Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil (Part Two)

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2006.


The Bush administration has co-opted the compassionate language of debt relief to ensure that Big Oil gets its way in Iraq.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's note: This is the second part of a series on the struggle for control of Iraq's oil resources and self-determination. Go here to read the first installment.

With 140,000 U.S. troops on the ground, the largest U.S. embassy in the world sequestered in Baghdad's fortified "Green Zone" and an economy designed by a consulting firm in McLean, Va., post-invasion Iraq was well on its way to becoming a bonanza for foreign investors.

But Big Oil had its sights set on a specific arrangement -- the lucrative production sharing agreements that lock in multinationals' control for long terms and are virtually unheard of in countries as rich in easily accessible oil as Iraq.

The occupation authorities would have to steer an ostensibly sovereign government to the outcome they desired, and they'd have to overcome any resistance that they encountered from the fiercely independent and understandably wary Iraqis along the way. Finally, they'd have to make sure that the Anglo-American firms were well-positioned to win the lion's share of the choicest contracts.

Dealing with the most likely points of opposition began almost immediately. While the Oil Ministry, famously, was one of the few structures the invading forces protected from looters in the first days of the war, the bureaucracy's human assets weren't so lucky. With a stroke of the pen, Coalition Provisional Authority boss L. Paul Bremer fired hundreds of ministry personnel, ostensibly as part of the program of "de-Baathification." But, as Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda," told me, "it wasn't an indication that they were a party to Saddam Hussein's crimes … they were fired because they could have stood in the way of the economic transformation." Some fraction were certainly hard-core Baathists, but they were all veterans of the country's oil sector; they knew the industry, they knew what the norms in neighboring countries were and they had no loyalty to the occupation forces. Some had to go.

That was true at the top as well. Serving as oil minister in the Iraqi Interim Government was Thamir Ghadbhan, a British-trained technocrat who at one time had been chief of planning under Saddam Hussein and was widely respected for his political independence and his opposition to the previous regime (Saddam had ended up imprisoning him at Abu Ghraib). But despite working closely with American advisors, Ghadbhan was replaced with Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, a close associate of Ahmed Chalabi, the exile favored by some war planners to run the country as a kindler and gentler -- but no doubt just as corrupt -- version of Saddam Hussein.

According to Greg Muttit, an analyst with the British oil watchdog Platform, Uloum at first seemed to be a malleable figure. He told the Financial Times that he personally favored PSAs and giving priority to U.S. oil companies "and European companies, probably."

But Uloum would later publicly protest the elimination of fuel subsidies, a key provision of the country's economic restructuring, saying, "This decision will not serve the benefit of the government and the people. This decision brings an extra burden on the shoulders of citizens." He was, as the Associated Press reported, given "a forced vacation." It was, in the end, a permanent vacation; Chalabi, who was deputy prime minister at the time, took over the job himself (as "acting" minister for 30 days, but his term would last a year). Chalabi had no previous experience in the oil biz, but was a reliable, pro-Western figure with little in the way of nationalist zeal to get in the way of being a good lap dog. As leader of the Iraqi National Congress, he had said he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi told the Washington Post in 2002.

According to Alexander Cockburn, Chalabi also orchestrated the ouster of Mohammed Jibouri, executive director of the state's oil marketing agency, who had offended the Swiss giant Glencore by telling its executives that they couldn't trade Iraqi oil after their extensive dealings with Saddam Hussein.

An emerging, although still fragile, civil society was another source of potential trouble. Iraqi trade unions were a thorn in the side of the CPA -- shutting down the port of Khor az-Zubayr in protest of a rip-off deal with the Danish shipping giant Maersk, halting oil production in the south to demand the rehire of laid-off Iraqi workers and kicking Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root out of their refineries. Perhaps it's not a coincidence, then, that the only significant law that Paul Bremer left on the books from the Hussein era was a prohibition against organizing public-sector workers. Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi analyst with the NGO Global Exchange, told me, "They're having a lot of legal problems."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, iraq, oil, cartel

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Vote part 1 up on reddit.com
Posted by: frbiwaftt on Oct 17, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
part 1 is on reddit, currently at position 45, with reddit title "The real reason the USA invaded Iraq"

Vote it up!

reddit.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

corrupt
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 17, 2006 2:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a lovely bunch of corrupt coconuts, see them standing in a row, stealing from Iraqis. The current "Iraq" government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of corrupt non-Iraq oil barons. The whole Iraq "war" is a killing field to benefit a few rich assholes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: corrupt..sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: corrupt..sickofsleaze Posted by: willymack
for rwa - OPEC + Peak Oil = War For Oil
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 17, 2006 2:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Saudi and Iranian oil fields are declining. The Iranians have said as much and the Saudi's are unable to increase production proving they can't.

(BTW - This also explains the Iranians push for nuclear power.)

The Iraqi fields, underdeveloped and underproducing due to wars and sanctions, are still on the upside of their production curve.

Saddam wanted to price his oil in euros and crank up production. Thus, he would've taken control of OPEC away from the Saudi's (Cheney/Bush and friends) AND ruined the American economy in one blow.

Enter PNAC.

Steal an election. Stage 9/11. Invade Afghanistan (pipelines) and Iraq (the Prize) and control the world's energy heartlands.

Game over (or so they thought).

rwa - the supply curve is flat and about to head down, the demand curve is headed up, up, up.

The truth shall set you free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» source says it all Posted by: YinRising
» If you hate oil, stop using it Posted by: eddie torres
Saddam was going to trade in Euros and deal with Russia
Posted by: mat38 on Oct 17, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is going to happen once our economy sucks us dry. We are in so much debt right now, well, if you were in as much debt on a personal level as we are on a national level you wouldn't have the money to by a happy meal without wondering if you could eat agian tomorrow.
Fight ZOG!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And we(especially the US) were led to believe hussein was hitler jr.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Oct 17, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many people did hussein murder? 600,000?

I'd like to see more credible information about the number of people hussein killed. I've read so many differing opinions. I've read speculation that the Kurdish town supposedly gassed by hussein may have been gassed by Iranian forces. This was in an area that was near the battlefield. I think he was a ruthless thug but can only wonder how bad he really was.

How many people did hussein poison with DU?

How many people did not have reliable electricity, clean water, decent food, and affordable fuel when hussein was leader? Is life better now for most Iraqis? Most everything I've read implies most Iraqis had a much better standard of living with hussein than they do now.

Iraq used to have high literacy rates, low infant mortality, and good medical care. Do they have this now?

If hussein was such a villian, what does that say for the bush administration and the puppet government it is trying to install?

Iraq used to give it's women more freedom than most other middle eastern nations. Are it's women better off now?

I think sometimes hussien's worst crimes in the eyes of republicans for over 20 years were programs he ran that were socialist in nature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does Joshua Holland say about the need to legalize INDUSTRIAL hemp as a cure?
Posted by: SDres11 on Oct 17, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp, or shall I say INDUSTRIAL hemp, can replace petroleum all the way so why isn't Mr. Holland even bringing it up. And don't even bring up DEA BULLSHIT on marijuana and pot smokers as hemp is NOT marijuana !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Apollo Alliance Posted by: ScottP
Understanding Propaganda
Posted by: rwa on Oct 17, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an astounding ignorance about the nature of propaganda and psychological operations (“Psy-Ops”) in our society today. Those without an education in the matter may wonder aloud how a website that provides “dissident” material could possibly be an agent of the state that it allegedly opposes; "after all," these people will ask, "if alternet is with the state, why would it run anti-Bush headlines? Isn’t "propaganda" something obvious, like the pro-military posters of the Second World War?" Well, yes, it can be; but propaganda – as disinformation – can manifest itself in many different, more complex ways. Recall that, in George Orwell’s magnus opus 1984, there are two notable parties seemingly at war with each other: the tyrannical state, which controls all of the mainstream media in a very obvious, overbearing way, and the “Brotherhood,” a band of anti-government rebels who subvert the state through open resistance and an underground literature trade. By the end of the book, it’s revealed that both the state and the Brotherhood are controlled by the same interests, and the tension between the two is essentially fictional; while the state controls the majority through blatant propaganda and a forceful subversion of human intellectual faculties, the Brotherhood controls the minority who, for whatever reason, see beyond the more obvious propaganda. By creating an anti-government resistance movement, the government of 1984 – the original “Big Brother” – ensures its own complete control of its populace, for even those opposing it are simultaneously fighting for it, albeit unknowingly. Such is the case with most modern propaganda, including alternet; it works because we are unaware that we are even exposed to it. Taking into account things like Operation Mockingbird – which turned over 400 domestic American journalists into CIA assets by the late 1960’s – as well as the mystifying, irrelevant nature of mainstream commercial television and radio, we can with a reasonable degree of certainty conclude that the mainstream American media is already essentially controlled by the state, or at least manipulated by the corporate interests that today dictate policy to the most powerful sectors of the state. Such an arrangement may suffice for indoctrinating and brainwashing "the American majority, or … 80-90% [of the population]… the bewildered herd" as propaganda expert Nancy Snow put it, but it leaves dissident media – and indeed free thinkers in general – totally unaccounted for. Thus are born the popular leftist “gate-keepers” of conspiracy lore; intelligence-connected institutions like the Ford Foundation funnel money to moderate-left media establishments like Democracy Now or NPR in the interests of drowning out radical or revolutionary thought and legitimizing moderate beliefs and opinions. The term “gate-keepers” refers to the power that moderate leftists like Amy Goodman can thus receive, as they are able to essentially decide what is or is not appropriate for discussion among contemporary leftists, and will thus essentially set the agenda for many in their audience.

In debate Joshua has admitted that he does not espouse the war for oil theory. Yet it is plain that these pieces further it. Draw your own conclusions. One central element in this issue is zionism (a word that apparently is not in alternet's vocabulary). Is this all just another diversion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Understanding Paranoia Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Understanding Paranoia Posted by: Joshua Holland
» "war for oil" THEORY? Posted by: SteveB
» I'm a de-co fal-fla ag-pro infil Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: I'm a de-co fal-fla ag-pro infil Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Precisely Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Precisely Posted by: rwa
» where do I sign up? Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Understanding Propaganda Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Understanding Propaganda Posted by: anechoic
» Amy Goodman, like Chomsky Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Understanding Propaganda Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Foundations and Democracy Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Foundations and Democracy Posted by: Lincoln fan
Iraq invasion as "hostile takeover"
Posted by: SteveB on Oct 17, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To understand why the US invaded Iraq and how it acted once it was in control, I find it's useful to think of the invasion as a "hostile takeover" of the type commonly practiced on Wall Street.

To the corporate types in the Bush Administration, pre-invasion Iraq was an underperforming company, with great natural assets (oil) but lousy management (Hussein). Under new management (them) efficiency and profits would soar and everyone would benefit.

And what's the first thing corporate raiders do when they take over a company? They lay thousands of employees off. It's in this context that the seemingly inexplicable decision to disband the Iraqi Army makes sense. To former CEOs like Cheney and Rumsfeld, half a million soldiers are just half a million surplus employees, ripe for a layoff.

So the plans for "economic reform" which this article describes were an essential (maybe THE essential) part of the plans for the invasion and occupation. Everything, from the massive layoffs to the fire-sale of assets is part of the corporate takeover model.

Before becoming Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld was CEO of the pharmaceutical company GD Searle. Under his tenure, thousands were laid off, resulting in a big bump in the stock price, which resulted in a windfall for Rumsfeld. So is it any surprise that Rumsfeld would look at Iraq as a golden opportunity to repeat his corporate success?

One small sign of hope: corporate raiders are not at all sentimental about the properties they acquire, and are happy to dump a takeover target once its been milked of all potential profit or if the deal goes sour. So at some point the Bush adminstration may decide that Iraq was just a bad investment and cut their losses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq to look like America, or America to look like Iraq? Vote on Nov. 7
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 17, 2006 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With information like that in this article available to anyone who cares to look, the "mainstream media" still claims to be surprised by how the Iraq insurgency expands, that "surprise" shared by the government, ours, that negotiated the piracy of Iraq's oil – yet, in the face of massive lying by our government, the public still foolishly believes that media.

Well, Iraqis are not so dumb. They can recognize by the lack of potable water, reliable power, and other "reconstruction" projects that have either not been completed or not even started, and by 60% unemployment while foreigners do their former jobs, that Iraq is the host for corporate vampires from the West. Gee, I wonder why they're mad – how dare they get angry over trading all of their resources for pseudo-"democracy?"

It is obvious to intelligent americans (a minority) and most Iraqis that the invasion of Iraq was, has always been and still is about oil; in the short run keeping it off the market to artificially prop up prices, and in the long run, profiting handsomely in a resource-strapped future.

Has anybody else noticed that the only word NEVER uttered by our "news" media in any article concernig Iraq is "oil?" That should be a tip-off in and of itself. Why the "good a-mur-icans" who elected Bush refuse to understand this is proof that a huge percentage our electorate is too dumb to maintain a democracy.

The way the Bushitters are allowed to progress with the mechanisms for the creation of a presidencial dictatorship, soon the governments of Iraq and America will be indistinguishable, and owned by the same corporations, the IMF and The World Bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ??? Posted by: rwa
Our lying, corrupt and wholely owned US media system
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 17, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See Turkish Daily News: shutdown of refineries and more crude exports

The US goals in Iraq are all about resource extraction. Iraqi oil exports are being promoted at the same time that their ability to refine oil into gasoline is being sabotaged. The reason the refineries can't operate? No electrical power! The country that has the world's greatest oil reserves doesn't have enough gasoline to meet it's daily needs - while Exxon offloads Iraqi oil via Turkey.

The Washington Post has this to say:
Oct 6: Rice Appeals to Oil-Rich Kurdish North:
"The U.S. and other international backers want quick action on a law that would streamline the complicated oil sector, attract foreign investment and provide for equitable distribution of oil profits across Iraq."

The New York Times?
Oct 12 In Victory for Shiite Leader, Iraqi Parliament Approves Creating Autonomous Regions
"Sunni Arab leaders fear that any plan to divide Iraq into regions would eventually shift control of its oil wealth to the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, leaving them with the relatively barren central and western regions. The Kurds already have an autonomous region, but hope to expand it."

The Los Angeles Times?
In Iraq, U.S. Touts Provincial Reconstruction Teams as a Model:
"Most of the money for putting the country back together will have to come from Baghdad, State Department officials have been saying in recent briefings and media events designed to introduce the provincial reconstruction teams... The teams represent a "transition from working with them to spend U.S. money to working with them to spend Iraqi money," Robert Tillery of the State Department said..."

Those are the three flagship papers of the US media - and they are making a huge effort to support Bush's Iraqi oil policies. The financial structures are being put in place to ensure that Iraqi oil flows to Shell, Exxon, Chevron and BP, and the country is being divided up into three parts so that it is easier to control.

For contrast, see Oil pressure, People's Weekly World, UK:
"...On his visit to Baghdad in July 2006, U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman insisted that the Iraqi government must “pass a hydrocarbon law under which foreign companies can invest.” But the work to make this case had already been done: “We got every indication that they were willing and also felt a necessity to open the sector,” he commented, after meeting with the oil minister and Iraqi officials.

Mr. Bodman did not stop at reviewing the draft law himself in Baghdad: he also arranged for Dr. Al-Shahristani to meet with nine major oil companies — including Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips — for them to comment on the draft as well, during the minister’s trip to Washington, D.C., the following week.

Given the pressures involved, perhaps the minister felt he did not have much choice. His promise to pass the law through Parliament by the end of 2006 was set in Iraq’s agreement with the International Monetary Fund last December. According to that agreement, IMF officials would also review and comment on a draft in September."


The IMF loan was set up in order to force Iraq to give control of its oil reserves to US companies. Business as usual, complete with a media coverup by the major US newspapers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That damn IMF!
Posted by: vangogh69 on Oct 17, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just what is this IMF that can go any and everywhere and impose their "debt solutions" on everyone?! I guess if you trace the paper trail back, far enough, IMF/WTO isn't far behind! Jesus!

Of course this race for oil is shortsighted and may, in fact, accelerate the already apparent global warming we're seeing. After all, if the US is in Iraq to continue the present American way of life (and yes, I'm implicating myself in this), a way of life which is dangerously consumptive and which produces a large share of the world's waste and CO2, then isn't this investment in oil really like a death wish? I guess the cynicism of those in power is such that they feel they will either be dead when the earth gets too hot/cold or too protected in their bunkers to worry about it.

There's a japanese series/anime called Now and Then, Here and There and it's (wonderfully done) terribly prescient as to our situation (nationally and globally) today. I recommend it to all here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perpetual Motion
Posted by: rwa on Oct 17, 2006 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imposed scarcity drives oil higher. Puppet oil regimes invest in U.S. treasuries. The treasuries finance the military machine that imposes scarcity.
-----------
Foreign Purchases of U.S. Securities Surge to Record (Update1)

By Kevin Carmichael

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- International investment in U.S. securities jumped to a record in August as foreigners stepped up their buying of Treasury notes...

Major oil exporters -- a group that includes the 11 members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Ecuador, Bahrain, Oman and Gabon -- purchased a net $1.7 billion of U.S. securities.

The U.K., which, through London, acts as a transit point for international investors, especially those in the Middle East, added a net $11.1 billion.

---------------------

$11 billion, just what DOD needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Perpetual Chaos Posted by: brad
NEW CONS FOR OLD
Posted by: Hal on Oct 17, 2006 11:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good deal of discussion here seems all grown-up, nuanced and researched. But there’s just a bit of world-class denial here piled on to as much delusion.

1] Big Oil can well pose as “conservative” and aloof with virtually an entire DC-MSM complex hijacked for private use. And for the denial squad here that keeps saying “war on terror” couldn’t be about those silly old oil trillions? Let’s hear a credible alternative (sourced please).

2] Significant wars are fought over public wealth (blood money) for private power. Violence in the form of official mass murder (war) comes at massive social cost reaped for private gains and always has. In the larger sense, none of this was left to chance. Hence, no mystery what drives Mid East to Eurasian strategic agenda behind flash MSM deception for a con that hasn’t changed since before the Gilded Age and its Sykes-Picot land grabs.

Talk of ideological “reasons” beyond Big Oil and baseline cartel economics are more red herring than not. Those that own the “neo-con” front consider it emotional garbage along with other pipedream philosophy, religion, etc. This is about practical and hands-on multinational cartel hegemony. Big Oil and MSM firms may be traded publicly but final custody belongs to the usual suspects.

And with Big Oil stooges infesting the White House as cartel bank enabler Kissinger plotted the conquest with Paul Wolfowitz (prime architect of faux “war on terror” and now head of the World Bank) there could be small doubt as to means, motive and opportunity for what’s come down.

“LET’S LOOK AT IT SIMPLY. THE MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTH KOREA AND IRAQ IS THAT ECONOMICALLY, WE JUST HAD NO CHOICE IN [INVADING AND CONQUERING] IRAQ. THE COUNTRY SWIMS ON A SEA OF OIL.”
PAUL WOLFOWITZ (neo-con US Deputy Defense Secretary in effect admitting that the Iraq War was fought over Big Oil factors. He gave this response to a question as to why the U.S. made war on Iraq and not North Korea, a country that is developing nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Quoted from a talk to an Asian security summit in Singapore 5/ 31/03)

“OIL IS MUCH TOO IMPORTANT A COMMODITY TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS.”

“MILITARY MEN ARE JUST DUMB, STUPID, ANIMALS TO BE USED AS PAWNS IN FOREIGN POLICY.”
HENRY KISSINGER (ex American Secretary of State as a member of the Trilateral Commission & Bilderberger Group. Henry Kissinger appointed Paul Bremer to oversee the conquest and occupation of Iraq on 5/6/2003. Living. Quotes 1991 & 1990)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NEW CONS FOR OLD Posted by: rwa
» RE: NEW CONS FOR OLD Posted by: Hal
It is what it is. Want some perspective?
Posted by: kackermann on Oct 18, 2006 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, this is a well crafted article.

As to its conclusion? How the hell do I know. The density of the article has turned it opaque to me. I just add it to the rest of the noise.

I used to consider myself "well informed" and "in touch" but I have to tell you, lately I feel not so much out of touch as disincorporated from reality and my reaction to this is increasingly malevolent.

It's very difficult for this article to compete for my outrage knowing the torture bill has just been signed into law. Can anyone tell me how we got here? I mean, really! Can you fucking believe it?

The thing that really spins my head around and makes me want to wake up from this dream is that there are a lot of people that still support our government. At the same time I'm getting ready to ask out loud "does anyone know the proper way we go about killing Bush, and Perle, and Rumsfeld, and on, and on..." someone else tells me that voiding the constitution is a great thing being undertaken by a great man. In fact, it was 12 people who told me that - 12 democratic senators who voted for it. You may have head about it on FOX news. They fully agree.

Bear with me for just a moment, please. This will get a little indulgent but it is how I feel and I do still have emotions. You may even agree with some of it.

For the moment, I have to ignore the republicans and chalk it up to expected behavior, but the 12 democrats that supported it? Ok, since no one else seems to want to say it I will. I would like to single out one of the 12 for special consideration. Joe Lieberman is not just a slimy cocksucker, Joe, I believe, works from an agenda that places the welfare of Israel above that of America. Look at all his actions and tell me otherwise. He swore an oath but what we have is a treasonous snake in our midst. You don't have to thank me for finding him, it's my pleasure.

To hope he gets voted out is...quaint. What should happen to Joe is he should have his head cut off and his body tossed into the Delaware river.

A quick aside: another thing that has contributed to my disincorporated sense is reading about the violence in Iraq that we have set in motion. I simply could not believe that people could hate each other so much that they would drill out the eyeballs of complete strangers who have the wrong last name.

My disbelief is also now quaint. Drilling out eyeballs is exactly what I want to do to all those people who have abdicated rational thought in place of blind support for the sociopaths who are running the country. I would like to drill out their eyes just to see if they feel pain.

I reserve my special wrath for all those hateful right wing religious freaks. Every time they talk it's like shit comes out of their mouth and falls on my dinner plate. The next one to even suggest limiting the rights of anyone better run fast and far because I want to kill you.

I'm sorry...

About your article: I don't have much to say about it except it seems like a good piece of writing.

I do have a request, though. Maybe the next article you write can be about soldiers returning home to a country without Habeas Corpus.

Or maybe it could be a constructive article about how us citizens go about the task of killing the leaders who are killing us. There must be some kind of provision for that in the new rule book.



P.S. I hope Ann Coulter dies from cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» well.... Posted by: edith
Just Wondering: What Insurgents Fight For
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Oct 18, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Holland's two articles -- and the ones he quotes from -- somehow dismiss the current chaos in Iraq as a virtual sideshow to Bush's cunning. Say what? Must be my trick ear, Clarence. The fighting in and out of Baghdad, Basra, etc., gets more barbaric by the day. I guess that was part of the plan, too -- Bush has merely been playing "rope-a-dope" with the Iraqi people. Now they're hollering "uncle."

How ironic. Bush has been hollering "Daddy!" since last spring.

Ask yourself this: why would sectarian militias, ex-Baathists, and die-hard Shiites stand aside and let the country's oil ministry be run by the biggest and greediest oil companies? And on credit conditions dictated by the IMF? Loansharks are more understanding than the IMF.

None of this makes any more sense than giving a supposedly sovereign Iraqi Oil Ministry the power to carve up Iraqi oil in no-bid contracts. Contracts which, by the way, will favor British and American firms who promoted the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place. No junta will be able to enforce these concessions. Even the Kurds would look for another drilling deal with another oil company. In fact, they already have three on the drawing board as we speak.

Bush's supposed "victory" also holds Iraq to paying off Saddam's outstanding debts run up during the Iran-Iraq War. The payments are even due to the Paris Club no matter who's in charge of Iraq. Call it a "dead hand system" version of the Versailles Treaty.

Know what? If I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't pay off Iraq's Saddam war debt. I have, in fact, already paid more than enough in misery annd suffering.

Saddam was the Butcher of Baghdad; on that we all agree. But for years Iraq -- with far greater oil reserves -- was held to the same production quota as Iran. This was supposed to prevent war between the two countries, but in the end it didn't. Saddam ran up a huge war tab understood by the other Persian Gulf states to be mainly financed by them -- especially the Saudis and Kuwaitis. When the war ended, both countries reneged on repaying Saddam. The Kuwaitis even started to angle-drill wells across its border with Iraq.

Would you want to be held in perpetuity to pay off Saddam's debt while your children starve and the ruins you live in go unrepaired?

Bush's victory is also contingent on The Facilities Protection Service (150,000 strong) -- the bulk of Iraq's "reliable" army and police -- doing most of the dirty work. Yeah...Iraqis yearn for an independence maintained by well-paid and mostly infidel mercenaries running their country with an iron fist. Especially if one of the first things the FPS might do is execute any and all organised opposition on the spot.

On the other hand, maybe that's was 15 years of US-led subsistence does to a man's mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Commemt from another site:
Posted by: rwa on Oct 18, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There's one tricky point missing in this calculus: Iran. If Iraq is still militarily unsecured, why attack Iran, especially when you lack the ground forces for any invasion and can only provoke the Iranians with a Shock 'n' Awe (has any murkin trademarked this ditty yet?) bombing campaign, which will further provoke a massive counterattack both in Iran and Iraq, overwhelming US forces there by sheer numbers? We know the war ships are in transit, and will arrive in theatre on 21 Oct. They won't tarry much more than a few days before springing into action, else they would be sitting ducks, and they're much too expensive for that.

The counter indicator is the price of oil. Normally, news of war ships headed off for the Persian Gulf would naturally prompt the speculators to drive the price up. Either they know something we don't (that the attack is a Bushista first: a bluff) or the action is in the derivatives/options market.

The way I see it, Bush must attack Iran's nuclear facilities because his Vampire Implant Overlord wills it."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another poster:
Posted by: rwa on Oct 18, 2006 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Keeping the Iraqi oil off of the world market was the goal and it accomplished its intention of driving up the price of crude and refined petro products yielding record profits for big oil and OPEC. The gov't contractors also reaped huge profits. Yes, they have won the war and will contnue winning from the "perpetual wars". Is it any wonder they smirk, and wink, and smile and talk of THEIR PROGRESS AND HOW THINGS ARE GOING WELL? Things ARE going well for them and only them while the suckers who believe their lies continue to be duped in their blindness."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All this time...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Oct 18, 2006 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I thought we were trying to corner the market on frozen fishsticks.

Turns out it was frozen fishdicks.

Dick: Suck, don't blow, its only an expression. Plus, sell that damn Haliburton stock, quit bossing W around, and get some new batteries for your kick-start heart.

Maybe you and Rummy can get a face transplant with all that cash, but I don't intend to donate the skin off my ass so that you and he can look better in your coming mug shots, and I have a hairy butt.

W's frozen fishdicks; get'em while they're hot...

You think my writing is hard to follow. Wait till this story is done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rep McDermott
Posted by: markusmark on Jan 15, 2007 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua, how does it feel to be considered "mainstream"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]