Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney BOMBSHELL redux (explained)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:27 AM
Original message
Cheney BOMBSHELL redux (explained)
Look at this map carefully:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

The BOMBSHELL, IMO, is that in the key, it says "Earmarked for production sharing"

This language is NOT in the UAE or Saudi maps.

Earmarked by whom??? Why is the US DOMESTIC Energy taskforce earmarking Iraqi oil pipelines in March of 2001? What does this mean?

Then read this Reuters article from April 5, 2003:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030405/80/dx3dy.html

Post-war role agreed for oil majors

LONDON (Reuters) - Iraqi exiles and senior U.S. officials have agreed that international oil companies should take a leading post-war role in reviving Iraq's oil industry, delegates to a policy meeting say.
(cut)

Foreign investment deals, most likely production-sharing contracts, with a fully-fledged Iraqi government could come in between six months and two years time, he said.

(cut)


Production-sharing is the type of deal favoured by the oil industry because it guarantees companies a healthy profit margin, even at low world oil prices. Alternative royalty schemes are weighted towards government revenues and can penalise investors at low prices.


_____

This IS a Bombshell, in my opinion. Who attended these meetings?

OIL INDUSTRY heavyweights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:49 AM
Original message
Your link did not work, but this one does
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:49 AM
Original message
Your link did not work, but this one does
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. Your link did not work, but this one does
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Sorry about that...
thanks for correcting the link!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisafromstlouie Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. Please explain . . . why should I care if industry heavyweights attended?
Seriously, why is that bad? Is it unprecedented or something? Is the government not supposed to talk to industry heavyweights or something? I don't know. Help me understand what I'm supposed to be mad about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. It's The Secrecy
Talking to industry heavyweights is not bad. It's probably sensible.

However, keeping those discussions secret from the American people is wrong. The suspicion, in my mind, is in wondering WHY these things needed to be kept secret.

What could possibly be so private about the plans for energy supplies for the United States (populated by American People, remember those, Dickie boy?) that nobody else gets to know about them?

The issue here is not the meetings themselves. The issue is here is what they talked about, what plans they were making, how ethical those plans were, who would benefit, and who was actually formulating U.S. gov't policy.

Any such secrets are anathema to good government.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisafromstlouie Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:17 AM
Original message
So the "bombshell" is that the meetings weren't open to the public?
Sorry, I'm still not mad. If you can't get me mad, how will you get the rest of America mad? I'm serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. Sorry
I don't EXPECT America to get mad.

They're too busy awaiting the nuptuals of Ben and J. Lo care about America, the Constitution and other "stupid stuff."

You can lead a horse to water....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Original message
No, the bombshell is the idustry heavyweights were divvying up Iraqi oil
fields in MARCH OF 2001!!!

Please, try to keep up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:32 AM
Original message
And March of 2001 was
over 5 months before that evil ol Saddam tricked Osama bin Forgotton into having his henchmen attack the WTC! {wink wink}

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisafromstlouie Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:32 AM
Original message
Sorry.
I'm not as smart as you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
15. Show Me Where I Said That Was The Bombshell?
I said the secrecy was the problem. You asked why industry folks shouldn't be involved. I said that was ok. It was the secrecy.

The bombshell is contained within the papers that explain WHY these people felt a need to keep these secret.

I don't particularly have the inclination to make you mad about this. If you don't have a direct visceral reaction to the idea that people who weren't elected are directly writing gov't policy, and if it doesn't make you angry that this entire administration is cloaked in opacity, there is nothing i can write or do to generate the outrage.

If you're ok with criminals, liars and sneaks running the government in ways that are lowering our international standing, then fine.

Me; i'm outraged by it.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:32 AM
Original message
Why get mad? This is the Causus Belli
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 10:38 AM by SpiralHawk
Forgive my Latin - it has been 40 years or so since I cracked a text.

But in plain English, these maps and notations reveal the true cause for war in Iraq: for oil and power. WMDs and all the rest are calculated and blatant lies.

That is not the American way of truth and justice. It is gross, greedy, murderous -- and in the long-run leading the US and the world to ruin. We must switch from an oil-based economy to a one fueled by sustainable means.

The Bush cabal is ensuring that our national destiny is tied to stolen oil, paid for by the blood of our soldiers. You can bet your untroubled little bippy that the terrorists of the world see our invasion of Iraq for oil as yet one more glaring Causus Belli to strike at the US.

"Bring 'em on" ? I don't think so Mr. Bush. Please stop inviting terrorists to shoot at our men and women in uniform. Instead, "Bring 'em home."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:25 AM
Original message
No, the bombshell is...
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 11:41 AM by Devils Advocate NZ
that in MARCH of 2001, half a year BEFORE Sept 11, Dick Cheney and oil industry heavyweights were PLANNING on how to devide up the spoils of an Iraq invasion.

This is a bombshell in more ways than one:

First it is clear that the war on Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with WMD, Democracy or any of the other bullshit that the WH span in an attempt to justify their war. This means that the entire Bush administration, AND those oil industry heavyweights, along with the media barons who assisted them by producing the propaganda required to enlist the support of the US public, are GUILTY of a crime against peace.

At the Nuremburg Tribunal after WWII, leading German policy makers were found guilty of this crime and sentenced to death, along with a media Baron who assisted these crimes by spreading propaganda to the German people.

Forget impeachment... Try EXECUTION! We all know Bush is a firm believer in the death penalty...

Second, and possibly even more damaging in American's eyes would be the allegation that the desire to invade Iraq was so strong even before the 2000 election amongst these Bush Cabal/PNAC madmen, that they might have not only carried out a bloodless coup in the form of the stolen election but might, as one of their PNAC briefing papers of that period stated, have desired "another Pearl Harbour" to aid their propaganda efforts.

This info may not only be the only true link between Sept 11 and the attack on Iraq, it may be the best evidence of the facist takeover of America.

But hey, what's there to get mad about?

Editted to add:

Remember, that in March of 2001 there was NO justifiable reason to invade Iraq, and yet here is Dick Cheney and oil industry execs planning on how to divide up the spoils. Why would they be doing such a thing, unless they knew that at some point in the future a reason to invade Iraq would arise? What reason could have justified a "pre-emptive" invasion? Only Sept 11 was a good enough reason, and even THAT was not totally successful!

So how did Cheney et al know such a good reason would soon be available? Well, since Sept 11 we have learned a lot about the numerous warnings that they received in regards to a "spectacular" terrorist attack on US soil, and we know one other pertinent fact:

Both the fact that Cheney discussed what to do with Iraqi oil, and the fact that there were numerous CLEAR threats of a massive attack on US soil were the subject of major cover-up attempts by the Bush administration. You do the math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
24. That's how I have been seeing most of it too.
Some people don't realize or don't want to realize that all people are not the same. Sometimes even ones own mama would steal from them given the correct issues and personalities. But yet in plain sight there are examples of such things everyday.

I would say a investigation of the whole cabal is in order, and in the scope of effort that was spent to get to the moon. It won't be initiated by the government, it has to be intitated by the people. We have to get together and bypass the powers that be to get to the bottom of this and also make sure to put things in place make sure that it doesn't happen again.

In my opinion this it the time when a real American Justice system needs to stand up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
29. Bombshell #2: Cheney sent people to Iraq then to check out the Niger
issue. They came back empty handed in March '01 and that is when the push began to convince everybody that they had nuclear capabilities anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. AND, they didn't bother talking to environmentalists or others
that weren't allied with the extractive energy industries.

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:17 AM
Original message
Big donors
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_energy/energy_che...

Most of the big whigs were big contributors. Environmental groups and non-contributors were shut out of the process.

Oil. $$$$. Iraq. Secrecy. Lies. War. Profits. 2004. Election. Contributions. Production-Sharing deals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:17 AM
Original message
well
The purpose of these meetings, ostensibly, was to form a national energy policy, but public interest groupos were excluded while "industry heavywieghts" such as Ken Lay were given full access. It begs the question, did Cheney collude with Kay and others to form a policy that was specifically targeted at benefiting only certain companies and industries, to the deliberate exclusion of others? And now, of course, with this Iraqi map info, it looks like Cheney was of course planning the Iraq invasion back in March of 2001 as part of our friggin energy policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:17 AM
Original message
well
The purpose of these meetings, ostensibly, was to form a national energy policy, but public interest groupos were excluded while "industry heavywieghts" such as Ken Lay were given full access. It begs the question, did Cheney collude with Kay and others to form a policy that was specifically targeted at benefiting only certain companies and industries, to the deliberate exclusion of others? And now, of course, with this Iraqi map info, it looks like Cheney was of course planning the Iraq invasion back in March of 2001 as part of our friggin energy policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:39 AM
Original message
Off topic: Dirk, it's fun to watch your scrolls race
across the bottom of each post. How come the top one always wins?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Learn here...
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_energy/energy_che...

Most of the big whigs were big contributors. Environmental groups and non-contributors were shut out of the process.

Oil. $$$$. Iraq. Secrecy. Lies. War. Profits. 2004. Election. Contributions. Production-Sharing deals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. For one thing...it shows part of a plan to attack Iraq...
...no matter what the evidence showed. They were dividing up the booty they knew would be available after an invasion of Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Original message
Dup. n/t
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 10:32 AM by jackstraw45
n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Original message
It bothers me that corporations and the administration
Were plotting to invade a sovereign nation to steal its oil resources and were even dividing up the assets before Bush* started his bellicose accusations that Saddam was an imminent threat.

They set up the invasion for oil, and used a pretext of Saddam's threat to do it. Of course, there are no WMD or nuclear program.

That bothers me quite a lot. In fact, I think it's a war crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Dup...n/t
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 10:28 AM by jackstraw45
n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
9. Those may refer to French and Russian production sharing nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Would be nice to know...
Either way, there are a lot of oil companies lining up for oil deals next year...just in time for the 2004 election.

Contributors only, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Removed by poster
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 11:09 AM by charlie
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. May well be...
Majnoon and Nahr Umar, two the earmarked fields, were contracted to the French for development. However, according to the DOE, in the late 1990's they refused to sign a 23-year PSA for Majnoon. So whether the map reflects current deals or proposed deals is still an open question, though the former looks likely. I hope the Frech and Russians chime in on this soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:30 AM
Original message
More about Production Sharing
It sounded innocuous to me, like a consortium of companies sharing the cost of extraction. It's actually a noxious sort of exploitation, refused by all but the most poor and desperate countries:

Often adopted as law by the host countrys Parliament, these deals override domestic environmental, tax and safety laws for yearssometimes for more than half a century. If conflicts arise between the companies and the government, theyre decided by private arbitrators in London or Paris, circumventing the local courts. Best of all for the company, the contract gives them an ownership stake that can be booked as an asset on their balance sheet, which tends to push up their stock price.

http://foi.missouri.edu/usenergypolicies/whatoilwants.h...


The thought of the world's second largest oil reserves being available under PS contracts must've had the oilmen spooging their pants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
10. To Serve Iraq
It's not a map! It's a cookbook!


Read as a whole, the documents seem to indicate a goal of maximizing profits for oil investors, not dealing with long term energy issues. Keep in mind that these documents were prepared expressedly for the meetings -- they weren't just grabbed off the web. There's not a lot of 'unrelated' information on them, they were custom made for a purpose.

Look at the documents and ask yourself for each piece of information: WHY was this information included in the presentation?

For example, WHY did they feel the need to point out to the US Energy Task force participants charged with charting our 'energy future' that there would be good investment opportunities in downstream projects in the UAE, such as power, desalination and pipelines? How do these 'investment opportunities' have a bearing on America's energy future?

NO, this is not a smoking gun. It's more like a smoking holster. There are 150,000 smoking guns in Iraq.

As someone pointed out earlier, if someone's house gets robbed, and the police come to your house, and find not only floor plans, but a list of the person's belongings, you're going to come under suspicion -- especially if you've been trying to hide these documents for over a year and a half.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisafromstlouie Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'm afraid this is too deep for most of us to understand.
Seems like some of you are implying that something evil happened at this meeting or meetings. You may be right. It would be awesome if there was some proof that something bad happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
West Coast Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Maybe a Chimp Could Explain It To You
in plain old folk speak.

How hard is it to understand?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:25 AM
Original message
That is what we are implying
Consider, if it was 1989, and Saddam had a map showing how to divvy up Missouri, with names of his buddies and supporters assigned to places like Monsanto, Busch brewery, Forest Park, and the Gateway Arch, we would have gone straight to the UN, right after nuking Iraq.

What we have here looks a lot like a plan ala P.N.A.C. (google it) for splitting up the resources of a soverign nation, well before the attack on the WTC and pentagon gave them any sort of reason at all to attack Iraq (which was, if you have been following the Niger story what they were desperately searching for) This map goes a long way toward explaining exactly why this all happened in the name of 'national security'.

And this, rather than a sensible policy, is what Bush and Cheney had in mind. Remember the price gougeing for gas that preceeded it.
It was a cheap, transparent setup job, coordinted with an attack on California's energy system and economy. All it relies on is for this map never to be seen by the public, and a shit load of distraction.

As such, it is not just a smoking gun, it is Cheney's prints all over the knife used to stab Iraq, still quivvering in the corpse, with Dick sneering over the body.



Does that make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. That is what we are implying
Consider, if it was 1989, and Saddam had a map showing how to divvy up Missouri, with names of his buddies and supporters assigned to places like Monsanto, Busch brewery, Forest Park, and the Gateway Arch, we would have gone straight to the UN, right after nuking Iraq.

What we have here looks a lot like a plan ala P.N.A.C. (google it) for splitting up the resources of a soverign nation, well before the attack on the WTC and pentagon gave them any sort of reason at all to attack Iraq (which was, if you have been following the Niger story what they were desperately searching for) This map goes a long way toward explaining exactly why this all happened in the name of 'national security'.

And this, rather than a sensible policy, is what Bush and Cheney had in mind. Remember the price gougeing for gas that preceeded it.
It was a cheap, transparent setup job, coordinted with an attack on California's energy system and economy. All it relies on is for this map never to be seen by the public, and a shit load of distraction.

As such, it is not just a smoking gun, it is Cheney's prints all over the knife used to stab Iraq, still quivvering in the corpse, with Dick sneering over the body.



Does that make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. How about this?
Bushco decided early on to divide up Iraq's oil. The problem is that we couldn't just invade and take it. There had to be some catastrophic event that would cause ordinary citizens to support such an invasion, such as 9/11. This meeting is part of a broader plan to do such a thing (see PNAC's plan for world domination). It's more like a piece of the puzzle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
lisafromstlouie Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:37 PM
Original message
You caught me!
It is a bombshell. It is a bombshell of such proportions that it will undoubtedly be on the front page of every newspaper in the free world. There will be riots in the streets of every capital city across the globe. Everyone will completely understand what happened. Bush will be impeached and everybody who attended this meeting will be imprisoned for life. Now are you happy?

Why do you attack me for not understanding your conspiracy theory? Somehow, I think I'm in the mainstream. And that makes me stupid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MISSDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
25. Lisa if you are in the mainstream
you just might be stupid. Like Jackstraw45 said, many people are concerned about the important things like who jennifer lopez is dating/marrying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
West Coast Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. It Would Be Hard to Convince Any Hard-Core Bush-Supporters
It would be hard to convince any hard-core Bush-Supporters, simply because they choose to believe that the Administration can do no wrong, no matter what evidence is staring them straight in the face.

The Democrat and Independent voters, on the other hand, need only to be presented with the facts. Media coverage, but also Grass-roots discussion, are the keys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. Don't question Big Brother
"Too deep..."?????? Speak for yourself. If you want to play the hand-wringing simpleton, have at it. Do not include "most of us" or, for that matter, any of us. We're here to share info and learn, not throw our hands up in resignation and bemoan an inability to learn. You sure you've got the right place?

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. It must be frustrating
and difficult for those that come in mid-stream to understand the import of the f'ing finally released docs.

No, these few docs do not complete the entire puzzle, but they are important pieces.

Were those that have come in mid-stream aware, at the time the suit was 1st filed? How about the GAO suit?

Do those same people know about the complicity of Enron and Kenny boy Lay in the Energy Task Force meetings?

The history behind the docs displays the opaqueness and non-cooperativeness of this administration since January 2001.

If those same people truly want to catch up and understand, then I suggest they research this issue. Or, IMHO, should keep quiet and let those of us that do understand, move forward and discuss this extremely important issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Only the tip of the iceberg
There are many more important documents that aren't released and probably won't be anytime soon.

This secretive administration has a lot to hide and unless we stand up and demand answers, our country will pay greater and greater costs down the road for our inaction today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. True, just the tip
of a humongous iceberg. I am of the opinion, that if the ETF papers had been released when 1st requested, Kenny Boy would not be a free man today and there would have been a real SEC investigation.

Furthermore, thousands of innocent human beings would still be alive in Iraq and here at home.

We also, as is our right, deserve the release of Reagan's and Poppy's Presidential papers.

Democracy, or a proximity of one, cannot thrive under the cloak of secrecy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CheshireCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:13 PM
Original message
The link Walt Starr provided
now says the story has been removed!

What's happening folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CheshireCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
20. LINK
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 12:28 PM by CheshireCat
What the page actually says is

Document not found.

The page may no longer exist, or you may have typed the URL incorrectly.

This is what I get when I try any of the URLS. Have they removed the document?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:37 PM
Original message
The original link is working again
When I couldn't get the article on the original link, I did a search and found it.

Creeps....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:37 PM
Original message
The original link is working again
When I couldn't get the article on the original link, I did a search and found it.

Creeps....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. The original link is working again
When I couldn't get the article on the original link, I did a search and found it.

Creeps....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CheshireCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Found the story at another site!
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 12:51 PM by CheshireCat
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/cgi-bin/news/newswire.cgi/news...

Same story - I think. Yahoo has removed it from their site. Wonder why?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
26. saw this late last night
(Mods, sorry for the double post in 2 similar threads; this seems to be evolving into the main discussion and the one I intended.)


and didn't want to wade in.

But...

Add me to the list of those not quite getting it (yet, at least).

I work in wetlands restoration in S. Louisiana in which projects are built in/around oil production blocks. I'm no expert, but I've seen these sorts of maps before. Proposed/under contract/under discussion/producing/abandoned are all important bits of knowledge for ARMY Corps and affiliated agencies as individual projects are contemplated across south of state. The agencies using these maps are not concerned w/ production amounts, but contacts for easments, rights of way, etc.

The key question, correctly, is:

"Earmarked by whom??? Why is the US DOMESTIC Energy taskforce earmarking Iraqi oil pipelines in March of 2001? What does this mean?"

First, IMHO, these docs and maps tell us precious little so far. There must be literally thousands of pages of docs and maps in the ETF release and these mean very little w/out larger context.

Second, the first question above still pertains. The inference seems to be that it was Cheney/Buschco--"the US DOMESTIC" ETF--that was doing the earmarking in the second question above. My key sticking point is how draws #2 from #1.

Can someone explain?

Has anyone found contemporary maps from the international oil journals, etc that deviate from these? That would be a good starting point, I would think.

Has anyone established that the earmarking was not done by Iraq and the companies listed as part of a legitimate on-going process?

Has anyone established that forecasting future oil production coming out of one of the largest producing countries in the world was not under the purview of the ETF in projecting America's future demand? Aside from this, can anyone make the argument that the ETF shouldn't be forecasting inernational production?

As I said above, I'm not convinced...yet. We got probably less than 1% of the docs. We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised that something nefarious will be revealed given the stonewalling. If that surprise should come, I won't be wrong, I will have simply been guilty of waiting for more evidence. But folks who see a bombshell here should not be surprised if they turn out to be wrong w/r/t what these docs mean in the much larger scheme.


But in the meantime, prudency and mere politeness would be preferable to calling people who look at this extremely limited doc set w/out drawing similar conclusions "stupid" or, as last night, tacit freeps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. See also gbwarming's post from other thread--
gbwarmings post and link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

***************************************
They are an _Iraqi_ designation called Western Desert Lease blocks.

The PSC talks go back to '95 when the UN oil for food program allowed some development and Iraq outlined its plans to offer certain areas for exploration and development.

I expect there are plenty of smoking guns in the unreleased energy papers. These just aren't them.
-----------------------------


http://www.converger.com/eiacab/contents.htm

As of June 1997, there reportedly were almost 60 foreign oil companies from a wide variety of countries that were in discussions with the Iraqi government (see table at the end of this report). U.S. firms which have held talks on Iraqi field development include: Amoco, Arco, Chevron, Coastal, Conoco, Exxon, Mobil, Occidental, and Texaco. Iraq plans to offer new fields to foreign oil companies through production sharing contracts (PSC), joint ventures, and service contracts. Initially, Iraq plans to offer up to 25 new fields to foreign companies. Ten of these fields, with a production potential of 2.7 MMBD, are slated for development under PSCs with foreign companies. Four of these fields are located in southern Iraq and, with a combined production potential of 2.1 MMBD, represent the cornerstone of Iraq's post-sanction development plans. These four "giant" southern fields are Majnoon, West Qurna, Nahr Umar, and Halfaya.
***************************************

More in link gbwarming provides


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC