The Neocon Oil Revenue Orgy
In "The Great Iraq Oil Giveaway," Chris Floyd explains:
By the way... at last official count, around 51% of Americans really like them. It is a sick, sad world, indeed.
"...Iraqi oil money that fell into the hands of the profiteer-in-chief, President George W. Bush. According to detailed audits and investigations by Congress, the Pentagon, the General Accountability Office, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, more than $8.8 billion in Iraqi money under Bush's control simply went walking between October 2003 and July 2004, the London Review of Books reports. These were revenues supposedly earmarked for the Iraqi government -- but no one knows where they actually went...Their is no war on terror, truthseekers. To the PNAC Neocons, this is business. They are in the business of war, and of energy. They want to possess everything of value. They will stop at nothing to take it, without remorse. They are vile, insidious, and lie to the world to satisfy their diabolical appetites."...looting on a scale not seen since the days of the Mongol Horde -- is just a single rivulet in the vast delta of corruption draining the conquered land. Christian Aid estimates that an additional $4 billion in unmetered oil export revenue was sold off under the counter, Saddam-style, to coalition cronies. Then there were the planeloads of cold cash spread around by Bush's "Provisional Authority" -- off the books, natch -- to "couriers," brokers, Western contractors, tribal leaders, "intelligence assets"...
"All of this money was stolen from the Iraqi people. In fact, every bit of Iraq's oil money was seized by Bush and transferred to New York's Federal Reserve Bank in May 2003... And oil revenues kept flowing to Bush's bank account after the conquest. All told, by the time Bush's personal viceroy, Jerry Bremer, did his "last days of Saigon" bug-out from Baghdad last year, the Crawford Caligula had run through $20 billion of Iraq's oil money.
"No one has been brought to justice for this monstrous -- indeed murderous -- thievery. And the oil barons preparing to feast on the new tenders needn't worry about such "quaint" notions as legality either. That's because Bush... recently renewed his infamous Executive Order 13303, the blanket immunity for all U.S. corporate interests involved in any way with Iraq's oil... The original edict was issued... May 2003.
"Bush's ukase applies to all traffickers in Iraqi oil -- as long as their loot finds its way, by hook or crook, into the coffers of "United States persons or entities." Bush declares flatly that any "judicial process" launched against these protected entities -- not excluding criminal proceedings for, say, fraud, corruption, extortion, even murder -- "shall be deemed null and void."
"Money and power, grabbed through violence and deceit: that's the real point -- the only point -- of Bush's "war on terror.""
By the way... at last official count, around 51% of Americans really like them. It is a sick, sad world, indeed.
posted by SheaNC at 9:46 AM
21 Comments:
Is this the same kind of corruption we see in the "Oil for Food" program?
-Jack
Wow. You can read the executive order verbatim on the White House web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html). It's really, really scary. Wow.
Wow.
Jack - "Is this the same kind of corruption we see in the "Oil for Food" program?" - You're right! Bush is as corrupt as Hussein!
And the U.N.! Imagine that!
-Jack
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why the competition, Jack? Why do you use the typical right-wing strategy of changing the subject when misdeeds of the Bush administration are pointed out? If I wrote a post about something bad that Clinton or Kennedy did, you would cry "Amen!" But if I write about republican's crimes, your response is, "Yeah, well... that U.N. is sure bad, too!"
What do you think about the issue I wrote about?
Well, I guess I play devil's advocate most of the time, Shea. For intance, I have read a tremendous amount about the Rove/Plame affair on the liberal sites I visit, but could hardly find any criticism about Sandy Berger and his admitted felony. I heard a lot of criticism for Abu- Ghraib, but not a peep about the rape and murder (currently) going on by the U.N. soldiers in Africa.
Of course, the purpose of most sites is not to criticize their own ideological base, therefore, you are right, it really is irrelevent to the article posted, Shea.
If this is all true, though, and something illegal has taken place, then I advocate investigation and indictments. Till this is tried out in court of law with appropriate fact finding I would have to say innocent until proven guilty. If true, then there needs to be punishment!
And a slight disagreement, Shea-- I have always been very vocal about Bush's policy and the Republicans when they stray. I have forwarded an article I wrote some time back to your email address.
Take care,
-Jack
What do you think about the issue I wrote about?
Easy. Lun-a-tic. Yup. You sound like a lunatic. Got yer tinfoil hat screwed on a little too tight? Funny how all these so-called scandals are only revealed by you "true believers" rather than, oh, the press.
You're a lefty, Shea, aren't you advocating debt relief in Africa? I'm not changing the subject, just trying to put things in a bit of perspective. In Africa you have corrupt governments failing to dispense the food supplied by the West to their starving people, yet the left seems to think just forgiving their debt will cure all their ills.
The President's executive order prevents the fledgling Iraqi government from being assaulted by all the highly paid lawyers in the U.S. Otherwise, any revenue streams the Iraqis have begun to realize for themselves would dry up in law suits. Sheesh. Leave it to the Left to find "eeevil" intent in anything and everything Bush does.
Anonymous:
Cool. We lie in wait for fools to rush in, and sure enough, here you are.
Name-calling was a good way to start out. That opens the floodgates for a war of insults, but I won't indulge you there because, quite frankly, we all know I would win. However, your feeble attempt indicates that you are not a frequent visitor.
The whole "tin-foil-hat", "your a lefty" thing - Ha! Thanks for that. Actually, I am a right-handed capitalist who desires limited government and responsible journalism. I must admit, you are the first of your ilk to advocate for the mainstream press.
And of course, you enlighten me with the clarity and insight that only someone of your staggering intellect could: We are taking Iraq's money, and making American corporations immune from any and all criminal prosecution, in order to protect the Iraqis from evil American lawyers!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
That's so incredibly altruistic of you! Instead of getting rid of the actual frivolous law suits (which haven't happened), you simply eliminate the actual laws! No laws, no lawsuits! How perfectly Neocon! And, the Bush regime holds all their money... just to keep it "safe".
You should go to Iraq and explain the situation to them. I'm sure they have ways of thanking you for your kindness.
Name-calling was a good way to start out.
Hey, you asked for the opinion, I just gave it. Don't want to hear the truth? Don't ask the question.
I won't indulge you there because, quite frankly, we all know I would win.
Oh, I'm sure that you are much more skilled at immature name-calling than I could ever hope to be.
We are taking Iraq's money, and making American corporations immune from any and all criminal prosecution, in order to protect the Iraqis from evil American lawyers!
Did you actually read the Executive Order? If you did, perhaps you just misunderstood it. Yes, it will protect corporations who have dealings with the Iraqi government and Development Fund. Can you possibly comprehend why? Probably not, so I'll try to explain it simply.
1) Sodom Hussein did lots of bad things, so now lots of people have cause to sue him and take Iraqi funds.
2) Fledgling Iraqi government needs all funds it can get, including those donated from other countries for reconstruction and funds it raises through sale of oil.
3) Allowing lawsuits which would take these funds hurts the new Iraqi government.
Pretty simple. This order is a tool to help the new government in Iraq get a leg up. And yes, if you think that with all the money pouring into Iraq for reconstruction some lawyer in the U.S. wouldn't think to file a lawsuit or two on behalf of aggrieved individuals, you have a lot to learn.
Okay, Anonymous, let's start from the top:
"Hey, you asked for the opinion, I just gave it. Don't want to hear the truth? Don't ask the question."
I can ask whatever question I want. Your trolling is not "the truth," despite your delusions of superiority.
"Oh, I'm sure that you are much more skilled at immature name-calling than I could ever hope to be."
Then why did you start with it? It made your comment sound juvenile and mean-spirited. Is that how you wish to present yourself?
Now, as for your interpretation of the actual subject matter, your analysis still makes no sense. You say it is better to take their money, and remove all accountability for any actions taken by American corporations, because someone might sue them someday for actions taken by a deposed dictator? That is completely ridiculous!
No, wait. Here's a deal you'll like: Give me all your money, and sign a binding contract forfeiting your legal rights so that I can take anything I want that belongs to you. That way, you can live without fear of those evil "trial lawyers". Hey, it's the plan you endorse, right?
Their is no war on terror, truthseekers.
What? That just makes you sound like the fringe left. Yes yes, it's all about oil. We're there for oil. We need oil to survive. Duh. It's definitely partly about oil and protecting our economy. Do you really think that's a bad thing? Perhaps you're willing to go through a depression that makes the 30's look like a Golden Era. Most people aren't.
I don't get why you can never seem to grasp that Sodom was a very, very bad person. He killed tens of thousands of people. He started wars that killed even more. Yes, we supported him in one of those wars because he was fighting our enemy. Dirty business, but necessary sometimes.
Sodom was a threat. I think you can agree that the 1991 Gulf War was completely justified. He invaded a sovereign nation. We helped kick him out. Do you realize that the 1991 Gulf War never officially ended? The hostilities ended because Sodom said "uncle". He had specific terms to comply with. He didn't. Lest we forget, one of those terms was to divest of all WMD's, another was to definitively prove that he had.
He refused to prove it. He would rather play the "Do I or don't I have them" game. Who knows why. Either way, he had more than enough chances.
Sure, you can disagree, that's your right. But to imply that there is no war on terror is beyond silly. Go tell the people in London that there is no war on terror. They'll tell you where to get off, right quick.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sean:
1. If you are referring the deposed former dictator of Iraq, his name is SADDAM, not SODOM. Sodom is the name of a city from a story in the Bible. The former dictator of Iraq is Saddam Hussein.
2. You say "I don't get why you can never seem to grasp that Sodom was a very, very bad person." I challenge you to find ANY evidence that I ever said any such thing. You can't, BECAUSE I NEVER HAVE. Search this blog, search my own blog, whatever - you are making up lies about me. That's a stupid way to try to make a point. If you want to know what I think of Saddam Hussein, just ask me, instead of making up lies about me. If, on the other hand, instead of deliberatly lying, you are just plain delusional, then I apologize. You can't help that.
3. You said "I think you can agree that the 1991 Gulf War was completely justified. He invaded a sovereign nation. We helped kick him out." - For your information, Hussein made it obvious he was itching to invade Kuwait, and the Bush I administration told him that America would officially take no position on the dispute, basically telling him he was free to invade with our blessing. If Bush had told Hussein not to invade Kuwait, there might have been a lot less death and destruction (after all, Bush and Hussein were old friends and allies). Telling Iraq we didn't care if they invaded Kuwait was not heroic. It was another typical Bush scam.
4. The people of London are probably thrilled with Bush's rhetoric about fighting them there, so we won't have to fight them here.
5. You may have been away, or you may have missed it, but there were no WMDs.
Howdy, Shea!
See NL's is attracting some new visitors. Hope they keep coming back.
Anon, calm down a bit, Man! These guys will listen, if not always agree-plus you get some good discussion and feedback from them.
Sean, I'll throw in something here for Shea to read:
Shea, on WMD's, there were none FOUND. According to Blix and David Kay, they existed:
http://cshink.com/blix_report.htm
http://cshink.com/ISG_report.htm
"The people of London are probably thrilled with Bush's rhetoric about fighting them there, so we won't have to fight them here."
Shea, was this Bush's rhetoric?
-Jack
Yeah the weapons they say existed. But they still were not found. We know of other countries that have weapons that we could "find." Why didnt/dont we invade them?
CH, you know! Because they don't have any oil, Dude!
-Jack
"Shea, on WMD's, there were none FOUND. According to Blix and David Kay, they existed"
The proof is in the pudding, as they say... Kay's report begins with lots of disclaimers about inconclusive data (at the time), and sounds a lot like "we don't really know yet and won't for a while."
I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons programs of all kinds at one time, much of which was supported by the United States, unfortunately. But we had been bombing Iraq pretty often for years, and I believe his capabilities were far less than what our government (both parties) portrayed.
Also, with 20/20 hindsight, one would think he would have unleashed some of those WMD's in defense against our invasion, or at least had something prepared.
But most of all, this really illustrates the lies of our government: they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) said they had incontrovertible proof, and they they knew where the WMD's were located, and Bush even said we found them. All lies. And don't anyoone try to defend those lies with the old reply about bad intelligence. We're not talking about them saying intelligence pointed to the existence of WMD's, we're talking about them saying they had absolute proof. There is a difference, and they lied to start a war. Cloaking themselves in patriotic imagery and hiding behind a bible, they lied to the world in order to invade a country that posed no threat to us. It is shameful.
Shea. Take a valium.
1) I know how to spell his name. But I don't like the guy, so I call him Sodom. Get over it.
2) Take another valium. I haven't accused you of "saying" anything. I'm wondering why you continue to go on and on and on and on (you get the picture) about how terribly eeeevil Bush is, because the war in Iraq is nothing but a "corporate" war to line the pockets of his friends. Based on what I've read of your writing, the fact that Sodom (and here I'm talking about Sodom Hussein, not the city mentioned in the Bible) is a very, very bad person never seems to enter your calculus. It always seems to boil down to "Bush bad, Iraq war bad - its all about the oil!"
3) I see. When the U.S. doesn't stick its nose in the affairs of a sovereign nation, we should. When we do we shouldn't. Of course, that bit of logic is confusing. I think what you're saying is that if only Bush the First was more interventionist in Iraq and its policies the first Gulf War would have been avoided?
4) Maybe you should try and listen to what Bush's "rhetoric" actually is. The goal is to fight the terrorists where they live rather than where we live. That would be the Middle East, not London.
5) I wasn't away. Perhaps you missed the point of all those speeches, including the state of the union speech, where WMD's was only one aspect of the reasoning to go into Iraq. And I think you are also forgetting the fact that it was up to Sodom to PROVE that he had no weapons. It was not up to our inspectors to overturn every rock in the country trying to find them. Those were the terms of the cease fire, Sodom refused to do that, nobody in their right mind would take Sodom at his word.
And don't anyoone try to defend those lies with the old reply about bad intelligence.
So, when Clinton launched cruise missiles against a chemical weapons factory - during the Lewinsky scandal - which turned out to be an aspirin factory, was he "lying", "covering up his affair/perjury", or was it "bad intelligence"? Just curious as to your take.
And yes, I think I will give you that "old reply" about bad intelligence. What do you think the proof was? If it wasn't based on intelligence, what was it based on? Of course the "proof" they believed they had was based on our intelligence. Here's something to consider - every major intelligence organization in the world believed Sodom had WMD's. Unfortunately, Sodom was also buying off higher ups in those governments to keep them on his side. And you talk about U.S. corruption? Perhaps because I was not frequenting this site earlier I missed all your rants against France, Germany, and Russia regarding their Oil for Food payoffs.
You keep saying Bush lied. I don't think you quite understand what a lie is. You don't lie when you make a statement that turns out to be untrue. You lie when you make a statement you know to be untrue. Bush based his decisions on the intelligence at hand. It was not as accurate as he could have hoped. That is not a lie.
Post a Comment
<< Home