Reply #26: saw this late last night

[darkstar]

(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.