posted 04-14-2003 09:16 AM            

CAIRO, April 12 (IslamOnline.net) - A number of armed people belonging to the nascent National Front For The Liberation of Iraq (NFLI) tried Friday, April 11 , to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, one of the prominent exile leaders and head of the Iraqi National Council (INC), in the southern city of An-Nasiriyah.

“They attacked a camp of Chalabi’s devotees, leaving a number of them killed,” Abdul Amir El-Rakabi, an Iraqi exile told IslamOnline on Satuday April 12th.

“They narrowly missed Chalabi,” he added.

The NFLI statement entitled "Aggression Ends, Liberation Begins", a copy of which was obtained by IslamOnline.net.

The statement said the new front “comprises local representatives of armed groups and resistance brigades, some still manning positions in Iraq along with Arab volunteer fighters"

“The front also is regrouping a host of Iraq’s elite Republican Guard units and special forces after being disintegrated. Iraq may lose the war, but it would never surrender or die," underlined the statement.

As for the U.S. plans to install former army general Jay Garner in power in post-war Iraq, the Liberation Front underlined that the

*****************************************************************
“Iraqi people will neither allow this Zionist general who is a personal friend to the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to rule them nor the thief of Baghdad Ahmad Chalabi.”
****************************************************************

The front further rebuffed other prominent Iraqi exiles such as Nezar al-Khazrgi, Nuri Abdul Razek, Mahdi Hafez, Adham al-Samra’I and their “ilk, as well as CIA (Central
an Guard units and Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) agents.”

“His comeback would definitely produce a ground-shaking effect since he is one of Iraq’s national icons, who vehemently oppose colonialism and the U.S. presence in Iraq. He would boost the morale of the Iraqis and make them act in unison in the face of occupying forces".

posted 04-14-2003 09:18 AM            

quote:

---

Bull$#!+, MY taxpayer dollars are funding this ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED war for profit. The afforementioned globalist companies will make billions.

---

Let's overlook the fact that you probably don't pay taxes because you don't have a job....Anyway, so now you are saying your tax dollars are funding these globalist companies. Wait...I thought oil was funding these globalist companies. Where does the oil come into the picture? I thought this was "blood for oil" remember? If your tax dollars are providing the profits....then certainly this war can't be about oil...right? There goes the basis for your theory.

quote:

---

Then Bu$h will move his warmongering right into Syria so Israel won't have any "threats" against them anymore, thereby making it safe (for the globalists) to do buisness.

---

Wait a minute...So now you're saying going into Syria will eliminate a threat? What kind of threat? Terrorism, maybe? I thought this war wasn't about eliminating threats....I thought it was about oil! Get your story straight, Mech...

And who are these "Globalists" anyway. Can you give me a couple examples of globalist companies and how exactly they will profit? You avoided and ignored my original question here.

quote:

---

le Iraq gets a nice Hamid Karzai (or worse) type dictator. A nice pliant puppet of the United States.

---

The US is saying it will not install a puppet government. I tend to trust Powell or Rumsfeld's word more than I trust yours.

quote:

---

In fact, I expect torture and detaining of dissidents to start right back up again when the new despot is installed.

---

We won't be installing despots, when it just cost us 100 billion to eliminate one. Duh.

quote:

---

Again.... Study history.

---

There are many success stories in history...Japan, and S. Korea to name a couple. Recently Afghanistan is another...although it will take time....

posted 04-14-2003 09:27 AM            

Yeah...if you like to put your trust in the hands of TRAITORS.

Taxpayer dollars for war and contracts...plus money from oil revenues. Are you THAT blind FW?

posted 04-14-2003 09:32 AM            

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH
DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST.

THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS.

BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER.

UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100 BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 - $200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.

WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE ALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.

I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.

I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER.

I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,

GEORGE WALKER BUSH

posted 04-14-2003 09:39 AM            

3/6/00
Treason--it's a Bush Family tradition

Well, Hack, this latest epistle of yours really twists me. Especially when it comes to the issue of treason.

How can I count the ways.....

1. George W. Bush's maternal great grandfather owning and using a major shipping line to supply Adolf Hitler in the 1930's. This line was at some point identified as a "front" company for the 3rd Reich and its operations were forced into suspension by the Roosevelt administration.

2. Prescott Bush, working for Brown Bros., Harriman investment bankers; which was as one of the lead financiers for the Thule Society membership [Thyssen, Krupp, et al] who created Adolf Hitler. Little discussed, but this relationship between Prescott Bush and Adolf earned Bush the calumny of being found guilty by the US Congress of violating US
"trading with the enemies" act.

3. An old GHW Bush family friend has been William Farish, Jr. I think that his father was one of the founders of Humble Oil Co [later merging with Standard of New Jersey-Rockefeller Trust Co becoming EXXON].

Surely you can recall GHW Bush going to south Texas to shoot birds with his old buddy, Bill Farish, throughout all his years in the executive branch of government.

William Farish, SR. was found guilty by the US CONGRESS of violating the trading with the enemies act during WW2. Seems that Farish, Sr. was responsible for the cross-licensing agreements with IG Farben [one of the Thule Society creators of Adolf Hitler]: licensing agreements that created the synthetic rubber plant at Buna, which was operated by the slave labor gangs from Auschwitz.

These cross-licensing agreements, executed after 1933, enabled the expansion of the German army; virtually created WW2; virtually enabled the 3rd Reich to wage war.

And during all those years of hostilities, royalties were paid to Farish's company via Swiss banking intermediaries.

And Prescott Bush supervised these financial relationships. Along with the Dulles brothers.

Farish, Sr., found guilty of virtual treason by the US CONGRESS, committed suicide.

Prescott Bush became the US SENATOR representing Brown Bros., Harriman and played golf with Ike.

The Press never asked any questions concerning this traitor reaching these pinnacles of power.

4. The American Eugenics Society. Virtually founded by the Bush family. I believe that it was later transmuted into becoming Planned Parenthood.

All the same, the philosophy of this American Eugenics Society was that the rights to breed had to be controlled by the state. It acknowledged inferior peoples and could be identified as a US analog for the Nazi programs against which the USA was ostensibly fighting.

Of course, the son George Herbert Walker outpointed the father Prescott when it came to treasonous acts. Just to name several...

1. After 1947, the US intelligence services became involved in the international trafficking in heroin. It was proposed as a course of action intended to provide "black" financing for the secret ops of the state.

The principal advocate for these activities was George Herbert Walker Bush. That was how he earned the nickname "POPPY."

2. The Bush family were part of the grouping that facilitated the Kennedy "hit" in Dallas. Though no one wants to discuss it, the "hit" had everything to do with how the historical post-WW2 controllers of the heroin trade were going to be displaced.

3. Iran-Contra. Only the USA seems intent on hiding from the truth: that the Republican Party [Ronald "Alzheimer's" Reagan and GHW Bush] made a deal with Iran so as to prevent POTUS [Carter] from freeing hostages in Teheran prior to the 1980 elections.

This was a double irony; as the hostages were taken because Carter became the victim of a company coup orchestrated by GHW Bush, which advised Carter that the US needed to harbor the deposed Shah.

The record of this story is clear: a President and a Vice-President of the United States were committing treason.

Furthermore: all the 1979 oil price dislocations that disrupted the Carter Presidency in its last years were also treasonous actions being energized by the GHW Bush-controlled Republican Party via their "company" associates.

***************************************************************

4. The Gulf War. How do I say it? GHW Bush created Saddam Hussein. They were business partners. They bilked the US taxpayer as Iraq armed itself via the Commodity Credit Corp.

Then George and his buddies shook down the Emir of Kuwait. I figure that the Emir eventually had to pay 250 big ones to George and Jim so as to get the US/NATO deployment into the Gulf to conduct Desert Storm.

*********************************************************************

Somehow, I consider this another act of treason. How is it that you characterize it more benignly? Or is it that you do not think about these matters?

And maybe that is why GHW Bush did not run so hard to retain his incumbency. He was too fat. Stuffed with bucks looted from the US citizens.

And now, you want us to hoist his son aloft.

Whose side are you on, boy? What side are you on?

Not the U.S. citizen's, I conclude.

So sad.

Get off of that computer, Hack. Start looking around.

posted 04-14-2003 09:42 AM            

By Rick Wiles
Copyright: American Freedom News
September 2001
http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm

President Bush recently signed an executive order to freeze the US financial assets of corporations doing business with Osama bin Laden. He described the order as a "strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network.”

"If you do business with terrorists, if you support or succor them, you will not do business with the United States," said President Bush.

He didn’t say anything about doing business with a terrorist’s brother – or his wealthy financier.

When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn’t tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind’s late brother was an investor in the president’s former oil business in Texas. He also hasn’t leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and terrorist networks.

Doing business with the enemy is nothing new to the Bush family. Much of the Bush family wealth came from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. Several business operations managed by Prescott Bush – the president’s grandfather - were seized by the US government during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director. Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bank’s shares. Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush. The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organizations for Hitler’s Third Reich. Again, on November 8, 1942, the federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler.

Doing business with the bin Laden empire, therefore, is only the latest extension of the Bush family’s financial ties to unsavory individuals and organizations. Now that thousands of American citizens have died in terrorist attacks and the nation is going to war, the American people should know about George W. Bush’s relationship with the family of Osama bin Laden.

Salem bin Laden, Osama’s older brother, was an investor in Arbusto Energy. – the Texas oil company started by George W. Bush. Arbusto means “Bush” in Spanish. Salem bin Laden died in an airplane crash in Texas in 1988.

Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, the family patriarch and founder of its construction empire, also died in a plane crash. Upon his death in 1968, he left behind 57 sons and daughters – the offspring he sired with 12 wives in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. About a dozen brothers manage Bin Laden Brothers Construction – one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East.

Fresh out of Harvard Business School, young George W. Bush returned to Midland, TX, in the late 1970s to follow his father’s footsteps in the oil business. Beginning in 1978, he set up a series of limited partnerships – Arbusto ’78, Arbusto ’79, and so on – to drill for oil.

One of President Bush’s earliest financial backers was James Bath, a Houston aircraft broker. Bath served with President Bush in the Texas Air National Guard. Bath has a mysterious connection to the Central Intelligence Agency.

According to a 1976 trust agreement, Salem bin Laden appointed James Bath as his business representative in Houston. Revelation about Bath’s relationship with the bin Laden financial empire and the CIA was made public in 1992 by Bill White, a former real estate business partner with Bath. White informed federal investigators in 1992 that Bath told him that he had assisted the CIA in a liaison role since 1976 – the same year former President George Herbert Walker Bush served as director of the CIA.

During a bitter legal fight between White and Bath, the real estate partner disclosed that Bath managed a portfolio worth millions of dollars for Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz and other wealthy Saudis. Among the investments made by Bath with Mahfouz’s money was the Houston Gulf Airport.

A powerful banker in Saudi Arabia, Mahfouz was one of the largest stockholders in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. BCCI was a corrupt global banking empire operating in 73 nations and was a major financial and political force in Washington, Paris, Geneva, London, and Hong Kong. Despite the appearance of a normal banking operation, BCCI was actually an international crime syndicate providing “banking services” to the Medellin drug cartel, Pamama dictator Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal, and Khun Sa, the heroin kingpin in Asia’s Golden Triangle.

The BCCI scandal implicated some of the biggest political names in Washington – both Democrats and Republicans – during the first Bush White House. The bank was accused of laundering money for drug cartels, smuggling weapons to terrorists, and using Middle Eastern oil money to influence American politicians.

The chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division under former President Bush was Robert Mueller. Because the major players came out of the scandal with slaps on the wrists, many critics accused Mueller of botching the investigation. Mr. Mueller was recently appointed by President George W. Bush as the new Director of the FBI, replacing Louis Freeh who did nothing while William Jefferson Clinton allowed the Red Chinese to loot our national security secrets.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division of the Justice Department, reviewed allegations by Bill White in 1992 that James Bath funneled money from wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen to American companies to influence the policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Robert Mueller, the new FBI chief, was in a senior position at the Justice Department at the time of the review.

White told a Texas court in 1992 that Bath and the Justice Department had “blackballed” him professionally and financially because he refused to keep quiet about his knowledge of an Arabic conspiracy to launder Middle Eastern money into the bank accounts of American businesses and politicians.

In sworn depositions, Bath admitted he represented four wealthy Saudi Arabian businessmen as a trustee. He also admitted he used his name on their investments and received, in return, a five- percent stake in their business deals.

Indeed, Texas tax documents revealed that Bath owned five percent of Arbusto ’79 Ltd., and Arbusto ’80 Ltd. Bush Exploration Company controlled the limited partnerships, the general partnership firm owned by young George W. Bush.

Although George W. Bush’s Texas oil ventures were financial failures, his financial backers recovered their investments through a series of mergers and stock swaps. He changed Arbusto’s name to Bush Exploration, then merged the new firm into Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation in 1984.

****************************************************************

The Bush-controlled oil business eventually ended up being folded into Harken Energy Corp., a Dallas-based corporation. Mr. Bush joined Harken as a director in 1986 and was given 212,000 shares of Harken stock. Bush used his White House connections to land a lucrative contract for the obscure Harken Energy Corp. with the Middle Eastern government of Bahrain. On June 20, 1990, George W. Bush sold his Harken stock for $848,000 and paid off the loan he took out to buy his small share in the Texas Rangers. The Bahrain deal was brokered by David Edwards, a close pal to Bill Clinton and a former employee of Stephens Inc. Shortly after Bush sold his stock, Harken’s fortunes nose-dived when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Some critics claim young George was tipped off in advance by his father about the soon-coming Gulf War.

*******************************************************

George W. Bush, however, worked wonders for Harken Energy Corp. before the stock collapsed. Using the Bush family name, he managed to bring much-needed capital investment to the struggling firm. George W. Bush traveled to Little Rock, AR, to attend a meeting with Jackson Stephens – a powerful Arkansas tycoon who helped bankroll the state campaigns of young Bill Clinton. He first gained political prominence as a fund-raiser for President Jimmy Carter. Stephens was also deeply involved in the BCCI scandal by helping the corrupt bank take control of First American Bank in Washington, DC.

Jack Stephens didn’t need an introduction to young George W. Bush. Mary Anne Stephens, his wife, managed Vice President George Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign in Arkansas. Stephens Inc., the well connected brokerage firm owned by Jack Stephens, donated $100,000 to a Bush campaign fundraising dinner in 1991. When George W. Bush won the contested Florida election in 2000, Jack Stephens made a substantial contribution to the Bush inauguration. Recently, former President Bush played golf on April 11, 2001, with Jack Stephens at the Jack Stephens Youth Golf Academy in Little Rock. The former president told Stephens, “Jack, we love you and we are very, very grateful for what you have done.”

Perhaps the former president was thanking him for the money Stephens provided young George W. Bush. Stephens arranged for a $25 million investment from the Union des Banques Suisses. The Swiss Bank held the minority interest in the Banque de Commerce et de Placements, a Geneva-based subsidiary of BCCI.

Both Stephens and Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a wealthy and well-connected Saudi real estate investor, signed the financial transaction. The Geneva transaction was paid through a joint venture between the Union Bank of Switzerland and its Geneva branch of BCCI.

The BCCI connection, therefore, linked George W. Bush with Saudi banker Khaled bin Mahfouz. Known in Arab circles as the “king’s treasurer,” Mahfouz held a 20 percent take in BCCI between 1986 and 1990. Mahfouz is no stranger to the Bush family. He was a big investor in the Carlyle Group, a defense-industry investment group with deep connections to the Republican Party establishment. Former President Bush is a former member of the company’s board of directors. George W. Bush also held shares in Caterair, a Carlyle subsidiary. Sami Baarma, a powerful player in the Mahfouz-owned Prime Commercial Bank of Pakistan, is a member of the Carlyle Group’s international advisory board.

President Bush certainly is aware of that his former Saudi sugar daddy is still financing Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. USA Today newspaper reported in 1999 that a year after bin Laden’s attacks on US embassies in Africa, Khaled bin Mahfouz and other wealthy Saudis were funneling tens of millions of dollars each year into bin Laden’s bank accounts. Five top Saudi businessmen ordered the National Commercial Bank to transfer personal funds and $3 million pilfered from a Saudi pension fund to the Capitol Trust Bank in New York City. The money was deposited into the Islamic Relief and Blessed Relief - Islamic charities operating in the US and Great Britain as fronts for Osama bin Laden.

The Capitol Trust Bank is run by Mohammad Hussein al-Amoudi. His lawyer is Democratic Party bigwig Vernon Jordan, close friend of former President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, the Arab who cosigned the $25 million cash infusion into George W. Bush’s Harken Energy Corporation, appointed Talat Othman to manage his 17.6 percent share in Harken Energy Corp. Othman, a native Palestinian, is president and CEO of Dearborn Financial Inc. – an investment firm in Arlington Heights, IL.

Bakhsh also bought a 9.6 percent stake in Worthen Banking Corporation, the Arkansas bank controlled by Jack Stephens. Abdullah Bakhsh’s share was the identical percentage as the amount of shares sold by Mochtar Riady, the godfather of the wealthy Indonesian family with close ties to the Chinese communists, Bill Clinton and evangelist Pat Robertson. Bakhsh is represented by Rogers & Wells, a well-connected Republican law firm in New York whose partners include former Secretary of State William P. Rogers.

Independent investigator reporter David Twersky reported in the early 1990s that Othman had a seat on Harken’s board of directors and met three times in the White House with President George Herbert Walker Bush. Organized by Chief of Staff John Sununu, Othman’s first meeting with President Bush at the White House was in August 1990, just days after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

There exist to this day an Arab-Texas connection. Khalid bin Mahfouz, financier of both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden, still maintains a palatial estate in Houston, TX. Former President George Bush also lives in Houston. James Bath, Texas political confidant of George W. Bush, managed to obtain a $1.4 million loan from Mahfouz in 1990. Bath and Mahfouz, along with former Secretary of Treasury John Connally, were also co-investors in Houston’s Main Bank. Bath was also president of Skyway Aircraft Leasing Ltd, a Texas air charter company registered in the Cayman Islands. According to published reports in the early 1990s, the real owner was bin Mahfouz. When Salem bin Laden, Osama’ brother, died in 1988, his interest in the Houston Gulf Airport was transferred to bin Mahfouz.

Since Osama bin Laden’s bloody attack on America on September 11, the federal government has moved quickly to freeze bank accounts connected to Osama bin Laden, Khalid bin Mahfouz, and a host of Islamic charities.
Perhaps federal agents should freeze the financial assets of the Bush family too. It would not be the first time Bush-family assets were seized by the US government for trading with the enemy.

posted 04-14-2003 10:01 AM            

SECRET BECHTEL DOCUMENTS REVEALED.....

YES...It's about OIL.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04092003.html

April 9, 2003

By DAVID LINDORFF

Is the war against Iraq all about oil? Not to hear Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tell it. Back on Nov. 15, he called the notion that oil was the real reason behind the Bush administration's drive against Saddam Hussein "nonsense," saying, "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

But a new study released by the Institute for Policy Studies, based upon secret diplomatic cables just declassified by the National Archives, and internal communications of the Bechtel Corporation, suggests just the opposite?that oil is the underlying cause of this war.

The study, which discloses the intimate links between the Bechtel Corporation and Bechtel executives and U.S. policy towards Iraq, also shows that some key players in the push for America's war against Iraq, including Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other former Reagan administration officials Roger Robinson, Judge William B. Clark and Robert McFarlane, have been intimately involved in issues relating to Iraqi oil as far back as the1980s.

Titled "Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured US Government Focus on Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein," this report traces an intense effort by Reagan officials in the mid-OE80s to win Hussein's approval for a $2-billion oil pipeline to be built by Bechtel, running from the Euphrates oilfields in southern Iraq westward to Jordan and the Gulf of Aqaba.

A key player in that effort was Rumsfeld, then the CEO of Searle drugs, the giant phramaceutical company,makers of Aspartame and "Nutra Sweet"

One particularly revealing 1983 memo, declassified for the first time in February by the National Archives, concerns a trip by Rumsfeld to Iraq. Acting as a special White House "peace envoy" allegedly to discuss with Hussein and then foreign minister Tarik Aziz the bloody war between Iran and Iraq, Rumsfeld turns out according to this memo to have been talking not about that war, but about Bechtel's proposed Aqaba pipeline.

In his memo to Secretary of State George Schultz reporting on the meeting with Hussein, Rumsfeld talks at length about the pipeline discussion, but makes no mention of having discussed either the war or charges that Hussein's army was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

The intense focus of Rumsfeld, Schultz (a former president of Bechtel), Cheney and other Reagan officials, in concert with Bechtel, on the pipeline, reads like an abbreviated, or mini "Pentagon Papers," laying the groundwork for a collapse in relations between the U.S. and Iraq, and eventually to

war. The documents also cast Bechtel's current position as one of two top candidates for the lucrative contract to "rebuild Iraq" in a troubling light.

As American troops press into Baghdad, and Iraqi casualties run into the thousands, Counterpunch speaks with Jim Valette, director of research at the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, and one of the three authors of "Crude Vision."

Q: What prompted this study?

A: We were examing the interconnections between private corporations and the U.S. government in the pursuit of oil worldwide since 1995--principally the U.S. financing --through the World Bank and US agencies like the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), etc.?of that pursuit. But what has clearly occurred in recent months has been clearly an even more serious expression of this pursuit of fossil fuels for the benefit of Big Oil, which is an extention of this relation into the military role. And so we're looking at the deployment of troops and paramilitaries financed by the U.S. government worldwide, and of course the most serious conflict of interest is in Iraq. In the course of that research we saw the beginning and end of the story of American efforts to gain control of Iraq's oilfields, the beginning being Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein in Deecemer 1983 to the end, which was the Independent Counsel's investigation of the Attorney General, at the time, Edwin Meese, and his relationship with one of the brokers of the pipeline, E Robert Wallachs. Before this nobody had connected the dots between Rumsfeld and the Meese investigation and nobody had examined exactly how dominant this pipeline project was in the diplomacy and the burgeoning relationship between the Reagan administration and Saddam Hussein. It was in that context that we came across corporate records and government memoranda related to the Aqaba pipeline project. It was a real eye-opener to us to see how interwomen Bechtel's interests were with the Reagan Administration.

Q. We1re talking about stuff that happened almost 20 years ago. How is this relevant to what's happening in Iraq now?

A: This story, I think, is timely even though it's 20 years old because Bechtel is back now, as the likely winner of the contract to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, and many of those Reagan administration officials are back, and they are poised to get their hands on Iraq's oil again.

Q: So what is new here?

A: The release in February by the National Archives of cables back and forth between Washington and U.S. diplomats in the Middle East around the time of 1983 and 1984 disclose for the first time what really transpired in Rumsfeld's meetings with Saddam and other Iraqi officials. What had previously been reported was that Rumsfeld had a cozy meeting with Saddam in Baghdad in December 1983. In the past, the focus was on whether or not he had raised the issue of Saddam's use of chemical arms against Iran. But what the actual memoranda show is that a big part of Rumsfeld's discussion with Saddam Hussein was this new proposal from Bechtel to build a pipeline form Iraq to Jordan. I mean Rumsfeld was executing the marching

orders of George Schultz, who was the Secretary of State, but who came directly from the presidency of Bechtel to the Reagan administration. The documents released by the National Security Archive suggest that what was going on then had quite a bit to do with oil--certainly more than had been known before.

Q: Before the release of those documents we didn't know that Rumsfeld was talking about a pipeline?

A: Right. Right. I mean it was reported that when he was there he didn't raise an issue with Saddam about the use of chemical weapons, even though there were reports coming out of Iran that Saddam was dropping chemical bombs on Iranian troops.

Q: So we knew before what he didn't talk about, but not what he was talking about?and that was the pipeline?

A: .Right, he was there sort of as a bagman for Bechtel. And then there were documents I found in the government's National Archives that showed the extensive involvement of Reagan officials and the very close relationship they had with Bechtel officials, in pursuing this pipeline over the next two years. We sort of connected the dots between what was in these National Security Archives and what was known in the general coverage over the last 15 years.

Q: How important was this pipeline in terms of relations?

A: It was the focus of U.S. relations with Iraq for several years, right through the period that Iraq was locked in a bitter war with Iran. In one 1984 internal company memo, Bechtel executive H. B. Scott exhorts his colleagues at Bechtel, after it appeared that all this diplomacy by Rumsfeld seemed to be paying off, "I cannot emphasise enough the need for maximum

Bechtel management effort at all levels of the U.S. government and industry to support this project. It has significant political overtones. The time may be ripe for this project to move promptly with very significant rewards to Bechtel for having made it possible." And in these documents we see how tightly interwoven this management effort is with their former colleagues such as George Schultz in the State Department in implementing this initiative. It shows how corporations take advantage of U.S. geopolitics in the region and how they try to profit from those geopolitical developments. Another important memo was in July of 1985, after Bechtel had run into some difficulties in assuaging Saddam's fears about potential Israeli threats to the pipeline. Bechtel and the State Department were having trouble getting the right degree of assurance from the Isreaeli Labor Party [then the ruling party in Israwl] that the pipeline would be off limits to attack. Bechtel and the Reagan administration officials were trying to get absolute assurance from the Labor Party that the pipeline would absolutely not be

attacked. There were some frustrations to that approach in 1985, and so Bechtel hired a couple of very close friends of the Reagan administration to sort out the deal. In July of 1985, pipeline promoters hired Judge Jim Clark, who was considered Reagan's right hand man. He had just left government to go into private business. There's a memo from Judge Clark saying that he's "on board" and laying out the terms of his involvement, which were $500 an hour, and saying he'd be flying to Baghdad, not as a private consultant, but representing himself as a White House representative. That memorandum, which is avialable on our website (), shows how blurry that revolving door had become. He's working for the government while he's simultaneously getting paid as an agent for Bechtel.

Q: Okay, so we have the evidence that there was this big concern about getting this big pipeline for Bechtel, and the interest in getting oil out without it having to go through the Persian Gulf. But wasn't that a legitimate national security concern for the U.S., given Iran's political situation and its hostility towards America?

A: Well, it has been long-standing US national security policy on paper

that threats to the free flow of oil are threats to national security, and this is what we're getting at here. Is this pursuit of oil or the pursuit of empire? Some folks define what's going on in Iraq as U.S. pursuit of empire, but right now it's really two sides of the same coin. And this policy of

pursuing oil and empire is coming up against all sorts of realities now that weren't well understood back in the 1980s. On the National security side, this pursuit of oil wealth at all costs has huge costs to democracy and human rights. It's creating a backlash in the Middle East and elsewhere that has had some horrible expressions recently.

Q: The pipeline never got built though. What happened?

A: In the end, Saddam decided that Bechtel was trying to charge too much for the project, and so he killed the project and instead went with a pipeline connecting into pipelines in Turkey and into Saudi Arabia, but avoiding the Straits of Hormuz.

Q: Do you expect to see the Aqaba pipeline revived?

A: Maybe, maybe not. I've seen reports now of Israel looking to build a pipeline from Iraq to the Golan Heights. It's not the same project as Bechtel's Aqaba pipeline idea. Bechtel asked the Commerce Department to keep the Aqaba pipeline registered as an active project for years, but it's probably less necessary now for the U.S. and Bechtel. The pipelines to Saudi Arabia and Turkey give an alternative route for oil to the Persian Gulf, and Bechtel gets into Iraq as a contractor to rebuild Iraq after the war. Right now, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Bechtel is one of the two finalists for the Iraq reconstruction job, along with Parson's group, which has Halliburton as a secondary contractor. Halliburton is Vice President Cheney's former company [Note: Cheney is still receiving payments from Halliburton]. That was reported in the Wall Street Journal

today (April 2). They're both on the short list. Halliburton sort of stepped back for obvious reasons but they1re still in there with Parsons.

A: Aside from the unseemly picture of two well connected companies getting an inside track for all that post-war business in Iraq, why do you find the Bechtel involvement in this situation so troubling?

Q: Schultz worked at Bechtel. So did (Reagan Defense Secretary) Caspar Weinberger. There were a lot of Bechtel people in the government in the '80s at the same time that the Iraqi's were gassing the Iranis. The same people are now formulating the plans for a coming U.S. occupation of Iraq, and in turn, the same people will be given the spoils of war--whether it's Parsons and Halliburton or Bechtel. It's all kind of circular back to the 1980s, you know -- completing unfinished business--getting American companies back in there after their being shut out since 1991 and the first Gulf War. Bechtel was also listed by Iraq in its report to the U.N. weapons inspectors as one of the companies that helped supply Saddam with equipment and knowledge for making chemical weapons. Bechtel in the 1980s was prime contractor on PC 1 and 2, two petrochemical plants constructed in Iraq which had dual-use capacity. So I guess the bottom line is that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld squad are now holding Saddam Hussein accountable for chemical weapons of mass destruction--the same weapons which these same officials ignored in pursuit of the Aqaba pipeline project. And now we are going to reward the pipeline promoter with massive contracts for reconstruction resulting from this policy. There is just such hypocricy in all this.

Q: This all seems like a kind of mini-Pentagon Papers, laying out the early roots of this war.

A: It's not as much of a blue-print as was the Pentagon Papers, but these memos and documents do show how business gets done in Washington, how it was conducted in the 1980s and how it's probably being conducted now behind closed doors under secret bidding processes. And it shows how the origins of American conflict with Iraq involve control of and access to oil.

Q: Can you see any signs that the current war is linked directly to oil? I mean the administration has given so many reasons for going to war I'm surprised they haven't gotten to oil. I remember in 1991, the first Bush said it was about jobs, which equates pretty quickly to oil. But they didn't say that this time around.

A: Yeah, they've redacted any reference to oil from their language. Maybe that's the best evidence that that's what it's really about, because it's logical. I mean Bush the first in his national security papers defined the free flow of oil as a national security priority, as did President Clinton in his final months in office. He released a national security paper that said that the free flow of oil is a national security priority that must be enforced with military might if necessary. The current Bush came out with the national security strategy that redacted this long-standing text dating back to the Carter administration, but at the same time you had this Cheney energy policy that continues this idea of the necessity of a "diverse and free supply of oil" without the military language. And actually you had Cheney kind of kick off the whole war fever last August in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He cited the specter of Saddam Hussein with his weapons of mass destruction threatening the flow of oil from the region. Then immediately afterwards, any kind of reference like that vanished from the Bush administration's rhetoric, to the point that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called any kind of association of the current conflict with oil to be an "absurdity." So there is no document or strategy paper now that says "we must invade

Iraq because our US oil companies have been shut out of this second largest reservoir of oil for the last 20 years," but who knows what we'll find in the National Archives 20 years from now? It's a circumstantial case, but that's as good as we can do now. And logic certainly has its place as well. I mean, the question is why are the weapons of mass destruction today a cause for war when these very same weapons were ignored by the same officials 20 years ago when they were being used. What has changed is that other national oil companies--French, Russian and Chinese--have gotten into Iraq, while U.S. companies were being frozen out. I'm sure there are other factors. Certainly the Kuwait invasion didn't help U.S relations with Saddam, and since Kuwait, Saddam signed very lucrative oil contracts with the French, Russians, Chinese and others.

Q: You made the point in your paper that US relations started to tank with Iraq after the rejection of the oil pipeline.

A: That's true. There was a shift away from Iraq to Iran right at that time, but I should say that Reagan and Bush the First both played both sides of the fence for a while, even after the pipeline project collapsed. You had the Iran Contra deal, but at the same time the U.S. was providing Iraq with intelligence about Iranian troop movements. And the U.S. did extend commodity credits through the Agriculture Department that Saddam then parlayed into arms. And there were the chemical plants that Bechtel helped build. So it's been quirkier than that. But certainly the end of the pipeline destroyed oil relations.

Q: What do you think led to the current war. What's the oil link?

A: Look at what's in Iraq and what's undeveloped. Iraq represents a major insurance package against any kind of political overhaul in Saudi Arabia or problems elsewhere in the Middle East. Look at the policy that people like Rumsfeld and others were recommending in the 1990s leading up to this war and they certainly cited the threat of Saddam Hussein to regional oil supplies as a cause for war. Certainly if the Bechtel pipeline had been built, the course of Iraqi-U.S. relations would have been much different. The failure of that pipeline set into motion a much different course for those relations.

A: So having control of Iraqi oil is still a key issue?

Q: It's the sole reason why the Persian Gulf region and Iraq have been a United States national security concern for so long. It's not geography.

Q: So what would you say is the lesson of all this?

A: The lesson is that when it comes to oil, a dictator is friendly to the U.S. when he's willing to do business and he's a mortal enemy when he's not. That has been the driving force behind national security policy, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. Oil and national security policy were all submerged in the context of the Cold War. But once that Cold War collapsed, now it's a no-holds-barred battle for oil globally, and the U.S. has seen itself cut out of the world's second largest reserve of oil--and oil that is very inexpensive to extract. So with the U.S. shut out of Iraq, certainly it makes the trigger fingers of U.S. policy-makers itchy. And whether it's a blood feud or a war for oil, it's just a tragedy that the people of Iraq and our own sons and daughters and brothers and sisters are paying the price.

posted 04-14-2003 10:37 AM            

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions.

PS...I don't think you're fooling anyone with your disingenuous tactics at this point. Notice, how very few people have chosen to comment on this thread because you've probably driven them away, and have successfully made the thread unreadable.

But again, let's stay focused here. I'm trying to get at what your argument is, but you seem afraid to go beyond the surface slogans...

Just answer my questions, so we can see exactly who these globalist companies are, and how they are profiting by oil. It's all about oil, right? I'm asking you to explain how this works in detail. What companies are profiting from Iraqi oil. And how are they profiting? Already we've seen inconsistency with your argument; You say this war is all about oil, yet at the same time, you're saying these globalists are profiting from taxpayer money.

Well which is it? Is it about profiting from Iraqi oil? If you still maintain that it is (requiring that you back track on your previous statement that these globalists are profiting by tax payer money), then I'd like to know who you think these globalists are, and how exactly they are profiting on Iraqi oil. What is this mechanism. I'd like you to explain this in detail Mech, which should be easy for you...since you are the one making the accusation that this war is about oil.

Then we'll further explore the fact that you just acknowledged that an attack on Syria would be to eliminate a terrorist threat on Israel.

Please focus and address the questions and comments in your own words Mech. I will not read or respond to your cut and paste propaganda spam….unless you’ve linked it or used it to accentuate one of your own points or arguments. So far you seem to be using it to distract and evade honest questions. Right now, I’m just trying to get to the bottom of what your argument actually is. Let’s try to focus on that point right now. You have argued that this war is about oil. I’m saying…Ok, then let’s look at how this would work. How exactly does oil enter the picture here? You still haven’t made this clear Mech. So far you’ve mentioned tax payer dollars to globalists, and attacking Syria to eliminate a threat…but no mention of oil as motivation. How does oil enter the picture here?

posted 04-14-2003 10:50 AM            

HEY FW....

READ!!!!

SEE ABOVE.

Like I said, talking to you is like clapping with one hand.

It doesn't matter what my answer would be. Your intention is to defend this administration NO MATTER WHAT they have done.
Consistantly...you have shown this in your writing and response to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.

I say let the reader decide.

posted 04-14-2003 11:17 AM            

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what my answer would be.

---

Yes it does. I've been trying to get an answer from you but so far the effort has been unsuccessful. Just answer the dang questions, and we'll see if your answer matters. Why are you afraid of giving answers that support your thesis argument that this war is about oil? So far you are running away from those questions.

quote:

---

Your intention is to defend this administration NO MATTER WHAT they have done.

---

Unless you are phychic, you don't know what my intentions are. Why don't we stop trying to be mind readers here, and just have an honest discussion. Where do you read this into my questions, anyway? Just answer the questions.

quote:

---

Consistantly...you have shown this in your writing and response to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.

---

Just answer my questions. Let's first find out what you are even arguing. Do not worry about my intentions, until we know what they are. This requires an honest discussion...something that you have as of yet refused to engage in.

If you try to obfuscate and run from backing up your argument that this war is about oil...I'm here to remind you and constantly not let this point rest.

Just make this easy on yourself and answer the dang questions in your own words. I’m willing to face whatever your argument is head on and in great detail (even if you run hide and obfuscate)…If honesty and truth were your objectives, I think it’s probably obvious to anyone reading this now, who is running away from truth here. Just answer the questions…let’s find out if you can back up your oil for blood argument. If this war is about oil…then surely you can show how these globalists are profiting from it. Surely you can name some specific “globalist” companies….

posted 04-14-2003 12:08 PM            

AGAIN...any time I DO answer your SO-CALLED "questions" you carefully twist my words to give a "strawman" argument. Not just with me either. Swamp Gas also was a victim of your vile hatred. You can't stand differing opinions so you will do whatever it takes to try to make the other person look "bad".

It is so typical of your BAIT AND SWITCH tactics to lure the reader away from THE REAL TOPIC with mindless squabbling.

Sorry...Take your questions elsewhere. I'm fininshed dealing with your petty hatred.

posted 04-14-2003 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

WHY should I answer your so-called question? WHY should I have dialog with someone engaged in so much hatred against other board members.

---

I don't have hatred against other board members. That's YOUR lie. The reason you should answer my question is because they are pertaining to the argument you are making. If you are serious, genuine and honest about your statement that this war is about oil....then it should be no problem for you to answer questions such as, “how do these “globalist” oil companies profit from Iraqi oil?...and who these companies are. These seem to be the most reasonable and basic things to ask. If you can't even answer these questions, it is also reasonable to conclude that your argument is specious at best, and goes no deeper than baseless bumper sticker slogans.

If you say this war is about oil, then it is up to you to make the case. You are making the claim. It is up to you to show who profits from the sale of Iraqi oil, how they profit, and who these companies are. If you do not know the answers to these questions (as all indications now show), then it is reasonable to conclude that the blood for oil argument is false, deceptive and shallow. It is a lie.

If there is no substance to your argument, then the only thing that an honest reader can conclude is that you are a phony and have absolutely no credibility Mech. My questions gave you a chance to show that there is substance behind your claims that this war is for oil, which is the foundation for every other argument you seem to be making regarding the war. You could not back up the claim with facts or evidence, or reason or logic, and when confronted on all these levels, you try obfuscation...bury the reader in BS. When that doesn't work, you play the victim card and make false accusations about me.

Well...this is very telling Mech. The bottom line here is that you refuse to back up your argument while proving yourself unable and incapable of answering even the most basic questions that would support your argument.

Hence we must conclude that everything Mech is arguing here is not based in substance. In fact, it is based on lies deception and obfuscation. What other conclusions can we draw? It's obvious you are evading the questions because you cannot answer them due to the fact that your argument is specious.....You are exposed for the fraud you are Mech...And the thing that is even more sinister is the fact that you KNOW you are a fraud. If you were not, you would find it easy to have a detailed conversation and back up you claims, and answer some simple questions.

posted 04-14-2003 12:49 PM            

ONE MORE TIME.

BECHTEL, HALLIBURTON,SHELL OIL...AD NAUSEAUM.

Reagan Jr. blasts Bush
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/14/ron_reagan/index_np.html

"My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush," says the former president's son, in a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration's efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Talbot

April 14, 2003 | The Bush inner circle would like to think of George W.'s presidency as more of an extension of Ronald Reagan's than of his one-term father's. Reagan himself, who has long suffered from Alzheimer's disease, is unable to comment on those who lay claim to his political legacy. But his son, Ron Jr., is -- and he's not pleased with the association.

"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," he said during a recent interview with Salon. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s.
********************************************************************

But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."

posted 04-14-2003 01:54 PM            

NAME ONE.

posted 04-14-2003 02:23 PM            

quote:

---

Hey Fastwalker..WHAT LIES? PROVE IT.

NAME ONE.

---

I’ll be more than happy to prove your lies. Let’s work on one lie at a time. It’s easier that way. The first lie that I’m currently addressing is your lie that the motivation for this war is controlling Iraqi oil, so Bush‘s rich friends can profit (an asinine argument on it‘s face).

I will prove it if you are willing to answer my questions and have a conversation. Just answer the questions, and the lies I’m talking about will be perfectly clear. I intend to prove it…but you are throwing up road blocks because you obviously don’t want to face truth….Otherwise you’d answer my questions. If you’ll answer these simple questions; How are companies profiting from the sale of Iraqi oil? By what mechanism? What companies are we talking about here?

Then, if you name some specific companies, I’m going to ask you how these companies are profiting from oil. Remember…this is a war for oil according to you. So, it’s reasonable to expect then, that you should know exactly how these companies plan to profit from oil AND who these specific companies are. If you do not have the answers to these questions, then how can you make the statement that this is a war for oil? That statement must be a lie.

Now let me save you from falling into a trap here. Don’t list for me companies who are involved with re-building of Iraq (which is the responsibility of America according to the rules of war). I’m talking about those specific companies who intend to directly profit from the sale of Iraqi oil. After all, you are not claiming that the motivation these “globalists” have for war is to profit from the rebuilding of Iraq. (And all the better if we have American companies do this, by the way). You are claiming they are intending to profit from the sale of Iraqi oil that will now be under the control of these mysterious “globailists“. This is the foundation of your war for oil argument. If this is a false argument, then it is reasonable to suspect your other arguments are false as well…

posted 04-14-2003 02:40 PM            

Anyone with half a brain can research these things for themselves. OF COURSE they are going to feather their own nests without regard to the consequenses.They have the power, they have the guns,they have the money. There is enough evidence in this thread alone to indicate this.

It seems to me that you are completely ignoring the MOUNTAIN of evidence that this administration is CORRUPT and will defend them regardless. The Bu$h family has a LONG HISTORY of corruption and actually DOING BUISNESS WITH THE ENEMY FOR PROFIT.

Somehow I am beginning to believe that you work for them Fastwalker. Either that or you work for Wall St.

I'm not an economist.But I can smell corruption a mile away. This war is unjustified. We were not attacked.
It's all about oil and using Iraq as a stepping stone for the globalists to dominate the middle east.

Something most likely you are in favor of.

posted 04-14-2003 03:29 PM            

I don't want to dwell on those lies yet because I want to deal with one lie at a time....I want to get you to focus on one subject first. You are just wasting alot of space until you can answer my questions....Eventually Mech, even you will have to realize that it is painfully obvious to any intelligent person that your arguments are baseless, if you cannot even back up your claims by answering simple questions.

Once again;

Who are these “globalist” companies which you claim our president started a war for the purposes of profiting from Iraqi oil?

How will these companies make their profits from Iraqi oil?

What is the process by which they would profit?

Are we to assume that GW spent 80 to 100 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money, so a few American companies can rebuild Iraq?….It has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein was in a position to supply WMDs to terrorist groups? You don’t think stopping terrorism was a factor in attacking Iraq, but you do think it will be a factor if we attack Syria? It’s all about oil, but you can’t even explain how companies would profit from the sale of Iraqi oil? You don’t even know what companies these would be? Surely you realize Haliburton etc, is not in the business of selling or even pumping oil. Surely you realize that Dick Cheney is no longer CEO of Haliburton. Surely you realize Enron was also a major contributor to the Democratic party. Surely you realize that all presidents have to deal with the major energy suppliers and contractors in America. Evidently you feel that just dealing with or having contacts with big business is proof of corruption…Well I guess under your definition, anyone who deals with capitalism is corrupt.

But anyway, back to lie number one…; This war is about oil….Let’s deal with the basic questions I asked first. I’m trying to get you to focus here. Then we can move onto lie number two and three and four and so on……

posted 04-14-2003 03:48 PM            

"--The study, which discloses the intimate links between the Bechtel Corporation and Bechtel executives and U.S. policy towards Iraq, also shows that some key players in the push for America's war against Iraq, including Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other former Reagan administration officials Roger Robinson, Judge William B. Clark and Robert McFarlane, have been intimately involved in issues relating to Iraqi oil as far back as the1980s.

Titled "Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured US Government Focus on Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein," this report traces an intense effort by Reagan officials in the mid-OE80s to win Hussein's approval for a $2-billion oil pipeline to be built by Bechtel, running from the Euphrates oilfields in southern Iraq westward to Jordan and the Gulf of Aqaba.

A key player in that effort was Rumsfeld, then the CEO of Searle drugs, the giant phramaceutical company,makers of Aspartame and "Nutra Sweet"---"

In summary......

OIL MONEY INFLUENCES POLICY DECISIONS IN THE BU$H ADMINISTRATION

posted 04-14-2003 08:58 PM            

Good. Glad to see you are reading it PV.

I hope you will finally see that we have a tyrannical government.

WOW! So I guess Reuters, Newsmax, American Free Press, BBC, Annanova, Independent UK,
Washington times and others are "liars?"

If YOU say so PV. LOL!

By the way...your buddies at the GOP want to make the "Patriot Act" permenant. A TOTAL VIOLATION of the Constitution. I'll bet you'll still wave that Chinese slave made plastic American Flag now won't you PV?

posted 04-14-2003 10:59 PM            

Well...zieg heil back atcha..

Here is some truth:
During a night “cleanup”in one of suburban houses near An-Nasiriya three marines shot a man and afterwards raped and shot his wife.

Psychological Operations command decided to combine all Iraqi POWs into large groups and to distribute the resulting video footage to the world media. A more active use of the Iraqi opposition was suggested for propaganda work in the occupied villages. The same opposition members will be used to create video footage of the "repented" Iraqi POWs and footage of the local [Iraqi] population "opposing Saddam."

those pics of Iraqi's yelling Bush good?
Fakes.
Same faces tearing down statues in town after
town:
Wag The Dog/ Gulf PR war II

Complete fraud propaganda fake!
RW lies!

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm
According to verified information, during the past 48 hours of the Iraqi counterattacks the coalition forces sustained the following losses: up to 30 killed, over 110 wounded and 20 missing in action; up to 30 combat vehicles lost or disabled, including at least 8 tanks and 2 self-propelled artillery systems, 2 helicopters and 2 unmanned aerial vehicles were lost in combat. Iraqi losses are around 300 killed, up to 800 wounded, 200 captured and up to 100 combat vehicles 25 of which were tanks. Most of the [ Iraqi ] losses were sustained due to the artillery fire and aerial bombardment that resumed by the evening of March 27.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm
A report was obtained, prepared by the Al-Kuwait-based [coalition] Psychological Operations Tactical Group for the [coalition] Special Ground Forces Command. The report analyzed the effectiveness of the information and propaganda war. According to the report, analysis of the television broadcasts, intercepted radio communications, interrogations of Iraqi POWs show that psychologically the Iraqis are now "more stable and confident" that they were during the last days before the war. This, according to the report, is due primarily to the coalition's numerous military failures.
"...Following nervousness and depression [of the Iraqis] during the first days of the war we can now observe a burst of patriotic and nationalistic feelings. ...There has been a sharp increase in the number of Iraqi refugees, who left the country before the war, returning to Iraq. A "cult of war" against the US and the UK is now emerging among the Iraqis...", the report states. [Reverse translation from Russian]
[Coalition] analysts believe that if this attitude of the Iraqis is not changed within the next 7 days, a "resistance ideology" may take over the Iraqi minds, making the final [coalition] victory even more difficult. In response to this report the US Army Psychological Operations command decided to combine all Iraqi POWs into large groups and to distribute the resulting video footage to the world media. A more active use of the Iraqi opposition was suggested for propaganda work in the occupied villages. The same opposition members will be used to create video footage of the "repented" Iraqi POWs and footage of the local [Iraqi] population "opposing Saddam."
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news084.htm
According to radio intercepts, the coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks has visited the US forces near Karabela. He personally inspected the troops and had a