did Harry Reid lie to us today?

[welshTerrier2]

I watched a press conference that Reid and Pelosi gave today at the National Press Association ... as an aside, Pelosi was asked a very difficult question by a man who had suffered significant personal losses during and after Hurricane Katrina ... i was both moved and impressed with how articulate and compassionate she was in her response ...

Reid, on the other hand, had a most unfortunate incident ... if you saw the press conference, i'd be very interested to know whether you think i've read more into his response than is warranted ... here are the details:

a man in the audience asked Reid a question about an article that appeared in the press (it may have been this article) ... the question challenged Reid to state his position on the new "Oil Law" that is being put into effect very soon in Iraq ... the new "Oil Law" will give private oil companies control over as much as 85% of Iraq's oil wealth for the next thirty years ...

Reid started his response with a little chuckle asking whether that paper was a morning paper or an afternoon paper ... numerous other prominent papers including der Spiegel and The Guardian have carried articles on this exact issue ... it curiously has received no coverage in the US media ... at least none i've seen or heard ... the thing is, i got the feeling Reid "felt awkward" with the question and was essentially stalling until he could think of a way to respond ... please keep in mind whether Reid was intentionally lying ... that's what i'm trying to assess here ...

OK ... so he made a lame little reference to the foreign paper ... no big deal ... still, the question remained ... it was big and it was ugly ... and please keep in mind that in testimony last week (January 11) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during an exchange between Senator Sununu and Secretary Rice, it was disclosed that a "closed session of the US Senate" had been held the day before (i.e. January 10) to discuss Iraq's new "Oil Law" ... one has to assume that Reid would have been in attendance at a "closed session of the US Senate" ...

and then Reid got into the details of his response ... he said he was not "familiar with the article" ... he said that it's more than clear that the US is an energy hog and that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil ... i believe he said something to the effect that, regardless of what happens in Iraq, we have to break our addiction to oil ...

yes, that's true, Harry ... it's also NOT F*%King RESPONSIVE ... the question was not whether we are too dependent on imports ... we are ... the question was not about global warming ... of course it's a major problem ... the question was not about alternative fuels ... these were all perfectly good ideas Reid discussed ...

but the truth is, i think he got caught being a F%^KING imperialist ... could i be wrong? of course i could be ... but that's the way i saw his response ... it seems to me he knew damned well what he was being asked and he refused to address the issue ... in fact, with exception of Jim McDermott, who raised this issue, i think the entire Congress is ducking this critical issue ... we have no right to steal Iraqi oil ... those who said this war was about "BLOOD FOR OIL" have been proven right! i don't want my party to support this imperialistic bullshit ... shame on you, Harry Reid ... if i'm wrong, i apologize ... i don't think i'm wrong ... do you?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. I don't think there is a day that goes by

without such an event.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. Reid knows this is happening

but he isn't going to say anything. The people who orded this control him too. Whether he likes it or not. There is a city in MI where one family owns most of the businesses. They basically tell the city council what to do. If one of them steps out of line the family is quick to push him back in line or replace him. I view this as a mini-scale of the country as a whole. There are a few wealthy citizens, families, and corporations who run the show...if Reid steps out of line they will put him back in line or get rid of him.

[aquart]

4. How very hopeless for you.

Why don't we all give up and die now.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

10. if you're suggesting that i'm lying

i have a suggestion for you as well ...

you have some damned nerve stating that my reasoned analysis was "hysteria" ... i even left open the possibility that i was misreading his response ... open your eyes and quit being so damned insulting ...

so, what do you think of the new "Oil Law"? care to comment on something beyond my "persistent distortion"? or do you just want to complain about me?

[babylonsister]

5. "Know when to hold them, know when to fold them."

I think there are things going on we know nothing about. Or I can hope. Reid is not a proponent of this war and must be well aware of what's going on. I'm letting it play out, because the complicity of this admin and the oil industries won't be ignored. I'm giving Reid the benefit for now.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

9. Reid, as we all can imagine, dances on a fine line. n/t

MKJ

[babylonsister]

13. What does that mean? I think he's a good poker player, but don't

think he's doing anything nefarious.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. He has to retain credibility in the corporate media while herding cats in the Senate.

He's got his work cut out for him.

I appreciate his strategic approach. I hope it's predicated on doing the right thing for American citizens. MKJ

[babylonsister]

19. Thanks, BHL. You are right; he has a thankless job to do but I

don't think he'll default on Americans. He might be dry, but I think/hope his heart is pure. Whatever that means. ;) He's working for us and I do believe he takes that seriously.

[cally]

6. He can't share information from a closed session

or information that is classified. I would guess all the info. he learned about at the closed session is classified.

[welshTerrier2]

11. but the "Oil Law" has been in the press

i can't accept the "it's secret" as a legitimate basis for not taking a position on the new "Oil Law" ... if they held a "closed session", of course there are elements that they don't think should be made public ... that's fine ...

but that does not mean the Democrats should blindly go along with this theft of Iraqi oil ... the details of the law have been made public ... do Democrats think it's just fine and dandy that we allow private commercial enterprises to walk off with the "spoils of war"? we are about to allow BIG OIL, not the US Government but private oil companies, to put the final nails in Iraq's coffin ... it's either OK or it isn't ... i say it isn't ...

[rodeodance]

45. yes, the privatization of Iraqi Oil has been in the works since Bremner

landed in Iraq.

[Pithy Cherub]

7. Reid has a more pressing issue.

Especially, if a closed session was classified and any reference to a briefing had severe legal consequences. Reid has a delicate line to traverse and a thin majority with however many senatorial wannabe presidents and he may have been trying to anser the question as truthfully as he could based on public knowledge rather than what he knows in private. It is what politicians do as the risk reward system does not guarantee great outcomes for unalloyed Truths. It is much like work when the senior leadership was just in executive session discussing cost cutting of jobs and then has a staff meeting and says not to worry. Reid may have had a further impediment of being legally bound to say nothing. Those types of questions should be asked always though because it keeps the issue at the forefront where it belongs.

The role of the Public may well be the most Honorable role in civic life. All pols obfuscate on different items.

[JDPriestly]

8. "closed session of the US Senate" had been held the day before . . .

to discuss Iraq's new oil law

Maybe in the closed session they were told that they were hearing classified information, and Reid was trying to avoid being tricked into saying something that Republicans would call treasonous later on.

[lligrd]

12. We Don't Stand A Chance Of Getting Iraqi Oil

The entire venture was a farce and the thieves incompetent.

[babylonsister]

14. We're not talking about 'we'. We're talking about Exxon, Mobil, etc., and

they stand a damn fine chance.

[welshTerrier2]

15. Exxon ...

the sign of the double-cross ...

[lligrd]

20. Obviously My "We" Didn't Include You Or Me

But I still don't think "they" have a chance of getting Iraq's oil either. Nobody in Iraq (and that includes the idiots Bush selected to run the country) wants us there or intends to allow "them" to steal the oil. Cheney's energy theft policy is a pure disaster!

[welshTerrier2]

21. perhaps ...

but they sure as hell aren't going to give it up without a fight ... tens of thousands of US troops will be left behind in Iraq to "ensure the stability of the fledgling Iraqi democracy" ... yeah, right ...

and any threat to that oil, either from inside Iraq or if there are "destabilizing influences" eminating from Iran, will quickly lead to war ...

that's really the risk here ... more war ... whether the US can succeed in guarding oil fields and pipelines that will be under the control of PRIVATE OIL COMPANIES remains to be seen ... btw, if you look at the location of US bases in Afghanistan, they not-too-surprisingly draw a perfect line right alongside the new oil pipeline there ...

[lligrd]

24. I Know (And Always Knew) This Was Their Intent

But history proves that even Afghanistan will be near impossible to keep. The cost (in dollars and lives) of guarding the oil alone is prohibitive and Americans will not be willing to pay it so that oil companies profit margins can increase. And Arabs will never stop fighting us for it.

I think Americans will start demanding research and development of alternative energy sources not only to get out of the Middle East but to save our planet. Let's just hope Dumbya doesn't start WW III before Americans get their act together and do it.

[welshTerrier2]

28. nicely said, lligrd ...

the best security policy for the US is an energy policy that completely re-engineers our society ... we need more than just "alternative fuels" ... we have to make a serious commitment to reducing our use of energy until new technology is readily available ... this could include all kinds of measures ... real mass transit would be a good starting point ... looking at ways to have fewer commuter miles through work at home programs using the internet will help ... we also need to move food producers closer to the end consumer ...

lots of changes are needed but our political system is designed to play it safe and resist change ... with global warming, peak oil, foreign competition for energy, etc., time is running out ...

[DURHAM D]

17. OK - I just read the article.

Here is my idea of what must be done.

Iraq needs to:
(1) install a strong (secular and decent) dictator who can hold the country together
(2) kick out all foreign companies, unless it is their hire
(3) negotiate their own production contracts and terms
(4) use favorable oil contracts to rebuild their infrastructure
(5) get their oil production up (way up) in order to supply the world's addiction and to raise revenues to rebuild their own country
(6) share revenue with and respect minority rights of all ethnic groups
(7) stop the smuggling and looting of oil with a strong national guard
(8) make peace with their neighbors
(9) pay the U.S. taxpayers back by providing us cheap oil
(10)Meanwhile, the U.S. must work really hard to reduce dependency on foreign oil (or any oil for that fact)

Seems pretty simple.

P.S. I forgot, ask the U.S. to leave and promise to take good care of our 14 permanent bases.

[welshTerrier2]

18. not bad ...

no negotiations should be binding until the US gets the hell out the country ... if you read the article linked to in this post, you'll quickly see that it's painfully obvious the Iraqis are way too weak right now to negotiate who controls their oil for the next thirty years ...

this is the big payoff that bush has pursued since he took office ... and it looks pretty likely he's going to get away with it ...

[DURHAM D]

22. As long as the unfavorable contracts are in place

in Iraq there will be an ever escalating insurgency against the oil companies and the U.S. Bush (and his buds) may get his contracts signed but it will be the beginning of an even bigger problem than the one we have now.


Remember Iran after WWII - they kicked out the British. That revolution was sparked by bad oil contracts. Of course then the U.S. joined the Brits in a secret counter-revolution (headed by Gen. Norm Schwarzkopf Senior)that toppled their democratically elected leader in 1952 and we installed the Shah. Then Iran had another revolution and look where we are today. Its all about the contracts.

[welshTerrier2]

23. check this out ...

see any similarities to the new "Oil Law" bush is pushing on his puppet in Baghdad?

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Shortly after the return of the Shah on 22 August 1953 from the brief self-imposed exile in Rome, Mossadegh was tried by a military tribunal for high treason. Zahedi and the Shah were inclined, however, to spare the ailing man's life (the death penalty would have applied according to the laws of the day). Mossadegh received a sentence of 3 years in solitary confinement at a military jail and was exiled to his village, not far from Tehran, where he remained under house arrest until his death, on 5 March 1967.

Zahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a "Consortium" and "restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities."

[DURHAM D]

25. Condi's former speech writer said just yesterday that she knows

nothing about the mideast. She sees everything through her Soviet cold war glasses.

Senator Rockefeller said about Bush today that he does not understand the world and is not curious.

Could someone just give both of them an overview of the mideast when it comes to the oil contracts.

P.S. - I didn't read the Wikipedia article but I don't suppose it explained that Mossadegh was framed by the CIA.

[welshTerrier2]

26. framed by the CIA?

now would our CIA do something like that?

from the link in the previous post:

The new US administration under Dwight Eisenhower and the British government under Winston Churchill agreed to work together toward Mossadegh's removal. In March 1953 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the US Central Intelligence Agency, which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to overthrow Mossadegh.

On 4 April 1953 CIA director Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. Finally, according to The New York Times, in early June, American and British intelligence officials met again, this time in Beirut, and put the finishing touches on the strategy. Soon afterward, according to his later published accounts, the chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. arrived in Tehran to direct it.

The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community.

[DURHAM D]

27. Nice, very pristine story.

Seems they failed to mention Stormin' Norman's father in that article. Actually, I never once heard during Desert Storm that Norm was second generation to muck around in the mideast. Guess the corporate media thought the public might become suspicious of U.S. (Poppy Bush) motives.

[slipslidingaway]

32. See any similarities, here is another one. You must see the

picture in this article, looks familiar. Great site for old pictures, architecture etc.

"Protestors tore down a statue of Riza Shah,
the father of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi."

http://iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p2.php:think:

[welshTerrier2]

35. side by side ...

the Shah's statue on the left; Saddam's on the right ...

[slipslidingaway]

36. The Shah's statue does not appear for me, but I found it

interesting when I first saw the picture, our media does a great job when researching a story :( Thanks.

[frogcycle]

29. yes, this is the culmination

of 6 years of deceit to cover piracy. However, the whole thing has been such a clusterfuck that at this point it's absurd. the damned law means nothing. whatever entities control Iraq a couple of years hence will disregard it. It's like bush promised to steal them some cookies, managed to crush them all in the process, and now is sifting crumbs into their outstretched hands in hopes of not getting kneecapped for his abject failure. He has to be scared shitless. Its like being in debt to the mob. They are going to off him for failing them.

[ebayfool]

40. You had my attention until #9 ...

(9) pay the U.S. taxpayers back by providing us cheap oil

What would we expect them to be 'paying us back' for?

[Zhade]

42. Uh, why should the Iraqi people "pay us back"?

It's not their fault this administration has wasted and stolen so much of our tax money in this illegal war. They didn't ask to be invaded.

[ebayfool]

43. My reaction, as well.

Break into my house, bomb/maim/kill my family, destroy the power lines, etc coming into the house (or blow it to hell) - I should then be forced to pay for the expenses my attacker incurred? Willingly? Restitution to my attacker?

I don't think so!

[welshTerrier2]

30. watch the C-Span rebroadcast at 1:10 am est

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=550146173

[slipslidingaway]

31. C-Span has the conference available for viewing on their site

and the question you mentioned comes at the 30:30 time. He never answered the question as you stated and to my eyes there is a noticeable sigh from Reid as the question is being asked. I think your observations are correct, regardless of what may have been discussed in a closed session this topic has received coverage in other media and he clearly avoided the issue.


It is listed on the C-Span page under the video/audio files with the following title.

Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) & Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Preview the State of the Union Address (1/19/2007)


Also the press conference repeats tonight and tomorrow.

Democratic Party Policy Agenda
National Press Club, Newsmaker
Harry Reid , D-NV
Nancy Pelosi , D-CA

[welshTerrier2]

33. thanks for the info ...

i'm tuned in on C-Span (TV) to take a "real good second look" ... the 30:30 mark means the question i referenced should come at about 1:40 am est ...

[slipslidingaway]

34. You're welcome and believe we need to ask the hard questions

of both parties.

Linking this other post of yours as well to read tomorrow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3064845

[welshTerrier2]

37. Correction: here is a link to the article referenced in the OP

i thought the questioner referred to an article in the Independent ... this was not correct ... the question was based on an article in The Guardian ...

here's a link to the article about which Reid was asked: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1991074,00.html

[ripple]

38. I just watched it

Reid didn't lie in saying he hadn't read the article. While he's probably more than familiar with the issue, he probably didn't read that particular article. The looks he and Nancy exchanged spoke volumes- they knew exactly what the questioner was talking about.

I can't really blame Reid, though. A closed session is a closed session.

[slipslidingaway]

39. He may not have lied but he certainly was not

comfortable with the question and as you said.

"The looks he and Nancy exchanged spoke volumes- they knew exactly what the questioner was talking about."

[Solo_in_MD]

41. He is a pol, its genetic

[rodeodance]

44. Do our Senators SUPPORT Western oil companies in charge of Iraqi

oil?

I have heard little of who supports this--or not. Only that the Iraqi share of the money will be evenly distributed.

[rodeodance]

46. Democracy NOW --6/2005 ---- union labor in Iraq fights privitzation!

Monday, June 13th, 2005
Iraqi Oil Workers Fight Privatization and Occupation

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
Public sector unions in Iraq were outlawed by Saddam Hussein in 1987. Now, the Iraqi labor movement is protesting plans by U.S. occupation authorities to privatize state owned industries. We speak with the president of the General Union of Oil Workers.

Though we don't often hear about the labor movement in Iraq, the country has a long history of union activism that dates back to the 1920’s when the British first began exporting oil from the country. Saddam Hussein banned unions for public workers in 1987 because he feared a progressive movement would topple his dictatorship. When the U.S occupation of Iraq began, the U.S authorities refused to repeal that law. Instead in September of 2003, Paul Bremer, the top U.S. official overseeing the Iraqi occupation, issued an order to privatize the country’s state owned industries, which include its oil industry.

But the Iraqi people are speaking out against privatization. At the end of May, a large conference was held in Basra that focused on the threat of privatization of Iraq’s oil fields. Oil workers voiced their opposition to privatization and to selling their oil to foreign companies at discounted prices. They also called for an end to the occupation and a withdrawal of foreign troops. ..........

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/13/146243

[rodeodance]

47. .But the union is still under the pressure of these Bremer orders.

....But the union is still under the pressure of these Bremer orders. On the one hand, orders that are moving forward on the privatization of Iraqi state-owned enterprises, including oil and other industrial enterprises, and these orders were written into Iraq's transitional laws, so even though Bremer is gone, the present Iraqi government is still bound by the orders that Bremer issued. And unions in Iraq, like the oil workers union, feel that one reason why they continue to enforce the Saddam Hussein law that prohibits unions in the public sector in Iraq is because the occupation wants to keep unions weak while they move forward with the privatization plans.

[rodeodance]

48. Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group Recommends Privatization

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45190/

Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group Recommends Privatization

By Antonia Juhasz, AlterNet. Posted December 7, 2006.

The Iraq Study Group may not have a solution for how to end the war, but it does have a way for its corporate friends to make money.
Tools


In its heavily anticipated report released on Wednesday, the Iraq Study Group made at least four truly radical proposals.

The report calls for the United States to assist in privatizing Iraq's national oil industry, opening Iraq to private foreign oil and energy companies, providing direct technical assistance for the "drafting" of a new national oil law for Iraq, and assuring that all of Iraq's oil revenues accrue to the central government.

President Bush hired an employee from the U.S. consultancy firm Bearing Point Inc. over a year ago to advise the Iraq Oil Ministry on the drafting and passage of a new national oil law. As previously drafted, the law opens Iraq's nationalized oil sector to private foreign corporate investment, but stops short of full privatization. The ISG report, however, goes further, stating that "the United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise." In addition, the current Constitution of Iraq is ambiguous as to whether control over Iraq's oil should be shared among its regional provinces or held under the central government. The report specifically recommends the latter: "Oil revenues should accrue to the central government and be shared on the basis of population." If these proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be privatized and opened to foreign firms, and in control of all of Iraq's oil wealth.

The proposals should come as little surprise given that two authors of the report, James A. Baker III and Lawrence Eagleburger, have each spent much of their political and corporate careers in pursuit of greater access to Iraq's oil and wealth........

[rodeodance]

49. NY Times pimps the privatization of Iraq's oil (article)

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=19012


NY Times pimps the privatization of Iraq's oil
By Joshua Holland

I'm fascinated when ideas that are almost universally embraced as true are also wrong.

Consider the following example, from a New York Times story about Iraq's proposed oil law:

.......Iraq's oil sector is "in desperate need" of an end to the sabotage and graft that's hobbled its rehabilitation. Foreign investment on equitable terms would be just one of three options available to the Iraqis to finance the work.

The 1400-word Times article also neglected to even hint at any controversy surrounding the State Department's preferred contract type, the onerous Production Services Agreements that would give foreign oil companies projected rates of return of between 42 and 162 percent and cost Iraq between $74 and $194 billion over the lifetime of the contracts on only the first 12 fields developed, according to Platform's estimates.

The Times doesn't talk about that stuff because everyone knows that only dirty hippies think the invasion had anything to do with oil.

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.