Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: If We Keep Trading Blood For Oil; We Will Have No One To Blame But Ourselves
Loading...

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Monday, September 24, 2007

If We Keep Trading Blood For Oil; We Will Have No One To Blame But Ourselves






















THIS WAR HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT OIL AND MID EAST CONTROL: KUCINICH TELLS IT LIKE IT IS! AND PLEASE NOTE; THERE IS A SHIFT IN CRITICISM TO: “YOU ACTIVISTS ARE NOT DOING YOUR PART!”

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? THE TIME FOR POLITE, PEACEFUL DISOBEDIENCE IS OVER. IF THAT IS AS FAR AS WE ARE WILLING TO GO; THEN PACK IT IN; WE AND AMERICA LOSE.

THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF SHOUTING, TALKING, MARCHING AND PREACHING THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION CANNOT TOLERATE AND IGNORE.

THE CONGRESS IS NOT GOING TO MOVE UNLESS THIS NATION RISES UP IN TRUE RESISTANCE, REBELLION AND REVOLT IN THE STREETS OF AMERICA. TALKING IS OVER AND THE TIME FOR THE TEKTONIC SHAKING OF WASHINGTON IS AT HAND.

IF WANT TO WIN; IF WANT TO RESTORE THIS NATION; THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TAKE BACK AMERICA WITH PHYSICAL ACTION. WORDS ARE NOW A WASTE OF TIME! Ed.











Larger Screen Viewing

The following is a press release from the office of Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 18, 2007) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is seeking answers in the Administration's involvement in an Iraqi oil deal that appears to benefit a large Republican donor and ally of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

The recent oil deal between the U.S.-based Hunt Oil Company and the Kurdistan Regional Government raises questions, since Hunt Oil, a privately held oil company based in Texas and its founder, Ray Hunt, has close ties to Vice President Cheney and is large donors to President Bush. The deal also appears to undercut the goal of oil revenue sharing but is predictably consistent with the Administration's attempt to privatize Iraqi oil assets. Both Hunt Oil Company and Kurdistan are strong allies with the Bush Administration.

"As I have said for five years, this war is about oil. The Bush Administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up their oil. We have no right to set preconditions for Iraq which lead Iraq to giving up control of their oil. The Constitution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property of all Iraqi people," Kucinich said.

Kucinich is calling for a Congressional investigation to determine the role the Administration may have played in the Hunt-Kurdistan deal, the effect the deal could have on the oil revenue sharing plan and the attempt by the Administration to privatize Iraqi oil.

"The Administration has misled Congress and the media into thinking that pending Iraqi oil legislation before Iraq's Parliament was about the fair distribution of oil revenues," Kucinich said. "But the Hunt Oil deal with Kurdistan should expose the real intent of that legislation, and that is, promoting a privatization scheme.

"It is hard to imagine that in Iraq there is any matter more controversial than oil. So long as the U.S. occupies Iraq, there can be nothing more damaging to the United States' world reputation than the awarding of oil agreements to Bush administration cronies.”

The Hunt Oil deal with Kurdistan suggests the war has made foreign access to Iraqi oil a reality. The connections between Hunt Oil Company and the Bush Administration are numerous:

Mr. Ray Hunt, CEO of Hunt Oil, acted as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee for President George W. Bush in 2002, led the Republican National Committee's Victory Fund for President George W. Bush and personally donated $20,000 to the Committee.

Mr. Hunt contributed $100,000 toward inaugural festivities for President George W. Bush in 2001, while Hunt Consolidated contributed $250,000 toward the 2005 Bush presidential inaugural gala.

Mr. Hunt has also given generously toward construction of the Bush library by securing $35 million in additional property for the endeavor.

President George W. Bush has twice appointed Mr. Hunt to a seat on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which is said to have access to intelligence that experts acknowledge, is advantageous to the international energy interest of the Hunt Oil Company.

"The contract between Hunt Oil and Kurdistan would be the first of its kind in the Middle East where oil has been nationalized for decades and foreign oil companies have had no presence. The lack of consensus on how to manage the Iraqi oil resources suggests that the Hunt Oil Company deal could lead to greater instability within Iraq," Kucinich said.

In response, Kucinich sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging an immediate investigation into Hunt Oil Company's recent production sharing agreement for petroleum exploration with Kurdistan.

Kucinich also sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), requesting a full committee hearing to explore Hunt Oil's ties to the Bush Administration and Halliburton.

Finally, Kucinich will introduce a bill that will prevent U.S. companies from gaining financial interests in Iraq's oil resources.

Kucinich has consistently spoken out against the hydrocarbon law and the U.S. hydrocarbon law benchmark. Passage of the 'hydrocarbon law' by the Iraqi Parliament is one of several of the Administration's 'benchmarks' for the Iraqi government.

"This Administration misled Congress by emphasizing only a small part of this law, the 'fair' distribution of oil revenues. Consider the fact that the Iraqi 'hydrocarbon law' contains a mere three sentences that generally discuss the 'fair' distribution of oil. Except for three scant lines, the entire 33 page 'hydrocarbon law' is about creating a complex legal structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraqi oil," Kucinich said in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on May 10, 2007.

"The war in Iraq is a stain on American history. Let us not further besmirch our nation by participating in an outrageous exploitation of a nation, which is in shambles due to the U.S. intervention," Kucinich said in an hour-long speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on May 23, 2007.
The Next Must See Movie: In The Valley Of Eelah










The Next Must See Movie: In The Valley Of Eelah

It is truly unbelievable how the press has slipped into a coma since the chimp took office. This is why many our country is finished. Look at Dan Rather. Fired for reporting what everyone knows: Bush was all coked up during his tenure in the Guard and laughingly ignored his responsibilities as a rich brat kid. Now that the theft of Iraq oil is underway, the silence becomes even more deafening. Bush gets up at the podium; someone slips in behind him and pulls his string, and on and on the drone goes.

As long as this oil doesn't go to bolster the efforts to unify Iraq, BUSHCO doesn't care what happens to it. A unified, peaceful Iraq would drive the world price of oil below $50.00/barrel, and they can't afford that. Having the Kurds pursuing their nationalistic dreams, funded by oil revenue that others believe they are entitled to a share of, ensures that Iraq will remain unstable. Not that there ever really was much of a chance of anything else, but every little bit helps.

OIL, OIL, TROUBLE, TROUBLE, MR. HUNT BROKE BUSH'S BUBBLE!
A Bushite supporter makes what is apparently, on the surface, a secret deal for oil in Iraq, Over-cutting the generous 99% for Bushites, 1% for Iraqi's, oil deal right under the President's nose, or did he?Why I Predict That the Bushites will soon agree to leave Iraq!GW Bush said, "Our embassy also expressed concern about it." "I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil-revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm -- if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

He was talking about the oil deal Hunt Oil signed for the Iraq's Kurdish region Oil Field's with its government approval this month.GW Bush appeared flummoxed, more than that, he had that Daffy Duck appearance he had on 9/11, more so because the deal was done by solid supporter of Bush's, and according to Bush, without Bush's knowledge. It has been no secret, at least not among my readers as far back as 2002, that this was always about the New World Order idea of "GET THE OIL", very much patterned on Hitler, the Neo-Con Idol, along with the Bizzaro Version of Orwell's 1984."

President" Bush was praying to his god, the one with the long red tail, horns and the dollar sign on his chest. Bush's hope that Iraq would "share*" the oil royalties from the country's huge sweet oil reserves, rumored by some to be the largest deposit on the planet. (*Bush's idea of sharing is the more than fair split of about a 99% for Bush and pals and -1% for Iraq) Most interesting is the name behind the oil deal-Ray Hunt, often pitched as one of GWB's staunchest allies.

He serves on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a position of unique access to Top Secret intelligence reports.

Does Ray Hunt know something about the US proposed Oil Deals at this point that the rest of us don't? My guess is that you can bet your bonnet, on-it.

The Iraqi's have not accepted Bush's deal offers very gracefully. Harrumph! How dare they want more than 1% of their own oil! Well, since GW is supposed to be a free market advocate, they took him at his word and made a deal elsewhere.Hunt, The Chief Mogul of the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, had been in past, a top cash-raiser as well as heavy contributor to Bush in 2000, 2004 campaigns for the presidency.

In the words of Sergeant Gomer Pyle, Surprise, Surprise, surprise!Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, said to reporters in a September interview, "Any oil deal has no standing as far as the government of Iraq is concerned." "All these contracts have to be approved by the federal authority before they are legal.

This one was not presented for approval. It has no standing."Democratic Candidate Representative from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, who is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has requested a congressional investigation of the Bushites part in the Hunt deal, and of exactly what is the structure of the so-called, Iraqi national oil law.
Fat chance that Nancy, the seemingly covert Bushite pal, will go along with that.

Kucinich, echoing my first article in my Newsletters in 2002, says, "As I have said for five years, this war is about oil. The Bush administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up their oil." Further, "We have no right to set preconditions for Iraq which lead Iraq to giving up control of their oil.

The constitution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property of all Iraqi people." Recall I reported in 2003 and lately again, that Bush said at the beginning of the "war" that all oil royalties would be placed into ma trust for the people of Iraq. Since he is allowing some maverick troops, mercenaries and War Criminals to depopulate the region, killing over 1.5 millions of people and driving out another 4 million, the trust he speak of and the "Iraqi" people, meaning whomever is occupying the land, mostly Mobsters, WASP Mafia folks from Britain and America.

Hunt signed a contract to share production for oil exploration in Northern Iraq-the Kurdish region. Although it is the first deal signed since they enacted a regional oil law last month, for the Kurds It is nonetheless not nearly the first they have signed with Non-Domestic oil firms oil companies over the last few years. The deal, according to Kurdish officials, will share revenues with the entire Iraqi nation because of structure of the Royalty-sharing agreement.Kucinich is suspicious, as are many others that Bush is telling less than the truth about being n the dark on the deal perhaps thinking that Hunt was a secret negotiator for the Bushites. Bush, however, complains that he knew nothing about the deal until it was publicized after the fact and that even he has some "concerns" about the nature of the deal.

And that statement is a candidate for "Believe it Or Not" by Ripley. If it is true and others are signing, below the radar deals, Bush will have no further need to occupy Iraq. If he can't have the oil at his price he will seek greener pastures. He will begin to seek where else, he can use our fighting men and women for his own and his friends profit. What does he care about how many of our children and innocent civilians are raped, tortured and murdered to fill his and his henchmen's coffers with oil greasy cash?Watch for more prophetic truths about the oil deal that appears, at least, at first blush, to have caught the "president" by surprise.Good Morning and God Bless.

By Richard Wolffe and Gretel C. Kovach, Newsweek

Oct. 1, 2007 issue - Ray Hunt isn't your typical Texas tycoon. Unlike other billionaire oilmen who hype their legends in the press, Hunt tries hard to keep his name out of the newspapers. The son of wildcatter H. L. Hunt, who lived his life in the spotlight, Ray Hunt rarely gives interviews and refuses to provide even mundane details about the workings of his private oil and real-estate ventures. He's given big sums to his alma mater, Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, but he will not allow his name to be affixed to any of the buildings his money helped pay for. Hunt's discretion may be one reason he has developed a close relationship with the Bush family, who greatly value privacy.

Hunt's money could also have something to do with it. Over the years, the oilman raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect both George W. Bush and his father. The son rewarded Hunt with a seat on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of outside elders who oversee whether the commander in chief is getting good advice from the Intel community. More recently Hunt has been especially generous about helping to plan—and pay for—Bush's post presidential ambitions. He lobbied the president to build the Bush 43 presidential library at SMU—which is where Laura Bush studied—and since then he's given $35 million to the school to buy some of the land where part of the library complex could sit.

Hunt's generosity may help explain why the White House has been seemingly reluctant to question another of the oilman's projects—this one in Iraq. To the apparent surprise, and irritation, of officials in Washington and in Baghdad, Hunt Oil announced this month that, after secret negotiations, it had struck a deal with leaders in the country's Kurdish-controlled north to explore for oil in the Dahuk region near the Turkish border.

News of the deal angered Iraqi Arab leaders, who saw it as a Kurdish power play for the country's oil resources, one that appeared to disrupt already fragile talks over a critical benchmark for peace: an agreement among the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds to share profits from the country's bountiful oil supply. The hope is that a national revenue-sharing law will help defuse tensions—and curtail violence—by getting the three groups to work toward a vital common goal.

But the negotiations have stalled, largely because of a lack of trust. The Iraqi Oil minister denounced the Hunt agreement as illegal—though without a law in place it's hard to argue the Kurds have violated it. The Kurds refused to disclose the terms of the deal but insisted they will share the profits.

In the United States, word of the agreement inflamed Bush detractors, who accused the president of helping a big-time contributor line his pockets at the expense of Iraqi peace. White House officials say they had no knowledge of Hunt's negotiations, and did not help him.

Hunt declined to comment, but Jeanne Phillips, a spokeswoman for the company, says it told no one about the negotiations. "We do not discuss potential business deals with the United States government," she says. After the agreement was made public, Phillips says, government officials called to ask for details, but even then the company refused. Kurdish officials also say they kept the negotiations secret from the United States.

White House officials may not have helped Hunt put together the deal, but that doesn't mean they're not doing their best to portray Hunt's project as a sign of progress. "It's positive that a firm would choose to invest in Iraq—whether an American firm or not," says spokesman Tony Fratto.

He downplayed the notion that the Hunt deal could undermine already tense negotiations to reach a national oil-sharing agreement. "As for how it impacts reform of the oil law in Iraq, authorities there will have to work that out." The optimistic subtext to the White House line: the Hunt agreement will prompt the three groups to begin negotiating a national oil law in earnest to avoid future secret side deals.

At least one top White House official was willing to express some skepticism. Asked by NEWSWEEK about the controversy at last Thursday's news conference, President Bush said, "I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it, I'm concerned." There is one way the president can find out exactly how the deal happened. He can call his old friend Ray Hunt and ask him.
With Larry Kaplow © 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

Iraq Oil Deal Gets Everybody's Attention
By Michael A. Fletcher
Monday, September 24, 2007; Page A17

The oil deal signed between Hunt Oil and the government in Iraq's Kurdish region earlier this month has raised eyebrows, in no small part because it appears to undercut President Bush's hope that Iraq could draft national legislation to share revenue from the country's vast oil reserves. Making the deal more curious is that it was crafted by one of the administration's staunchest supporters, Ray Hunt.

Hunt, chief executive of the Dallas-based company, has been a major fundraiser and contributor to Bush's presidential campaigns. He also serves on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, putting him close to the latest information developed by the nation's intelligence agencies.

If Hunt is signing regional oil deals in Iraq, critics ask, what does he know about the prospects for a long-stalled national oil law that others don't?

Since the deal was made public, it has drawn the ire of the Iraqi national government, which has called the agreement illegal.

"Any oil deal has no standing as far as the government of Iraq is concerned," Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters earlier this month. "All these contracts have to be approved by the federal authority before they are legal. This [contract] was not presented for approval. It has no standing."

It also has caught the eye of maverick Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a presidential candidate. He has called for a congressional investigation to probe the Bush administration's role in the deal as well as the implications for a national oil law in Iraq.

"As I have said for five years, this war is about oil. The Bush administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up their oil," Kucinich said. "We have no right to set preconditions for Iraq which lead Iraq to giving up control of their oil. The constitution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property of all Iraqi people."

The deal signed by Hunt is a production-sharing contract for petroleum exploration in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. It is one of several the Kurds have signed with foreign oil companies in recent years and the first since they enacted a regional oil law last month. Kurdish officials have said that the deal would benefit all Iraqis through a revenue-sharing agreement.

Whatever people suspect, Bush says he did not know about the deal before it happened. But, he acknowledged, he has some concerns.

"Our embassy also expressed concern about it," Bush said. "I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil-revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm -- if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

Still Around

The Nelson Mandela Foundation wants the world to know that its 89-year-old namesake is very much alive. It seems that a line Bush used at his news conference last week left that fact in doubt -- at least for some people.

"I thought an interesting comment was made -- somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, 'Now, where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush said last week. "He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families. And people are recovering from this. So there's the psychological recovery that is taking place."

The president's point, of course, was that leaders capable of fostering reconciliation in Iraq, as Mandela has in South Africa, were systematically killed by Hussein. But given Bush's well-earned reputation for struggling with the language, some people were not sure what he meant.

After Bush's comments circled the globe, the Mandela Foundation felt compelled to set the record straight. "All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, the foundation's chief executive officer, told Reuters on Friday.

Via Canada, the New Face of George Bush


The latest Macleans, the Canadian newsweekly that claims 2.9 million readers, features a striking image that is not too popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. its President Bush's face, but the rest of it is Saddam Hussein, including the mustache, hat and uniform. The image accompanies a story headlined "How George Bush Became the New Saddam," which chronicles how U.S. troops have partnered with some of Hussein's former "henchmen" in an effort to achieve order in parts of Iraq.

The provocative magazine cover made news in Canada, where it fired up bloggers and prompted stories from most major news outlets. "Macleans is a fairly conservative magazine. For the magazine to run that kind of cover surprised people," said Don Newman, senior parliamentary editor for CBC, the Canadian television network.

Both Bush and the war in Iraq are extremely unpopular in Canada, even if most Canadians stop short of equating Bush with Hussein, Newman said.

For Macleans editors, the decision to run the cover image was an easy one. "I don't think anybody quite anticipated the reaction would be this extreme," said Suneel Khanna, the magazine's director of communications. There's no word on how the cover affected sales, Khanna said, lamenting that it takes months to get information about newsstand activity.
Asked to comment on the image, the White House demurred. "That doesn't deserve a reaction," spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Decision Time

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations last week for a talk focused on Iraq. It mostly featured Hadley fielding questions from members of the audience as well as from moderator Thomas R. Pickering, who was the No. 3 official in President Bill Clinton's State Department.

Near the end, Pickering asked: "If you could do it all over again, would you really go into Iraq?"
Hadley did not miss a beat: "The reasons to go into Iraq really were the same. This was a tyrant who had acquired and used weapons of mass destruction, who had invaded his neighbors, who had oppressed his people, who'd defied the international community. . . . I think the answer is, the president would have done it all over again."

Pickering replied: "Your loyalty is admirable, Stephen. I commend you."

Bush Oil Buddies Divvy Up Iraq (Money Doesn't Talk, It Swears)

Posted September 21, 2007 01:00 PM (EST)
Read More: Alan Greenspan, Alan Greenspan Book, Bush friends, bush oil, Bush Ray Hunt, Hunt energy, Hunt Energy Dallas, Hunt Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, oil, oil sharing Shiite Sunni Kurd, Ray Hunt, Breaking Politics News

This news from last week didn't generate nearly enough buzz but is surely a big deal: Hunt Energy of Dallas has signed an oil production-sharing agreement with the grand poobahs of northern Iraq's Kurdistan region, in apparent defiance of the central government in Baghdad, which has questioned its legality.

Paul Krugman ragged about it in his New York Times column, but there was very little hard reporting on it. There should be more, and here's why. Last January, when President Bush announced the surge, he said that its purpose was to give Baghdad time to accomplish so-called "benchmarks," the most important of which is a fair and equitable oil sharing agreement between all three major stakeholder groups in Iraq (Shiite, Sunni and Kurd).

But now, Bush's Texas pal Ray Hunt has grabbed a big 'old piece of the Iraqi oil patch pie for himself. He's getting his before the government has even worked out its own revenue sharing plan. Bush's crowd is apparently the country's fourth stakeholder.Hunt is also a member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, an ad hoc group of private citizens who give him their perspective on world affairs.

Let's not forget either, Hunt was on the board where GW's Pres. Library plans to go as well as paying close to $37 million towards it.If that's not a blatant "return on success" for Hunt-I don't know what is.So what does Hunt know that we don't? By laying down some serious corporate jack, isn't he signaling -- quite clearly -- that the Iraqi government is never going to get its own act together on the commodity that represents two-thirds of its GDP?And by the way, doesn't the Bush clan personally have stock in Hunt Energy, and shouldn't the media at least ask that question?

This guy is dirtier than a tick on a jackal’s ass.

Hunt Oil CEO (1976-)Member of the Board of Dresser Industries (-1998)Member of the Board of EDSMember of the Board of Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (as Chairman)Member of the Board of Halliburton (1998-)Member of the Board of Pepsi (1996-)Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (2001-03)Phi Delta Theta FraternityAmerican Petroleum Institute Board MemberDallas Petroleum Club Former PresidentGeorge W. Bush Presidential LibraryWoodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship.


Alan Greenspan bluntly says in his new book that the war in Iraq is all about oil.

Since this war was first sold as being about 9/11 and terror, and then about Saddam's mushroom clouds and nonexistent WMDs, and then about freeing the Iraqi people from his tyranny, and then about creating democracy throughout the Middle East, and then about God knows what, shouldn't this new Hunt connection pique the interest of the people and our free press?

Smells fishy to me.

Smells Fishy? Duh. Operation Iraq Liberation was always obviously about oil and defense contractor money, and fascism in the USA.

Blackwater, Oil and the Colonial Enterprise
John Nichols Fri Sep 21, 2:49 PM ET

The Nation -- Blackwater USA's mercenary mission in Iraq is very much in the news this week, and rightly so. The private military contractor's war-for-profit program, which has been so brilliantly exposed by Jeremy Scahill, may finally get a measure of the official scrutiny it merits as the corporation scrambles to undo the revocation by the Iraqi government of its license to operate in that country. There will be official inquiries in Baghdad, and in Washington. The U.S. Congress might actually provide some of the oversight that is its responsibility. Perhaps, and this is a big "perhaps," Blackwater's "troops" could come home before the U.S. soldiers who have been forced to fight, and die, in defense of these international rent-a-cops.

But it is not the specific story of Blackwater that matters so much as the broader story of imperial excess that it illustrates.

If Blackwater, with an assist from the U.S. government, beats back the attempt by the Iraqis to regulate the firm's activities -- as now appears likely, considering Friday's report that the firm has resumed guarding U.S. State Department convoys in Baghdad -- we will have all the confirmation that is needed of the great truth of the U.S. occupation of Iraq: This is a colonial endeavor no different than that of the British Empire against America's founding generation revolted.

But even if Blackwater loses its fight to stay, even if the corporation is forced to shut down its multi-billion dollar, U.S. Treasury-funded operation in Iraq, the brief "accountability moment" may not be sufficient to open up the necessary debate about Iraq's colonial status. The danger, for Iraq and the United States, that honest assessment of the crisis will lose out to face-saving gestures designed to foster the fantasy of Iraqi independence.

It is not enough that Blackwater is shamed and perhaps sanctioned. A Blackwater exit from Iraq will mean little if its mercenary contracts are merely taken over by one or more of the 140 other U.S.-sanctioned private security firms operating in that country -- such as Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton.

Whatever the precise play out of this Blackwater moment may be, the likelihood is that the colonial enterprise will continue. That's because, in the absence of intense pressure from grassroots activists and the media, Congress is unlikely to go beyond a scratch at the surface of what is actually going on in Iraq.

The deeper discussion requires that a discussion about the substance that no less a figure than former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan describes as the reason for the invasion and occupation of this particular Middle Eastern land: oil

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. aptly observed that "colonialism was made for domination and for exploitation," and there is no substance that the Bush-Cheney administration is more interested in dominating and exploiting than oil.

Thus, while it is right to pay close attention to the emerging discussion about Blackwater's wicked work in Iraq, Americans would do well to pay an equal measure of attention to the still largely submerged discussion about an Iraqi oil deal that will pay huge benefits to the Hunt Oil Company, a Texas firm closely linked to the administration. How closely? When he was running Halliburton, Cheney invited Hunt Oil Company CEO Ray Hunt to serve on the firm's board of directors. Hunt, a "Bush Pioneer" fund raiser during the 2000 campaign recently donated the tidy sum of $35 million to George W.'s presidential library building fund.

The new "production sharing agreement" between Hunt Oil and the Kurdistan Regional Government puts one of the administration's favorite firms in a position to reap immeasurable profits while undermining essential efforts to assure that Iraq's oil revenues will be shared by all Iraqis. Hunt's deal upsets hopes that Iraq's mineral wealth might ultimately be a source of stability, replacing the promise of economic equity with the prospect of a black-gold rush that will only widen inequalities and heighten ethnic and regional resentments.

The Hunt deal is so sleazy -- and so at odds with the stated goals of the Iraqi government and the U.S. regarding shared oil revenues -- that even Bush acknowledges that U.S. embassy officials in Baghdad are deeply concerned. What Bush and Cheney won't mention is the fact that Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, says the deal is illegal.

Unfortunately, as with the Blackwater imbroglio, however, there is no assurance that the stance of the Iraqi government is definitional with regard to what happens in Iraq. All indications are that what happens in Washington matters most. And that is why it is so very disturbing that, for the most part, members of Congress -- even members who say they do not want the United States to have a long-term presence in Iraq -- have been slow to start talking about Hunt's oil rigging.

That is why it is disturbing that, for the most part, members of Congress -- even members who say they do not want the United States to have a long-term presence in Iraq -- have been slow to start talking about Hunt's oil rigging.

One House member who has raised the alarm is Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who in his capacity as a key member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has asked the committee's chairman, California Democrat Henry Waxman, to launch an investigation into the Hunt Oil deal.

"As I have said for five years, this war is about oil," argues Kucinich, who is mounting an anti-war bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, declared on the floor of the House this week. "The Bush Administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up control of their oil. We have no right to set preconditions to Iraq which leads Iraq to giving up control of their oil. The Constitution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property for all Iraqi people."

With that in mind, Kucinich explains, "I am calling for a Congressional investigation to determine the role the Administration may have played in the Hunt-Kurdistan deal, the effect the deal will have on the oil revenue sharing plan and the attempt by the Administration to privatize Iraqi oil."

Waxman has been ahead of the curve on Blackwater, seeking testimony from the firm's chairman at hearings scheduled for early October.

But Waxman needs to expand his focus, and the way to do that is by heeding Kucinich's call for an investigation into the Hunt deal.

That inquiry should begin with two fundamental questions:

Who runs Iraq -- the Iraqis or their colonial overlords in Washington?

And, if the claim is that the Iraqis are in charge, then why is Ray Hunt about to start steering revenues from that country's immense oil wealth into the same Texas bank accounts that have so generously funded the campaigns of George Bush and Dick Cheney?

I'm always amazed at the subjects the writer Sam Clemens (aka Mark Twain) tackled in his 19th Century life.

He died in 1910 at age 74, yet had what today would be considered progressive thoughts on everything from religious hypocrites (he wasn't a fan) to medical testing on innocent animals (ditto.)

I was thinking about Twain's universalism while listening to the congressional testimony of General Petraeus this week, doing his honorable best to justify Bush's Folly.

Here we are, bogged down in the middle of a U.S.-triggered civil war in Iraq in which we've handed the government of Iraq to one side (Shiite) while arming the other side (Sunni), where we've been for almost six years now (longer than either World War), with almost 4,000 dead and another 27,000 maimed for life, at a cost of $10 billion a month, and this is all because of nothing more than.......unfortified cockpit doors.

Twain, from 1894:"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more." Think of it: if only the cockpit doors on our airliners had been fortified (as Israeli airliners have been for decades), the twin towers would be standing today.

Almost 3,000 American civilians would still be alive, the 19 hijackers behind bars. We'd have rightly gone after their leader bin Laden, and we'd have gotten him, too.

The averted tragedy - involving four simultaneously hijacked passenger jets on a clear blue autumn morning - would have been quite the "wake-up call" for our country and, indeed, for the entire civilized world. A reasoned and multilateral approach to worldwide terrorism should have followed.Instead, the planes were easily commandeered and the rest is history.

We were all shell-shocked, of course, but 9/11 didn't "change everything," and it wasn't inevitable, either. Those who say so merely seek to justify the continuing fiasco. Sure, something could happen someday (a subway explosion, etc.), but not that particular nightmare, and certainly not done that particular way.

It was a once-in-200-years act of terrorism on our soil that wouldn't have happened if the cockpits were secured.

From that kernel of truth and wisdom, George Bush ignored Twain's admonition and orchestrated a campaign to convince us that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were somehow the key to it all. Meanwhile, the congress largely acted as his enablers.

Bush famously told Bob Woodward he didn't consult his own father about Iraq.
A pity, because it can be helpful to revisit the thoughts of our elders.

Mark Twain continues to speak from the beyond.

Here he is near the end of his life:"And now the whole nation -- pulpit and all -- will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open.

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

Kucinich wants inquiry into Hunt, Iraq oilUnited Press International - Sep 19, 2007Dennis Kucinich called for an investigation into an oil deal a Texas firm connected to the Bush administration signed with Iraq’s Kurdistan government. ...

Bush fears Hunt Oil deal will hurt IraqDallas Morning News (subscription), TX - Sep 20, 2007The Bush administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraqis to give up control of their oil," Mr. Kucinich said. ...

As Bush Hunts For Answers to Kurd Oil Deal, Congressional ...OpEdNews, PA - Sep 20, 2007“President Bush’s admittance that the embassy expressed concern with the oil deal means the State Department is fully aware of the implications,” Kucinich ...

Kucinich: Occupation of Iraq is a Crime, Smokescreen for Oil ControlAssociated Content, CO - Sep 17, 2007Kucinich also provided details that top oil executives have been secretively providing guidance to the government and Iraqi government as to how Iraq could ...

Bush, the Bomb and IranThe Nation., NY - 14 hours agoRepresentative Dennis Kucinich has been at the forefront of that effort, as was evident in a hearing he conducted in October 2006 which I wrote about here. ...

Dennis Kucinich Issues Scathing Attack of AARPCleveland Leader, OH - Sep 20, 2007Dennis Kucinich was excluded from the AARP Presidential debate, and he has a pretty good idea why that happened. It has to do with health care coverage. ...

How to predict the eventual performance of the next US presidentColumbus Free Press, OH - 9 hours agoThis trinity of corporate evil has been outlined as the weapons industry, the construction companies, and the oil enterprises. They work hand in hand. ...

Kucinich Calls News Conference to Address Greenspan's Stunning ...Earthtimes.org - Sep 16, 200716 -- Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, whose long-ignored claims that oil was the principal reason for the invasion of Iraq, has scheduled ...
AARP to Kucinich: Drop DeadCounterPunch, CA - Sep 20, 2007Well, Kucinich would put out of business Novelli's corporate support system including United Healthcare and Aetna. Earlier this year, both these health care ...

Kucinich AARP forumInsurance News Net, PA - Sep 20, 2007... or an oil company sponsoring a forum on reducing the worlds dependence on oil. Kucinich emphasized that he was not taking issue with the 38 million ...

Kucinich blasts AARP and public televisionThe Plain Dealer - cleveland.com, OH - Sep 19, 2007... with no-bid government contracts to private contractors; or an oil company sponsoring a forum on reducing the world's dependence on oil," Kucinich says. ...

Kucinich in Hawaii: "I am the Aloha candidate."The Plain Dealer - cleveland.com, OH - Sep 17, 2007... Chairman Alan Greenspan's new book says the Iraq war is largely about oil. "I have been saying that for five years," Kucinich said in a press release. ...

Bush 'knew nothing' on Hunt-Iraq oil dealEarthtimes.org - Sep 20, 2007Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who has called for investigations into the deal. Hunt has also been a major fundraiser for Bush and held a top Republican Party ...

Readers offer plenty of reaction to Petraeus' report Ugly reactionContra Costa Times, CA - Sep 22, 2007Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, wrote about Bush's speech: "The president's announcement is nothing but a fake withdrawal. The president wants to keep the troops ...

Kucinich stumps in HiloHonolulu Star-Bulletin, HI - Sep 14, 2007"We need Iraq to have control over its own oil resource," Kucinich said. Kucinich advocated "strength through peace" and described a plan to bring peace to ...

Ask the Candidates: Will They Cut a Bloated 20th-Century Military ...AlterNet, CA - Sep 20, 2007... putting us on a realistic trajectory to cut oil use in half and achieve energy independence in less than a decade. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sen. ...

Continued Occupation of Iraq is 'a Crime of International ...PR Newswire (press release), NY - Sep 14, 2007Those powerful executives, Kucinich said, have been coveting Iraq's oil reserves - the second or third largest in the world - since the country nationalized ...

Lawmaker assails Bush fear tacticsPeople's Weekly World - Sep 20, 2007Dennis Kucinich, “the strongest voice against the war among the candidates for president.” The corporate media, his primary opponents and sections of the ...
Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran
Posted September 17, 2007 12:09 AM (EST)

Read More: Alan Greenspan, Greenspan Iraq, Iraq, oil, Breaking Politics News

Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: the Iraq War was largely about oil.

Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.

These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Greenspan's remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are eyebrow-raising for their directness:

"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point," he told the Guardian.

Greenspan also tells the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.

"I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," Greenspan said. But, writes Woodward, Greenspan "added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab."

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

There's every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.

Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. "Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected," he writes -- but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need.

"An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony -- which appears to be the current trend -- must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security."

Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or "radical") control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.

One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns about Iran as "truisms.")

But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political life.

The Iraq was "is not about oil" became a mantra among the pro-war crowd in the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following months. A small sampling –

Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a "wrong impression." "I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody."

Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, "if Saddam's primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation," said: "This cannot be further from the truth. ... He is a threat to his neighbors. He's a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind." She continued: "This is not about oil."

Colin Powell: "This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations."

Donald Rumsfeld: "It's not about oil and it's not about religion."

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields: "there's just nothing to it."

Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: "I have heard that allegation and I simply reject it."

General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, "It's not about oil."

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: "It was not about oil."

"It's not about the oil," the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: "This is not about oil."

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: "The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil."

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: "This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security."

Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: "This is not about oil. That was very clear. ... This is about America, and America's position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed."

And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a "liar" (or at very least a "fool"), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated in part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.

What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion?

Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction to oil -- not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the greatest urgency.

More and more people are making the connections -- but there's no outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start: The No War, No Warming actions planned for October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.

Apathy is our greatest enemyBy Linda S. HeardOnline Journal Contributing WriterSep 21, 2007, 01:50

What does it take us to shock us into action these days? An Opinion Business Research (ORB) survey of Iraqi families indicates as many as 1.2 million Iraqi civilians may have died as a result of the war. That's five times more than the death toll wrought by Fat Man and Little Boy in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's also the equivalent of killing every Arab-American as per the 2000 census or every man, woman and child in, say, Amsterdam. And just why were those people's lives sacrificed again?

Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, a committed Republican who served four American presidents, says it was all about oil, which most of us who were against the war from day one knew all along. Yet when we mentioned the "O" word, we were invariably targeted as crazed conspiracy theorists.

Unfortunately for Bush, Greenspan -- the man who held the US economy in his hands for nearly 20 years -- cannot be written off as easily. Even Fox News can't accuse him of being a pea-brained, tree-hugging liberal.

If the bottom line is oil, then all the talk about fighting terrorism and sprinkling democracy dust is nothing more than peripheral chatter strewn around in the hope the distracted, the terminally apathetic, the intellectually-challenged and the misguided "patriots" among us will buy into the game.

It's certainly true that many Americans have wizened up since the early rah-rah days. Very few are genuflecting at the altar of US Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus, referred to in a Move On.Org advertisement in the New York Times as "General Betray us".

That may have been harsh but let's face it, he's a military man with a chain of command and a commander-in-chief called George W. Bush. It's not surprising that presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton thought his pearls of wisdom as to the current state of Iraq required the "willing suspension of disbelief".

If Greenspan is right -- and he probably is -- then why aren't we outraged? Why aren't we spilling out onto the streets in protest? Are we prepared to accept the death of 1.2 million innocent individuals just so we can fill our tanks with cheap fuel?

What if 1.2 million Americans or 1.2 million Britons had been sacrificed for the same goal? Would they have been acceptable collateral damage?

Let's put this into context, folks. A photogenic 4-year-old British girl goes missing in Portugal and she's 24/7 news for months. Her parents get to meet the pope and their mission is endorsed by David Beckham, Richard Branson and dozens of other celebrities.

By contrast, how many of you have ever heard of a 5-year-old Iraqi boy called Yousuf, who masked men doused with petrol before setting fire to him? His once beautiful face is now disfigured beyond recognition.

Yet, he is luckier than most because CNN fleetingly took up his story -- in comparison to the coverage of Madeleine McCann -- and he is now in Los Angeles receiving treatment thanks to the Children's Burn Foundation.

Many children who fell victim to unexploded cluster bombs or who were born with abnormalities caused by depleted uranium are left to the vagaries of a poorly manned and rudimentally equipped Iraqi health system.

Malnourished

Last year, UNICEF reported that one in every four Iraqi children under 5-years-old is chronically malnourished and one in eight doesn't survive long enough to enjoy their fifth birthday.

Thousands of children have not been immunized and 30 per cent do not attend school. The United Nations has estimated that over 40,000 Iraqi children now live in orphanages; some have been discovered starving and abused.

If Greenspan spoke the truth concerning the motives of those ruthless people he once considered friends, then the war is surely a shameful obscenity. It is tantamount to larceny on a grand scale.

Even as I write, the Iraqi government is coming under severe pressure to sign-up to an oil law that will concede a large proportion of the country's prime resource to foreign oil companies for decades to come.

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich says, "The administration has been relentless in trying to force the Iraqi government to enact a so-called hydrocarbon law that will, in fact, enable multi-national oil and energy corporations to gain control of 200 billion to 300 billion barrels of Iraq's oil with a market value of around $20 trillion".

"And to facilitate and protect that scheme," he says, "he [George Bush] is willing to continue the occupation, keep our brave men and women in the line of fire, and risk an escalation of violence and regional stability".

That's right. The US occupation of Iraq is due to continue in some form for decades. Why else would the US have built the largest embassy complex in the world, along with permanent bases?

But those who thirst for governance of the world's precious resources aren't content with the black gold of Iraq. There may be another war for oil in the pipeline and more millions will die or be left maimed.

Unless we wake up long enough to put our pretty toys aside, stare at the ugly face of reality and scream "not in our name" the burden of our apathy will be our legacy for generations to come.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online JournalEmail Online Journal Editor

John Nichols Fri Sep 21, 2:49 PM ET

The Real News.com

Victim claims Blackwater killings unprovoked. Iraqi Prime Minister vows to hold Blackwater accountable. 2007-09-21

Following the alleged killings of Iraqi civilians by Blackwater operatives, survivor Hassan Jabir claims the attack was unprovoked. "Nobody shot at them and nobody attacked them" he said.

Amidst anger on the streets of Baghdad, Prime Minister Maliki denounced the killings and vowed to hold the company accountable. A joint investigative committee was announced on Thursday.

The Nation -- Blackwater USA's mercenary mission in Iraq is very much in the news this week, and rightly so. The private military contractor's war-for-profit program, which has been so brilliantly exposed by Jeremy Scahill, may finally get a measure of the official scrutiny it merits as the corporation scrambles to undo the revocation by the Iraqi government of its license to operate in that country.

There will be official inquiries in Baghdad, and in Washington. The U.S. Congress might actually provide some of the oversight that is its responsibility. Perhaps, and this is a big "perhaps," Blackwater's "troops" could come home before the U.S. soldiers who have been forced to fight, and die, in defense of these international rent-a-cops.

But it is not the specific story of Blackwater that matters so much as the broader story of imperial excess that it illustrates.

If Blackwater, with an assist from the U.S. government, beats back the attempt by the Iraqis to regulate the firm's activities -- as now appears likely, considering Friday's report that the firm has resumed guarding U.S. State Department convoys in Baghdad -- we will have all the confirmation that is needed of the great truth of the U.S. occupation of Iraq: This is a colonial endeavor no different than that of the British Empire against America's founding generation revolted.

But even if Blackwater loses its fight to stay, even if the corporation is forced to shut down its multi-billion dollar, U.S. Treasury-funded operation in Iraq, the brief "accountability moment" may not be sufficient to open up the necessary debate about Iraq's colonial status. The danger, for Iraq and the United States, that honest assessment of the crisis will lose out to face-saving gestures designed to foster the fantasy of Iraqi independence.

It is not enough that Blackwater is shamed and perhaps sanctioned. A Blackwater exit from Iraq will mean little if its mercenary contracts are merely taken over by one or more of the 140 other U.S.-sanctioned private security firms operating in that country -- such as Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton.

Whatever the precise play out of this Blackwater moment may be, the likelihood is that the colonial enterprise will continue. That's because, in the absence of intense pressure from grassroots activists and the media, Congress is unlikely to go beyond a scratch at the surface of what is actually going on in Iraq.

The deeper discussion requires that a discussion about the substance that no less a figure than former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan describes as the reason for the invasion and occupation of this particular Middle Eastern land: oil

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. aptly observed that "colonialism was made for domination and for exploitation," and there is no substance that the Bush-Cheney administration is more interested in dominating and exploiting than oil.

Thus, while it is right to pay close attention to the emerging discussion about Blackwater's wicked work in Iraq, Americans would do well to pay an equal measure of attention to the still largely submerged discussion about an Iraqi oil deal that will pay huge benefits to the Hunt Oil Company, a Texas firm closely linked to the administration.

How closely? When he was running Halliburton, Cheney invited Hunt Oil Company CEO Ray Hunt to serve on the firm's board of directors. Hunt, a "Bush Pioneer" fund raiser during the 2000 campaign recently donated the tidy sum of $35 million to George W.'s presidential library building fund.

The new "production sharing agreement" between Hunt Oil and the Kurdistan Regional Government puts one of the administration's favorite firms in a position to reap immeasurable profits while undermining essential efforts to assure that Iraq's oil revenues will be shared by all Iraqis. Hunt's deal upsets hopes that Iraq's mineral wealth might ultimately be a source of stability, replacing the promise of economic equity with the prospect of a black-gold rush that will only widen inequalities and heighten ethnic and regional resentments.

The Hunt deal is so sleazy -- and so at odds with the stated goals of the Iraqi government and the U.S. regarding shared oil revenues -- that even Bush acknowledges that U.S. embassy officials in Baghdad are deeply concerned. What Bush and Cheney won't mention is the fact that Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, says the deal is illegal.

Unfortunately, as with the Blackwater imbroglio, however, there is no assurance that the stance of the Iraqi government is definitional with regard to what happens in Iraq. All indications are that what happens in Washington matters most. And that is why it is so very disturbing that, for the most part, members of Congress -- even members who say they do not want the United States to have a long-term presence in Iraq -- have been slow to start talking about Hunt's oil rigging.

That is why it is disturbing that, for the most part, members of Congress -- even members who say they do not want the United States to have a long-term presence in Iraq -- have been slow to start talking about Hunt's oil rigging.

One House member who has raised the alarm is Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who in his capacity as a key member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has asked the committee's chairman, California Democrat Henry Waxman, to launch an investigation into the Hunt Oil deal.

"As I have said for five years, this war is about oil," argues Kucinich, who is mounting an anti-war bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, declared on the floor of the House this week. "The Bush Administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up control of their oil. We have no right to set preconditions to Iraq which lead Iraq to giving up control of their oil. The Constitution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property for all Iraqi people."

With that in mind, Kucinich explains, "I am calling for a Congressional investigation to determine the role the Administration may have played in the Hunt-Kurdistan deal, the effect the deal will have on the oil revenue sharing plan and the attempt by the Administration to privatize Iraqi oil."

Waxman has been ahead of the curve on Blackwater, seeking testimony from the firm's chairman at hearings scheduled for early October.

But Waxman needs to expand his focus, and the way to do that is by heeding Kucinich's call for an investigation into the Hunt deal.

That inquiry should begin with two fundamental questions:

Who runs Iraq -- the Iraqis or their colonial overlords in Washington?

And, if the claim is that the Iraqis are in charge, then why is Ray Hunt about to start steering revenues from that country's immense oil wealth into the same Texas bank accounts that have so generously funded the campaigns of George Bush and Dick Cheney?

THE BOTTOM LINE:

THE CHANGES IN THIS ADMINISTRATION THAT WE DESIRE IN THE NAME OF THE INTEGRITY OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND A SENSE OF JUSTICE ARE NOT ABOUT TO COME ABOUT AS A PROCESS OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THIS LAND.

THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PLACED ITSELF ABOVE ALL THE PROCESSESS AND STRUCTURES OF OUR LAWS AND WILL CONTINUE TO AS IT WISHES UNTIL AND UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED.

THE CONGRESS WILL NOT MOVE UNTIL THE FOUNDATIONS OF THIS NATION ARE SHAKEN AND THEY ARE GIVEN NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO RESPOND AND DO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

IT IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF RIGHT AND WRONG, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. PEACEFUL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AS AN OPTION IS ALL BUT LOST ON THIS GOVERNMENT. THE MEDIA IS LOOKING FOR INSURRECTION AMONGST THE PEOPLE BEFORE THEY WILL HAVE AN EXCUSE TO COVER ,BY NECESSITY, AS BREAKING NEWS, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE TO BRING THIS ADMINISTRATION TO ITS KNEES.


IN THE END SOMEONE WILL END UP ON THEIR KNEES…THIS GOVERNMENT OR A DEFEATED AN ENSLAVED PEOPLE, ENSLAVED BY THE CORPORATE/POLITICAL POWERS OF THIS GOVERNMENT HAVING ARRIVED AS UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM HAS EVOLVED TO ITS MOST EXTREME MANIFESTATION.

No comments: