dubya's buddy signs for oil in Kurdish Iraq

[boutons_]

http://uk.reuters.com/resources/images/logo.gif
Iraq's Kurdish region defends criticised energy deal

Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:08pm BST

DUBAI, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The government of Iraq's Kurdish region on Tuesday defended an oil and gas production contract it has concluded with a U.S. company, rejecting remarks by the country's oil minister who questioned its legality.

The semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) said on Saturday it had signed the production sharing contract with a unit of U.S.-based Hunt Oil Co. and with Impulse Energy Corp.

( NOT lease contract, which all the other govts in the region switched to long ago because it brings them much more money, to great detriment of (US) oilco profits. )

"Ray L. Hunt, the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body." - Krugman

(So obviously, Hunt signed this deal with full approval by the US govt. The pre-2000/PNAC primary objective for the Iraq invasion, oil grab, is nearing. )

Media reports have quoted Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani as saying that the deal "has no standing" because it was not approved by the central government in Baghdad.

"Shahristani's recent remarks about the legality of the KRG's contracts are totally unacceptable..." said Khaled Salih, spokesman of the Kurdistan regional government, in a statement made available to Reuters.

"His (Shahristani) views are totally irrelevant to what we are doing legally and constitutionally in Kurdistan."

( the partioning of Iraq is becoming more clear, and now de facto and operational, but we hear notlhing from dubya about partitioning )

The deal is the first such contract since the region passed its own oil law in August, while Iraq's parliament failed to pass a national law after months of negotiations.

The national law is crucial to regulating how wealth from Iraq's oil reserves, the world's third largest, will be shared out among its sectarian and ethnic groups. The reserves are mainly in the north and the south of the country.

"What right does Shahristani have to question the legitimacy of contracts awarded by KRG acting under the powers of the newly enacted law passed by the unanimous decision of the Regional Parliament and according to the new Iraq constitution?" the statement said.

The deal covers exploration activity in the Dihok area. Hunt Oil Co. of the Kurdistan Region will begin geological survey and seismic work by the end of 2007 and has plans to drill an exploration well in 2008.

The regional government has signed five production sharing agreements earlier with foreign companies.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL1187953420070911

===========================

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
September 14, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

A Surge, and Then a Stab

By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

To understand what’s really happening in Iraq, follow the oil money, which already knows that the surge has failed.

Back in January, announcing his plan to send more troops to Iraq, President Bush declared that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”

Near the top of his list was the promise that “to give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”

There was a reason he placed such importance on oil: oil is pretty much the only thing Iraq has going for it. Two-thirds of Iraq’s G.D.P. and almost all its government revenue come from the oil sector. Without an agreed system for sharing oil revenues, there is no Iraq, just a collection of armed gangs fighting for control of resources.

Well, the legislation Mr. Bush promised never materialized, and on Wednesday attempts to arrive at a compromise oil law collapsed.

What’s particularly revealing is the cause of the breakdown. Last month the provincial government in Kurdistan, defying the central government, passed its own oil law; last week a Kurdish Web site announced that the provincial government had signed a production-sharing deal with the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, and that seems to have been the last straw.

Now here’s the thing: Ray L. Hunt, the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.

Some commentators have expressed surprise at the fact that a businessman with very close ties to the White House is undermining U.S. policy. But that isn’t all that surprising, given this administration’s history. Remember, Halliburton was still signing business deals with Iran years after Mr. Bush declared Iran a member of the “axis of evil.”

No, what’s interesting about this deal is the fact that Mr. Hunt, thanks to his policy position, is presumably as well-informed about the actual state of affairs in Iraq as anyone in the business world can be. By putting his money into a deal with the Kurds, despite Baghdad’s disapproval, he’s essentially betting that the Iraqi government — which hasn’t met a single one of the major benchmarks Mr. Bush laid out in January — won’t get its act together. Indeed, he’s effectively betting against the survival of Iraq as a nation in any meaningful sense of the term.

The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. And I suspect that most people in the Bush administration — maybe even Mr. Bush himself — know this, too.

After all, if the administration had any real hope of retrieving the situation in Iraq, officials would be making an all-out effort to get the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to start delivering on some of those benchmarks, perhaps using the threat that Congress would cut off funds otherwise. Instead, the Bushies are making excuses, minimizing Iraqi failures, moving goal posts and, in general, giving the Maliki government no incentive to do anything differently.

And for that matter, if the administration had any real intention of turning public opinion around, as opposed to merely shoring up the base enough to keep Republican members of Congress on board, it would have sent Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, to as many news media outlets as possible — not granted an exclusive appearance to Fox News on Monday night.

All in all, Mr. Bush’s actions have not been those of a leader seriously trying to win a war. They have, however, been what you’d expect from a man whose plan is to keep up appearances for the next 16 months, never mind the cost in lives and money, then shift the blame for failure onto his successor.

In fact, that’s my interpretation of something that startled many people: Mr. Bush’s decision last month, after spending years denying that the Iraq war had anything in common with Vietnam, to suddenly embrace the parallel.

Here’s how I see it: At this point, Mr. Bush is looking forward to replaying the political aftermath of Vietnam, in which the right wing eventually achieved a rewriting of history that would have made George Orwell proud, convincing millions of Americans that our soldiers had victory in their grasp but were stabbed in the back by the peaceniks back home.

What all this means is that the next president, even as he or she tries to extricate us from Iraq — and prevent the country’s breakup from turning into a regional war — will have to deal with constant sniping from the people who lied us into an unnecessary war, then lost the war they started, but will never, ever, take responsibility for their failures.

====================

All the bullshit from dubya about "kicking ass" of dubya-created AQI , "democracy and freedom", is just more lying smokescreen to hide the real business of grabbing the oil while "playing" for time until dubya and dickhhead can walk away from Iraq, start re-writing history that they won in Iraq, and vicious sliming the next Pres for losing Iraq.

[clambake]

Ill say it again.

Boutons has been right all along. Damn. I salute you, sir.

[spurster]

Where are our resident Bush lovers explaining this one?

[johnsmith]

Ill say it again.

Boutons has been right all along. Damn. I salute you, sir.


Wow that sounds gay.

[fyatuk]

Not that I've bothered reading your article, but :
http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2007/9/investkurdistan284.htm

The Kurds have several deals in place with revenue sharing agreements with Turkish and Canadian companies, among others. The result is that over the next several years billions of dollars will be spent modernizing their infrastructure of the Kurds production setup by those companies.

That is the point of the revenue sharing agreements you deride so much and why most "experts" will tell you that Iraq will need many of these to update the older production facilities.

So the big question is why if this was an oil grab, did the US fall behind and allow 5 other countries, including companies in countries opposed to the Iraq war, to negotiate these deals first?

[101A]

Patreus didn't talk exclusively to Fox.

I saw him interviewed on PBS.

Not a major point of the story, but certainly one Krugman used to bolster his case - that Patreus was ONLY here to shore up the base, and thus only spoke to those wing-nuts at Fox. Well, he didn't.

How many other facts and innuendos in this piece should we check?

[xrayzebra]

ray hunt?

probably owner of Hunt's Catsup

archenemy of John Kerry's wife Teresa HEINZ, of HEINZ Ketchup

this war isn't about oil

it isn't about Christianity vs. Islam

it's a far older and fundamental struggle,

between Catsup and Ketchup


Dumb is dumb and you fit the bill all the way. You make
jokes and people are dieing. No wonder people look
at us as uncaring and idiots.

[boutons_]

the Kurds can borrow to build and own the facilities themselves, just like other countries.

The production contracts sought by the US oilcos are for 30 years, way too long to recoup infrastructure investment.

[ChumpDumper]

Patreus didn't talk exclusively to Fox.

I saw him interviewed on PBS.

Not a major point of the story, but certainly one Krugman used to bolster his case - that Patreus was ONLY here to shore up the base, and thus only spoke to those wing-nuts at Fox. Well, he didn't.

How many other facts and innuendos in this piece should we check?So you are dismissing the entire article or just trying to distract from the major point of it?

[fyatuk]

the Kurds can borrow to build and own the facilities themselves, just like other countries.

The production contracts sought by the US oilcos for 30 years, way too long to recoup investment.

25-30 years is standard.

It's hard to borrow the BILLIONS needed. Especially if either you are Islamic or the people you are dealing with are Islamic (it's illegal to charge or give interest in Islamic law, making loans as we see them impossible).

This is an accepted deal type that does not violate Islamic law and is actually commonly used when old facilities need to be updated. That's why hydrocarbon industry experts say these deals are necessary.

[xrayzebra]

the Kurds can borrow to build and own the facilities themselves, just like other countries.

The production contracts sought by the US oilcos are for 30 years, way too long to recoup infrastructure investment.

Sure they can, except that they are part of a country,
Iraq. Just like Okahoma and Texas and Louisana are
part of the US and providing most of the oil for this country.

Isn't that what we are trying to do? Get these folks
to be part of a country and not a tribe. Yeah, I know,
I can already hear the response, but they are tribes.

[fyatuk]

Sure they can, except that they are part of a country,
Iraq. Just like Okahoma and Texas and Louisana are
part of the US and providing most of the oil for this country.

Isn't that what we are trying to do? Get these folks
to be part of a country and not a tribe. Yeah, I know,
I can already hear the response, but they are tribes.

Actually, individual states can and do borrow money here in the US. Not billions at a time, but they do.

[xrayzebra]

Actually, individual states can and do borrow money here in the US. Not billions at a time, but they do.

I know, and yeah, even make oil deals. H e l l o University
of Texas and their zillions with their oil rights. But
we are still part of the U.S. and it isn't the same situation.
And we, as states, do borrow BILLIONS.

[Rocka89]

Sorry about this little bit of self promotion, but I wrote a little artical on the subject. Check it out.

http://realp.blogspot.com/2007/09/hunts-horrible-oil-agreement.html

[spurster]

So, it' seems to be ok with the Bush lovers that Bush's friends and advisors are traitors.

[boutons_]

"25-30 years is standard."

I'm not talking about contract length, but type of contract.

But Production sharing contracts are NOT the norm for the main oil-producing countries, that now own their oil and

1) write lease contracts, because the countries make more money, to (foreign) oil companies, or

2) have outright nationalized oil companies.

The primary objective of the Iraq invasion was regime change for a regime friendly to US oilcos. The still-born Iraqi oil law, vehemently opposed by the Iraqi oil industry that sees it as giving away control over, even ownership of, was written to produce what US oilcos wanted, production sharing contracts.

[Holt's Cat]

croutons, professional text bolder and sometime corporate counsel for multinational E&P companies.

[Nbadan]

Oh, oh....looks like Greenspan should get ready to take the fall for the subprime melt-down...


AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece)

[BradLohaus]

Oh, oh....looks like Greenspan should get ready to take the fall for the subprime melt-down...

:lol Oh, yeah. I mean, he is ultimately responsible, but the same people that praised him as the savior of our economy are about to stab him in the back. It looks like he wants to leave a legacy that suggests that he knew what was going on about everything important. Being the monetary dictator of the US economy has to go to one's head.

[Wild Cobra]

Greenspan should stick to economics rather than a war he really is no expert at.

[boutons_]

"a war he really is no expert at."

applies to dubya, expert at nothing, esp not at English.

It's great that Greenspan, who is member of DC inner circle, a top power player, is saying publicly, IN PRINT, that the war was about oil, NOT about US security, and that "everyone knows" it's about oil. Great. dubya and dickhead legacy will be easier to plonk in the toilet. I expect more insiders will be admitting Iraq is a war for oil.

The lying by the WH and Repugs must be exposed by the insiders.

[smeagol]

Greenspan should stick to economics rather than a war he really is no expert at.

Someone is about to pull the unpatriotic card :depressed

[clambake]

this hunt deal has shed the light on why we're there. troops are there to provide muscle for multi-national oil co.'s. our sons and daughters are dying so these guys can steal oil and we have to pay the invoice for the war. our kids are dying so that these guys can build their wealth with billions and billions of profit that we at home will have to pay. Iraq's only hope is to kick us out.

[exstatic]

Greenspan should stick to economics rather than a war he really is no expert at.
Bush should stick to drinking rather than a war he really is no expert at.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Obviously the Canadians and Turks are sending hundreds of thousands of troops into Iraq to get access to oil, because they are partners with this same Kurdish group.

Oh wait...

Side note: I am absolutely shocked that poor Iraqis are leveraging their one commodity to make money. What the hell do they think they are doing, what gives them the right to do this?

They should be beholden to Chavez, Osama, and Putin, then maybe croutons would be happy.

[DarkReign]

Obviously the Canadians and Turks are sending hundreds of thousands of troops into Iraq to get access to oil, because they are partners with this same Kurdish group.

Huh? "...hundreds of thousands" of troops?

To say that is an overstatement, would the understatement of the century.

Canada doesnt even have a military that composes of "hundreds of thousands" of troops.


Personnel of the Canadian Forces
Canadian Forces personnel consist of two main groups: Regular Forces and Reserve Forces. Regular Forces, which represent the backbone of the military, include personnel who are enrolled for continuing full-time military service. As of May 2007, there were approximately 62,000 Regular Force members in the Canadian Forces (Department of National Defence, 2007). Reserve Forces, in contrast, include personnel that serve on a temporary or part-time basis, and may be activated whenever the military is in need of additional manpower. As of May 2007, there were approximately 25,000 Reserve Force members in the Canadian Forces (Department of National Defence, 2007).

Canada’s military is small relative to leading militaries in the world. The following table compares Canada to the top 10 military nations by total available military personnel.


Comparison of Available Military Personnel (2006)

Country - Total Personnel - World Rank

Iran 11,770,000 1

China 7,024,000 2

North Korea 5,995,000 3

South Korea 5,209,000 4

India 3,773,300 5

Russia 3,037,000 6

United States 2,369,239 7

Taiwan 1,965,000 8

Brazil 1,687,600 9

Pakistan 1,449,000 10

Canada 98,550 34

*Includes active personnel, reserves, and units ready for mobilization.
(Source: Global Firepower.com, Total Available Military Personnel, 2006)

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-forces-basic-roles-and-structure

Check that, they dont even have an available military that composes one-hundred thousand.


Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 in the United States, Canada was the third largest contributor to the NATO-led invasion of Afghanistan, after the United States and the United Kingdom. Of the approximately 15,000 Canadian troops who have been stationed in Afghanistan, 2,500 remain as the standard complement as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_invasion_of_Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_invasion_of_Afghanistan

So Canada has at most at any one time, 15000 troops stationed in the world police role. So, in order to meet your statement "hundreds of thousands", the Turks should have anywhere between 85000 and 185000 troops deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt that highly.

[ChumpDumper]

According to the latest Iraq status report from the US Department of State, Canada and Turkey have no troops in Iraq. The total number of non-US troops in Iraq as of September 12, 2007 is 11,732.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/92176.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

And no, I didn't forget Poland.

[fyatuk]

"25-30 years is standard."

I'm not talking about contract length, but type of contract.


You did complain about the length.

The production contracts sought by the US oilcos are for 30 years, way too long to recoup infrastructure investment.




But Production sharing contracts are NOT the norm for the main oil-producing countries, that now own their oil and

1) write lease contracts, because the countries make more money, to (foreign) oil companies, or

2) have outright nationalized oil companies.

The primary objective of the Iraq invasion was regime change for a regime friendly to US oilcos. The still-born Iraqi oil law, vehemently opposed by the Iraqi oil industry that sees it as giving away control over, even ownership of, was written to produce what US oilcos wanted, production sharing contracts.

Bangladesh, Suriname, Indonesia, Columbia, China, Russia, etc.

from http://www.gasandoil.com/ogel/samples/freearticles/bookreview_13.htm


The production-sharing contract has become, over the last 30 years, the probably most dominant form of granting access to oil&gas exploration and development to international petroleum companies in developing countries. Even Russia has adopted a form of production-sharing contract (albeit quite distinct). It has replaced the concessions/licenses as the main form of petroleum-related mining title; its distinct character is that production is shared (reflecting a conceptual root in the sharing of harvest between landowner and tenant) rather than tax/royalties being paid and that the foreign investor (now ""contractor") is in a contractual relationship with a state company which holds the original mining title (this is where the new Russian PSC form differs).

Seriously, do a google for "oil fields production sharing contracts" and see how many different state oil companies are on that list that pops up.

Not that hard to find this stuff out if you look beyond the liberal propaganda sites.

[boutons_]

the killer qualification:

"in developing countries"Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006

Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)

1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9

Of those Top 10, how many oil industries do revenue-sharing contracts?

[fyatuk]

Canada is certainly not a developing country, so I'm ignoring it.

Kuwait, Iran, and Saudia Arabia have bans on PSCs, and foreign companies can only negotiate fixed fee TSAs.

Russia, Iraq (now), Venezuela, United Arab Emirates, Libya, and Nigeria all utilize PSA's.

So 6 out of 10 have active PSA's for their oil fields.

In the late 90's, both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia actually negotiated on PSA frameworks when they were cash strapped, but pulled out of it before agreements were signed because their economies improved.

So 8 out of the 10 have at least negotiated PSA deals for their own oil fields, and Canadian oil cos and Iran have PSA's in a whole bunch of countries.

It's exactly the point I've been making to you. If you don't have the money to improve infrastructure yourself, you negotiate these deals. When they expire, you negotiate deals that are better for you. It's about costs, not profits.

Also, Iran's production is currently slipping and it spends more money on subsidies and other costs than it makes in oil revenues. They're even working semi-PSA type terms into their TSA contracts.

That answer your question? Do you need me to post the links, or can you do the 15 miuntes of googling I did?

[ChumpDumper]

Why haven't we invaded Canada?

[xrayzebra]

Why haven't we invaded Canada?


We did, they didn't want to be in the military, so they
invaded Canada. Did you not see where they wanted
erect a memorial to them?

[clambake]

We did, they didn't want to be in the military, so they
invaded Canada. Did you not see where they wanted
erect a memorial to them?

"Ask your doctor if Paxil is right for you".

[xrayzebra]

"Ask your doctor if Paxil is right for you".


Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem.

[ChumpDumper]

We did, they didn't want to be in the military, so they
invaded Canada. Did you not see where they wanted
erect a memorial to them?Actually, we invaded in 1812 when you were just a kid. Didn't work out too well.

[clambake]

goddamn french canadians.

[clambake]

canada beat our asses
It wasn't fair. They got to fight downhill.

[boutons_]

Iraq Oil Deal Gets Everybody's Attention

By Michael A. Fletcher
Monday, September 24, 2007; Washington Post

The oil deal signed between Hunt Oil and the government in Iraq's Kurdish region earlier this month has raised eyebrows, in no small part because it appears to undercut President Bush's hope that Iraq could draft national legislation to share revenue from the country's vast oil reserves. Making the deal more curious is that it was crafted by one of the administration's staunchest supporters, Ray Hunt.

Hunt, chief executive of the Dallas-based company, has been a major fundraiser and contributor to Bush's presidential campaigns. He also serves on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, putting him close to the latest information developed by the nation's intelligence agencies.

If Hunt is signing regional oil deals in Iraq, critics ask, what does he know about the prospects for a long-stalled national oil law that others don't?

Since the deal was made public, it has drawn the ire of the Iraqi national government, which has called the agreement illegal.

"Any oil deal has no standing as far as the government of Iraq is concerned," Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters earlier this month. "All these contracts have to be approved by the federal authority before they are legal. This [contract] was not presented for approval. It has no standing."

It also has caught the eye of maverick Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a presidential candidate. He has called for a congressional investigation to probe the Bush administration's role in the deal as well as the implications for a national oil law in Iraq.

"As I have said for five years, this war is about oil. The Bush administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up their oil," Kucinich said. "We have no right to set preconditions for Iraq which lead Iraq to giving up control of their oil. The constitution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property of all Iraqi people."

The deal signed by Hunt is a production-sharing contract for petroleum exploration in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. It is one of several the Kurds have signed with foreign oil companies in recent years and the first since they enacted a regional oil law last month. Kurdish officials have said that the deal would benefit all Iraqis through a revenue-sharing agreement.

Whatever people suspect, Bush says he did not know about the deal before it happened. But, he acknowledged, he has some concerns.

"Our embassy also expressed concern about it," Bush said. "I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil-revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm -- if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

( dubya ignorant as fuck and asleep at the wheel. I bet venal, evil dickhead knew all about this deal )

Still Around

The Nelson Mandela Foundation wants the world to know that its 89-year-old namesake is very much alive. It seems that a line Bush used at his news conference last week left that fact in doubt -- at least for some people.

"I thought an interesting comment was made -- somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, 'Now, where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush said last week. "He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families. And people are recovering from this. So there's the psychological recovery that is taking place."

( WTF? Bushisms, like Mandela, aren't dead, either! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

The president's point, of course, was that leaders capable of fostering reconciliation in Iraq, as Mandela has in South Africa, were systematically killed by Hussein. But given Bush's well-earned reputation for struggling with the language, some people were not sure what he meant.

( dubya, up there among Yale and Harvard' Best And Brightest http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

After Bush's comments circled the globe, the Mandela Foundation felt compelled to set the record straight. "All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, the foundation's chief executive officer, told Reuters on Friday.
Via Canada, the New Face of George Bush

The latest Macleans, the Canadian newsweekly that claims 2.9 million readers, features a striking image that is not too popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It's President Bush's face, but the rest of it is Saddam Hussein, including the mustache, hat and uniform. The image accompanies a story headlined "How George Bush Became the New Saddam," which chronicles how U.S. troops have partnered with some of Hussein's former "henchmen" in an effort to achieve order in parts of Iraq.

http://www.macleans.ca/slideshow/gallery/album1/large/sept/bushmain.jpg

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

The provocative magazine cover made news in Canada, where it fired up bloggers and prompted stories from most major news outlets. "Macleans is a fairly conservative magazine. For the magazine to run that kind of cover surprised people," said Don Newman, senior parliamentary editor for CBC, the Canadian television network.

Both Bush and the war in Iraq are extremely unpopular in Canada, even if most Canadians stop short of equating Bush with Hussein, Newman said.

For Macleans editors, the decision to run the cover image was an easy one. "I don't think anybody quite anticipated the reaction would be this extreme," said Suneel Khanna, the magazine's director of communications. There's no word on how the cover affected sales, Khanna said, lamenting that it takes months to get information about newsstand activity.

Asked to comment on the image, the White House demurred. "That doesn't deserve a reaction," spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Decision Time

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations last week for a talk focused on Iraq. It mostly featured Hadley fielding questions from members of the audience as well as from moderator Thomas R. Pickering, who was the No. 3 official in President Bill Clinton's State Department.

Near the end, Pickering asked: "If you could do it all over again, would you really go into Iraq?"

Hadley did not miss a beat: "The reasons to go into Iraq really were the same. This was a tyrant who had acquired and used weapons of mass destruction, who had invaded his neighbors, who had oppressed his people, who'd defied the international community. . . . I think the answer is, the president would have done it all over again."

Pickering replied: "Your loyalty is admirable, Stephen. I commend you."

=================

poor dubya, reduced to an object of international ridicule and hate. Foreigners ask themselves how Americans, so rich and powerful and successful, can elect such numbfuck jerkoff.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya

[Winehole23]

One dramatic expression of Iraq's declining power over the oil giants came on Oct. 18, 2011, when ExxonMobil signed a massive exploration deal with the Kurdistan region. The move directly violated Shahristani's policy of unitary authority. In past cases, Shahristani punished oil companies for signing with Kurdistan by blacklisting them from his contracting auctions. But now, with ExxonMobil pumping more than one-tenth of Iraq's crude from the West Qurna Phase 1 field, the government found itself with much less leverage. (ExxonMobil has not acknowledged any contract with Kurdistan and has declined to comment, though multiple officials in the Kurdish and central governments have confirmed (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/13/exxon-kurdistan-idUSL5E7MD04G20111113) the deal.)



Baghdad is now left with two bad options. It could banish ExxonMobil, risk a loss of production, and probably provoke a lawsuit that would stoke the anxiety of other investors. The more likely scenario is that the federal government will seek some sort of compromise that will eventually validate some of the contracting powers Kurdistan has already claimed.



Nevertheless, Kurdistan isn't likely to win the complete autonomy that it desires anytime soon. Baghdad continues to hold two trump cards. First, it controls the pipeline network to the Mediterranean port in Ceyhan, Turkey, through which any large-scale exports must travel. Second, it controls the sale of oil and the collection of export revenues -- and therefore the flow of money from oil sales back to both Kurdistan's budget and its contractors. Hawrami, the natural resources minister, has suggested that he wants to increase Kurdish oil exports from their current level of about 175,000 barrels per day to 1 million barrels per day within five years. For that to become a reality, he needs a deal with Maliki and Shahristani.

Indeed, a truce between Kurdistan and Baghdad could be in the works. When Maliki visited Washington in December, he met privately with Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. One of Maliki's advisors, speaking anonymously, confirmed to me that Maliki asked Tillerson to "freeze" the Kurdish contracts. The advisor said the government is proposing a quid pro quo: If all parties agree to a new oil law, then Baghdad will endorse a mechanism to recognize ExxonMobil's Kurdish contracts. Maliki is essentially trying to borrow ExxonMobil's new leverage with the Kurds, asking the company to pause its new deal in order to force the Kurds into a grand oil bargain. This could be a pragmatic solution that uses ExxonMobil's influence with both governments to reconcile the two sides. But, assuming it would even work, this plan would transform the oil giant into one of three main parties, alongside the federal and Kurdish governments, that shape the country's oil sector.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/31/iraq_oil_crude_awakening?page=0,3

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol so australia who joins the coalition in both wars, dont benefit anything from it??? while teh other countries who didnt do shit in the war are winning contracts? gtfo

[Winehole23]

private companies have benefitted and so indirectly the USA. true. and US forces are conveniently placed in forward positions relative to Iran, so I suppose we have that going for us too.

Will Australia join the US in a war against Iran?

Whaddya say, m8?





(Third time's a charm?)

[boutons_deux]

dubya, dickhead, neocons invaded Iraq for the oil, not Democracy, Peace, and The American Way, not for WMD nor for Saddam-did-9/11.

We notice how Iraq's "exemplar democracy" has caused democracy to break out all over the M/E: Syria, Bahrain, SA, etc.

[Winehole23]

what will you say when Obama goes to war with Iran?

[boutons_deux]

"Real Men" neocons, US and UK have wanted to grab Iran's all along.

The MIC + oilcos + UCA make foreign/war policy, not Obama nor any Pres. Spreading democracy and freedom isn't in the picture. It's all about the Ms of Benjamins.

[Winehole23]

The MIC + oilcos + UCA make foreign/war policy, not Obama nor any Pres. can't really be done without the President's cooperation, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

a recalcitrant Pres will be successfully bullied, intimidated by the MIC + UCA + their attack dogs in the corporate media.

[Winehole23]

Obama is recalcitrant, in your opinion?

[TDMVPDPOY]

start buyin oil shares fellas...shit is going to get interesting whether there is a war in iran for its oil, or iran closing the strait due to sanctions...

[boutons_deux]

Obama knows he can't beat the MIC, or the generals. They are out of civilian control, like the CIA/NSA.

The oilcos' broad-band, non-stop Keystone XL lies (national security, energy independence, job creation) are taking hold in the general public. I figure Barry will fold on Keystone, and all the lies will be exposed soon after as the tar sands oil will be exported out of USA, a few 100 jobs, and national security/energy independence not enhanced.

The UCA and wealthy ALWAYS win, sooner or later. There's no stopping them now.

[Winehole23]

Obama knows he can't beat the MIC, or the generals. They are out of civilian control, like the CIA/NSA.you lie. who is Stanley McChrystal?

I figure Barry will fold on Keystone, and all the lies will be exposed soon after as the tar sands oil will be exported out of USA, a few 100 jobs, and national security/energy independence not enhanced.Why would you vote for a guy who folds faster than patio furniture?

[clambake]

making a stand and folding under pressure is still slightly more courageous than accepting your marching orders.

[Winehole23]

The two are indistinguishable.

Folding under pressure is the exact opposite of making a stand, but surely sometimes it were wiser to withdraw and save one's fire for more favorable circumstances, than fight to the death. Obama's pattern of talking all hard then melting like ice cream has failed to impress me so far.

[TeyshaBlue]

making a stand and folding under pressure is still slightly more courageous than accepting your marching orders.

We measure courage in slight increments? rofl

[clambake]

We measure courage in slight increments? rofl

yes, when it's prez. vs big business.

at least he wan't afraid to give it a shot. he knew there'd be backlash.

[clambake]

and i'm not implying that i'm impressed, either.

[TeyshaBlue]

*Updating my POTUS courage matrix*
*weighting big business intersection*

This aint workin' out.:depressed

[Winehole23]

you did try to equate making a stand with folding like a lawn chair. that was odd.

[clambake]

thank god i used the word "slightly"

[Winehole23]

the word "nothing" would have been far more appropriate

[clambake]

i'll make a note of that.

[TeyshaBlue]

i'll make a note of that.

There will be a quiz at the end of this thread.

[Winehole23]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/25/official-iraq-northern-kurdish-suspends-crude-oil-exports-due-to-payment-row/

[The Reckoning]

civil war incoming tbh. sad it will be over a soon to be outdated commodity.

[The Reckoning]

lol so australia who joins the coalition in both wars, dont benefit anything from it??? while teh other countries who didnt do shit in the war are winning contracts? gtfo

pretty sure america's balls are in australia's mouth right now by outsourcing military ops, tech and even space tech over to the outback. not to mention a little national guilt over the lack of japanese being the national language.

[boutons_deux]

...

[TeyshaBlue]

You've already been bitch slapped on education this morning. Best you just go read thinkprogress.borg now.

[Winehole23]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c038427a-8a40-11e2-bf79-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2NKanPj1j