Comments (51)

Cynthia Maxwell wrote on June 18, 2007 5:26 PM:

The benchmark that requires the Iraqi government to pass the hydrocarbon law puts control of all untapped Iraqi oil reserves into the hands of multi-national oil companies. These companies would receive 80 percent of the revenue, the Iraqis 20 percent under what's called a production sharing agreement. These agreements are binding typically for 25 to 40 years. It's no small wonder that the Iraqi parliament wants to take two months off. They're likely having a difficult time figuring out how to divvy up the spoils of their oil reserves and explain to their constituencies why they gave away the lion's share of their oil wealth.

The 33 pages detailing the benchmark are embedded somewhere in the recently passed war funding bill. These details need to be made public. It'll be a real coup for whoever finds them.

Lane Lenard wrote on June 18, 2007 5:28 PM:

It occurred to me that all the bluster about our "premature" leaving Iraq to sectarian civil war, violence, chaos, etc has little to do with democracy or humanitarian concerns and everything to do with who eventually gets to control the OIL. Perhaps that's obvious to most people, but it rarely comes up in polite conversation. Just a thought.

KWM wrote on June 18, 2007 5:33 PM:

The reason the administration is so hell-bent on passage of the hydrocarbon law is that, while not resolving the crucial issues mentioned above, it does embody a system based on 'production sharing agreements' (PSAs), which operate to the significant benefit of the international oil companies (IOCs), ie, Big Oil, otherwise known as the 'Bush Base'. No other Middle East oil-producing country has or would accept the PSA system we're imposing on Iraq.

Oh, and since war began, the top 5 IOCs have seen the value of their reserves increase by ~$2.5 trillion, and Saudi Arabia's have appreciated by nearly $8 trillion. Still think it's not about oil?

Glenn wrote on June 18, 2007 5:35 PM:

Fascinating. According to the UPI report, here's what the law WOULD do:

"It would determine the role of the central, regional and provincial governments and the extent of foreign companies' access to Iraq's oil."

Foreign companies' access to the oil, huh? Well, now we know why Bush is so keen on getting it passed, don't we?

quixote wrote on June 18, 2007 5:43 PM:

What Cynthia Maxwell said. (And what I've been trying to say for months.) The so-called "Oil Law" is really the "Oil Giveaway to Big Oil Law." No wonder the US is so anxious to see it passed. Then they can *really* hang up the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Homer wrote on June 18, 2007 5:44 PM:

Cynthia Maxwell: 80/20

People perhaps need to realize that many men in the Iraqi Parliament have been fighting for over two decades to transform Iraq into a sort of vassal state of Iran, a fundamentalist Shiite republic which is pro-Hizbollah, pro-extremist-Iranian, etc.

It is arrogant, naive, and just plain silly to think that Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, et al are going to share any amount of the profits with the US.

Back when Saddam Hussein was the US' friend, i.e. when the US turned a blind eye to SH's gassing of human beings, Al-Dawa and other opposition groups were basically pissed on by Sect Cheney.

So look who is pissing now?

Check out this exchange btw Al-Maliki and Sect Cheney.

Bush warns Iraq on chemical arms U.S. fears use of weapons against rebels. Chicago Tribune. March 10, 1991 [snip]

Jawad al-Maliki of the Dawa Party said in Damascus, Syria, that mustard gas was used against protesters in al-Haleh, al-Kifil, Najaf and some areas of Basra, in southeastern Iraq.

Precisely what is going on inside Iraq is difficult to determine since Western reporters have been expelled. Most information is coming from refugees and opposition leaders in Iran and Syria.

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney described the situation as "volatile" but said it appears Hussein will be able to keep the unrest in check for now.

The Iraqi leader is using his loyal Republican Guard to quell the rebellion.

TheraP wrote on June 18, 2007 5:45 PM:

The law was written, I believe, by a US firm.

Robert Mason wrote on June 18, 2007 5:45 PM:

The Iraqi parliament is in a real bind over this law. They are under heavy pressure from the US and Iraqi governments to sign the law; reconstruction money could be held up if they don't sign it. On the other hand if they do sign it, some Sunni and Shiite militias have threatened to band together to fight the US. They would settle their differences once the US is out of the picture. The day after the oil bill was introduced into the Iraqi Parliament, the Oil Minister was shot to death to make clear the threat was genuine.

When asked last year by the BBC if the security issue was preventing oil companies from operating in Iraq, the CEO of BP replied that the oil companies weren't too worried about security. But he further stated that they would not begin operations in Iraq until they were certain they could control the oil and its profits.

The US media has been completely deceptive is its portrayal of the oil law. They continue to refer to it as an oil sharing agreement among Iraqi, when in fact it is a plan to steal Iraqi oil. I've written countless letters to the editors of various papers, to no effect. The media is totally committed to not bringing this situation to the American people. I wonder why!

Homer wrote on June 18, 2007 5:51 PM:

Al-Dawa, Now and Then

Al-dawa is now a powerful political party in Iraq.

Before, it was an illegal opposition group whose members were persecuted by Saddam Hussein.

Al-dawa is and always has been pro-Hizbollah.

Why Bush forced the reins of power into the party that suicide bomb a US Embassy is beyond reason.

Sunni fundies attack the US on 9/11, so Bush vastly empowers Al-Dawa?

WTF?

See:

1) Iraq Keeps a Tight Rein on Shiites While Bidding to Win Their Loyalty The Washington Post, November 30, 1982

Membership in Dawa, which means "the call," is punishable by execution. Dawa guerrillas were known for hurling grenades into crowds during religious ceremonies, and attacks claimed by the party were frequent until the middle of 1980.

2) Large Turnout Reported For 1st Iraqi Vote Since '58 The Washington Post, June 21, 1980

In another development today, Al Dawa, a clandestine Iraqi fundamentalist Moslem organization, claimed responsibility for yesterday's grenade attack on the British Embassy here in which three gunmen reportedly were killed.

An Al Dawa spokesman told Agence France-Presse by phone that the attack was a "punitive operation against a center of British and American plotters."

3) KUWAIT NABS 10 SHIITES IN BOMBINGS 7 IRAQIS, 3 LEBANESE 'ADMIT' TERROR ATTACKS
The Miami Herald, December 19, 1983

Kuwait Sunday announced the arrests of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in the terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last week at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.

(snip)

Hussein said fingerprints from the driver who died in the blast at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait identified him as Raad Akeel al Badran, an Iraqi mechanic who lived in Kuwait and belonged to the Dawa party.

Michael wrote on June 18, 2007 5:54 PM:

It's that "liberal media" that we keep hearing about. I think people are stuck in the 70's on the alleged liberal media bias.

Also, the alleged Iraqi Government will never do anything for reconciliation. Why should they? The Shiites are looking for revenge not reconciliation and they have a great ally, the ole US of A that is killing Sunnis so the Shiites don't have to. They will never, ever have any reconciliation politically. The only solution is a UN mandated 3 state solution, with the UN monitoring oil sharing and getting the US out of there immediately, if not sooner. We are supporting Iran's allies, the Shiites, against 90 percent of the muslim world, the Sunnis. Is this messed up, or what?

When will people wake up?

Homer wrote on June 18, 2007 6:00 PM:

Mr Mason,

Your point of view is purely US-centric and it suggests that the Iraqis are stupid and/or obedient to Bush who is despised all over the world, esp. the ME.

It fails to take into account that the Iraqis are not stupid and that they have ZERO history of co-operating with the US.

What makes you think the the Iraqi Parliament does NOT understand the gist of the bill.

Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, et al have planned for these very days for decades.

Be assured, they are no puppets of the US/Israel.

They will spawn as many red herrings as they need to.

They are slowly bleeding the US, so that there's nothin left to attack Iraq.

Homer wrote on June 18, 2007 6:07 PM:

Michael: They will never, ever have any reconciliation politically.

Exactly!

The supposed benchmarks are laughable.

The portraying of Al-Maliki as inept is also absurd.

He's held up his middle finger to the US quite stiffly since day one.

That's not powerlessness!

He's got Bush by the balls and is slowly bleeding the US to death.

All this is Bush's **inadvertent** but direct response to 9/11.

WTF?

DELBERT MATHANEY wrote on June 18, 2007 6:11 PM:

,,,I WILL SAY WHEN THE US HAS BRIED ENOUGH OF THE 'IRAQI' POLITICANS, AND BEGIN TO SUCK THE OIL OUT BY THE 'CONTRACT' THERE WILL BE THE BIGGEST REVOLUTION AGAINST ANY THING AMERICAN ,, WAY BEYOND KILLING A FEW TROOPS A MONTH... AND WE WILL BE DRIVEN OUT. BUT BUSH WILL HAVE HIS, CHENEY ALSO AND WONT GIVE A SHIT. WHAT WILL WE SAY IF MORE THAN A HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSANDS AMERICANS ARE LEFT THERE, AND AMBUSHED? DO you think Bush understands the military pledge, "Leave no man behind?" DO you think theres any moral imperative to rescue ANY OF THEM? And who are those people?

cevrero wrote on June 18, 2007 6:12 PM:

It was obvious from day 1 that this was about oil. Now that the French don't control it, we just have to bribe a few political parties. The war has been one big cluster fuck of bribes. The french are laughing all the way to their boulangeries and back, while they have healthcare, public transport systems, Free college, and they ride around in their 50+mpg Smart cars,.....we talk about the age old tale of terrorists coming to get us and throw away our money on being war criminals and driving oil guzzling SUVs.

Lilybart wrote on June 18, 2007 6:21 PM:

Can't the next Iraqi parliment just pass another law that changes this revenue sharing law?

osama_been_forgotten wrote on June 18, 2007 6:49 PM:

The longer BushCo keeps that oil off the market (no matter WHO eventually gets it) - the higher oil prices go today.

This benefits big-oil, because they can mark-up the prices at the pump with impunity.

The goal of BushCo is to spread chaos and destruction - so their cronies in the oil and construction industry can benefit.

OhYouKnowWhatI'mTalkinBout wrote on June 18, 2007 7:17 PM:

Totally and completely destroy Iraq's oil supplies. Totally and completely destroy Iran's oil supplies. America will then stop being dictated to by 7th century mentality Arabs. Necessity is the mother of invention.

rowdy wrote on June 18, 2007 7:22 PM:

Kucinich, on the house floor,accused bush/cheneyof starting this war over Iraqui oil. For one hour he stated chapter and verse of the EVIDENCE. Not a word in the media. WHY? Look it up.

dhs wrote on June 18, 2007 7:32 PM:

Dennis Kucinich gave a special one hour speech on the House floor discussing EXACTLY this point the day before Congress voted to fund the war through September.

Its the oil, stupid!

cotterperson wrote on June 18, 2007 7:32 PM:

The URL I posted is a 33-page document Wikipedia calls "Text of law in English provided by the Kurdish Regional Government (PDF)."

Here it is again:

http://www.krg.org/uploads/documents/Draft%20Iraq%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Law%20English__2007_03_10_h23m31s47.pdf

Robert Mason wrote on June 18, 2007 7:49 PM:

Homer:

I didn't mean to imply that the Iraqis are not aware of what's in this bill, nor that they wouldn't do everything they can to avoid a vote on it (vacation, anyone?). A recent poll found that over 80% of the polled Iraqis knew/believed that the reason for the US occupation was to get their oil. And, yes, the oil companies and Bush don't want it to flood the market with oil. They want it in reserve so that no one else gets it but us when other sources start to dry up. So the war is exactly what they wanted.

Contrary to public perceptions, the guys in the White Hoouse are not stupid. They did indeed have a plan for post-invasion Iraq--chaos. They underestimated the Iraqis, however, and their unwillingness to allow their oil to be stolen. They will slowly bleed us till we tire and leave, which isn't very far down the road.

OCPatriot wrote on June 18, 2007 8:01 PM:

It's been about oil from the beginning but only a few recognized it. Subliminally, the spectre of oil has hung over the whole war, if anyone cared to look. Iraq wouldn't have been worth two seconds' thought if it wasn't for its oil rich potential. How stupid everyone has been about it. Why else would anyone be talking about occupying Iraq? So we'll have dead kids and grandkids for untold years while we "defend" Iraq from the others who want to get their hands on that oil. Just watch how all this shakes out, sooner rather than later. Oil is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

Jessica wrote on June 18, 2007 8:03 PM:

The fact that the Bush administration refuses to admit the reality of the Iraqi War makes me sick. To date, the war has cost over $340 billion dollars—money which could have been spent much more wisely and with better end results. It is estimated, for example, that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach. Thus, it is clear that the occupation of Iraq needs to end, and it needs to end now without regard to what this will do to United States interest in Iraq’s oil. There are simply much more important issues that need to be addressed. It’s time that Bush and his cronies face the reality of failure.

Dennis wrote on June 18, 2007 8:04 PM:

Anyone wishing to do some indepth reading may look at "The Rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth" by Greg Muttitt at Platform www.carbonweb.org.

Once the Production Sharing Agreements are signed, Iraq cannot back out of them nor re-negotiate them. Iraqi laws will not prevail.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

RandyR wrote on June 18, 2007 8:20 PM:

I happened into a copy of the Iraqi Hydorcarbon Law and I have had very little interest in it.

If you would like to receive a copy of the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law request it at:

Randyiraqioil@yahoo.com

and I will send it. Please pass it around.

RandyR wrote on June 18, 2007 8:21 PM:

I happened into a copy of the Iraqi Hydorcarbon Law and I have had very little interest in it.

If you would like to receive a copy of the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law request it at:

Randyiraqioil@yahoo.com

and I will send it. Please pass it around.

Homer wrote on June 18, 2007 8:30 PM:

Robert Mason: Contrary to public perceptions, the guys in the White Hoouse are not stupid.

No, I must disagree.

Why?

The groups (e.g. Al-Dawa, SCIRI) holding the reins of power in Iraq have been around for decades.

From Iran and Syria, they have been **fighting** to transform Iraq into a fundamentalist Shiite republic for decades.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Sect Cheney, et al did nothing while Saddam Hussein murdered them and so it is crazy to think that they would radically transform and become a friend to the US after deposing SH.

These guys have NEVER been pro-American and they sure as hell are not pro-Israel.

Look at the disdain by the SCIRI years ago.....

U.S. Feels Out Iran Groups Trying to Oust Iraqi Leader. Wall Street Journal. July 31, 1998 [snip]

Hamad Al-Bayati, a Sciri representative in London, says his group doesn't want U.S. funds, and, "We have doubts about the seriousness of the administration."

Dr. Al-Bayati, who met with Mr. Indyk last month in Washington, says the U.S. should crack down on Iraqi human-rights violations as hard as it cracks down on Iraq's weapons programs.

For example, he says, when two Shiite religious leaders were
assassinated in southern Iraq, the U.S. was silent.

A State Department official says the U.S. had prepared a condemnation, but the issue never came up in news briefings.

Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith
Volume 52, Number 13 · August 11, 2005

Real power in Shiite Iraq rests, however, with two religious parties: Abdel Aziz al-Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa ("Call," in English) of Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. Of the two, SCIRI is the more pro-Iranian. Both parties have military wings, and SCIRI's Badr Corps has grown significantly from the five thousand fighters that harassed Saddam's regime from Iran in the decades before the war; it now works closely with Iraq's Shiite interior minister, until recently the corps' commander, to provide security and fight Sunni Arab insurgents.

SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law—rather than Iraq's relatively progressive civil code—would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not "of the book," such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.

This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern—and legislate—without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution—the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).

Dawa and SCIRI are not just promoting an Iranian-style political system —they are also directly promoting Iranian interests.

Mark C wrote on June 18, 2007 8:44 PM:

IRAQ: IT'S NOT A WAR
IT'S A BUSINESS DEAL

Robert Mason wrote on June 18, 2007 9:33 PM:

Homer:

Thanks for your comments. You're obviously very knowledgeable about Iraq (too bad you didn't get hired into this administration). But I wouldn't confuse ignorance with stupidity. At least some in the administration--Cheney and Rummy, for example--are quite brilliant intellectually, but very ignorant of the situation in Iraq. They didn't need to become educated about Iraq--all they needed was enough knowledge to throw a match into a powderkeg.

francis wrote on June 18, 2007 9:45 PM:

The reason the "oil law" has not progressed in the Iraqi Parliament (even though it does not determine revenue sharing) is because it provides for development and production by outside oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxon, etc), with 20% (first few years) then 4% (thereafter) overriding royalties to the outside oil companies, as opposed to state ownership of profits (and payments-for-services to outside companies) as is the case in all other middle eastern countries.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on June 18, 2007 9:52 PM:

All this can be boiled down to:

OH LOOK! The majority of Iraqi government does not want their nation to take it up the ass from big oil . . . I wonder if there is a government . . . A more local government . . . that might benefit feom their example?

Homer wrote on June 18, 2007 10:17 PM:

Robert Mason: But I wouldn't confuse ignorance with stupidity.

Care to elaborate?

I have to think about that.

Thanks for helping tighten my focus.

Do you think it was arrogant/ignorant/stupid/naive/ .... to think Chalabi could be Iraq's leader when SCIRI and Al-Dawa have been crafting shadow governments for Iraq for over two decades in Iran and Syria?

As the Sect of Defense, Cheney was well aware of the pro-Iranian opposition groups, such as SCIRI and Al-Dawa, which were trying to depose Saddam Hussein and install a pro-extremist-Iranian government.

Which is to say, prior to the invading and deposing, Cheney had to have been knowledgeable, i.e. not ignorant of their nature and history since he was the Sect of Defense when they were small cells and not the elected leaders they came to be with Cheney's help.

To think the SCIRI and Al-Dawa would be pro-American is, I think, stupid, BUT I am ready for you to distinguish.

More on Al-Dawa, from 1984:

The Iran-Iraq War: Struggle Without End
(snip)

The Shiite faction, Al Dawa (the Call), was expelled from Iraq in early 1980 by President Hussein.

Drawing its support from the large Shiite population in southeastern Iraq, Al Dawa attempted to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace the secular Ba'ath Socialist government of President Hussein.

The present leader of Al Dawa, Hojatoleslam Mohammed Baqr Hakim, is operating from Tehran where he has directed terrorist attacks against targets throughout the Middle East.

It is uncertain if Tehran is directly controlling the activities of Al Dawa abroad or if it is just giving tacit approval for Al Dawa's activities.

In either case, Iran's support of Al Dawa is unacceptable and cessation of hostilities favorable to Iraq is now the preferred option for the White House.

ROBinDALLAS wrote on June 18, 2007 11:26 PM:

Hey, it seems I remember the Neocons, including Cheney, saying that the oil revenue from Iraq would pay for the war. Since they are going to steal the Iraqi oil anyway, shouldn't the US Treasury get the largest portion of oil revenue until the invasion and occupation expenses are paid off?

Surely Big Oil wouldn't stiff the US government.

ROBinDALLAS

David Chadwick wrote on June 18, 2007 11:50 PM:

I hear about this biggest-theft-of-all-time of Iraqi oil being pushed on them as a bench mark but it seems that hardly anyone is mentioning it but some on Air America. I don't see much about it on TPM or HuffPost. Why not I wonder? There was an article in the NYTimes that said that the US Ambassador and the highest ranking military US guy met with their PM and were pushing him to get the Iraqi parliament to pass this so-called give-away by next month - that was the top priority. Most people in America think we're mainly trying to get them to get their army going stronger. Sounds like the war IS about oil, that that's what everyone's dying for. But this TPM article talks about it as if it's all for the Iraqis to divide. Comeon TPM. What's up? If this giant heist isn't the case then please tell us and like prominently.

SeeDee wrote on June 19, 2007 1:42 AM:

I'm amazed that memories are so short...do you not all remember the very first objective of U.S./Coalition forces in April, 2003, was to secure the Oil Ministry Building, the oil production and oil transport lines?

Have you forgotten the reported no-bid, negotiated-in-secret contract in December, 2002, ($7-billions) given to Halliburton subsidiary KB&R to refurbish and repair 'expected' damage to the Iraqi oil infrastructure?

How anyone could have been aware of those things and still not know it was all about oil is beyond comprehension.

I said it then and it is obvious to all now.

bjobotts wrote on June 19, 2007 1:49 AM:

Big oil...money talks bullshit walks. Iran/Iraq surrounded by Sunnis. I don't buy into Homer's assessment. These groups can easily be bought and sold and so can their enemies. We are talking trillions here and that will buy a large number of Mercenaries.
Because all eyes are on the prize it must appear to be in everyones best interest. We aren't leaving Iraq...the war profiteers will not allow it. We have nukes, Iran/Iraq don't. We have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to get their oil and you can be sure these profiteers will stop at nothing to get it even if they have to nuke an American city to do it. Homer talks about peanut gangs compared to what our war machine is willing to do.
We are the beast. The question is how do "we" stop "us". Hell, you can't even convince congressional dems to impeach. We just have to stand and watch because we know they lied us into the war, we know they torture, we know they've made record profits, and if they did all that then they are willing to do anything regardless of what we think about it
We are in the process of making the oil law look as though it's beneficial to the Iraqis but we aren't really giving them a choice. After all, we came up with the legislation.

The dems could put a wrench in the works by impeaching Bush/Cheney but they have their heads up their own butts clamoring the great works they've done so far...increase in the min. wage and not even that big of an increase and look what they did to get it. Just can't get them to see the light. The main 2 reasons we elected them and they can't even get one of them done. The damage continues thanks to their ineptitude.
BTW Homer, most of your assessment of Dawa is from the '80s. There are millions of people involved in all this and they are just a small fanatical group by comparison. Just powerful enough to screw with Sadam. Thanks to Bush we will now always have terrorists out to get us but if we leave Iraq they will be few and far between
We already have the answers to all our problems in the world but the corporations prevent us from solving them...it's not profitable enough. But I digress

SeeDee wrote on June 19, 2007 1:52 AM:

And, if memories are freshened, I'm sure we will recall the 'secret' Energy Conference of February, 2001, (four weeks after Bush/Cheney inaugaration) which Bush fought all the way to a receptive GOP Supremem Court to invoke 'executive privilege' to maintain secrecy as to agenda, decisions, even who attended..

Rumors later circulated (never denied) that plans among the biggest multi-national oil giants were formulated to grab control of Iraai oil reserves and production at that conference.

Face it, we've spent $350-BILLIONS plus and sacrificed the blood of 3,550 Americans in Iraq to pad the bottom lines of 'Big Oil'...If Americans dwelt on these dismal stats they would be up in arms to bring the perpetrators of such criminal enterprises to justice, starting with the 'chimp' in charge and his puppet-master, 'Dead-eye Dick'.

No wonder the MSM ignore it...

Joe wrote on June 19, 2007 4:25 AM:

A continously overlooked fact is that the Iraqui Parliament is generally unable to convene enough members at one time to pass ANY legislation. A majority of the members simply are not present -- many are living in Jordan, or if living in Iraq, unable to attend due to security concerns. This sheds new light on the legislation that has been passed: for example, the call to reduce the presence of US forces.

Harry Sitrep wrote on June 19, 2007 5:56 AM:

'Intelligence', or the lack thereof has been mentioned more than once since 9/11...who has it, and so on..

The Corporate Club(CC) has made a gargantuan profit just from the prosecution of this tidy little war. They have benefitted from reduced taxes and Halliburton has made even the grandest jesture by leaving the country. Remember, they have been doing business in Iran since 2005, according to the Washington Post.

There has to be a General awakening...does the Pentagon fit into sacrificing the US Army for profit?

When will the public become aware of this equasion?

Or will Kucinich be sacrificed at their alter for telling the truth? Animal Farm!

Me_again wrote on June 19, 2007 6:17 AM:

"Iraqi parliament has stalled passage of an oil law -- a crucial "benchmark" for national unity"

With Western oil contractors WAITING for their 70 percent, I can certainly see why the Iraqi parliament is dragging it's collective feet. This benchmark is best left until the US leaves.

VL wrote on June 19, 2007 8:00 AM:

I sent a message about the oil benchmark to a writer for the LA Times, the Pentagon correspondent. His message back was, "No military official has said, on or off the record, that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the oil." Case closed?

Is this an example of the iron blinders that the press has on over this? Like it's absolutely true, no question, that if the Pentagon officials don't tell the reporter flat out that we invaded for oil, that he can't connect any dots? Not allowed?

jawbone wrote on June 19, 2007 8:38 AM:

Posted by: Robert Mason
Date: June 18, 2007 05:45 PM

Do you have a link for the statement by the BP exec that what's holding Big Oil back is the lack of "security" for their profit taking, not physical security?

Pretty blatant, that. Wonder why it didn't get big media play. Oh, yeah..that media...MCM*.

Thanx.
*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media (security code is "snake"--tee hee)

Samsara wrote on June 19, 2007 8:53 AM:

By September the Iraqi Parliament will have passed a gutted and meaningless law the administration will call an oil bill. The Parliament will take one month of Vacation rather than two, and they will pass something calling for elections someday. Benchmarks met.

General Petraeus will tell Congress what a great job the troops are doing, but counterinsurgency is not an exact science, and we need to be patient. The term mixed bag will be thrown around a lot. McConnell and the other Republicans will "demand" a draw down to a pre surge levels of troops. Bush leaves office with America still on course in Iraq. Republicans blame the newly elected Democratic President for losing the war.

The surge was not about changing anything in Iraq. It was about the timing of the inevitable Iraqi civil war. It is about giving War Inc. another move to make in its effort to get out of town before the roof collapses. When September comes, it will be time to take a stand. Eventually we are going to re-deployed our troops. There will be a wave of civilian casualties as Iraq descends into all out civil war. The only question being answered by all this deck chair arranging is who will be Captain when the iceberg hits.

Don't Tread on Me wrote on June 19, 2007 9:09 AM:

Yes, it is about the oil, always has been, anyone reading these comments who doubts that, read this:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html

Now, in view of the fact that the current chaos in the Middle East, especially all the bluster over Iran's nuclear enrichment program, has driven oil prices, and Big Oil's profits, way up, is it any surprise that Bush insists on staying in Iraq, even if there is no hope of military or political success? The status quo is damn profitable for our oily friends in the White House and their old playmates.

Is the oil law a serious benchmark? Of course not, it is in Big Oil's interest to "stay the course". Big profits now and for as long as the Iraq and Iran mess can be strung out. More big profits when (and if) things calm down; oil prices may sag, but hey then its time to tap Iraq's oil and rake in 80% of the profits there!

Back in the days when Don't Tread on Me meant something, the real patriots would have been gathering up the fence rails, plucking a bunch of chickens and heating up the tar! Picture Bush sitting in the Oval Office, looking out the window and spotting the angry mob, complete with shotguns, pitchforks and torches!

Homer wrote on June 19, 2007 9:31 AM:

bjobotts: I don't buy into Homer's assessment. These groups can easily be bought and sold and so can their enemies.

How has the buying of Al-Dawa and the SCIRI gone so far?

Please clearly demonstrate the influence the US has had on them.

Have they re-integrated the ex-Baathists?

Have they passed the hydrocarbon law?

Have the recognized Israel's right to exist?

No!

Since day one, they obviously have been able to give Bush the middle finger salute without wavering.

They are not budging and they will not budge.

It is not in their interest to budge.

As soon as they do, the slow bleeding of the "beast" is curtailed.

Plus, there is ZERO history of them every being bought by the US.

Besides, it is a well-known fact that they are indebted to Iran and Syria which provided them sanctuary during the twenty plus years prior to the deposing of SH.

(E.g.: Iraq invites oil bids from Iran 16 May 2007: Iraq has invited Iranian firms to bid for contracts to build at least four oil refineries across the country, Iraq's oil ministry said on Wednesday in a sign of growing ties with the United States' regional foe.)

bjobotts: We are the beast

HINT: Yeah, and the beast got its ass severely kicked in Iraq thanks to a David-like weapon known as the IED. The beast is now on the rack dying a death of a thousand cuts.

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

The New Middle East
Richard N. Haass
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006
Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun.

The Iranian nightmare
By Michael Schwartz
Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan's prediction appears to have been fulfilled - in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the "axis of evil" and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, "By destroying a united Iraq under [Saddam] Hussein ... the US removed the main barrier to Iran's eventual triumph."

bjobotts: BTW Homer, most of your assessment of Dawa is from the '80s. There are millions of people involved in all this and they are just a small fanatical group by comparison.

Past is prologue.

What we see in Iraq governmentally is over two decades in the making.

From the 1980s?

Al-Dawa and the SCIRI are the two most powerful political parties in the Iraqi Parliament.

In a UN approved election, they were voted into office by millions of Iraqis.

They **were** a small fanatical group.

David wrote on June 19, 2007 9:54 AM:

Cheney and company came for the oil, and they ain't leaving without it, no matter how many people die and how totally the country is devastated (which actually might be ok, since there would be no sovereign nation to stand in the way of the IOCs). I will never forget, or forgive, Charlie Rose for saying to Norman Mailer, "Why are we going into Iraq, and don't tell me it's for the oil." Prior to that comment, I had no idea Charlie Rose suffered from Washington insider cephalo-rectal thrustitis.

Charles Bowman wrote on June 19, 2007 11:27 AM:

The Iraqui Parliament will never go along because of the fear of death from the people. We apparently have no such fears in America. Our Congress is possessed by the big oil companies for a candy bar or two. The Iraqui Parliament has been baited with a trillion dollars. Talk about a disparity of integrity! Talk about a disparity in bribery! Washington wallows in dollars, but has little understanding of the low scale of their bamboozlement! They have been consigned by the oil companies for minimum bribage because their patriotic spiel betrays their intelligence!

Snarky McAngus wrote on June 19, 2007 12:42 PM:

Well, at least it becomes clearer daily what the "mission" is that BushCo keep referrencing, i.e., "we can't leave until the mission is complete".

Although, I wonder at the premature ejaculation "Mission Accomplished" back in '03. Oh yeah, that must have been about toppling Saddam's statue.

SeeDee wrote on June 20, 2007 8:46 PM:

Now...another little trip through recent events leading up to the U.S. oil-company backed imperialistic war in Iraq:

Refer to the meeting in JANUARY, 2000, in London of the INC (Iraqi National Congress, the Iraqi Government-in-exile), chaired by the notorious embezzler/liar Ahmed Chalabi who blatantly stated that if the U.S. would invade and overthrow Saddam, he (Chalabi) would see to it that Iraqi oil concessions were taken from the French (EIF) and Russian (Lukoil) and given to American oil companies.

One can bet that due notice of this 'promise' was made by every U.S./Uk oil company CEO...remember the oil industry was THE main funds contributor to the Bush/Cheney and GOP Congressional campaigns in the 2000 election cycle.

As the commenter above said: "money talks and b/s walks...." In this case, it got us into an intractable mess in Iraq.

SeeDee wrote on June 20, 2007 8:48 PM:

Now...another little trip through recent events leading up to the U.S. oil-company backed imperialistic war in Iraq:

Refer to the meeting in JANUARY, 2000, in London of the INC (Iraqi National Congress, the Iraqi Government-in-exile), chaired by the notorious embezzler/liar Ahmed Chalabi who blatantly stated that if the U.S. would invade and overthrow Saddam, he (Chalabi) would see to it that Iraqi oil concessions were taken from the French (EIF) and Russian (Lukoil) and given to American oil companies.

One can bet that due notice of this 'promise' was made by every U.S./Uk oil company CEO...remember the oil industry was THE main funds contributor to the Bush/Cheney and GOP Congressional campaigns in the 2000 election cycle.

As the commenter above said: "money talks and b/s walks...." In this case, it got us into an intractable mess in Iraq.

SeeDee wrote on June 20, 2007 8:51 PM:

Now...another little trip through recent events leading up to the U.S. oil-company backed imperialistic war in Iraq:

Refer to the meeting in JANUARY, 2000, in London of the INC (Iraqi National Congress, the Iraqi Government-in-exile), chaired by the notorious embezzler/liar Ahmed Chalabi who blatantly stated that if the U.S. would invade and overthrow Saddam, he (Chalabi) would see to it that Iraqi oil concessions were taken from the French (EIF) and Russian (Lukoil) and given to American oil companies.

One can bet that due notice of this 'promise' was made by every U.S./Uk oil company CEO...remember the oil industry was THE main funds contributor to the Bush/Cheney and GOP Congressional campaigns in the 2000 election cycle.

As the commenter above said: "money talks and b/s walks...." In this case, it got us into an intractable mess in Iraq.