You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Paul Wolfowitz’ category.

1) Republicans want the surge to last till September. Why?

2) Dick Cheney is off somewhere in the middle east, on another secret mission, immediately just after Rice got back. Why?

3) We still do not have oil flowing from Iraq, four years after ‘mission accomplished”, Why?

Is there a connection between these three threads?

Now four years after the war was won, we still do not have a contract with a legitimate Iraqi government to remove the oil from Iraqi sands. What is wrong with those Iraqi’s. Don’t they want our oil revenues to rebuild their country?

The holdup seems to be what is known as the PSA’s (production sharing agreements). These clauses guarantee US oil companies 70% of the profits up to amortization and 20% after that, whereas the going standard rate is 10% of profits to oil companies, and 90% to the country. This oil bill must be passed before the Iraqi congress goes on recess May 31st, just 21 days from the date of this posting.

The oil companies estimate that it will cost between 1$ and 1.50$ to extract a barrel of Iraqi gold, the premium of all crudes. At today’s prices of 75$ a barrel this rate of return would be equivalent of kicking a baby in its face and stealing its candy.

Iraqi resistance understands this. And yet this insider’s fact has not even made our evening news.

This is not the result of a random compilation of events.

As we moved in immediately after the invasion, instead of allowing Iraqi’s oil engineers to redevelop their own oil fields, (we are talking about the same men who kept the oil flowing during the sanction years to the amazement of the world, with little more than ingenuity), two Texan companies, Halliburton and Bechtel, were both put in charge. As recent congressional hearings have discovered, these non-bid corporations were paid on a nominal cost-plus basis, meaning they used the most expensive technology available, thereby running up the costs as well as their percentages, and then stopped, unfinished, right before the wells were working. Now, at this point in time, no one else but either of these two companies can “turn on ” the wells, with the quick installation of one or two mother-boards. They sit now, bidding their time, while they wait for a “legitimate contract” which once passed, will guarantee at least 70% of the substantial profits.

This is actually the fuel that flames the insurgency. Iraqis want the oil developed, not stolen. The bomb we saw that killed the Iraqi Vice President Mahdi, a feverish PSA oil law supporter, was detonated at the same time while the preliminary oil bill was being debated in their congress. As with all Arab attacks, the timing of these events is important; it is meant to send a message. Again, as far as I know, no one in the US news media, has yet made the connection.

This rape of the Iraqis’ oil rights, finally explains why Iraqi sentiment shifted so drastically after the war. In the beginning the Iraqi’s welcomed us with open arms, (Viva George Bush) until they realized we really were moving in on their oil. This also explains the timing of the insurgency, and why the fighting continues, as well as to why there is a Civil War.

The Sunnis benefit if the oil bill is to pass, since they will get 10% of the profits: (1/3 of 30%); Sunni’s have little or no oil resources on their territory if the country splits into three federations. The Shiites, and Kurds, both who have an abundance of oil, want Iraq to develop their own oil at contracts similar to their neighbors, with oil company’s taking a paltry 10% of the profits, and 90% coming back to Iraq.

So what’s behind the Cheney visit? Why now?

Last week, the Kurds signed deals with both Norwegian and Turkish companies to develop new oil fields in their province. These were not at 70% PSA rates.

This electrified Cheney and his Iraqi leadership, which said that any contracts signed before the new law was passed, would be invalid and illegal.

Right now the Kurds hold 58 out of the 275 seats in the Iraqi Congress. At a 29.10 % voting bloc, the oil bill can be passed without one Kurdish vote, if the Sunnis decide to hold firm and in one bloc vote together. Hence Cheney’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and now Iraq.

He needs to persuade (pressure) those governments to lean on the Iraqi Sunnis and force them to line up behind the Oil Bill, so that none of the votes of the Kurds are needed.

In a democracy it is commonly assumed that open discussion will generate the best results. However as of May 6, the Iraqi legislature had not yet seen a draft of the Oil bill that Cheney wants passed by May 31st. Who has seen it? Here is what Chinese intelligence had to say about it:

The law was in essence drafted, behind locked doors, by a US consulting firm hired by the Bush administration and then carefully retouched by Big Oil, the International Monetary Fund, former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz’ World Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development. It’s virtually a US law (its original language is English, not Arabic).

The right to self determination in a democracy apparently does not apply to oil. Condoleeza Rice was ineffective in her tactics of persuasion and now Cheney (not as Vice President, but as a representative of “Big Oil”), has gone to play hardball. Expect him to say behind closed doors: “Our meters are on your wells. You will have NO oil, and no income period, unless you give me the PSA’s. If you refuse, you no longer have our confidence in your leadership. Without our protection, you are at the mercy of your own people…….”

And we saw what happened to VP Mahdi even with our protection.

With this much pressure being placed by the US on this one bill, we can now understand why Cheney and his supporters told us the surge was so important. He needed it to provide enough stability in Baghdad so this bill could pass. It is now clear why Republicans are saying “wait till September”. At that point we will have our 70% rate of return. We can further decipher why Democrats are saying “we will know by June”. They are implying you’ve got till May 31st, Mr. President, or we are pulling the plug.

In the meantime, people who we were told are terrorists, continue to fight a nation who seems intent on stealing their livelihood from out of the very ground they stand on.


Recently Duffy made a comment that was, as my kids would say, was “sooo…..2004” Being away I failed to respond in a timely fashion, and Tyler Nixon, thankfully, stepped up to the plate, and contributed the opposing point of view.

But it caused me to reflect, since a month ago I heard the same type of comment offered again in defense of Cheney, that events have moved forward so fast, that it is quite plausible that one missed an integral piece of the puzzle needed to understand today’s events.

In an effort to fill in those “gaps of knowledge”, perhaps allow me to expand on why it is quite conceivable that Cheney orchestrated the war to enrich his pockets.

These sources may be unknown to many of you. But I have found that credibility is often more prevalent, the further one is removed from the Kleig lights of media’s attention. When thing are said that are not “self serving”, their is a good chance that there may some truth buried within.

The area of concern lies with how intelligence was orchestrated by the administration to create an illusion, instead of being used to find facts. Now in late 2006 and 2007 we are starting to get the “unofficial” side of events that led us to invade Iraq, as ex-American intelligence officers have vetted their manuscripts and now are publishing them.

Are these ex intelligence officers to be believed, over the “official” Administrative take of events leading up to March 03?

Perhaps. Our Supreme Court always publishes a dissenting opinion, whenever it processes a verdict. This allows the open discussion of ideas, even after the discussion is rendered obsolete due to the decision having already being made.

These opinions, now being published, should be treated as the dissenting opinions that did not win in the inner office discussions leading up to the chain of command’s decision. But unlike Supreme Court decisions, these do not need a court case to be overturned.

One further note, before I begin. If history had shown the Iraqi war to be successful and accomplish the mission that was sold to the American people, then this conversation would be irrelevant. It is only within this context, that five years after we were first presented this intelligence, we are currently mired in dealing with bombs smuggled into the very safe Green Zone, and with demonstrations against American occupation, by the very Iraqi policeman and Iraqi army officers we counting on to defend our troop’s safety and security within that region, that this dissenting opinion, belatedly offered, has any merit.

When one of these sources took over as CIA chief of the European division, he was told the White House was extremely interested in Iraq, and that his department should report everything they could find out about it, as well as on Iran and China. The scuttlebutt within the agency was that the Bush people were out to settle the score for the first Gulf War. Bin Laden was an afterthought. All effort to move the terroristic threat into the inner sanctums of the White House, were blocked or shut down, as evidenced by the now famous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” fiasco proved. Instead of revamping efforts to concentrate on unearthing terrorists in Europe and infiltrating weapons proliferation networks in Europe, resources were shuffled towards gathering any dirt on the Saddam regime that could justify a ground attack upon that country. In any bureaucracy one career moves forward only if one gets noticed. When praise was delegated to Iraqi findings and silence given towards Bin Laden findings, a strong signal reverberated throughout all intelligence agencies.

George Tenet, to his credit was dedicated to breaking down barriers with our European allies. but he was swimming against the tide, which was turning increasingly away form the real targets and toward Iraq.

“The Bush administration was about to embark on a course that would do more to undermine this country’s intelligence community than any of the actions of its predecessors.”

This caveat was offered to illuminate how this administration chose fiction over fact.

Just hours after 9/11 one of our allies offered their support. “Anything we can do”, they said, “is at your disposal”. ” I hope we can all agree that we should focus attention on Afghanistan and not be tempted to launch any attacks on Iraq.” this representative said.

George Tenet replied. “absolutely, we all agree on this that. Some might want to link the issues but none of us wants to go that route.” The other side of the argument was of course represented by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, and the others, but for now, under the quiet skies over post 9/11 DC, no one in the intelligence communities on BOTH sides of the Atlantic, considered pursuing Iraqi leads.

Had intelligence been part of the policy decisions, we might be in much better situation than where we are now. Under a different administration, the policy hatched out in meetings between underlings of international intelligence agencies may have risen to the policy determining level of senior officials. It was thought that European allies might take a request of cooperation from one of their neighbors better than they would have from us. This attempt to make the pursuit of Al Qaeda appear to be a multinational effort, was stopped by Rumsfeld’s disparaging remarks against our allies France and Germany by calling them “Old Europe” Had this officer known what was to come, he would have tried to make them understand the value of our friends across the ocean. “But then again, with their agendas, their mind was made up.”

We had an election, votes were cast, a winner drawn, and a verdict was given by the American electorate. So it’s done, it’s over. .

What direction does one move after the fight is over?

And now with ’08 is rising above the horizon, casting long shadows across the landscape, which way does one move?

Democrats and Republicans alike are perusing all the alternatives of every option. One can get lost in the details. Each candidate is putting “his (or her) take” on each and every problem. And this year, there are soooo many candidates…..

Perhaps in this case it is better to step back, prioritize the problems, and then let every candidate and legislator have a crack at fixing the issues we have at stake.

The priorities need to be thus.

The Economy

The War

Medical Care

The Environment

Our Future Security (social)

To assist and help with the discussion, I have compiled a list of thoughts and organized them into campaign sized bites for any political aspirant to right click, copy, and paste for their own use, and most importantly, you do not even have to credit me. Use the idea as your own.

The world will be much better off if the electorate is informed. And the best way to get this information out there, is to let each and any candidate use this information for their personal gain.

Any Republican, Democrat, or Independent is welcome to use these. I really do mean that.

For it is time, when the best of mankind needs to step forward. We have suffered too long with inadequacy and looking at the landscape before us and the challenges coming to us from the future, we will need our best, our smartest, and our toughest, regardless of party affiliation.

Cooperation needs to be the watchword as we march further into this century. Breaking down party barriers to good governance is not the responsibility of the parties themselves. There goal is to win. We, as voters, are the ones who will determine whether the best person for the job, does indeed get it.

The fast track to do that, is to inspire candidates, who in turn, will inspire America.

The challenges facing us, would paint a scary picture of the future, if those challenges were faced by anyone other than the United States of America. Because bottom line, as a society, we do challenges rather well. And of course, Delaware, “the first state”, needs to lead by example. In Delaware, bloggers have opened the doors of communication between parties. It is time for our elected officials to follow.

So in the spirit of cooperation, open to all, here is a group of topics to jump start the discussion.

I love this country. I love what it stands for. I do not have the answers, at the least, not all of them.

What I have is the desire to search and find an intangible: such as the right course of action for our impending future. Whenever I propose an option or plan of action, on it’s own it has less weight than a puff of wind. What it needs is a measurable effect on those to the left of me, and those to the right of me……………who, bless their hearts, take time to read it, and maybe respond, or even what is most beneficial to me, tear it apart. Only through this combative interaction do I get a sense of whether my idea is too far ahead of its time, or too far back for its time, or just possibly the right idea for this time and this place.

The tree moves and we see the wind.

Analyzing the merits of opposite points of view, is really at the core of what I try to do when I write.

For any idea that cannot stand the full court press of an Ohio State like opposition, does not warrant any mention in the annuals of history. But, despite opposition, if the idea still prevails, then it must definitely have merit.

There are so many levels one can go with this……….

But listening to Bob Woodward being interviewed in front George Mason University students, I noticed that the conversation turned to, and stayed on, George Bush and the Iraqi War. Of course Bob Woodward’s most recent book, State of Denial just happens to be about about the interaction of those two topics.

Bob was asked if he ever saw Bush reaching out for an opposite opinion, one that differed from what his staff was feeding him. He said “no, that even Bush admitted that to him, personally. Bush himself said ‘I live in a bubble. I have to trust my staff to present information to me and based on what I get, I choose the way I have to act’.”

This is illuminating.

As was this illustration.

“It was late February 2003, just three weeks before the start of the war, and a meeting was arranged with General Jay Garner and the inner circle of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, etc. There was a list of nine objectives of what General Garner needed to accomplish in Iraq.

He said he could not do four of them. He didn’t have enough manpower, or the right resources at his disposal. I think that one of them was to disarm nuclear weapons, that was back when we thought we still had them. Another was to develop an Iraqi intelligence force.

And no one in that room said anything about it……….for heavens sakes, it’s management 101! And Bush has his MBA in management. If you give someone a directive and they say they can’t do it, you follow up and ask “why not”, “what do you need”, “who do you know who can do it. ” But no one spoke up and said anything. They were too gung-ho over the impending adventure. Wolfawitz was quoted as saying “It will be over in seven days.”

The fact that there were serious flaws in their plan, did not hit the consciousness of anyone from the administration who was in that room.

Perhaps it is this belief in fantasy that still pervades our Executive branch in this hour of peril (not Perle). Currently, predictions are that the surge will now utilize over 28,000 people. But there are still no basic plans to fix the infrastructure of Baghdad, even after we have chased the last insurgent out of town.

Servicemen are shaking their heads. Anyone who visits our soldiers in Iraq is asked the question: “what’s going on in Washington? The president began this war, Congress voted for it, we came and did our part……and now, no one seems to know what the hell is going on.”

This problem lies not just with the administration. Pelosi and Reid also are pursuing their own separate agendas, ones they feel strongly are mandated by the American people. Right now, America is vacillating between two dichotomous plans of actions with no resolution in sight. Perhaps in 2009, we will finally get our plan, one that America can get behind and pursue singlemindedly. But by that time, many of the options open to us now, will have closed.

There needs to be dialog, healthy give and take, such as what we experience here on the web. Both sides need to listen to each other’s point of view, and then work with it.

America needs to demand that Nancy Pelosi, Dick Cheney, Harry Reid, George Bush, lock themselves in a room at a Holiday Inn, order a bunch of sandwiches, bring toiletries and sleeping bags, and not come out until they have a plan that each of those four can stand behind…………………….

Communication………it’s soooooo underrated…..

Jud’s Rant embedded in FSP and the comments which follow afterwards, are relevant on many layers to today’s news stream. Think123‘s comment brings up the interesting thought, that lying has NO place in government. Reading his comments, provokes quite the noble aspiration. Should citizens remove all lying, from government period?

A lot of evidence today, supports him. Just got done watching Tony Snow wonder aloud what was wrong with Rove just meeting Congressman and Senators off the record. No one in the news media brought it up, (I believe Helen Thomas has not been reinstated to her prime seat yet), but the answer is that Rove lies. He has lied before, even to a grand jury about his recollection over Valerie Plame, and ONLY the guaranteed threat of imprisonment caused him to flip-flop and tell the truth.

But, as my son (who thinks he is the new Tom Cruise) is prone to tell me, what if we can’t handle the truth?

I can think of a couple of instances. “There was absolutely no deliberate attempt to violate Soviet airspace and never has been.” Dwight D. Eisenhower. Two weeks later Gary Powers‘ U2 was shot down and he was paraded before Soviet television cameras for the world to see.

“The United States has not and will not bomb the territory of any neutral nations bordering Vietnam.” Richard Nixon. My brother in law was on the ground in Cambodia at the time, engaged in some of the fiercest firefights in that war.

Most recently: “Mr. President. There are reports that we have men on the ground in Afghanistan, just days after 09/11 who are assisting the Northern Alliance in their struggle against the Taliban. ” “We will hold Afghanistan accountable for their part of 9/11 but at this point we have no Americans involved in Afghanistan.”

Each lie was made to the cameras, and spread across the international media. Should our presidents have been truthful each and every time asked? It’s funny, but that answer depends upon YOUR motive. If you disagree with the speaker’s position, lies should penalized. If you agree, than they are a necessary tool needed to protect our national interests.

There are many of you (some who may read this blog) out there who live a lie. And some do so at the request of our National Government. Anyone working undercover is guilty, and we excuse it because of the ultimate good they bring to society. Anyone working in intelligence, who spies for a living, must live a lie, and justify it by the good they provide to their nation’s protection. More cloudy justifications are brought to light in the Donviti link to the Washington Post, describing the Security Letters and the so-called “gag order” accompanying them. There, although disagreeing with the premise, one must lie through his teeth to stay out of Guantanamo.

Therefore this issue centered around “lying in government” is dependent upon, of all things, the view of the person who is being lied to.

I remember this line uttered in Jesus Christ Superstar, when he is questioned by the Sanhedrin……..”What is truth, is truth unchanging law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?”

Since the fact that what may be horrific to me, may appear to be common sense to you, makes truth itself, and lying about it, a political issue.

Lying, by this definition, is about: how many people support your right to tell a falsehood, and how many people are against it.

This calls into question whether or not are all lies bad? If a presidency is saved by a lie, and it is a good presidency, is that lie even a big deal at all? If my wife turns to me and says “does this dress make me look fat…….?” …………I’ll admit, dudes, I’m saying “No.”

So why should a legislator be penalized for not directly incriminating himself, when that right is fully protected by the Constitution?

When I was a young professional, I used to think it was smart to lie, spin, distort, obfuscate, to cause others to look elsewhere from where I was to move forward.

Now, a little jaded, I see some wisdom in telling the truth, even if it may hurt you personally. For if you always tell the truth, you gradually gain credibility. You may be passed over, you may not get promoted, you may even go to jail……..but in the long range your opinions will be trusted by people struggling to find truth themselves………and that, I think, is what is missing from media politics today.

On the other hand, I readily see it whenever I meet a candidate going door to door….. for one can sense a phony. But if the candidate comes across as real, even though I may disagree with what he thinks of national policy, I can still trust him to represent my family on the local common issues that we both share……………

I’m still learning, even as I write. But just a few seconds ago, a thought hit me, and after a few seconds of turning it over in my mind, I decided it fit and choose to share it. What I just realized, was that there is only one presidential candidate now, that has a track record that I can trust. He has been around awhile, has spoken on many a Sunday, has been lifted up, and he has been laid out flat………………….and that is Joe Biden.

What’s up with that?


A review of history is in order. Oil has lain dormant under Iraq for millennia’s. Only recent history has made it useful to man. This oil is lying just under the surface of Iraq and can be retrieved for less than $1.50 a barrel. One Iraqi citizen said “just put a pipe into the sand and oil comes out.” Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and whoever controls Iraq, has his finger not only on America‘s lifeline, but also that of Europe, China, Russia, and the developing third world. And if one includes the unknown reserves for Iraq’s western unexplored desert, perhaps Saudi Arabia falls to a distant second.

The Middle East was ignored up until the ‘74 Oil Crises which occurred during the administration of Gerald Ford. As these countries nationalized their oil production facilities, thereby themselves able to determine the amount of their supply, they were through OPEC able to manipulate the price of oil. It was during this nationalization phase occurring during the Nixon administration, when Kissinger initially called for a plan designed to take the region by force if needed. This plan was secret, and is probably the origin of the map in question. After Nixon stepped down, Gerald Ford was left holding both reins of a Middle East in full gallop towards a cliff‘s edge. Here among several of Ford’s staff, the secret detailed plans were made to take the oil countries by force and secure the area from any Soviet influence. Those staff members from a Presidential cabinet of thirty years ago, are surprisingly quite well known today. They included both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who are in what has become today know as the neo conservative movement. Foreign oil was then 36% of our total intake and we realized from this oil crises, that our quality of life could be seriously threatened by turning off the spigot of our Middle East oil at its source. Closely aligned with the upstart Reagan in 76, this group scuttled Ford’s chances of returning to office that year..

Jimmy Carter, in what became known as the Carter Doctrine, declared before the world, that the Middle East was an American vital interest and any foreign (Soviet) military intervention into that region would be viewed as an act of war upon this country itself. Then came the fall of Iran and the threat shifted.

Iran created the opportunity for us to befriend our new friend Iraq, which up until that time had been cozy with the Soviets simply primarily because we were heavily invested in the Shah of Iran. But as Iran flip-flopped in its opinion of us,, Saddam saw his opportunity to gain American protection and engaged Iran in a silly and stupid war. This engagement was fueled by American arms and American oil investment into the nationalized oil infrastructure of Iraq.

Then in ‘90, through our oil stained diplomats, Saddam thought we had given him the green light to attack Kuwait. For several days there was indecision on Bush Sr. about what to do. But once the conservative oil community realized the opportunity of taking the Iraq’s oil fields by force, the US on day three of the crises, issued to a surprised Saddam, our ultimatum. Saddam carefully calculated that he could survive without withdrawing and we made war plans to attack and liberate Kuwait. However within infighting of the inner circle, both the Baker contingent, and the private, personal appeals from British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, were able to convince the President that he should push the noble agenda of freeing Kuwait, instead of the neo conservatives main goal of punishing Saddam by taking control of the Iraqi oil fields. As the war evolved into a “just war” with even Syria supporting the Coalition Forces, it became politically impossible for elements of the US to seize the oil fields for themselves. This does however, explain a different reason we went through the western area of Iraq in order to attack Saddam’s supply lines. For had the war slipped into a prolonged phase, the “Holy Grail of oil men” would lie firmly under the control of the US army..

During the Clinton years, while the world’s attention was focused elsewhere, there continued to beat the steady drumbeat of the neo conservatives and oil company executives that said: “We should have taken Saddam out when we were there.” Every few months an article would appear in an oil sponsored scientific or international relations journal, decrying the weakness of Americans in bowing to the UN and stopping our campaign where and when we said we would. What was at stake was not our pride. It was their oil. For now, as we enforced on Iraq severe sanctions, and as we baited SAM missile batteries to lock on to our military aircraft, we had ourselves become the antagonist of Saddam Hussein. As things stood then we had no chance of receiving any rights to Iraqi oil. Were ever the sanctions to lift, a long line of suitors had formed way ahead of us to acquire the rights to the richest oil deposit on earth.

However, if we went to war unilaterally, we could simply take it for ourselves.

Enter the Bush administration. Now, not only are the country’s number one and number two spots held by oil men, but the entire cadre of the office, is also possessed by the clean smell of oil. It includes Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz,, Elliot Abrams, and Zalmay Khalilzad, all who were obsessed with the prospect of acquiring Iraq’s oil by force thirty years ago..

Just weeks after Bush was signed in, Cheney convened an informal gathering of oil executives called the Energy Task Force. From that brief gathering, our energy policy was finalized. The evidence that remains from that top secret meeting , is a map showing the oil fields of Iraq, a map showing oil fields in the Persian Gulf, and a map of northern Saudi Arabia, showing oil fields near the northern border. Also accompanying this was a document showing the Suitors for Iraqi Oil, of which the US is not one.

Since these engagements were secret, there is only a premise. But it bears scrutiny. And that premise is in one meeting, the complex Energy Policy of this wide and varied nation, was reduced to simply moving in and taking control of Iraq’s oil that cost only $1.50 a barrel to extract. Nowhere else on this planet can one get so much oil so cheaply, and no other way could the US ever be part of that windfall, except by disposing of Saddam and signing oil deals with the newly formed government.

What bothers me most is that, once one accepts this framework, (that of controlling Iraqi oil ), the individual actions taken by this administration that previously I had assumed were both inept and stupid, suddenly seem to make a great deal of sense.

You have heard them before, but listed in sequence they evoke a pattern that I will leave for you to ponder.

During the campaign against Gore, reports surfaced that Bush , had boasted within the oil industry, that he was gong to get Saddam.

Oil companies contributed record and never before seen amounts of campaign soft money to Bush’s campaign. They have been well rewarded.

Bush delegated Cheney to determine the Vice Presidential Candidates. Cheney said “Myself”. Bush then delegated Cheney to hire the White House staff. Cheney picks the neo-conservatives all who were proponents of taking Iraq’s oil in the 70’s. Bush then picks Eugene O‘Neil, Colin Powell, and Christie Todd Whitman, to give his administration some credibility, but who all eventually resign with bitterness at being railroaded. by Cheney and the neo-cons. An attorney general is chosen who believes the Executive Branch requires no checks or balances, and is free to use America’s resources as it sees fit..

Richard Clarke is marginalized as Director of Terrorism and NSA , FBI, and CIA all turn a blind eye to events leading up to 9/11.

9/11 occurs the day the American New Century is meeting in New York.

There is that weird moment in the classroom as Andy Card tells Bush we are under attack.

Bin Laden family is allowed to fly out of the country, when no one, even American citizens, are.
Richard Perle is heard running around the office on 9/12 saying “it’s Iraq, find the connection to Iraq.”

Anthrax occurs…….The administration immediately feeds the media that it is from Iraq. But if so, why Tom Daschle???? And whatever happened to that investigation? Oops…It was an American strain…..….hmmmm……

Bush gives Tommy Frank the order to draw up plans for an Iraqi invasion, before we even start into Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban.

The drums begin about WMD’s being in Iraq, even while we are fighting in Afghanistan.
When an article appears stating there is no Niger yellow cake in Iraq, a CIA agent is “out-ed” by top administration officials, who are so afraid their invasion plans will unravel, that they willingly risk prosecution to remove that agent’s security clearance and invoke, by law, the signed secrecy exit statements that guarantee her silence.

Intimidation created by calling a person cowardly in the face of war is levied against any elected official who opposes the direction of this administration, even if that person has lost limbs fighting our previous enemies…..…There is not much argument before the public, when the resolution to use force in Iraq, passes in the Senate.

We begin the buildup of troops in Saudi Arabia, before we finish the Afghan war, leaving that war unfinished even thought the perpetrator of 9/11 was still at large.

We begin the buildup of troops in Saudi Arabia before we go before the UN to state our case.

When we fail to get approval from the international community, for what will obviously be an invasion , unprovoked into another country, we tell those other countries that they will have no part of the oil.

We make plans, before the UN speech to the world, to have KBR, a division of Halliburton, go in after the troops and secure the oil infrastructure for the quick extraction of Iraqi oil. This deal is a no bid contract so that it’s secrecy can be hidden from anyone who might become suspicious if they learned that we were making elaborate plans to extract Iraq’s oil, long before we had the permission to invade. Through this secrecy, KBR begins deployment of equipment into the theater of operations , before either Congress, the UN, or the public weighs in on whether or not we have reason to invade.

Bush insists if the world does not back us, we will invade alone, . The world does not back us.

The argument is made that because of 9/11, we can pre-emptively invade any country we choose to defend ourselves. The argument, later proven false, is also made that Saddam was in definitely in cahoots with Bin Laden. Frequent false and disproved information is paraded as “ slam dunk” evidence. Some uninformed Americans still believe this to be true.

Chalibi and other Iraqi exiles, meet with Exxon Mobile, Chevron, BP, and Shell, and make the case that if they be chosen to run Iraq, that promise to sign over very favorable deals with those oil companies, and exclude the French, German and other oil companies from participating. This precedes the official Bush administration’s sanctioning of Chalibi to head the new puppet government of Iraq, Unfortunately the Iraqi’s themselves, don’t buy it.

The invasion of Iraq occurs with little or no damage to the oil industry. The oil ministry is the first building occupied and fortified by American troops. Meanwhile massive looting and breakdown of order occurs in the American occupied regions. We discover there no plans were made to deal with anything other than oil, once the country was in our possession.

Money designated by Congress for the rebuilding of Iraq, is used instead for first rebuilding of the oil infrastructure by KBR. KBR was given the initial sole responsibility of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure . They are still in the process of rebuilding and as of yet very little has reached the population at large.

The staff m green college graduates, that were interviewed and sent over to run Iraq, were tested only for their loyalty to the current administration and not on the skills or resources which they could bring to Iraq.

Each time the price of oil stops climbing, someone in this administration creates controversy with either the UAE, Dubai, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, or the Iraq insurgents , anything to keep the oil speculators jittery and the prices high. Marginal attention is given to nuclear weapons in non oil states like North Korea. Every time the prices fall, some oil nation’s crises occurs directly because of something said by this administration.

This is how I see it. The individual events each have their own deniability. But when viewed over the span of thirty years, the unthinkable appears to have happened. Americans got duped into supporting a war just to make a few men rich. It would almost be funny if you didn’t know someone who died.

Recently the Bush administration has come under a lot of criticism over the war in Iraq. However there is a hidden twist that does not meet first glance. One could say that there was a hidden agenda, like a video game and that if those codes were followed, they would thereby illuminate the Iraqi adventure as a success.

I want to be quite clear. This is not spin. This is a “what if” scenario that has been played out beneath our noses. It is a story of what we were led to believe versus of what the real agenda was. Once we understand this agenda, the onus of “incompetence” that has been thrown loosely at the Iraq mess, takes on Reichstagian proportions, leading one to admit that most of us have been outfoxed by a fanatic regime more intent with taking care of it’s own, than furthering the greater American good.

When the war was proposed, here is what we were led to believe. The argument went as follows:

The war in Iraq is necessary to:

Find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction.

Oust Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people to establish their own democracy.

Allow Iraqi businessmen to establish a free market.

Use profits from Iraqi oil to build the infrastructure for the people of Iraq.

Allow Iraq to become a shining example ofliberty, free markets, and democracy in the Middle East.

These are generally progressive goals which explains the broad support for the Iraqi invasion. After all it is progressives who champion international aid, the protection of human rights, and the ideal that the proceeds 0f a country’s rescources should go to the prople of that country.

However there are strategic goals that were understood and opposed by far too few progressives. It was the understanding of these strategic goals and the practical realization that the humanitarian goals would never be met, that led those too few progressives to oppose the war.

Among the Bush administration’s strategic goals of the Iraqi invasion:

Show that globial order can be reshaped to our advantage by preemptive military means, and show enough force to intimidate other countries in the Middle East.

Use the war, linked to the war on terror, to establish domestic war powers and much greater political control for the president and the administration.

Shift domestic spending from social programs to the military, as shift domestic wealth and power to defense contractors and the oil industry.

Establish a controllable “client state” government in Iraq

Gain access to the world’s second-largest oil reserve

Establish permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East to gain a strategic position, particularly with regard to Iran.

Use the war as a rallying call for electoral advantage in America

Allow american corporations to take control of a signifigant portion of Iraq’s economy

Privatise military functions in order to 1) maximise the effect of fighting forces, 2) increase profits for military contractors, and 3) remove accountability from the military for such actions as torture and bribery.

Establish the dominance and independence of the United States in world affairs by ignoring the will of many of our NATO allies and the UN.

None of those is a progressive goal which is why the war proponents do not often state them. Americans are just too progressive to accept them. However many of these goals can be found in think-tank publications and right-wing magazines. Many of the architects of the war, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield, World Bank President and former undersecretary for defense Paul Wolfowitz, US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby ( former chief of staff for Cheney), William Kristol (editor of The Weekly Standard) and governor Jeb Bush of Florida, among others– explicitly endorsed such an agenda as part of the Project for the New American Century in 1997.

If we recognize that these stratigic goals are the important focus of the Iraq invasion, then what we see in Iraq, is not “incompetence” as I have often decride, as well as has the majority of the progressive voices. The conservative architects of the war, and those in charge, were less interested in the humanitarian mission of the war than in these strategic goals.

One does not need a “kristol” ball to determine that most of these strategic conservative goals were met. One has subsequently to realize that the progressive mantle in which the war was wrapped was only a snake oil sales pitch to persuade our purchase of the package whose sole “raison d’etre” was to make it’s seller rich.

(My thanks to George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute for writing and sponsoring the book Thinking Points , particularly page 104, portions of which were used herein.)