Monday 21st of September 2020

catspaw .....

catspaw .....

Flaw in Coalition defences exposed

Gerard Henderson (The Sydney Morning Herald - Opinions 10/07/07)

July 10, 2007

It's not often that an Australian defence minister makes it on to the international news bulletins. But Brendan Nelson managed to do so last week - and all for the wrong reasons - by appearing to link Australia's Iraq commitment to oil.

On the AM program on ABC radio last Thursday, Nelson was asked: "Is the fact that Iraq is a major supplier of oil a factor in why Australia has to stay there?"

He replied: "Well, the Defence Update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them. And obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy - oil in particular - to the rest of the world."

Nelson went on to state that: "all of us need to think, well, what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq".

It was a clumsy comment which played into the hands of those critics at home and overseas who have maintained that the coalition of the willing - the US, Britain and Australia - invaded Iraq in 2003 in order to secure that nation's oil. In fact, the Australia's National Security: A Defence Update 2007 document - which was released soon after Nelson's AM - interview contains no reference to oil as an energy resource.


Gus: Gerard, of course oil would not be "referenced" in the Defence papers... that would be too silly to let the world know about your real intentions... But why would the US put so much emphasis on forcing the Iraqi government to make a deal so that the oil "revenues" are shared between all the factions but the oil exploitation would be privatized and in the hands of US multinationals with the lion share of the moneys...? This meaning that the Iraqi would only see a pittance out of "royalties" while the US would pocket much of the loot? Are we going to be fooled "because if something obvious is not written in the "official" book it does not exist"? Nelson let the cat out of the bag... Purposely or inadvertently who knows, but my bet is that it's part of a tactic to move one pace into the inevitable crap to move two paces back and let a bit of confusion reign as if "having gone in Iraq for the oil is not such a bad idea" after all.

grand theft .....

Yes Gus, the coalition boys are ever ready to proclaim the need for noble crusades, in particular if the endgame is grand theft, even if it means conspiring to mount illegal wars of aggression, whilst killing & maiming hundreds of thousands …

‘According to Article 111 of the Iraqi Constitution, which states that the oil and gas of Iraq are owned by the Iraqi people and they have the right to control it. But when you look into the details of the law, many of the articles of the law actually conflict with this preamble of the law, the most important point of which is the issue of the production-sharing agreements, which allows the international oil companies, especially the American ones, to exploit the oil fields without our knowledge of what they are actually doing with it. And they take about 50% of the production as their share, which we think it's an obvious robbery of the Iraqi oil.

We also object to the procedure by which these companies are given the contracts for exploiting the oil, because it allows the granting of the contracts with the aid of foreign advisers. We demanded that it's actually the Iraqi experts that need to be consulted with regards to the granting of the contracts.

In brief, there is hardly an article in the law that actually benefits the Iraqi people. But they all serve American interests in Iraq. And we know well that the law was actually written here in the United States, with the help of James Baker and Ms. Rice and the experts from the IMF. And it serves the interests of the American government and not the Iraqi people.’

Iraqi Oil Workers' Union Founder: US-Backed Oil Law Is "Robbery"


I thought I saw an item on the SBS news last night. An ex-CIA middle-doodah made a speech in Orstralya, tooting that the Iraq war had been about oil from the start... This item, true or controversially false, should have made quite a few ripples in the news industry... but zip. The item did not make the repeat of the SBS news at 9:30... And not a crumb of mention in the papers or any websites anywhere... I must have been dreaming... Unless he was a fake CIA impersonator (if you see what I mean by the double negative).

Unless pressures were placed to kill the story on all fronts.

Anyone else out there in cyberspace dreamed the same thing?

So instead of bringing you the "oil" from this dream, let's ponder some more about what another CIA officer, Paul Pillar, had to say about the Intelligence on Iraq...
From the ABC
Last Update: Saturday, February 11, 2006.
9:00am (AEDT)
White House 'cherry
picked' Iraq intelligence:
ex-CIA agent
A former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official who coordinated
US intelligence on the Middle East during the Iraq invasion accused
the White House of misusing prewar intelligence to justify its case for
Paul Pillar, who was national intelligence officer for the near east
and south Asia from 2000 to 2005, also said the Senate intelligence
committee and a presidential commission overlooked evidence that
the Bush administration politicised the intelligence process to
support White House policymakers.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed but
even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Mr Pillar said in
an article written for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs and
posted on the magazine's website on Friday.
"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a
policy implication, it was to avoid war - or, if war was going to be
launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath," he said.
Mr Pillar was not immediately available for comment.
A CIA spokesman said Mr Pillar was expressing his own personal
point of view and not the official views of the spy agency.
The CIA and other agencies that make up the US intelligence
community have been widely criticised for prewar Iraq intelligence,
including the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction, which was a main justification for the war.
No such weapons have been found.
'Cherry-picking' advice
Mr Pillar, a widely respected intelligence analyst who spent 28 years
at the CIA, said it has become clear since the 2003 invasion that the
White House did not use official intelligence analysis in making even
the most significant national security decisions.
Policymakers instead employed a "cherry-picking" approach that
selected pieces of raw intelligence that seemed most favourable to its
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) claims and the charge of a
relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The White House ignored intelligence reports that said Iraq was not
fertile ground for democracy and warned of a long, difficult turbulent
post-invasion period that would require a Marshall Plan-type effort
to restore the country's economy despite its abundant oil reserves.
Reports also predicted an occupying force would be a target of
resentment and attacks including guerrilla warfare.
Mr Pillar said the Bush administration politicised Iraq intelligence
by repeatedly calling for more material that would contribute to its
case for war, a tactic that he said skewed intelligence resources
toward topics favouring the White House.



Gus: in fact, many other sources place Condoleeza Rice plonk in the middle of many fiddles... Like leaving references to Saddam trying to acquire nuclear material from Nigeria in the Bushit speeches when she knew way before it had been 100 per cent disproved.

  "A former high-level intelligence official tells The New Yorker, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there. It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.”


February 5, 2003:  In his now infamous presentation to the United Nations, a factor in silencing many potential dissenters in Congress, Powell pointedly omits any reference to the Nigerien uranium.   The story “had not stood the test of time,” he says later. That February, too, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as part of his own propaganda for war, issues a Ten Downing Street paper called “Iraq:  Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation,” which includes a reference to the Nigerien uranium. Thought to be drawn from authoritative MI6 intelligence, the paper is soon widely ridiculed, eleven of its sixteen pages found to be copied verbatim from an old Israeli magazine.

So Here we are, left with the frayed strings of history, trying to jiggle the puzzle that our masters have manufactured — puzzles with pieces that deliberately do not fit in a picture that has been hidden beneath a coat of black paint... may be if we scratch enough, long enough... our nails will bleed and we might go mad. Exactly what they hope for... but should we give up? Never. 

no dream .....

Yes Gus, it was Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit until 2004.

Amongst other things, Scheuer said: “the US and its allies continually became involved in Middle East wars because of their reliance on Arab oil supplies and had little other interest in the region.”

The Melbourne Age reported it at West Will Fail, Says Ex-CIA Operative

Simple solution

Thanks John,

as mentioned in my blog "the sooner the better", I blow a weird bubble of pragmatism than can only redeem the present kerfuffle with the minimum loss of life... Only little Bushit can wipe the mess he did when he missed the toilet bowl... But he might not clean up and as usual it's likely he'll blame someone else.

For me the only solution to solving Iraq is that Bush would resign. point blank. full stop. He is imbecilicly clever enough to do it in style, but Cheney would have no bar of that, would he? Cheney's having too much fun waddling in the blood of dead people (including Americans), having secret cons-piracy... and deluding himself about the importance of his own life. Both should go... A caretaker Government should be given to the Congress as a whole till new elections brought forward. But that would be too good and too honest for these gangsters — Bush and Cheney — to bear.