Reply With Quote
More confirmation that Iraq was an oil grab.
NOT about WMD
NOT about Saddam/WTC
NOT about US NatSec
NOT about GWOT
NOT about Saddam as Bad Guy
NOT about anything but OIL
The Secret Deal For Iraq's Oil
By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
Friday, August 15, 2008
Published in : Nation/World
LinkyFour months before the United States invaded Iraq, the Department of Defense was secretly working with Vice President Cheney's old company, Halliburton Corp., on a secret deal that would give the world's second largest oil services company total control over Iraq's oil fields, according to interviews with Halliburton's most senior executives.
Previously undisclosed Halliburton do ents obtained by The Public Record confirm that controlling the world's second largest oil reserves was a top priority for the Bush administration. Additionally, the deal between the Department of Defense and Halliburton unit Kellogg, Brown & Root to operate Iraq's oil industry saved Halliburton from imminent bankruptcy.
In October of 2002, Halliburton was saddled with a multibillion-dollar asbestos liability as well as a serious slowdown in domestic oil production. The company’s stock plummeted on the news falling to a low of $12.62 in October 2002 from a high of $22 the year before.
A month later, in November 2002, Halliburton’s financial troubles seemingly disappeared. At the urging of unnamed officials in the Office of the Vice President, according to the do ents, the Department of Defense recommended The Army Corps of Engineers award a contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root to extinguish Iraqi oil well fires in addition to "assessing the condition of oil-related infrastructure; cleaning up oil spills or other environmental damage at oil facilities; engineering design and repair or reconstruction of damaged infrastructure; assisting in making facilities operational; distribution of petroleum products; and assisting the Iraqis in resuming Iraqi oil company operations."
That was a deal hatched five months before the start of the Iraq war, when the Bush administration said publicly that it had not been working on war plans.
"The fact that the Department was planning for the possibility that it would need to repair and provide for continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was classified until March 2003," the Army Corps of Engineers said on its web site. "This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement of potential requirements to the business community."
A March 6, 2003 internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" within Cheney's office.
The e-mail says Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, received authorization from then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to “execute” the Restore Iraqi Oil contract to Halliburton in 2002.
Feith was one of the architects of the Iraq war who operated the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans that exaggerated the Iraqi threat and provided the White House with bogus information about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
The email said Feith approved elements in the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office."
Cheney, who claims he has severed all ties with Halliburton, receives deferred compensation from the company annually.
Two days after the email was sent, the Army Corps of Engineers formally awarded Halliburton the contract, without reviewing bids from other companies.
Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps’ top civilian contracting expert, has said the Halliburton deal represented “the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." Greenhouse, who testified before Congress in June 2005, was demoted for speaking out about contract fraud.
That, my friends, is organized crime at the highest level
More confirmation that Iraq was an oil grab.
NOT about WMD
NOT about Saddam/WTC
NOT about US NatSec
NOT about GWOT
NOT about Saddam as Bad Guy
NOT about anything but OIL
So, mission accomplished?
Oil grab yet we haven't seen a drop of it?
As Chris Rock jokes "When my family takes over IHOP, pancakes gonna be cheaper at our house"
The oil grab was ed up.
Starting a bogus war in the Middle East has inflated oil prices, US oilcos vastly more wealthy. Mission Accomplished.
MIC vastly more wealthy. Mission Accomplished.
US Govt spent into crippling debt (requires more tax cuts for corps and super-wealthy). Mission Accomplished.
I don't agree with the way that Cheney deals with his former employer but this isn't really that big a deal.
They were obviously planning to invade Iraq 4 months prior to actually invading, so the "they told the public they weren't going to" is just that, .
And if you are planning to invade Iraq, you sort of need to plan for taking care of all that stuff that's there............you know, the oil.
Finally, the fact that you bolded the "they didn't review bids" just shows that you know nothing of how the process actually works. Low bidder wins on sealed bids, no review is necessary. Halliburton is the only company in America that would take a job like that off and do it at a reasonable price because all others would be frightened of the job (and rightfully so).
Oh, and the deferred comp. thing that everyone is always going nuts over, I have a family member that is an executive at a very large construction company. He has deferred 100% of his salary and bonuses until retirement because he doesn't need the money right now. Should the internet be buzzing with conspiracy theories about him?
Dan, you're a bag.
And remember everyone, in November, make sure you vote McBoutonsisa ingwhackjob.
More confirmation?
I say that's bull . For something so important, I want a link to the photocopies of the do ents.
I say the source is a liar.
Links to the do ents can be found in the original article.
Too bad the pdf file is a copy of a forgery. I knew it from the start. The format was su ious, so I did some simple tests. Who uses that format with modern computers? Also, having seen, literally thousands of military do ents from the Pentagon, NATO, USEUCOM, and JCS... It just does not look right from the start.
The scale does not pan out for any military equipment in use for fixed spacing. Use 6 or 8 lines per inch, and the spacing is not 10, 12, or 15 characters per inch, and believable. The type does fit as near as I can tell for 6 lines per inch as 10 CPI, but then the longer lines would be almost nine inches long! Then consider the three-hole punch spacing as well.
Then besides being a forgery, you have hearsay. One office saying to another that "We anticipate no issue; since action has been coordinated w VP's office." Hmmm... Even if so, with the tons of paperwork that crosses that office, it doesn't say it had Cheney's approval.
Dan and boutons, I know a good lawyer who will file a suit for you.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire. Just filed one on The Messiah and filed one
on Bush and he is a dimm-o-crap. Right up your line.
LOL... I love it.
No disagreement that it's a forgery. The article in Judicial Watch has a link to a large file that explains why it was a no-bid contract, and it has nothing to do with the VP! It cites a federal statute and the reason that KBR is the only company capable of meeting the needs. I do remember the facts laid out that the only other company that could do the work was a French company. Remember how things were between us and the French at the start of this? However, there is another valid reason to only use KBR. The fact that these oil structures were built by Halliburton/KBR to begin with. They already had the blueprints and spare parts. This was made public knowledge, but the Communist News Networks never revealed this fact. They just perpetrated the liberal lies.
Kind of hard to fix something without the proper do entation. Any technician knows that! If you need dealer level work on your Ford, and done quickly by someone who has the parts on hand, do you go to a Chevy dealer?
You liberal re s just don't understand such things. You let common sense fly out the window because you world rather believe a lie that supports your hatred.
Oh, that file is mentioned in the Judicial Watch article. However, the link no longer points to that forgery. My guess is that Judicial Watch learned the file was just that. A forgery. Most people don't delete archives, and thats the directory it's in. Archives are usually saved for various reasons even when invalid.
broken link: judicialwatch.org/files/2004/KBRemail_0.pdf
archive: judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/030503.pdf
So you are saying the Army forged an email?No disagreement that it's a forgery.
Wow. That's some accusation there.
The link in the "Do ents Uncovered" section of the article leads to the email's pdf file in the archive.Oh, that file is mentioned in the Judicial Watch article. However, the link no longer points to that forgery. My guess is that Judicial Watch learned the file was just that. A forgery.
It's pretty clear you don't know what you are saying here.
I have seen the e-mail. I'm saying the link in the Judicial Watch article no longer points to it.
And I don't know what you are saying either. "do ents uncovered" section? I don't see that anywhere. What I do see with that name has links with the following les:
* Judicial Watch Uncovers Do ents Revealing Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
* Do ents Detail Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
* Do ents Detail Mexican Government Incursions
* State Dept Analysis in 2002: Niger Uranium Sale to Iraq Unlikely
* Docs Show bin Laden Was Threat in 1996
* Border Patrol Surveys
* FBI Protects bin Laden’s Privacy Rights
* Docs Prove RU-486 Dangerous to Women
* Iraqi Oilfield Maps
You really need to give links rather than hot air.
Not at all. You are pretty smart at times, but your syntactic analysis skills are lacking. The Judicial Watch uses the following phrase:
Through the request and lawsuit
It uses it twice, and doesn't distinguish if the email was given to them willingly by some activist insider, by request, or through the legal system. It can be assumed the lawsuit produced the large file I linked that was declassified. There is nothing that states the email was forced by the legal system. Anyone could have made it up and submitted it to Judicial Watch.
You should really do some fact checking before making such remarks. Maybe you just relied too much on the pubrecord site? Could they possible interject intentional bias? If you do some research you will find that Jason Leopold is a liberal pundit and writes for liberal magazines like "The Nation". Funny how Salon wouldn't print one of his articles because they couldn't authenticate an email, and more! They found they guy was a liar and also plagiarized other peoples work.
I never said the Army made the forgery. I suspect that Leopold or his insider friend is the forger.
Duplicate
There are two links to it in the Judicial Watch article.
You really need to be spoon fed like a little baby? Well, you are whining like one, so it makes sense.And I don't know what you are saying either. "do ents uncovered" section? I don't see that anywhere. What I do see with that name has links with the following les:
* Judicial Watch Uncovers Do ents Revealing Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine
* Do ents Detail Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
* Do ents Detail Mexican Government Incursions
* State Dept Analysis in 2002: Niger Uranium Sale to Iraq Unlikely
* Docs Show bin Laden Was Threat in 1996
* Border Patrol Surveys
* FBI Protects bin Laden’s Privacy Rights
* Docs Prove RU-486 Dangerous to Women
* Iraqi Oilfield Maps
You really need to give links rather than hot air.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/litigation-department-army
There is only one en y from which do ents were requested:Not at all. You are pretty smart at times, but your syntactic analysis skills are lacking. The Judicial Watch uses the following phrase:
Through the request and lawsuit
It uses it twice, and doesn't distinguish if the email was given to them willingly by some activist insider, by request, or through the legal system. It can be assumed the lawsuit produced the large file I linked that was declassified. There is nothing that states the email was forced by the legal system. Anyone could have made it up and submitted it to Judicial Watch.
The United States Army.
There is only one en y that produced do ents:
The United States Army.
Is that clear enough for you? Do you need your bottle now?
You are too stupid to realize that this has nothing at all to do with Jason Leopold, since we are only discussing the Judicial Watch do ents he cites.You should really do some fact checking before making such remarks. Maybe you just relied too much on the pubrecord site? Could they possible interject intentional bias? If you do some research you will find that Jason Leopold is a liberal pundit and writes for liberal magazines like "The Nation". Funny how Salon wouldn't print one of his articles because they couldn't authenticate an email, and more! They found they guy was a liar and also plagiarized other peoples work.
I never said the Army made the forgery. I suspect that Leopold or his insider friend is the forger.
Jason Leopold does not work for Judicial Watch.
Jason Leopold did not obtain the do ents.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 08-24-2008 at 06:36 PM.
Funny how neither the Army nor Haliburton challenged the authenticity of the email or its content when they had their chance in court.
Why is that?
Bevcause Like I also said at the start, the e-mail is heresay.
They never said it was hearsay.
The existence of an email is not hearsay.
Do you even know what an FIOA case is about?
Wrong.
The email was sent to one person from another claimng that Cheney was involved. It was then forwarded. We don't know the integrity of the originator. It could very well be a lie. All it is good for is to identify the originator of the email to testify. There is not need to challenge the email because it doesn't qualify as evidence. Any truth to be dicerned must come from the originator.
I still contend the email is a poor forgery, made on a word processor, then photocopied. The font spacing just doesn't line up right for printed material. It is more obvious than the Bush do nets were.
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) has to do with aquiring do ents. I don't know all the details, I won't pretend to. However, the original posted article claims proof of Cheney's involvement. The material Judicial Watch obtailed only indicates that as a unsubstantiated allegation. They even say correctly "possible ties."
Please. If there is unimpeachable evidence, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, this thread is a waste of cyberspace.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-25-2008 at 10:09 AM.
The existence of an email is not hearsay.No party has disputed the existence or validity of the email.I still contend the email is a poor forgery, made on a word processor, then photocopied. The font spacing just doesn't line up right for printed material. It is more obvious than the Bush do nets were.
Please. If there is unimpeachable evidence, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, this thread is a waste of cyberspace.
Please. Quit talking out of your ass, making things up and get a ing clue about hearsay and FOIA cases. Otherwise, your posts are a waste of cyberspace.
I never said it was heresay. I say the text of the email, if the email is valid, only amounts to hearsay. It is not evidence without the author of the forwarded email identified, testifies.
Don't you see? The email just doesn't matter. There is no reason to disput it's authenticity. It would be a waste od time. The originator of the email could have made the connection with Cheney up!
And you learned this at which law school? What law is being broken here?I never said it was heresay. I say the text of the email, if he email is valid, only amounts to hearsay. It is not evidence without the author of the forwarded email identified, testifies.
Don't you see? If the email is such a clear forgery that some internets schmoe like you could figure it out by measuring fonts with a ruler, the Army could actually SAY it's a fake in court and in the press.Don't you see? The email just doesn't matter. There is no reason to disput it's authenticity. It would be a waste od time. The originator of the email could have made the connection with Cheney up!
They didn't.
So why isn't the Justice Department acting on this?
Further, why is it the only deals involving Iraqi oil I have seen signed so far are the Chinese?
aren't you the one that complained about that french oil firm cutting deals in iraq along with exxon, bp, and the others?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
