those of us, like myself and Sen. McCain, who don't need help, aren't getting it.
