Victory at Last

The Bush administration is finally getting what it wanted from the invasion of Iraq:

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

But remember, it's not about oil. The war is about WMD ... no, it's about making Iraq stable ... no, it's about spreading democracy ... ummmm ...

< Defending Liberty at Guantanamo | Ras FL Poll: McCain By 8 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I have finally realized (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    over-amplification and overheated rhetoric was used to provide justifications for going to war.

    Pols are pols.

    Expect Whoever Gets Elected In November (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    to maintain a sufficient number of troops in Iraq to protect our national interests (i.e. the oil companies investment).  

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    since Bush lost control of the reserves in Central Asia to the Russians, it had to be the Middle East.  Any notions that it will not be about oil under Obama, McCain or even if it was Clinton are and will be at your own risk and a continuous source of delusions.  

    It's the oil, it's American interests.  No matter who is in charge.  


    Expect Whoever Gets Elected In November (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:10:58 AM EST
    to maintain a sufficient number of troops in Iraq to protect our national interests (i.e. the oil companies investment).  

    yup (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    The anti war crowd are in a for a rude awakening.  Assuming they were ever awake at all.

    Sorry For The Double Post (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:12:18 AM EST
    the original post indicated it had failed????

    Sounds like a repeat of so much history of Western (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:15:49 AM EST
    powers in Middle Eastern countries.

    Guess we can expect a revolution/revolt in a few years. And this time, we'll be the one with troops and boots on their ground.

    Those enduring bases I fear will endure.

    Disgusting (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Niffari on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    Is it worth the 4,000 plus American lives? Is it worth the tens of thousands physically and psychologically scarred for life?

    George Bush will go down in history as the president that sold the lives of Americans to his friends in the oil industry. And one thing that we sure as hell can't expect to get from this deal: lower gas prices. Let's all be very clear about that.

    The British thought (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:25:29 AM EST
    that the ME was so important during ww2 that they poured in 500,000 soldiers and lost about 100,000 men to occupy, defend, exploit  the canal zone and the oil fields sitting behind them.  So yeah.  In the brutal calculus of geostrategy 4,000 almost sounds like a low price for the survivoring soldiers and administrators. You can ask the families of the dead soldiers what they think and they would probably disagree.

    Pay no attention (none / 0) (#1)
    by mwb on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:01:45 AM EST
    Sayth the Neo-con: "Terrorists! Fear! 911!"

    Translation sub-text:  "We're in the money!"

    But some good war news.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    This bill is an Obama/Kerry bill. Apologies to those who say Obama never leads.

    By RICHARD LARDNER , Associated Press

    Last update: June 17, 2008 - 7:06 PM

    WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday shut a loophole that defense contractors had been using to avoid paying millions of dollars in payroll taxes.

    Bush signed into law the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act, which provides tax relief for military families. Included in the legislation is a provision that would treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. government contractors as American employers. That means they now have to pay the taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare programs.

    Actually the new law was (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    originally HR 6081 introduced by Charles Rangel and combined with the corresponding Senate bill titled the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007 originally introduced by Nax Baucus and Chuck Grassley.  I do not know whether Obama and Kerry signed on as sponsors, but neither of them lead on this issue, contraty to your claim.

    Nax Baucus? (none / 0) (#23)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    Who's he?  Didn't he used to have a brother named Max?

    Hee hee... (none / 0) (#31)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    Nax, Max, Schmax...

    Veering OT here:
    I usually (99% of the time) love my Rep Charlie Rangel, but I'm still smarting over his role in getting Hillary to suspend. I still don't get what that was about. If anyone has a link to any source where Rangel explains, can you mention it here? And other people who want to come in and tell me how necessary it was that he do that, please don't. I'm not trying to drag this thread into another topic, just want to know if anyone can find the info that I can't. Thanks.


    The KBR loophole is Obama and Kerry (none / 0) (#33)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    Included in the bill is a tax provision written by U.S. Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that will provide revenue for the tax breaks for members of the Armed Services and their families by sewing up a tax loop that allowed defense contractors, in particular, KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary known as Kellogg, Brown & Root), to avoid paying their full share of payroll takes by creating shell companies in the Cayman Islands.

    that is good news (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    Too bad the AP chooses to give Bush the credit.
    Guess Obama is not the media darling we hoped.

    I don't think it was oil to begin with (none / 0) (#7)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    I'm not saying that having Hussein lose control over all of that oil was a negative, but I will never believe that this was was primarily about oil. I think it was a combination of factors: shoring up American support for the right wing by forcing wartime patriotism; a permanent base in the middle east outside of Saudi Arabia; rewarding right-wing fat cats who paid the way for the Republican machine to get into office; distracting Americans from what they were doing (wag the dog); a general desire to play war and show off world dominance; an optimistic belief that winning in Iraq and setting up a Democratcy would cause the entire middle east to fall into line. All of these played a role, and the only good reasons for not going in were ones that were incomprehensible or trivial to them: people will die, we will not succeed, it will cost more than it's worth. All in all, given their mindset - It was a slam dunk.

    The bible says... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    By their fruits shall ye know them.

    The only secure places in Iraq are the oil fields.

    Little water, electricity, food and shelter for everyone else.

    That tells us something.

    It is hard to accept that our government could be so cruel, but if you look at what they have done, there really isn't any other way to see it.


    Baghdad is the capital of the Arab world. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    First we beat  Baghdad down in GW1 then we isolated it and then we conquered it.

    No way will Obama leave Iraq. I suspect the press will start to say how well it's all going  (casualties only 10-20 a month) as soon as Obama is in charge.

    Call me cynical.   But the chairs of Shell, BP and Exxon have more power than Obama could resist.


    it was a slam dunk (none / 0) (#14)
    by Nike on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    for all the reasons you describe. however, oil, arguably, was the best reason, the patriotic reason, for them to go to war. american society likely crashes if the oil spigots are turned off too soon and the middle east still is where most of the oil  is. our supplies from mexico (cantrell field) are crashing (this is one reason oil prices are going up); venezuela is also tanking; and of course the north sea (the source of thatcher-era sudden prosperity) is also nearly gone. Russia too has peaked (we peaked in the early 70s) so expect some saber rattling with russia again in the next five years. we are not leaving iraq anytime soon b.c we cant! people who vote for obama (or hillary) for this reason are deeply mislead.

    In Africa it's diamonds and Uranium ore and grain (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    farms. In south America it's sugar cane and cocaine. In central asia it's Heroin and oil. Every region has resources to pillage.

    Iraq has water, oil, a huge capital city of well educated consumers, and a thiving agricultural area between the two rivers. (it's a also a good smuggling route to Iran)


    Dianem (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM EST
    the only reason the Middle East has any importance to the U.S. to begin with is because that's where the oil is.  Otherwise, we wouldn't care any more about it than we care about Africa.

    Aftrica (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    has plenty of western intervention all the time.   The wars in Congo are quite interesting because they pit various western firms against one another in an unending series of coups and couter coups.  The west India and China, care very deeply about Africa.

    Mobutu became a billionaire after his successful coup.  


    You're absolutely right (none / 0) (#32)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:48:36 AM EST
    And I should have been clearer in what I wrote. Oil is, of course, an important issue anywhere in the middle east. 9/11 would never have happened if we hadn't been so heavily dependent on middle east oil and so heavily involved with Saudi Arabia as a result. But I don't think that control of oil was a primary reason for invading Iraq. I think that it was a concern, but, overall, there were other reasons that Bushco felt justified the war, and even if Iraq had been an oil poor nation they woult have done the same thing they did. Bushco could have invaded North Korea just as easily and just as disasterously. Oil may have been the "tipping point", but I don't think it was the core reason. They needed a war, and Iraq provided them with a "good" one.

    Mission Accomplished (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    Can we leave now?

    Nope (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    We will be there until the oil runs out, the Iraqis find a way to throw us out or the U.S. is completely bankrupt.  

    Opportunity (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    This is exactly the kind of event that cries out for a clear statement from Obama. And I mean from him personally - in front of microphones and cameras.

    Is he fer it or agin it?

    If he still bears any resemblance to the person who managed that little speech in 2002 - if he still identifies with it at all - let's hear from him loud and clear.

    I'm open to his candidacy, but I need to be convinced that he isn't just another face on the same box of soap.

    No he'll withdraw troops responsibly. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    Which could easily mean he's happy to keep 60,000 there.

    Lower gas prices by November? (none / 0) (#24)
    by davnee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    Anticipated supply just went up.

    Gas prices were always going (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    to retreat somewhat in the fall.  I'm no economist, but I'd expect this news would keep them higher than they otherwise would have been, since oil futures, which I'm given to understand are a big part of teh reason the price of oil keeps going up, will only go higher with the prospect of all that Iraqi oil.

    I don't think Iraqis are going to go along (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    If this agreement goes through, and I actually don't think it will, expect an orgy of increased violence.  Iraqis are not going to tolerate our dominance of thier resources.  The sabotage will make previous efforts look quaint.  Not to say we won't up our scumbag quotient and force some more death and destruction on them to get it, just that they will never accept this.

    I'm having another (none / 0) (#28)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:54:06 AM EST
    laughing so I won't cry moment. Thanks, TChris! (I think...)

    Can this administration descend any further into the realm of farce? I'm afraid so. Heaven help us, 215 days to go. (Iran, anybody?)

    I wish I were more sanguine about the prospects after then.