[MAGI]

So very many of us were and ARE against the evil, manipulated pre-emptive INVASION and OCCUPATION of Iraq!

Here is Truth to what and where all the lies have taken US:

.........http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2007/09/14/notes091407.DTL

by Mark Morford, San Francisco columist:



Iraq, deep in your bones
A war that isn't really a war, the great humiliation that's ours forever. Is there any upside?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, September 14, 2007

Iraq, deep in your bones - A war that isn't really a war, the great humiliation that's ours forever. Is there any upside?

09/14/2007


We are, of course, mostly fighting against ourselves.

It must be repeated every so often, just as a painful, necessary, ego-tweaking reminder: Iraq was never a war. Not really, not in any sense that mattered or that we could actually define and understand or to which we could truly submit ourselves or our national identity.

It never mattered how many little American flags appeared on how many bloated Chevy Avalanches, how many right-wing radio shows found a new reason to pule, how many furiously blindered uber-patriots happily ignored all the harsh words from all those naysaying generals or even all the "turncoat" anti-war Republicans and insisted we're really over there to fight some sort of great Islamic demon no one can actually see or locate or define but that we must, somehow, attempt to destroy -- even though doing so only seems to make the situation far, far worse.

There was never any coherent, justifiable heroic cause. Indeed, the truth about Iraq, as evidenced by Gen. David Petreaus' muted, bleak testimony before Congress just this week, is much more simple, nefarious, pathetic. Iraq is, was, and forever will be our very own massive strategic blunder, a failed land grab for position and power in a tinderbox region defined by furious instability and corruption and death.

It's the great unspoken subtext. Iraq has always been a war between our dueling national identities, a battle over how we are to move and breathe and behave in the new millennium. Are we really this violently paranoid bully, this rogue pre-emptive screw-em-all ideological war machine defined by the dystopian Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld vision of permanent, ongoing global conflict?

Or do we try, instead, to move forward and reinvent ourselves over and over again as the world's most commited, forceful peacekeeper, ever striving for balance and cooperation and tact, even in the face of hardship and fundamentalist rage, refusing to be taunted and dragged down lest we take the bait and lose our minds and engage in torture and misprision and ultraviolence and become little better, ideologically speaking, than our taunters? Have we already made our choice?

Because the truth is, we are well past the point of salvaging anything noble or honest from Bush's massive, historic debacle. We have only this brutal reality: Iraq is, and forever will be, one of the most extraordinary wastes in all of American history.

A waste of money. A waste of time. A stunning, almost unspeakable waste of life. A waste of resources and intellectual capital and a massive waste of national spirit. A waste of energy and hope and a giant squandering of any goodwill or empathy our former allies might've had for America in its post-9/11 state. Heard it all before? Sure you have.

Some scenes remain almost comical in their absurdity. Perhaps you saw that money, those enormous, ridiculous piles of American cash, the photos floating around of American soldiers guarding giant, shrink-wrapped pallets of U.S. currency known as "cashpaks," each reportedly containing about $1.6 million in stacks of $100 bills, all airlifted by the ton straight from the Federal Reserve and set down in the Iraqi sun like rotting fruit, small mountains of your tax dollars earmarked to buy off various warlords and pay for covert, unauthorized operations all over the Middle East in an attempt to buy our way into some sort of impossible, forced stability. Right.

Or maybe it's the bodies, the sheer waste of American flesh, not merely the thousands of U.S. dead or even the countless tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens but also the lesser-known horrors, like the epidemic of brain-damaged U.S. soldiers, thousands of them, so many that they're becoming their own category of study in medical textbooks given how they're beginning to exhibit combinations of trauma doctors have never seen before.

What a recruitment poster this is. Come fight in the American military. We're exhausted, overstretched, bewildered, have lowered our entrance barrier to accept D-grade students and former inmates, have almost zero idea what we're actually fighting for, and serve under a Commander in Chief who cares more about trying to shore up his wretched legacy than for the loss of American life. Oh and by the way, odds are extremely high you will return home permanently wounded, traumatized, or brain damaged. How very proud we are.

We all know the current reality: We are not safer. We are not better off in any measurable way. We are not stronger or more unified or prouder or more respected or healthier or wealthier or wiser and we have done exactly zero to stem the flood of radical Islam or the general outpouring of global disgust at what America has become under this president. This is our scar. This is our great American shame.

continued on Page 2.

[MAGI]

Page 2.


So, what do you do with it? Or with the prospect of still more weeks, months, even years of this dull slog of war? Because the fact is, as Petreaus' testimony essentially confirmed, we will be in Iraq at least through the (blessed) end of Bush's nightmare term, and likely well beyond, given how entrenched and ensnared our forces have become.

Perhaps we can take the long view, the wide view, the spiritual or karmic view, even, insofar as the short and linear view has become so stifling and deadly and useless. Perhaps this is the only way.

Because truly, many in the alternative set, the lightworkers and the gurus and the healers and the deep teachers, those who think outside the war room and beyond the bland academic platitudes, these people tend see Iraq, BushCo, the American right and all the sanctimonious bleakness surrounding them as merely the inky remnants of a passing disease, the last, vicious gasp of a dying ideology, the violent struggle of resistance that always erupts before any great cosmic shift.

Which is to say: The screeching of the Christian right, the shrill alarmism from cultural conservatives regarding everything from sex and drugs and music to gays and nipples and creationism, the rejection of science, the attacks on women's rights, the abuse of the environment, all the way up to the bleakest and ugliest manisfestation of all, a brutal and unwinnable war -- taken as a whole, these can, if you so choose, be seen as merely the embers of a hugely failed -- and yes, nearly extinct -- worldview.

Here is the hesitant optimism, the hint of the new, the tentative suggestion that all is not lost: By many measures, the worst of it is over. There really is light coming, a new awareness, a shift away from the bleakness and the rot and the wallowing in bland violence. Perhaps you can feel it. Or perhaps you need to be ready to feel it. Either way, it's there. You have but to do the most easy/difficult thing of all: you must look behind the veil, see the two dueling Americas, and make your choice.


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

Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.


Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing.

Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes another tiny photo of Mark probably insufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts.

[FDRfollower]

news link (http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7056652&nav=0Rcd0Uts10FC)

There you go Magi, the Dick himself admiting that this is going to go on forever, and lying about Afghanistan (the only thing growing there is Opium).

[MAGI]

news link (http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7056652&nav=0Rcd0Uts10FC)

There you go Magi, the Dick himself admiting that this is going to go on forever, and lying about Afghanistan (the only thing growing there is Opium).

:rolleyes:
What percentage of "the people", anywhere in this world, is buying Dick's BS still, do you think FDRfollower?

He's still trying to sell anyone he can, that Iraq/Hussein was the cause of 911 !
I recently posted an article which proved al Qaeda cells have been in the USA years before 911 and known to be in 56 countries throughout the world back before 2004..........so dick'll get 'em......... in.............Iraq!

SURE................

:puke:

[MAGI]

.....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
So here's the truth about Iraq........... says Greenspan:
From The Sunday TimesSeptember 16, 2007

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil, Graham Paterson :

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

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

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

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



:rolleyes: (OH, Really?)

[JamesP]

Excellent post, Magi.
I fully agree with the paragraphs below in terms of the bigger question with respect to the American people and who we are and will be.
For the Bush administration, it always was, and everything is, about OIL.


It's the great unspoken subtext. Iraq has always been a war between our dueling national identities, a battle over how we are to move and breathe and behave in the new millennium. Are we really this violently paranoid bully, this rogue pre-emptive screw-em-all ideological war machine defined by the dystopian Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld vision of permanent, ongoing global conflict?

Or do we try, instead, to move forward and reinvent ourselves over and over again as the world's most commited, forceful peacekeeper, ever striving for balance and cooperation and tact, even in the face of hardship and fundamentalist rage, refusing to be taunted and dragged down lest we take the bait and lose our minds and engage in torture and misprision and ultraviolence and become little better, ideologically speaking, than our taunters? Have we already made our choice?

Because the truth is, we are well past the point of salvaging anything noble or honest from Bush's massive, historic debacle. We have only this brutal reality: Iraq is, and forever will be, one of the most extraordinary wastes in all of American history.

A waste of money. A waste of time. A stunning, almost unspeakable waste of life. A waste of resources and intellectual capital and a massive waste of national spirit. A waste of energy and hope and a giant squandering of any goodwill or empathy our former allies might've had for America in its post-9/11 state.

[MAGI]

Stage 2.
Greenspan:
ERRRRRRRR,ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,gulp, cough cough,
let me restate that................
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he 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."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=rss_politics

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; Page A03

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

Greenspan's reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said.

As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he 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."

Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report

:rolleyes:

[MAGI]

So, if PGOP thinks the bush administration is compassionate and Godly,
a little more on Iraq/Invasion/OIL/VICTORY and why bushco, which includes Blair & and cohorts along with the rest of the global imperialists, here's a few articles to digest:
Oil and Betrayal in Iraq, By George Lakoff
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 10:40pm. Guest Contribution
George Lakoff of the The Rockridge Institute examines what Alan Greenspan's admission that "the Iraq war is largely about oil" means for America's troops and for the people of Iraq:
Alan Greenspan should know. It was oil all along. The former head of the Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Greenspan even advised Bush that "taking Saddam Hussein out was essential" to protect oil supplies.

Yes, we suspected it. In a deep sense, many of us knew it, just as those in Washington did. But now it's in our face. Greenspan put the mother of all facts in front of our noses, and we can no longer be in denial. The US invaded Iraq for the oil.

Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed. Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day, month after month, year and year — and for some, forever! Children growing up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces — for oil company profits.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, more maimed, and millions made refugees. For oil profits.

And what profits they are! Take a look:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1315




skip

Executive Summary
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

Back to top
While the Iraqi people struggle to define their future amid political chaos and violence, the fate of their most valuable economic asset, oil, is being decided behind closed doors.

This report reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority (1) of Iraq’s oilfields – accounting for at least 64% of the country’s oil reserves – for development by multinational oil companies.

Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies. But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.

COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS

Economic projections published here for the first time show that the model of oil development that is being proposed will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, while providing foreign companies with enormous profits.

Our key findings are:


At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts (2), from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget.

Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.
A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF

The debate over oil “privatisation” in Iraq has often been misleading due to the technical nature of the term, which refers to legal ownership of oil reserves. This has allowed governments and companies to deny that “privatisation” is taking place. Meanwhile, important practical questions, of public versus private control over oil development and revenues, have not been addressed.

The development model being promoted in Iraq, and supported by key figures in the Oil Ministry, is based on contracts known as production sharing agreements (PSAs), which have existed in the oil industry since the late 1960s. Oil experts agree that their purpose is largely political: technically they keep legal ownership of oil reserves in state hands (3), while practically delivering oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced...

skip



So, if PGOP & the other still blind ones need a little convincing to see reality,
how about this picture? :


http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.php?Itemid=146&bandwidth=high&id=875&option=com_photogallery&task=view

VICTORY? What Manure!

[MAGI]

Page 2.

:twisted:

more food tor thought:

$200 Dollar a Barrel Oil Is Bilderberg Plan To Destroy Middle Class
Elitists use peak oil scam, market turmoil, threat of Iran war to hike profits, torpedo middle class
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, September 17, 2007


The global elite are conspiring to send oil prices crashing through the $200 dollar a barrel mark as part of an organized agenda to hike profits, bring about a global economic crash and torpedo the middle class, and they're not afraid to attack Iran as a means of achieving their goal.

Crude oil prices returned to near record high prices today after having surged past the $80 a barrel benchmark on Thursday.

Now there is serious debate about oil crashing not just the $100 dollar, but the $200 dollar a barrel level in the next two years.
The 24/7 Wall Street blog, which is affiliated with both Dow Jones' MarketWatch and The Wall Street Journal, carried an article over the weekend that entertained the possibility of oil tipping the $200 mark, citing experts in the industry who expect the $95 a barrel level to be surpassed by the end of the year if the recent stock market turmoil continues.

The ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group, a consortium of power brokers from banking, business, politics, academia and oil, met in Munich Germany in May 2005 when crude oil prices were around the $40 a barrel mark.

During the conference, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what has happened.

During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. This information was gleaned from sources inside Bilderberg who have proven reliable in the past.


Though Bilderberg claim they are merely a talking shop and formulate no policy, they were also responsible for the decision to delay the invasion of Iraq until March 2003 after it was initially intended to take place in late 2002.

Bilderberg have sworn to bring about what Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission and a Bilderberg member, refers to as the "post-industrial revolution," which in layman's terms translates as a global economic crash, another great depression and the total evisceration of the middle class.


EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

This will be accomplished by hyping the doomsday threat of global warming in alliance with the promotion of peak oil.

Peak oil is a scam manufactured by the oil companies to create artificial scarcity and drive up profits for transnational oil cartels. It was first originated in 1956 by Shell Oil's M. King Hubbert, who said that only one and a quarter trillion barrels of crude were left, a figure that was surpassed at the end of 2006. According to Hubbert's original calculations, the planet should already have produced its last drop over nine months ago.

By pushing peak oil theories and tying them in with the man-made global warming fraud, Bilderberg seeks to jack up oil prices to the point where the living standards of the middle class become unsustainable and the west is lowered into second world status while fat cat elitists reap the financial and political bounty.

A military attack on Iran is also essential for the globalists to kick-start an economic collapse coupled with a massive hike in oil prices. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told a French TV station yesterday that the world should prepare for war with Iran as rhetoric around the possibility of conflict grows bellicose.

Experts have predicted that should an attack occur, Iran would immediately cease oil exports, pushing the price per barrel well beyond $100 almost immediately, inflating gasoline prices and kicking off a worldwide energy crisis and a recession.


http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=42422

:eek:

[MAGI]

Page 1.

So, if PGOP thinks the bush administration is compassionate and Godly,
a little more on Iraq/Invasion/OIL/VICTORY and why bushco, which includes Blair & and cohorts along with the rest of the global imperialists, here's a few articles to digest:

see last post:

So, if PGOP & the other still blind ones need a little convincing to see reality,
how about this picture? :

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.php?Itemid=146&bandwidth=high&id=875&option=com_photogallery&task=view

VICTORY? What Manure!

More on The Global Elites:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=42422

Kissinger Admits Iran Attack Is About Oil
"So what?, we need the oil," sneer deluded Neo-Cons as oil prices explode due to orchestrated artificial scarcity

Prison Planet | September 21, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
In a new op-ed, Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger admits that U.S. hostility against Iran is not about the threat of nuclear proliferation, but as part of a larger agenda to seize Iranian oil supplies. But the true meaning behind this is lost on Neo-Cons, who are still deluded into thinking that Americans benefit from the imperial looting of natural resources in the middle east.


In an International Herald Tribune op-ed , Former US Secretary of State [B]Kissinger comes clean on the true motives behind the planned military assault on Iran.

"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," writes Kissinger.

"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," he concludes.

According to the CIA's world factbook, Iran has the world's second largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 133 gigabarrels. Adding non-conventional oil, Iran holds 10% of the global oil supply.

Kissinger's admission that U.S. control of Iranian oil supplies is the real agenda behind hostility towards Iran would raise eyebrows and bring condemnation from many, but there are a hard core of Neo-Con cheerleaders who would support such an agenda even if it is openly accepted that nuclear proliferation is just a smokescreen for looting more middle east oil.

That is because they are still deluded into thinking that foreign wars of aggression to monopolize natural resources make America, and as a consequence make them, richer and more prosperous - when nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact that the Iraq invasion was about oil is a familiar cliche that was even acknowledged by Alan Greenspan last week.

"So what? We need that oil," the Neo-Cons sneer.

Americans don't benefit from the Globalists' control of Iraqi oil because the agenda is to artificially restrict global oil supplies in order to jack up prices and reduce the living standards of industrial countries.

The oil flowing out of Iraq has never recovered to pre-invasion levels and still stands at a measly 0.5 gigabarrels a year , a huge chunk of which is piped directly to Israel .

This artificial scarcity is the stated goal of Bilderberg luminaries like Kissinger and José Manuel Barroso , who have sworn to inflate prices up to $200 dollars a barrel and spark the onset of a "post-industrial revolution", which translates as another economic depression and a wholesale "correction" of living standards that will all but obliterate the middle class.

Neo-Cons who trumpet the ethnic cleansing of the middle east using the twisted logic that it benefits Americans as their dollar sinks to peso level and gas prices explode while the cost of living becomes unaffordable are living in a complete fantasy world, but when the wake up call arrives the consequences of their ignorance are going to reap a hellish revenge.

[FDRfollower]

Kissinger, the William Yandel Elliot protege who wrote the policy stating that it was US policy (although he admited, while in London, to be a British Agent while he was in the State Dept.) to depopulate certain countries in order for the "West" to be able to control certain key resources. Sounds like the old Henry we know. Google NSSM 200 and you can read the yucky crap he wrote.

[ababof]

I found echoes in Al-Hayat

Greenspan Re-writes the History of the Invasion of Iraq
Walid Khadduri Al-Hayat - 23/09/07//
*Dr. Walid Khadduri is an expert in energy affairs


"That's silly," former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld answered a member of the American media at a news conference at the Pentagon before the war, at the beginning of 2003. The reporter had asked Rumsfeld if the reason for the war against Iraq was US control over oil.

Greenspan is a Republican who was appointed to his important post by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, and has served six American presidents. He is known for his extreme caution in public statements, which at the time had an impact on the US and world economies. Thus, his remarks must be taken seriously by researchers and historians in the future.

How will the writing of the war's history change, if Greenspan's remarks are credible? First, it will clarify why Iraq was invaded in 2003, after the war in Afghanistan, and with no material justification.

This explanation will also cast doubts and questions about the "higher goal" of the war, by bringing democracy, freedom and transparency to surrounding Arab and Islamic countries, after the "liberation" of Iraq. As for the reality of US policy in the region in the future, and the true intentions behind it, the book will raise doubts about the true intentions of official US statements in the future. Greenspan's book also comes at an inopportune time for the Iraqi Oil Law, supported and strongly openly by Washington, which considers it one of the 18 benchmarks for the success of the Nouri al-Maliki government.
]The US also considers the law a means for national reconciliation among the various parties in Iraq, and a way to open things up for international petroleum companies to invest in Iraq, whose reserves stand at 115 million barrels. However, the draft law has become a source of division instead of agreement among Iraqi parties, similar to other legislation.

We can assume that research in the future about Greenspan's statements will shed light on many obscure issues related to the war and oil.

Why, for example, did the Pentagon guard the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, while the Iraqi Museum and many other state institutions were allowed to be looted?
Why was the Oil Ministry the only facility protected (and even some of its contents were looted, despite the protection), while American soldiers refused to protect the Oil Marketing Institution, located close-by. They let rioters enter and burn the files of Iraqi oil customers, break and steal computers belonging to this important and venerable institution, which Iraq relied upon to sell crude oil, and which brought the country only $34 billion this year.
Why were the rioters allowed to steal from other vital oil institutions in Baghdad and worksites in oil fields in the north and south of the country? Was it negligence, as some claim today, or were there other goals that were not announced at the time, as Greenspan's comments suggest?
There is a need to explain the reason for the negligence in supporting the oil sector during the era of Ambassador Bremer, since the Oil Ministry only received a very small amount of money, and oil production operations only cost the small amount of 30-35 cents per barrel. Meanwhile, in the summer of 2003, the South Oil Company, responsible for producing around 2 million barrels of crude oil per day, was forced to obtain money for expenses from the cash available to local gas stations, under the pretext that the state treasury didn't have the funds. However, the official statistics shoed that there was a surplus of at least $800 million in the state budget at the end of that year.
Why did Washington try to seize Iraqi oil when one third of Iraqi oil exports were being sold to the US market? Example, Iraq exported around 1 million barrels a day to the US on the eve of the August 1990 invasion of Iraq, while the total was 3.2 million barrels? Exports to the US continued to make up about one-third of production in the Oil for Food era at the end of the 1990s, and about the same percentage today, with slight changes from time to time.
Thus, what was required from Iraqi oil? To see American companies get their hands on oil during the exploration and production phases, until the export phase? National companies were performing this task over the last three decades, and most of their profits went to the state treasury. If it was necessary to see cooperation with international companies, we know very well that there was a need for this cooperation after the destruction inflicted on the oil industry over three decades, due to wars, sanctions and domestic strife, and the resulting emigration by Iraq's oil industry cadres.

A person with the weight of Greenspan should have been aware of the impact of these comments on US policy toward Iraq and the Middle East in general. It's important now to search for the necessary evidence to document his comments, examine the background for them and avoid making such mistakes in the future.

[ababof]

(Last, but not least feeling expressed in this article)

In the end, the most important question here remains a mystery, like many things related to Iraq these days. If the principal reason for the war was the control of oil, did this require the destruction of Iraq and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis, whether inside or outside the country? It is difficult to understand that Washington, after four years of occupation, is negotiating with Tehran about the future of security in Iraq; how is this in line with the goals of the war, whatever they were?
If oil was the principal reason behind the war, why was the Iraqi oil industry allowed to be sabotaged, and why couldn't it receive serious protection? Sabotage attacks against oil institutions and employees and workers in the sector stood at an average of one attack a day during 2005 and 2006. The last one was the kidnapping of the deputy oil minister, Abdel-Jabbar al-Wakka' and four director generals of oil from the headquarters of the Iraqi Oil Marketing Institution in mid-August, by about 100 armed men wearing police uniforms and using police weapons, driving cars used by the Iraqi police.