...
Whether you agree with the following or not it is at least proof that democrats and other dissenting voices do offer solutions because in the following speech at least Kerry offers a plan for Iraq instead of merely saying, "stay the course."
...
(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,
(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
October 26, 2005
Senator Kerry’s Speech at Georgetown University
Excerpts of remarks as prepared for delivery
Kerry speaks from his heart and conscience on Iraq:
...
Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war -- a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists.
...
The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.
...
Companies waiting in the wings for Iraqi riches
By Leonard Doyle, Foreign Editor
Published: 22 November 2005
On the eve of the war in Iraq, there was a shocking moment of clarity in the Commons when Jack Straw revealed that when it was all over, France and Germany would not be allowed to "get their snouts in the trough".
This public slap in the face to Britain's biggest EU partners gave an insight into what was really concentrating US and British minds. Having constructed a tortuous case for war over Iraq's lack of co-operation with the UN security Council, plans were being laid for post-Saddam Iraq excluding non-coalition countries.
Straw's remarks revealed the focused on Iraqs oil. The World's four oil giants (BP, Exxon, Chevron and Shell) , have been desperate to get back into Iraq, since being booted out in the nationalisation of 1972.
Iraq sits on the world's second largest proven oil reserves, expected to increase to reserves of 200-plus billion barrels of high-grade crude. No one doubts Bush's determination to ensure "friendly" companies gain the lion's share of lucrative oil contracts - worth hundreds of billions of dollars over many decades.
Iraq's new constitution - practically written by US and Foreign office advisors, guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Production Sharing Agreements would hand over control of dozens of oil fields, like the gian Majnoon .
After next month's elections, when a new Iraqi government takes over and contracts are signed it will become clearer how much oil was part of London and Washington's pre-war plans.
On the eve of the war in Iraq, there was a shocking moment of clarity in the Commons when Jack Straw revealed that when it was all over, France and Germany would not be allowed to "get their snouts in the trough".
This public slap in the face to Britain's biggest EU partners gave an insight into what was really concentrating US and British minds. Having constructed a tortuous case for war over Iraq's lack of co-operation with the UN security Council, plans were being laid for post-Saddam Iraq excluding non-coalition countries.
Straw's remarks revealed the focused on Iraqs oil. The World's four oil giants (BP, Exxon, Chevron and Shell) , have been desperate to get back into Iraq, since being booted out in the nationalisation of 1972.
Iraq sits on the world's second largest proven oil reserves, expected to increase to reserves of 200-plus billion barrels of high-grade crude. No one doubts Bush's determination to ensure "friendly" companies gain the lion's share of lucrative oil contracts - worth hundreds of billions of dollars over many decades.
Iraq's new constitution - practically written by US and Foreign office advisors, guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Production Sharing Agreements would hand over control of dozens of oil fields, like the gian Majnoon .
After next month's elections, when a new Iraqi government takes over and contracts are signed it will become clearer how much oil was part of London and Washington's pre-war plans.
Iraq's oil: The spoils of war
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
Published: 22 November 2005
Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.
According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.
The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War. "Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment to do this," it said.
Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said.
Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.
Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."
Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."
The current Iraqi government has indicated that it wants to treble production from two million barrels a day this year to six million. The US Energy Information Administration said such an increase would ease "market tensions" that have kept the price high. But governments and oil companies in the West said the report was purely hypothetical and that the issue was a matter for the Iraqi people. They also pointed out that Iraq needed money to rebuild in the sector.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the country's oil industry was in desperate need of investment after years of under-investment, UN sanctions, vandalism by Saddam Hussein and more recent sabotage by insurgents and general looting. "The Iraqi government has made it clear that the decision is a matter for its authorities but they understand that it would require a lot of investment," he said. He said it was not surprising that Iraq should look to outside experts to help rebuild an industry that was the key source of revenue to help rebuild the country.
"We work closely with other departments such as the Treasury to give assistance and advice," he said, adding that the Foreign Office had not been involved in specific lobbying.
Gregg Muttitt, of Platform, a campaign group that co-authored the report, said Iraq had an existing - albeit damaged - network of oil expertise and could use current revenues or new borrowings to fund investment. The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected. In 2003, Walter van de Vijver, then head of exploration and production, said investors would need "some assurance of future income and a supportive contractual arrangement". The groupsaidyesterday that the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected government."
No multinationals are operating in Iraq now because of the poor security situation.
Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.
According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.
The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War. "Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment to do this," it said.
Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said.
Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.
Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."
Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."
The current Iraqi government has indicated that it wants to treble production from two million barrels a day this year to six million. The US Energy Information Administration said such an increase would ease "market tensions" that have kept the price high. But governments and oil companies in the West said the report was purely hypothetical and that the issue was a matter for the Iraqi people. They also pointed out that Iraq needed money to rebuild in the sector.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the country's oil industry was in desperate need of investment after years of under-investment, UN sanctions, vandalism by Saddam Hussein and more recent sabotage by insurgents and general looting. "The Iraqi government has made it clear that the decision is a matter for its authorities but they understand that it would require a lot of investment," he said. He said it was not surprising that Iraq should look to outside experts to help rebuild an industry that was the key source of revenue to help rebuild the country.
"We work closely with other departments such as the Treasury to give assistance and advice," he said, adding that the Foreign Office had not been involved in specific lobbying.
Gregg Muttitt, of Platform, a campaign group that co-authored the report, said Iraq had an existing - albeit damaged - network of oil expertise and could use current revenues or new borrowings to fund investment. The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected. In 2003, Walter van de Vijver, then head of exploration and production, said investors would need "some assurance of future income and a supportive contractual arrangement". The groupsaidyesterday that the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected government."
No multinationals are operating in Iraq now because of the poor security situation.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
CAIRO, Nov. 21 - For the first time, Iraq's political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit itself to a pullout schedule.
The announcement, made at the conclusion of a reconciliation conference here backed by the Arab League, was a public reaching out by Shiites, who now dominate Iraq's government, to Sunni Arabs on the eve of parliamentary elections that have been put on shaky ground by weeks of sectarian violence.
About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election on Dec. 15, signed a closing memorandum on Monday that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," the statement said.
"The Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when foreign forces will leave Iraq, when its armed and security forces will be rebuilt and when they can enjoy peace and stability and an end to terrorism," it continued.
The meeting was intended as preparation for a much larger conference in Iraq in late February. The recommendations made here are to be the starting ground for that meeting.
In Washington, Justin Higgins, a State Department spokesman, said, "The United States supports the basic foundation of the conference and we certainly support ongoing discussion among Iraq's various political and religious communities."
But regarding troop withdrawal, he said: "Multinational forces are present in Iraq under a mandate from the U.N. Security Council. As President Bush has said, the coalition remains committed to helping the Iraqi people achieve security and stability as they rebuild their country. We will stay as long as it takes to achieve those goals and no longer."
Shiite leaders have long maintained that a pullout should be done according to milestones, and not before Iraqi security forces are fully operational. The closing statement upheld a Sunni demand for a pullout, while preserving aspects of Shiite demands, but did not specify when a withdrawal should begin, making it more of a symbolic gesture than a concrete agenda item that could be followed up by the Iraqi government.
The statement, while condemning the wave of terrorism that has engulfed Iraq, also broadly acknowledged a general right to resist foreign occupation. That was another effort to compromise with Sunnis who had sought to legitimize the insurgency. The statement condemned terror attacks and religious backing for them, and it demanded the release of innocent prisoners and an investigation into reports of torture.
Almost all the delegates belong to political parties that represent the spectrum of Iraqi politics.
But while Sunni parties hinted at their lines of communication to nationalist and tribal insurgents, none would admit any link to militants like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has led a wave of suicide bombings through his group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The wording was a partial victory for Iraq's Sunni politicians, who have long demanded that the United States commit to a scheduled pullout.
While the wording stopped short of condoning armed resistance to the occupation, it broadly acknowledged that "national resistance is a legitimate right of all nations."
"This is the first time that something like this is said collectively and in public," Muhammad Bashar al-Faythi, spokesman for the hard-line Sunni Muslim Scholars Council, said Monday, referring to the timetable. "We managed to convince them of the importance of a timed pullout."
On Monday, Iraq's interior minister, Bayan Jabr, said American-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, adding that the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the United Nations Security Council earlier this month could be the last, The Associated Press reported.
It would have been a lot easier to just bribe Saddam like so many other countries were doing [...]
I wonder why we haven't just annexed the country then? Why would the US even bother pretending to install a democratic government? It would have been a lot easier to just bribe Saddam like so many other countries were doing than to risk everything going to war with him don't you think?
Oil-for-Food Benefited Russians, Report Says
Iraq Sought to Influence U.N. Through Moscow
By Justin Blum and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 16, 2005; Page A01
Top Kremlin operatives and a flamboyant Russian politician reaped millions of dollars in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program by selling oil that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein allowed them to buy at a deep discount, a Senate investigation has concluded.
The allegations -- which also include descriptions of kickbacks paid to Hussein -- are detailed in hundreds of pages of reports and documents made public last night by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in advance of a hearing tomorrow.
A Profitable Arrangement
How Some Transactions Worked Seeking to retain Russia's support in the United Nations, Saddam Hussein gave prominent Russians rights to buy Iraqi oil at discounts. The politically influential Russians then made millions of dollars in profits by selling the oil.
The documents outline a trail of oil and money that leads directly from Iraq to the Kremlin and the former chief of staff to Russian President Vladimir Putin and former president Boris Yeltsin. The report said Iraq sought to influence and reward the Russian government because it sits on the powerful U.N. Security Council that oversaw sanctions against the Hussein government. Russia repeatedly sided with Iraq on issues before the Security Council.
Yevgeniy V. Khorishko, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, said it had received the Senate reports but could not yet discuss the findings. "We are looking into them," Khorishko said. "It's too early to give any comment."
MORE. . . . .
Bayoil played a key role in a number of transactions, the report said. The company had conducted an "aggressive campaign" to buy Iraqi oil under the oil-for-food program, but its efforts were stymied by a Hussein policy forbidding direct contracting with U.S. or British companies. Iraq also required the company that purchased the oil to be in the same country as the recipient of the allocation.
The report described cases in which Bayoil orchestrated transactions between Iraq and Zhirinovsky. The company arranged for a Russian entity to purchase the oil and, without ever taking possession, sell it to Bayoil. A letter from Bayoil described how the company paid an "agreed premium" to Zhirinovsky for his allocation.
In short, the Guardian piece is most likely highly exaggerated if not highly erroneous.
It has also been alleged that the American and British governments were fully aware of the scandal, but opted to close their eyes to smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.
US Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) is quoted in an interview for the New York Times as saying "There is no question that the bulk of the illicit oil revenues came from the open sale of Iraqi oil to Jordan and to Turkey, and that that was a way of going around the oil-for-food program [and that] We were fully aware of the bypass and looked the other way."
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that
"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of these recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.
Further, during the sanctions regime, the United States and United Kingdom had a lot of influence in the Security Council regarding Iraq, and in general, the monitoring was very detailed.
I wonder why we haven't just annexed the country then? Why would the US even bother pretending to install a democratic government? It would have been a lot easier to just bribe Saddam like so many other countries were doing than to risk everything going to war with him don't you think?
If the 'administration' turned a blind eye and ignored the problem as the Guardian piece implied, how did Bayoil get indicted? Hmm?
U.S. Failure to Exercise Oversight of U.S. Nationals Buying Iraqi Oil
At the same time U.S. officials aggressively pursued action at the United Nations to prevent Iraq from imposing illegal surcharges, the United States failed to take meaningful action to ensure that U.S. nationals were not paying those surcharges.
U.S. Knowledge of Khor al-Amaya Oil Shipments
The evidence is clear that the U.N. Oil Overseers notified the United States of the Khor al-Amaya loadings as soon as they learned of them in mid-February 2003. In addition, there is significant evidence that the United States knew of plans to load the oil even before some of the chartered ships arrived in Iraq.
Ship communications obtained by the Subcommittee indicate that the U.S. Navy, which was then in command of the Maritime Interdiction Force, was informed before-the-fact that oil tankers would be docking at Khor al-Amaya, and had been instructed to permit the loadings of oil and not confiscate any of the ships or cargoes.
