taliban/bush oil conspiracy theory

[Nie Trink Wasser]

I think it is very important that more people are educated on this issue.


http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html


Rall first began arguing that military action in Afghanistan was about oil rather than terrorism in a syndicated column published in October. Examining the oil politics of Central Asia, he took note of American oil giant Unocal's mid-1990s plan to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to transport the large oil reserves of land-locked Kazakhstan (and other newly-independent Soviet republics) to the Pakistani port of Karachi. The Clinton administration's decision to harden its line against the Taliban in 1998 (in the wake of the terrorist attacks of that year) prompted Unocal to abandon the plan as politically impossible.

Rall suggested that the September 11 attacks provided a pretext to bomb Afghanistan in order to get the Unocal deal back on track, claiming that "[f]inally the Bushies have the perfect excuse to do what the U.S. has wanted all along-invade and/or install an old-school puppet regime in Kabul."

Rall's newest column attempts to refute Nyhan and shore up his earlier theory. In it, he claims his argument is supported by "three painfully obvious truths": That the Bush administration was planning to attack Afghanistan even before September 11; that the war on terror really isn't a war on terror at all; and that the White House doesn't care about the victims of the terrorist tragedies. Each is built on faulty logic and distorted evidence.

As proof that the Bush administration intended to attack Afghanistan even before September 11, Rall provides exactly no evidence - perhaps he thinks the claim is so "painfully obvious" that it needs no justification. Regardless, it is likely that his source is Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, a French book published a month after the terrorist attacks by two investigative journalists. Currently not available in translation, the book charges in part (as summarized by United Press International) that the Bush administration was negotiating with the Taliban over the proposed pipeline last year, and threatened to use force against it to push the project through. The authors claim their source for this information was former FBI agent John O'Neill, who was killed in the September 11 attacks in New York City. A spokesman for the National Security Council, however, flatly denied the report, saying "There's just absolutely nothing to it; it's just not correct," and the State Department has also denied that such negotiations took place. Moreover, the truth of the claim is irrelevant: even if the administration threatened the Taliban before September 11 over oil interests, it does not necessarily follow that those same interests motivated military action after September 11.

[subgenius]

Halliburton wins contract on Iraq oil firefighting
Reuters, 03.06.03, 8:31 PM ET

HOUSTON, March 6 (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. (nyse: HAL - news - people) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday.
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/n.../rtr900049.html

[subgenius]

State Terrorism Contracts for Halliburton
by VARIOUS

13 July 2002 This supplements the New York Times report today on Defense Department contracts by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/business/13HALL.html[Excerpt]

In Tough Times, a Company Finds Profits in Terror War
By JEFF GERTH and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON, July 12 — The Halliburton Company, the Dallas oil services company bedeviled lately by an array of accounting and business issues, is benefiting very directly from the United States efforts to combat terrorism.

From building cells for detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba to feeding American troops in Uzbekistan, the Pentagon is increasingly relying on a unit of Halliburton called KBR, sometimes referred to as Kellogg Brown & Root.

Although the unit has been building projects all over the world for the federal government for decades, the attacks of Sept. 11 have led to significant additional business. KBR is the exclusive logistics supplier for both the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation

[subgenius]

Is Oil the Real Reason?

Apparently Robert Novak thinks so.

Playing Texas poker, Bush bets all on Iraq
.....

Military victory is anticipated inside the Bush administration as the tonic that will prompt corporation officers and private investors to unleash the American economy's dormant power. Although it is impolitic to say so, the fact that the United States will be sitting on a new major oil supply will stimulate the domestic economy. That puts a high premium on quickly gaining control of Iraq's oil wells before they can be torched--a major uncertainty in an otherwise strictly scripted scenario.

''This is Texas poker, with the president putting everything on Iraq,'' a Republican senator (who thoroughly approves of this policy) told me. The extraordinary gamble by Bush leads to deepening apprehension by Republican politicians as they wait for the inevitable war. They consider the Democratic Party divided, drifting to the left and devoid of new ideas. Yet, Bush's re-election next year is threatened by two issues: the economy and the war on terrorism. Success on both is tied to war with Iraq.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/nova...t-novak061.html

[subgenius]

Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
Run Date: 05/26/01

(WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.

In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage

Please note the date of the article.

[subgenius]

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4277056,00.html

[subgenius]

December 4, 1997: Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President Bush Jr. is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials, and the Telegraph reports that "the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract." A BBC regional correspondent says "the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea." [BBC, 12/4/97, Telegraph, 12/14/97] FTW

http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/AAoil.html

[subgenius]

October 27, 1997: Halliburton, a company with future Vice President Cheney as CEO, announces a new agreement to provide technical services and drilling for Turkmenistan, a country in Central Asia. The press release also mentions that "Halliburton has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years." On the same day, a consortium to build a pipeline through Afghanistan is formed. It's called CentGas, and the two main partners are Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia. [Halliburton press release, 10/27/97, CentGas press release, 10/27/97]

[subgenius]

September 2000: The neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century writes a "blueprint" for the "creation of a 'global Pax Americana.'" The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written for the Bush team even before the 2000 Presidential election. It was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and President Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. The report calls itself a "blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." The plan shows Bush intended to take military control of Persian Gulf oil whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. It says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." The report calls for the control of space through a new "US Space Forces," the political control of the internet, the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates "regime change" in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and other countries. It also mentions that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." A British Member of Parliament says of the report, "This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world" (see also Spring 2001 and April 2001 (D)). [Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, click here to download the think tank report] However, the report complains that these changes are likely to take a long time, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." [PNAC Report, 8/00] In an NBC interview at about the same time, Vice Presidential candidate Cheney defends Bush Jr.'s position of maintaining Clinton's policy not to attack Iraq because the US should not act as though "we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments." [Washington Post, 1/12/02]

Did you watch Nightline the other night?

[subgenius]

Wo ist das Trinkwasser?:confused:

[subgenius]

April 2001 (D): A report commissioned by former US Secretary of State James Baker and the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" is submitted to Vice President Cheney this month. "The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs." The report says the "central dilemma" for the US administration is that "the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience." It warns that the US is running out of oil, with a painful end to cheap fuel already in sight. It argues that "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma," and that one of the "consequences" of this is a "need for military intervention" to secure its oil supply. It argues that Iraq needs to be overthrown so the US can control its oil. [Sunday Herald, 10/5/02, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02] In what may be a reference to a pipeline through Afghanistan, the report suggests the US should "Investigate whether any changes to US policy would quickly facilitate higher exports of oil from the Caspian Basin region... the exports from some oil discoveries in the Caspian Basin could be hastened if a secure, economical export route could be identified swiftly" (see also September 2000 and Spring 2001). [Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, 4/01] Could the Bush administration have let 9/11 happen to get access to Central Asian oil, and gain support for a war with Iraq, amongst other reasons?

May 2001 (G): Vice President Cheney's national energy plan is publicly released. There are several interesting points, little noticed at the time. It suggests that the US cannot depend exclusively on traditional sources of supply to provide the growing amount of oil that it needs. It will also have to obtain substantial supplies from new sources, such as the Caspian states, Russia, and Africa. It also notes that the US cannot rely on market forces alone to gain access to these added supplies, but will also require a significant effort on the part of government officials to overcome foreign resistance to the outward reach of American energy companies. [Japan Today, 4/30/02]

[subgenius]

By of all people Pat Buchanan:
Buchanan Charges Neocons With 'Warmongering'
Tue Mar 11 2003 11:53:48 ET

In this week's AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, editor Pat Buchanan issues a controversial, 5000-word indictment of the 'War Party' of Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz and Richard Perle.

MORE

The magazine will hit newsstands and bookstores tomorrow. With quotes and citations, Buchanan alleges:


'War Party' ideas and plans for an attack on Iraq had been 'in preparation far in advance of 9/11, and when President Bush was looking for a new front,' the neocons 'put their precooked meal in front of him. And Bush dug into it.'


Richard Perle wrote a paper urging Israeli PM Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Peace Accords and target Iraq -- five years before 9/11.


Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith urged Israel to ditch the Oslo and take back the West Bank though 'the price in blood would be high,' three years before the Camp David talks.


Pentagon official David Wurmser urged the U.S. to act in concert with Israel to 'strike fatally...the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran and Gaza' -- nine months before 9/11.

Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz 'seized on the horrific atrocity [of September 11] to steer America¹s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic rogue states that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.'

The neocon vision is 'to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel....[They] seek American empire and the Sharonites seem hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely.'

Buchanan charges Max Boot of the WSJ and Lawrence Kaplan of New Republic with 'playing the anti-Semitic card....to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
Halliburton wins contract on Iraq oil firefighting
Reuters, 03.06.03, 8:31 PM ET

HOUSTON, March 6 (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. (nyse: HAL - news - people) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday.
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/n.../rtr900049.html

Unrelated to Afghanistan. Did you read Nie Trink Wasser's post, or just dial the 'conspiracy-o-matic'?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
State Terrorism Contracts for Halliburton
by VARIOUS

13 July 2002 This supplements the New York Times report today on Defense Department contracts by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/business/13HALL.html[Excerpt]

In Tough Times, a Company Finds Profits in Terror War
By JEFF GERTH and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON, July 12 — The Halliburton Company, the Dallas oil services company bedeviled lately by an array of accounting and business issues, is benefiting very directly from the United States efforts to combat terrorism.

From building cells for detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba to feeding American troops in Uzbekistan, the Pentagon is increasingly relying on a unit of Halliburton called KBR, sometimes referred to as Kellogg Brown & Root.

Although the unit has been building projects all over the world for the federal government for decades, the attacks of Sept. 11 have led to significant additional business. KBR is the exclusive logistics supplier for both the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation

Are you claiming that Haliburton pushed for war with Afghanistan in order to gain cooking, construction, etc. contracts? Is a 'benefit' evidence of conspiracy? Is this where you set the bar?

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
Is Oil the Real Reason?

Apparently Robert Novak thinks so.

Playing Texas poker, Bush bets all on Iraq
.....

Military victory is anticipated inside the Bush administration as the tonic that will prompt corporation officers and private investors to unleash the American economy's dormant power. Although it is impolitic to say so, the fact that the United States will be sitting on a new major oil supply will stimulate the domestic economy. That puts a high premium on quickly gaining control of Iraq's oil wells before they can be torched--a major uncertainty in an otherwise strictly scripted scenario.

''This is Texas poker, with the president putting everything on Iraq,'' a Republican senator (who thoroughly approves of this policy) told me. The extraordinary gamble by Bush leads to deepening apprehension by Republican politicians as they wait for the inevitable war. They consider the Democratic Party divided, drifting to the left and devoid of new ideas. Yet, Bush's re-election next year is threatened by two issues: the economy and the war on terrorism. Success on both is tied to war with Iraq.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/nova...t-novak061.html

Unrelated to Afghanistan. Did you read Nie Trink Wasser's post, or just dial the 'conspiracy-o-matic'?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Are you claiming that Haliburton pushed for war with Afghanistan in order to gain cooking, construction, etc. contracts? Is a 'benefit' evidence of conspiracy? Is this where you set the bar?

MattJ
Who said anything about a conspiracy, its all just interesting, isn't it? Or is ignorance bliss?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
Run Date: 05/26/01

(WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.

In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage

Please note the date of the article.

Spinsanity (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_02_23_archive.html)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4277056,00.html

Spinsanity, again (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_02_23_archive.html)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
December 4, 1997: Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President Bush Jr. is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials, and the Telegraph reports that "the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract." A BBC regional correspondent says "the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea." [BBC, 12/4/97, Telegraph, 12/14/97] FTW

http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/AAoil.html

Beautiful woo-woo conspiracy work. Unocal invites Taliban reps to their Texas headquarters, and Bush is Governor of Texas...

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
October 27, 1997: Halliburton, a company with future Vice President Cheney as CEO, announces a new agreement to provide technical services and drilling for Turkmenistan, a country in Central Asia. The press release also mentions that "Halliburton has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years." On the same day, a consortium to build a pipeline through Afghanistan is formed. It's called CentGas, and the two main partners are Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia. [Halliburton press release, 10/27/97, CentGas press release, 10/27/97]

Cool. It's one of those "on the same day" conspiracy links. Those are the best!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
September 2000: The neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century writes a "blueprint" for the "creation of a 'global Pax Americana.'" The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written for the Bush team even before the 2000 Presidential election. It was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and President Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. The report calls itself a "blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." The plan shows Bush intended to take military control of Persian Gulf oil whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. It says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." The report calls for the control of space through a new "US Space Forces," the political control of the internet, the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates "regime change" in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and other countries. It also mentions that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." A British Member of Parliament says of the report, "This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world" (see also Spring 2001 and April 2001 (D)). [Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, click here to download the think tank report] However, the report complains that these changes are likely to take a long time, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." [PNAC Report, 8/00] In an NBC interview at about the same time, Vice Presidential candidate Cheney defends Bush Jr.'s position of maintaining Clinton's policy not to attack Iraq because the US should not act as though "we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments." [Washington Post, 1/12/02]

Did you watch Nightline the other night?

Haver you read the report? It seems to me that a lot of that is taken out of context. It also seems to me that what is described in the report as attempts to predict unpredictable outcomes is presented in the text above as planning for the future.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
April 2001 (D): A report commissioned by former US Secretary of State James Baker and the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" is submitted to Vice President Cheney this month. "The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs." The report says the "central dilemma" for the US administration is that "the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience." It warns that the US is running out of oil, with a painful end to cheap fuel already in sight. It argues that "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma," and that one of the "consequences" of this is a "need for military intervention" to secure its oil supply. It argues that Iraq needs to be overthrown so the US can control its oil. [Sunday Herald, 10/5/02, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02] In what may be a reference to a pipeline through Afghanistan, the report suggests the US should "Investigate whether any changes to US policy would quickly facilitate higher exports of oil from the Caspian Basin region... the exports from some oil discoveries in the Caspian Basin could be hastened if a secure, economical export route could be identified swiftly" (see also September 2000 and Spring 2001). [Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, 4/01] Could the Bush administration have let 9/11 happen to get access to Central Asian oil, and gain support for a war with Iraq, amongst other reasons?

May 2001 (G): Vice President Cheney's national energy plan is publicly released. There are several interesting points, little noticed at the time. It suggests that the US cannot depend exclusively on traditional sources of supply to provide the growing amount of oil that it needs. It will also have to obtain substantial supplies from new sources, such as the Caspian states, Russia, and Africa. It also notes that the US cannot rely on market forces alone to gain access to these added supplies, but will also require a significant effort on the part of government officials to overcome foreign resistance to the outward reach of American energy companies. [Japan Today, 4/30/02]

You mean

Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a "Pan Arab" leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.
The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China and Russia.

Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his "victory" against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime. Once so encouraged and if his access to oil revenues were to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened. Still, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has many means of gaining revenues, and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the country’s economy.

Another problem with easing restrictions on the Iraqi oil industry to allow greater investment is that GCC allies of the United States will not like to see Iraq gain larger market share in international oil markets. In fact, even Russia could lose from having sanctions eased on Iraq, because Russian companies now benefit from exclusive contracts and Iraqi export capacity is restrained, supporting the price of oil and raising the value of Russian oil exports. If sanctions covering Iraq’s oil sector were eased and Iraq benefited from infrastructure improvements, Russia might lose its competitive position inside Iraq, and also oil prices might fall over time, hurting the Russian economy. These issues will have to be discussed in bilateral exchanges.

I can't find the part where the report says Iraq needs to be overthrown. Can you show it to me? (http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm#7)

I do see this recommendation:

Review policies toward Iraq to lower anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere; set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions.

Sounds pretty sinister, indeed.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
By of all people Pat Buchanan:
Buchanan Charges Neocons With 'Warmongering'
Tue Mar 11 2003 11:53:48 ET

In this week's AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, editor Pat Buchanan issues a controversial, 5000-word indictment of the 'War Party' of Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz and Richard Perle.

MORE

The magazine will hit newsstands and bookstores tomorrow. With quotes and citations, Buchanan alleges:


'War Party' ideas and plans for an attack on Iraq had been 'in preparation far in advance of 9/11, and when President Bush was looking for a new front,' the neocons 'put their precooked meal in front of him. And Bush dug into it.'


Richard Perle wrote a paper urging Israeli PM Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Peace Accords and target Iraq -- five years before 9/11.


Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith urged Israel to ditch the Oslo and take back the West Bank though 'the price in blood would be high,' three years before the Camp David talks.


Pentagon official David Wurmser urged the U.S. to act in concert with Israel to 'strike fatally...the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran and Gaza' -- nine months before 9/11.

Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz 'seized on the horrific atrocity [of September 11] to steer America¹s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic rogue states that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.'

The neocon vision is 'to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel....[They] seek American empire and the Sharonites seem hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely.'

Buchanan charges Max Boot of the WSJ and Lawrence Kaplan of New Republic with 'playing the anti-Semitic card....to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

And, finally... you reference Pat Buchanan. Thus squaring the woo-woo circle. All is well with the world.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I think it is very important that more people are educated on this issue.


http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html



Nie Trink Wasser: I am sorry I spammed your post. If you want me to, I will delete all of these posts.

MattJ

[Nie Trink Wasser]

no need to apologize, just please offer more evidence that exposes these conspiracy theories for what they are.

I'm used to leftist-propaganda-trolls spamming irresponsible information like this in bb systems all over the internet, so it doesnt surprise me.

Thanks for standing up to it.

please continue to do so, this is an important issue.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011015.html

Up until 1997-1998, the US government's position on the Taliban was muddled and at times came close to tacit support. Why? Soskis cites a lack of good intelligence; deference to Pakistan, a key ally which backed the Taliban; hope for stability in the region and, possibly, a crackdown on opium production; and, finally, the possibility of building the pipeline. However, by 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright condemned the Taliban, and the administration's position hardened as opposition by American feminists to the regime grew.

[subgenius]

Details Given on Contract Halliburton Was Awarded
By ELIZABETH BECKER


WASHINGTON, April 10 — The Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil well fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years, according to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that was released today.

The contract also allows Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to earn as much as 7 percent profit. That could amount to $490 million
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/business/11REBU.html?ex=1050638400&en=8e3c238766503e7b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Lothian]

Originally posted by subgenius
Details Given on Contract Halliburton Was Awarded
By ELIZABETH BECKER


WASHINGTON, April 10 — The Pentagon contract given without competition to a Halliburton subsidiary to fight oil well fires in Iraq is worth as much as $7 billion over two years, according to a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that was released today.

The contract also allows Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, to earn as much as 7 percent profit. That could amount to $490 million
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/business/11REBU.html?ex=1050638400&en=8e3c238766503e7b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE Halliburton pay Dick Cheney $1,000,000 a year. This contract is well overpriced according to several Texan companies who were not allowed to bid.

Without speculating on whether the massive profits to be made out of Iraqi oil bore any influence on the decision to invade Iraq, It is quite wrong that the people of Iraq are being exploited in this way.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Lothian
Halliburton pay Dick Cheney $1,000,000 a year. This contract is well overpriced according to several Texan companies who were not allowed to bid.

Without speculating on whether the massive profits to be made out of Iraqi oil bore any influence on the decision to invade Iraq, It is quite wrong that the people of Iraq are being exploited in this way.
Two big oil men in the White House. Watch what you wish for....

[corplinx]

I'm glad the kooks so readily identify themselves. I don't really think a kook can be a skeptic since it means believing in things without evidence. A kook believes in a view and uses things that when spun properly support that view.

For instance, "longtime defense contractor gets government contract" turns into "Cheney repays his big-oil buddies".

[WildCat]

I'm shocked, yes SHOCKED that Halliburton (developer of oil fields) would try to stay in the oil business. What gall! They should instead open a chain of clothing stores. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Originally posted by subgenius
December 4, 1997: The Taliban meet with US officials, and the Telegraph reports that "the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract."
How nice of the Clinton administration to go along w/ the Bush/Cheney conspiracy.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by subgenius
October 27, 1997: Halliburton, a company with future Vice President Cheney as CEO, announces a new agreement to provide technical services and drilling for Turkmenistan, a country in Central Asia. The press release also mentions that "Halliburton has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years." On the same day, a consortium to build a pipeline through Afghanistan is formed. It's called CentGas, and the two main partners are Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia. [Halliburton press release, 10/27/97, CentGas press release, 10/27/97]
Wow! 3 years before the 2000 election, this has got to be the most complex conspiracy ever pulled off. To think that they knew Cheney would be vice-president back then, those guys sure are clever. :rolleyes:

[Lothian]

Originally posted by corplinx
I'm glad the kooks so readily identify themselves. I don't really think a kook can be a skeptic since it means believing in things without evidence. A kook believes in a view and uses things that when spun properly support that view.

For instance, "longtime defense contractor gets government contract" turns into "Cheney repays his big-oil buddies". Who mentioned Cheney pulled strings, you made the connection.

My point was that several other American companies wanted to bid and stated the price was too high, Sour grapes perhaps but I have concerns that the Iraqi people are being ripped off by a financial decision taken out of thier hands. Can they, when a properly constituted government is elected change the deal and go for a company who will charge a competitive fee ? I doubt it.

If you and wild cat keep repeating the conspiracy theory long enough I am sure you will convince someone.

[WildCat]

Apparently Halliburton doesn't win them all. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2901793.stm)
The company once headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney, Halliburton, is out of the running for a $600m (£381m) US government contract to rebuild Iraq.

[Baker]

Originally posted by subgenius

Who said anything about a conspiracy, its all just interesting, isn't it? Or is ignorance bliss?

I see using various articles as a building blocks for a conspiracy without calling it one.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Baker


I see using various articles as a building blocks for a conspiracy without calling it one.
No conspiracy. Clear enough?
Interesting and worthy of note.
There can be conflicts of interst without it being a conspiracy. They seem to be doing everything in plain sight.
Its just that no one cares.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

Its just that no one cares.

No quid pro quo, no one cares.