2
   

Cheney lies to Congress, media snoozes

 
 
PDiddie
 
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2003 08:46 am
I am flat running out of exclamations.

Cheney's energy task force documentss just got pried out of his clammy, withered hands by none other than Judicial Watch, and you'll be shocked to see what they were talking about in those meetings. Or maybe you won't.


Quote:
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.

The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country's oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.



I am truly agog.

Click here to see the maps and other documents.

Could these mean it actually was all about oil, after all?

(And all this time I thought it was really about getting Dubya elected...)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,506 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2003 09:31 am
PDiddie
PDiddie, the Iraq war "smoking gun" has finally emerged. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et as were dividing up Middle Eastern oil fields just like the Brit's did after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. We also are setting up puppet governments in the same manner as the Brit's ill-fated imposition to favor it's oil interests.

We also learn from this information in which countries the US has an interest in going to war.

It is, after all, true that to get to the bottom of things, one must follow the money---oil money. Somethings never change, especially if it can be hidden from public view.

Cudos to Judicial Watch!!!

---BumbleBeeBoogie
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2003 10:00 am
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2003 10:01 am
Well, there have been quite a few, sayong that Iraq oil was on the minds of at least some members of the task force long before the war.

I only wonder what all the strict oponents of that 'theory' will say now.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2003 10:17 am
What can they say? But wait a minute; these people think we're all stupid and won't connect the dots. Can this be the basis for impeachment? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2003 10:26 am
Having been mostly "away from the news" for several days, I love this discussion. All the right stuff is coming out. My only tiny quibble is I wish it were this time in 2004 and/or I hope by July 2004 the **** is still a-flyin'. In the meantime I'm going to sit back and enjoy! Thanks PDiddie!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 02:01 pm
(OK, the fact that this thread is going mostly unnoticed is driving me more than a little crazy...)

Does everyone get that March 2001 is six months before September 11, 2001?!?

Cheney was carving up Iraq six months before the World Trade Center fell?

How is it possible that Osama made all of Dick's dreams come true?

Serendipity? Kismet?

See, I thought those meetings were just about Enron bankrupting California by manipulating the price of kilowatts.

Silly me...

I should stop thinking that it's a crime for the Vice President of the United States and executives of a completely corrupt energy company to plot a takeover of another country's oilfields and then use a subsequent terrorist attack that kills thousands of Americans to justify that takeover, even though there is no connection between the terrorists and the country with all of the oil.

Apparently that's because there's nothing really all that wrong with fabricating the evidence for an invasion to take over another country's oilfields.

No, it could only be a crime if Bill Clinton's zipper was involved...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 02:26 pm
Beats me, P. If I could, I'd hang a banner over A2K. Yes, this needs examination. The media owe us on this one.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 02:33 pm
Just out of curiosity, I typed in "judicial watch" (in quotes) in the NYTimes search engine giving it a 30-day window and, guess what, nothing, nuzzing, nada, niente, rien de tout.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 04:10 pm
Watch as US News does agonizing twists into pretzel shape trying to defend the administration against unfair, choosy, anecdotal reporting: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030728/opinion/28john.htm
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 05:43 pm
Since it's just you and me talking, Tarty, here's a little bit of mainstream mention of this story:

Yahoo!

CBS Marketwatch
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 06:07 pm
I think the problem with this news is that for half the audience it's a 'd'oh, what did you think it was about' - for the other half, well, they wouldn't believe it if they were given a videotape of it.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 06:39 pm
I'm still reading the report. This is hot stuff, Pdiddie.

===
I'm going silent for a few days VACATION.

Hope the world is still here when I get back.

Peace, still possible,

Joe
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 10:03 pm
http://www.judicialwatch.org/

Well, it's why I like google. Go here, and they list a lot of stuff pertaining to this. I would suspect that this will not go unnoticed. We are now in the position of desperately needing help in Iraq, and there are many in many different countries who will read this. One of the big complaints, after all, was that the U.S. did not open up bidding on various construction jobs in Iraq, and I seriously doubt that any country will come in without wanting something.

Boy, when things start to burst open, it's like breaking a pinata. All kinds of goodies fall out. No wonder they tried to keep that eneergy report under wraps. And I would not be surprised if the pre-9/11 papers started being released.

Now, the republicans made the biggest fuss out of Clinton lying. They said it didn't matter so much the offense as the lie. And they kept talking about lying. I've been waiting and waiting to see who shoves whom first. My first bet's on Rice.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 12:40 am
PD,
The report you posted from Judicial Watch corroborates a report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that I've posted elsewhere on A2K. Thanks for the report.


http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214

Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Long before September 11, before the first inspections in Iraq had started, a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington were calling for regime change in Iraq. Some never wanted to end the 1991 war. Many are now administration officials. Their organization, dedication and brilliance offer much to admire, even for those who disagree with the policies they advocate.

We have assembled on our web site links to the key documents produced since 1992 by this group, usually known as neo-conservatives, and analysis of their efforts. They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.

In the Beginning
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.

Links to Likud
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, now administration officials, joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said "Israel can shape its strategic environment…by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly." They called for "reestablishing the principle of preemption."

In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to "aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Most of these experts are now officials in the administration, including Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

The Power of Planning
In 2000, the Project for the New American Century, which is chaired by William Kristol and includes Robert Kagan as a director, issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The Project had organized the 1998 letter to Clinton and the 2000 report seems to have become a blueprint for the administration's foreign and defense policies. The report noted, "The U.S. has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in the Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

While not explicitly calling for permanent bases in Iraq after regime change, the report notes the difficulty of basing forces in Saudi Arabia, given "Saudi domestic sensibilities," and calls for a permanent Gulf military presence even "should Saddam pass from the scene" as "Iran may well prove as large a threat."

The official National Security Strategy of the United States, issued September 2002, holds that our defense "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia."

A Rising Chorus
Immediately after September 11, Paul Wolfowitz and other officials urged President Bush to attack Iraq. New Yorker writer Mark Danner notes as part of a PBS Frontline special that they saw this as a "new opportunity presented by the war on terror-that is, an opportunity to argue to the public that Iraq presented a vital danger to the United States." Colin Powell and the joint chiefs opposed them. "Powell's view was that Wolfowitz was fixated on Iraq, that they were looking for any excuse to bring Iraq into this," Washington Post reporter Dan Balz told Frontline. Powell won, but briefly.

Neo-conservative writers began to urge regime change as part of a larger strategy for remaking the Middle East. In June 2002, Michael Kelly wrote that a democratic Iraq and Palestine "will revolutionize the power dynamic in the Middle East…A majority of Arabs will come to see America as the essential ally."

"Change toward democratic regimes in Tehran and Baghdad would unleash a tsunami across the Islamic world," claimed Joshua Muravchik in August of that year. Michael Ledeen on September 4, 2002, called for the US to launch "a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East…It is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order."

Democracy experts, including Carnegie's Tom Carothers, call this vision "a dangerous fantasy." But on September 12, President Bush embraced the strategy when he told the United Nations, "The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world." The president seems to have absorbed the entire expansive strategy. Now, for him, regime change in Iraq is not the end, it is just the beginning.

Click here for all these documents and more insight into the people and strategy behind the occupation of Iraq.

Joseph Cirincione is a Senior Associate and Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2003 04:13 pm
The real reason Bush can't go to the UN for Iraq help
More and more people are asking why doesn't Bush go to the UN to asked for help managing post-war Iraq?

Has it occurred to anyone else that the major reason Bush is reluctant to got to the United Nations to ask for troop and financial assistance with the Iraq occupation is Dick Cheney's prior oil deals delineated earlier in this thread?

The UN will be sure to demand control of Iraq's oil fields and their revenues to pay for any assistance it may provide. But of course, Bush can't do this because Cheney has already made deals (if not signed contracts) handing out the oil fields to his oil-soaked cronies. If he betrays these cronies, he is risking public exposure of his dastardly deeds.

Poor Bush and Cheney, they's got their little balls caught in a ringer. Laughing

---BumbleBeeBoogie
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2003 04:29 pm
There's a lot going on with the UN. Negroponte wants UN help, but the Security Council comes back offering a fresh resolution to help the US in Iraq. Oops -- no. Please, please, no resolution, says Negroponte. A fresh resolution would mean the old resolution didn't, in effect, sanction the US's going it alone. So there's a wonderful, I think quite deliberate, attempt by the SC to make things Really Hard on the administration, as well they should. Make 'em suffer and beg, fellas!

It will be interesting to see a) if the end of Saddam's sons is legit (they were identified by a top deck-of-cards guy in US custody, which makes the deal a little iffy, n'est-ce pas?)

And b) what effect, if any, this triumph has on the Iraqis (after they've used up enough ammunition joyfully shooting into the air)... and our depressed military.

Bumble -- It's really tempting to go after Cheney, only I think he's a potential fall guy. I'd love to see him fall, but don't want to pay the price by watching Bush emerge "vindicated." I hope we -- and the media -- will keep an eye focused on the Oval Office.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2003 08:22 pm
According to an NPR report today,

Iraqi Governing Council Addresses U.N.
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=22-Jul-2003&segNum=5&mediaPref=RM

the Bush Admin. is trying to push UN resolution 1483 onto the member countries of the UN Security Council, the very council and resolution the Bush Admin. and the willing coalition forwent in their vigilante invasion and occupation of Iraq. The rest of the council wants a new resolution. The Bush Administration is opposed to a new one because that would imply its invasion and occupation is illegitimate.

JOHN NEGROPONTE (U.S. ambassador to the UN): "Resolution 1483 appeals to member states and concerned organizations to contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq. And we strongly encourage member states to contribute stability forces under this resolution."

Could the Bush Administration be any more hypocritical and self-serving?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2003 09:24 pm
Trying to give this administration the benefit of the doubt on any issue is all gone; they always seem to shoot themselves in the foot. I've given up on trying to understand why these clowns continue to enjoy a positive rating by Americans. c.i.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 02:37 am
But at least there were no blowjobs involved...

Quote:
This month, the General Accounting Office (GAO) - the investigative and auditing arm of Congress - issued a report that contains some startling revelations. Though they are couched in very polite language, they are bombshells nonetheless.

The report - entitled "Energy Task Force: Process Used to Develop the National Energy Policy" - and its accompanying Chronology strongly imply that the Administration has, in effect, been paying off its heavy-hitting energy industry contributors. It also very strongly implies that Vice President Dick Cheney lied to Congress.


FindLaw
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Cheney lies to Congress, media snoozes
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 07:05:57