Letter To The Editor: If We're Not In It For Oil, Then Why Are We There?

Source: www.keeneequinox.com

Mike Jackman - Junior
Issue date: 4/10/08 Section: Opinions

Last week, Tom Mathews wrote "we are not fighting for oil in Iraq, so wake up."

Then, why are we in Iraq? I doubt it is a mere coincidence that our current Vice President, Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton Corp. from 1995 to 2000, said in 1999 that "the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies."

If oil is not on the agenda, then why did Cheney meet privately with big oil companies during the first few months of the Bush Administration's takeover? A White House document obtained by the Washington Post showed that Cheney met with officials from Exxon/Mobil, Shell and BP America. Why are the minutes from these meetings "classified" and does it have anything to do those "weapons of mass destruction" we didn't find in Iraq?

Even if you believe the official story behind Sept. 11, why did we invade a country that posed no threat to us and had nothing to do with the attacks? Why did President Bush say "I don't think about Bin Laden much any more?"

Wasn't he the one supposedly responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans? Why did Bush and Cheney testify to the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors, with no transcript released, which was what the victim's family members had requested? Why was Philip Zelikow, a member of the Bush Administration, author of the Iraq war policy and longtime friend of Condoleezza Rice, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission?

This, coupled with egregious lies from a criminal administration that is spying on its citizens and supports the use of torture, should be angering us instead of the nonexistent "liberal" media. Democrats and so-called liberals don't get a free pass either, for they are just as complicit in their silence and complacency on the real issues as is the Bush Administration.

Obama and Clinton aren't any kind of real change or answer to the problem because they are both party politicians. I suggest you take a look at what is really going on and how this administration has based everything on the "post-Sept. 11 world" and have used it to justify illegal wars, torture, spying and scaring the living daylights out of all of us.

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil


From The Sunday Times
September 16, 2007
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson

Greenspan on the 'irresponsible' Bush

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Fed veteran Greenspan lambasts George W Bush on economy

Former chairman of the Federal Reserve critical of President’s economic competence in his memoir published tomorrow

* Power, not oil, Mr Greenspan

* Greenspan on US Presidents, the economy and Iraq

* Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

The Thirty-Year Itch News:

The Thirty-Year Itch

News: Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance.

By Robert Dreyfuss

If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.

In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology."

Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza.

But while the companies hope to cash in on an American-controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that.

"Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel," says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. "Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot."


Great Article Stewball. It needs wider exposure

North Texans for 911 Truth (new site)
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

Oil, Weapons and Drugs

"Shall we dance to the sound of the profitable pound in Molasses and Rum and Slaves?" ...

Repub lican Congressman Christopher Shays

in an exchange with Charlie Rangel, said point blank that the Iraq War is about oil (http://www.petersnewyork.com/APOLOGY.html).

G. O . D.




An the Neocon$$$$ Chri$$$$$tian$$$ "Zioni$$t$$" $say Amen.

I think the REAL GOD will have something to say about all of this.

So will the real Christians.

And Muslims.

And Buddhists.

And Hindus.

And Taoists etc.

The World Is Waking Up.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it