Friday, June 27, 2008

It Was Oil, All Along

By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
June 27, 2008

Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction.

But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom turns out to be....the bottom line. It is about oil.

Read on.


Anonymous said...

Now that we finally agree it was for oil, let's take it one-step-forward:

The United States of America has invaded and destroyed a tiny country, killing over 1,000,000 humans, to outright steal their oil resources so the United States can continue its selfish life-style built on petroleum. Stealing and killing for assets is now, apparently, acceptable.

This immoral, unethical, illegal invasion has been financed on a U.S. credit-card. Future generations will pay very, very, dearly. Reckless credit-card usage must not apply to the great U.S.

The conflict in IRAQ will not wind-down and evaporate; just look at the situation in Mideast/Israel. IRAQ’s population is 25 mil., Palestine is only .5 mil. and how long have they been fighting?

Remember when the evil Soviet Union was going to invade the United States and impose its will on U.S.? We have wound-up being the evil nation after the Soviet Union went to sleep without a shot fired.

Remember when Jimmy Carter put the U.S. on a path to alternative energy in 1977 and symbolically placed solar panels on the White House? Then, when Regan moved in he took the solar panels down and threw them in the rubbish? Fat profit right now for a few must be better than planning for PEAK OIL and GLOBAL WARMING for all, huh?

And, next comes IRAN.

Shame, shame, shame on the United States of America.

colbert2422 said...

I claim that feeding the warbucks machine trumps every other motive for the Iraq fiasco. Why wouldn't those who had objectives in Iraq just bribe Saddam for anything they wanted? Surely he would have done anything in his power for a personal gift of a weeks' worth of our war spending in Iraq? The only thing he could not have been bribed to do is get congress to pass huge military spending budgets. Thus, fattening the warbucks powers has to be a serious factor, much more so than anything that Saddam could have been bribed to do. The CIA and our other black ops have unlimited money, no effective oversight, are under no effective control, and like the military itself, control congress to the extent they want to. That power could have been the source of the needed bribe money. On their control of congress, witness former Air Force General Richard Secord famously saying if a deomcrat doesn't have a problem I can use to control him, I'll give him one. Witness the members of Congress who have "investments" in war enterprises. Feinstein's husband Blum is an outstanding example.

1bassman9 said...

If you recall Paul O'Neill said in the first week of the Bush administration the cabinet had it's sights on Iraq. The secret meetings that Cheney held with the oil companies, where they probably even spoke well in advance how the Iraq oil would be distributed still remain secret. The continued contempt of this White House to thumb it's nose at the supposedly
Democratically controlled Congress and their inability to show any muscle would lead me to believe the
Feinstein's and her ilk, because of their war profiteering, have as much blood on their hands as the terrorists for continually funding this war.
One other point. Washington D.C. has a penchant for using anagrams(CIA,FBI,DOJ,etc.). When we first invaded Iraq it was called
"Operation Iraqi Liberation" OIL!
When the PTB realized that sent the wrong message they changed the name.