WMD. Bin Laden ties. Freedom. Democracy. Nah, oil.
Edward at Obsidian Wings spots a disturbing report from the BBC that executives from the big oil companies were involved in Iraqi regime change discussions just weeks after Bush II was sworn in in 2000.
Edward, no America-hating commie-lover, is concerned that, if true, this report throttles the last remaining justification for the war in Iraq. If WMD was a mirage, bin Laden connection a joke, and we now find proof that Bush's efforts to get a UN resolution backing the invasion is now proven to have been a sham, then it's hard not to believe that our father-figure preznit really was lying when he said that attacking Iraq was necessary in a world where terrorists can threaten us on our soil. Even if you didn't believe in a connection, I assumed Bush wasn't being entirely cynical when he said it.
Betting against Bush's cynicism is a loser, I'm reminded over and over.
And forget about freedom and democracy, the latest on the assembly line of Republican rationales for the dead and wounded.
We can only be left with the possibility that the war in Iraq ("Since 2003, thousands served") was entirely based on the economics of oil. Two competing tactics, to be sure -- either the neocons' plan to destroy OPEC, or Big Oil's more pragmatic plan of regime change leading to the ending of sanctions and a more US-friendly state oil operation. In either case, our credibility continously finds depths not previously known to exist.
And it is fascinating to learn that oil company executives can overrule government officials in the governing of our territories (or whatever Iraq is now).
Edward concludes,
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
Edward, no America-hating commie-lover, is concerned that, if true, this report throttles the last remaining justification for the war in Iraq. If WMD was a mirage, bin Laden connection a joke, and we now find proof that Bush's efforts to get a UN resolution backing the invasion is now proven to have been a sham, then it's hard not to believe that our father-figure preznit really was lying when he said that attacking Iraq was necessary in a world where terrorists can threaten us on our soil. Even if you didn't believe in a connection, I assumed Bush wasn't being entirely cynical when he said it.
Betting against Bush's cynicism is a loser, I'm reminded over and over.
And forget about freedom and democracy, the latest on the assembly line of Republican rationales for the dead and wounded.
We can only be left with the possibility that the war in Iraq ("Since 2003, thousands served") was entirely based on the economics of oil. Two competing tactics, to be sure -- either the neocons' plan to destroy OPEC, or Big Oil's more pragmatic plan of regime change leading to the ending of sanctions and a more US-friendly state oil operation. In either case, our credibility continously finds depths not previously known to exist.
And it is fascinating to learn that oil company executives can overrule government officials in the governing of our territories (or whatever Iraq is now).
Edward concludes,
Why is what US oil companies are warm to dictating the spread of democracy? The secret plan wasn't the only thing the war's protestors were right about.
posted by John at 7:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home