# News As if invading & taking over Iraq wasn't about oil

1. Mar 28, 2005

### fourier jr

BAGHDAD COUP D'ETAT FOR BIG OIL
Monday, March 28, 2005

Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons ... and OPEC is the winner.

"For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan for Iraq's oil ...."

Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. In fact, there were TWO plans. In a joint investigation with BBC Television Newsnight, Harper's Magazine has uncovered a hidden battle over Iraq's oil. It began right after Mr. Bush took office - with a previously unreported plot to invade Iraq.

From the exclusive Harper's report by Greg Palast:

Within weeks of the first inaugural, prominent Iraqi expatriates -- many with ties to U.S. industry -- were invited to secret discussions directed by Pamela Quanrud, National Security Council, now at the State Department. "It quickly became an oil group," said one participant, Falah Aljibury. Aljibury is an advisor to Amerada Hess' oil trading arm and Goldman Sachs.

"The petroleum industry, the chemical industry, the banking industry -- they'd hoped that Iraq would go for a revolution like in the past and government was shut down for two or three days," Aljibury told me. On this plan, Hussein would simply have been replaced by some former Baathist general.

However, by February 2003, a hundred-page blue-print for the occupied nation, favored by neo-cons, had been enshrined as official policy. "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth" generally embodied the principles for postwar Iraq favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Iran-Contra figure, now Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams. The blue-print mapped out a radical makeover of Iraq as a free-maket Xanadu including, on page 73, the sell-off of the nation's crown jewels: "privatization [of] the oil and supporting industries."

It was reasoned that if Iraq's fields were broken up and sold off, competing operators would crank up production. This extra crude would flood world petroleum markets, OPEC would devolve into mass cheating and overproduction, oil prices would fall over a cliff, and Saudi Arabia, both economically and politically, would fall to its knees.

However, in plotting the destruction of OPEC, the neocons failed to predict the virulent resistance of insurgent forces: the U.S. oil industry itself. Rob McKee, a former executive vice-president of ConocoPhillips, designated by the Bush Administration to advise the Iraqi oil ministry, had little tolerance for the neocons' threat to privatize the oil fields nor their obsession on ways to undermine OPEC. (In 2004, with oil approaching the $50 a barrel mark all year, the major U.S. oil companies posted record or near-record profits. ConocoPhillips this February reported a doubling of its quarterly profits.) In November 2003, McKee quietly ordered up a new plan for Iraq's oil. For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan, but when I threatened legal action, I was able to obtain the multi-volume document describing seven possible models of oil production for Iraq, each one merely a different flavor of a single option: a state-owned oil company under which the state maintains official title to the reserves but operation and control are given to foreign oil companies. According to Ed Morse, another Hess Oil advisor, the switch to an OPEC-friendly policy for Iraq was driven by Dick Cheney. "The VP's office [has] not pursued a policy in Iraq that would lead to a rapid opening of the Iraqi energy sector that would put us on a track to say, "We're going to put a squeeze on OPEC." Cheney, far from "putting the squeeze on OPEC," has taken a defacto seat there, allowing the cartel to maintain its suffocating grip on the U.S. economy. http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=418&row=0 [Broken] Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017 2. Mar 28, 2005 ### Informal Logic The neocons always over look economic variables, as well as history... Aside from never believing Bush to be a man of great vision, and that he wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11 for reasons that had nothing to do with freedom and peace, he and his family are in oil--nothing to be suspicious about. 3. Mar 28, 2005 ### BobG Was Iraq importing 2 million barrels per day part of the plan? The number of cars has doubled since the US invaded and gasoline sells at 5 cents a gallon in Iraq. Smugglers can buy gas at the pumps for 5 cents a gallon and take it to Jordan, where they sell it for$1.00 a gallon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7265600/

4. Mar 28, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

I was going to say 'gee, I didn't realize Harper's was so left wing', but then -- its should be pointed out that though the original story is from Harper's, most of those quotes and the link are from Greg Palast's website, not Harper's.

Edit: interesting, apparently Palast wrote the article for Harper's. It'll be interesting to see how the article reads as compared to his website's account.

Last edited: Mar 28, 2005
5. Mar 28, 2005

Staff Emeritus
Translation: I was going into my patented knee-jerk scare-word smear tactic when I noticed a glitch; but not to fear, I have discovered a new way to implement the tactic.

6. Mar 28, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

As I was saying, I'll be interested to see what the actual article looks like - I doubt Harper's would go for such inflammatory rhetoric.

7. Mar 29, 2005

### fourier jr

i haven't read the harper's article either, but i don't understand why ANYTHING palast has ever written is/was worse than stuff that ann coulter or bill o'reilly has ever said

"we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, & convert them to christianity" -- coulter re: attacking & taking over afghanistan

"they NEED us; they better hope the US doesn't roll over one night & crush them" -- coulter again, re: canada

8. Mar 29, 2005

### SOS2008

It's interesting that this was posted right after having conversation with someone who refers to himself as a neocon along with someone I would refer to as a fundamentalist conservative, and someone who is a moderate conservative. The conversation began with whether 9-11 was connected to Saddam and whether WMDs existed.

The neocon said Saddam offered money for suicide bombings, so there was connection to terrorism, but then admitted not directly to 9-11, and that other countries have clearer connections to terrorism than Iraq has.

Then the fundamentalist conservative said the war was justified because of Saddam's atrocities, but backed off this remark when reminded of the number of dictators the U.S. has supported, including Saddam.

Then the neocon said the WMD did exist, but were moved to Syria/Iran (proof for this I have not seen). And he continued saying that it was necessary to deceive the American people in order to invade Iraq and begin the spread of democracy in the area.

When asked how lying could ever be justified, all three people agreed lying is justified in order to achieve freedom and peace. Though the fundamentalist conservative did agree that she doubted the agenda is Bush's great vision, after which the neocon agreed Bush is greatly influenced by people like Wolfowitz.

Anyway, the conversation concluded with how oil has never been a factor...

Last edited: Mar 29, 2005
9. Mar 29, 2005

### kyleb

I can't say I see how the conclusion follows from the discussion, could you elaborate?

10. Mar 29, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

When did I say it was? I'm not a big fan of rhetoric, regardless of where it comes from.

11. Mar 29, 2005

### SOS2008

It's interesting how Bush supporters can fit everything into their world view, justifying everything, even the use of deceit if it is necessary to achieve a "greater goal." At the end of the conversation the neocon in the group said oil was never a factor in Bush's invasion of Iraq. Whether this article is indeed true or not, that the Bush family business has been oil, has always made me skeptical about how oil plays in Bush's agenda. But I'll bet you if this is true, Bush supporters will find some way to rationalize it.

12. Apr 1, 2005

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
You think "Bush supporters" are the only politically minded people who believe it justified to lie in order to achieve a greater goal? That's so broadly stated that I could imagine almost anyone agreeing to it.

13. Apr 1, 2005

### SOS2008

It’s more a matter of the spectrum of things (and I’m not a Clinton worshipper, if that’s what you’re eluding to), beginning with the 2000 presidential election:
To the present (in reference to the Schiavo case):
And everything in between:
As has been stated in other threads, Bush takes the blue ribbon. With regard to my original post in this thread about my conversation, the one Bush supporter maintains that Bush will go down in history as the greatest president in U.S. history…

14. Apr 1, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

Its obviously far too early to tell, but if peace breaks out in the middle east, his name will be attached to it. Greatest in history would be an exaggeration, but that would put him in the top 10.

15. Apr 1, 2005

### SOS2008

Peace would be great. However, per the thread about giving credit where credit is due, and whether peace would be attributed to Bush--that is already being debated.

16. Apr 4, 2005

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Justified or not, history would give him credit.

What does this or anything else you posted have to do with your contention that Bush supporters are more likely than non-supporters to believe that lying is justified to achieve a greater good? Do you feel it is? I certainly do. The example from an old ethics professor of mine comes to mind: You're waiting outside of your professor's office for him to finish meeting with someone when a man with a gun approaches and asks "Is he in? I'm going to kill him." Do you tell the truth or do you 'lie to achieve a greater good.' That's what I mean about the question being so broadly worded as to be something that anyone who is thinking straight should answer positively.

17. Apr 4, 2005

### Informal Logic

"On the spectrum of things" Bush has been a very controversial president, and the invasion of Iraq and justification for it created a divisiveness in the U.S., which many feel has never been so extreme (since slavery) in the history of the country. Are you saying the ongoing debate regarding Rice's comments that "the ends justify the means" is not a philosophy connected to the Bush administration? And those who disagree with this statement (and who questioned/opposed the war regarding false connection to 9-11 and claims of WMD) do not tend to be anti-Bush? Those who are anti-Bush may agree with deceiving the American people for the greater good, but it's more likely they would prefer it wasn't necessary (i.e., that the American people could support actions/policy with real/true information as a well-informed population).

18. Apr 4, 2005

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Many people feel this way? You think the country is more divided now than during McCarthyism? The civil rights battles of the 60's? The Great Depression? Reconstruction?

Her statement is, but the general sentiment is one shared by any politician alive today. The entire process of campaigning is all about doing whatever it takes to achieve a certain end. That said, to answer your question, no, that wasn't what I was saying. I was responding only to the contention that Bush supporters are more likely to think it justified to lie to achieve a greater good, and to the implication that thinking so is wrong.

That's all I was saying. I'd even go so far as to say that 90% (rough estimate based on no stats, admittedly) of the people out there agree in practice (if not in principle) with deceiving, even for their own good.

You don't think Bush, or even his supporters, would prefer that it wasn't necessary to deceive every now and then? Do you think that they just enjoy lying to people?

Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
19. Apr 4, 2005

### Informal Logic

These were times of division as well, but yes, what I said was that "many feel" this way. Regarding a CNN Poll/Article, Wednesday, January 19, 2005:
The irony is that the nation is split on whether the nation is split. There are books, documentarys, articles, web sites, etc. too numerous to source on the topic. How extreme the division has been can be debated, such as whether Americans wanted to immigrate to Canada after an election, or people got divorced, etc. The main point is that Bush has been very controversial beginning with his election in 2000, and it seems his supporters don't find this in itself as something to question.
I wasn't sure exactly what you were saying. But does this make it okay? Is this the kind of world we want or should accept? Where are our "values"?
If you mean people are ignorant and don't know better so must be deceived, I think the Bush administration has capitalized upon it, and rank at the top at doing it.

20. Apr 4, 2005

### TheStatutoryApe

It would be ideal to be able to consider what is right and wrong a simple matter. But it isn't. If all people were good people then there would be no question as to whether or not it is wrong to lie. As long as there are people out there who will do wrong there will be a need for a grey area in determining whether or not it is ok to do something to protect yourself or others that may otherwise be considered wrong.
I don't remember an administration that hasn't capitalized on it. Both sides of the fence lie and twist the truth in order to get what they want. The differance I have seen is that the right say they are protecting the "greater good" and the left say they are protecting you/<insert popular interest group here>.