Telling Stories

If You Thought the Iraq War Was Really About Oil . . .

. . . you'd be right.

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq,as Saddam Hussein rose to power. 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production. . .

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.

Emphasis added.  And what was the Iraq Petroleum Company?

The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), until 1929 called Turkish Petroleum Company(TPC), was an oil company jointly owned by some of the world's largest oil companies, which had virtual monopoly on all oil exploration in Iraq from 1925 to 1961.

TPC obtained a concession to explore for oil in 1925, in return for a promise that the Iraqi government would receive a royalty for every ton of oil extracted, but linked to the oil companies' profits and not payable for the first 20 years. Drilling started immediately, and on October 15, 1927 oil was discovered at Baba Gurgur just north of Kirkuk. Many tons of oil were spilled before the gushing well was brought under control, and this sign of a large, valuable field soon proved to be true.

The discovery hastened the negotiations over the composition of TPC, and in July 1928 the shareholders signed a formal agreement: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which in 1935 became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and in 1954 BP), Royal Dutch/Shell, the Compagnie française des pétroles (CFP, which in 1991 became Total), and the Near East Development Corporation (a consortium of five large US oil companies, among them Standard Oil)each received 23.7% of the shares, and Calouste Gulbenkian the remaining 5%. TPC was to be organized as a nonprofit company, registered in Britain, that produced crude oil for a fee for its parent companies, based on their shares. The company was only allowed to refine and sell to Iraq's internal market, in order to prevent any competition with the parent companies.

The big loser was Iraq. The San Remo conference had stipulated that Iraqis should be allowed 20% of the company if they wanted to invest in it, but the oil companies successfully resisted Iraqi efforts to participate, despite pressure by the British government to accept Iraqi shareholders. In 1929 the TPC was renamed the Iraq Petroleum Company(IPC). . .

During the 1940s and 1950s, the company also obtained concessions to explore for oil in Dubai and other Gulf states. It retained its monopoly of exploration and development in Iraq until 1961, when the revolutionary government of General Qassem nationalized 99.5% of its concession areas in Iraq, leaving only the producing oilfields in the company's control. In 1971, the Iraqi government nationalized the remaining interests into the Iraq National Oil Company. This resulted in major increases in revenues for the Baath party government under Saddam Hussein to pursue massive infrastructure projects.

Emphasis added.  And there you have it.  It took 36 years but Big Oil is back to "help Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry."  And if you believe that, there's a nice patch of dry land right next to the Mississippi I'd like to sell you.

Reason No. 1,345,641 Why I Don't Pay Attention to Arbusto Anymore

Via The Politico:

Bush warns of Iraq disaster

I nearly stroked-out when I read that headline.  What in the world does he think is going on in Iraq?

President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates' plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" and would "embolden" terrorists.

To quote the now-famous - or infamous -  Sue Simmons, "wtf are you doing?"  Six years and over 4,000 lives later, this fear-mongering is the most pathetic excuse for "leadership" I have ever seen in my entire life.  Does he not remember that there were no terrorist in Iraq before we were "greeted as liberators"?  Does he not remember that the insurgency is "in its last throes"?

Can't he see how consistently and horribly wrong he has been on this issue from day one?  Doesn't he realize that part of the reason oil prices are out of control is the regional instability our little splendid war has introduced into the heart of the oil-producing world?

I'm telling you, I cannot wait for him to go away somewhere and not be heard from ever again.

Tags: Iraq,  BUFU, Politics

Lost in Translation

Sometimes you have to wonder about our so-called leaders' perspectives and priorities.

With U.S. gasoline prices setting records, opponents of the war in Iraq have raised a new complaint this week: The budget windfall that skyrocketing oil prices has given Baghdad.

Though Iraq's oil exports have yet to top prewar levels, the price rise has meant a $6.4 billion surplus for the Iraqi government, according to the Pentagon's last quarterly report on the war.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, proposed the Iraqi government pay the cost of stationing U.S. troops in its country under any future agreement between Washington and Baghdad -- and said he would introduce legislation to require that.

"The United States government and the people of the United States have paid an awful price," Rohrabacher said. "It's time for the Iraqis to pay that price for their own protection."

Emphasis added.  So, let me get this straight: we start a war with Iraq based on fabricated or faulty intelligence and with the encouragement of virtually the entire media, to look for weapons that didn't really exist, and avert a non-existing threat.  In the name of the war on terror, we took hundreds - perhaps thousands - of Iraqis, torture some, killed others, and displaced millions within Iraq and hundreds of thousands outside Iraq.  We have created a terrorist haven and training ground in that country.  Iran is a much more powerful influence in the region thanks to this war.  While the President of Iran can fly in and move around Baghdad with little or no security, we couldn't get Santa Clause into Iraq without a full security detail behind him.

We screwed Iraq up for decades.  And now we're asking to get paid for that.

Un-f***ing-real.

Tags: Iraq,  BUFU, War

Reason No. 154,456 Why They Don't Like Us

Maybe because we insist on trying to impose our priorities over theirs:

Mr. McCain said he had not expected Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to try to oust Shiite militias from Basra without consulting the Americans, and that he was troubled by some of the demands that were made by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr as part of his offer of a ceasefire after the militias held off the American-supported assault.

"I just am surprised that he would take it on himself to go down and take charge of a military offensive," he said. "I had not anticipated that he would do that."

I thought we were trying to get them to do things by themselves instead of relying on the U.S. to do things for them.  Maybe we just want Iraqis to do the things we want them to do by themselves instead of relying on us.

But then, Clueless Mac strikes again!

Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: "Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn't Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see."

Emphasis added.  We'll see, alright.  From my previous post

Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.

Emphasis added.  So, McCain not only gets it wrong.  The accurate version completely contradicts his statements.

And he's the one who's supposed to have plenty of "experience."

Tags: Iraq,  BUFU, War

How Screwed Up are Things in Iraq?

So screwed up that, while the U.S. is providing "support" to the Iraqi army, the only way the Iraqi government can accomplish a cease-fire is by negotiating with . . . Iran.  Directly.

Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.

Sadr ordered the halt on Sunday, and his Mahdi Army militia heeded the order in Baghdad, where the Iraqi government announced it would lift a 24-hour curfew starting early Monday in most parts of the capital. . . .

The backdrop to Sadr's dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran's holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said. . . .

The Qom discussions may or may not bring an end to the fighting but they almost certainly have undermined Maliki - who made repeated declarations that there would be no negotiations and that he would treat as outlaws those who did not turn in their weapons for cash. The blow to his own credibility was worsened by the fact that members of his own party had helped organize the Iran initiative.

Emphasis added.  So, basically, we cannot make a difference in Iraq's military crackdown, we can't negotiate a diplomatic solution, and our "friends and allies" in Iraq are turning to Iran for help.

The surge is working?  Sure.  Victory is at hand?  Sure.  And New Orleans doesn't flood either.

It seems McCain knew something about staying 100 years in Iraq that we didn't know.

Tags: Iraq,  BUFU, War

From the Department of "No S**t, Sherlock"

I don't find this surprising at all:

War in Iraq Badly Damages US Image Internationally

The image of the United States has suffered as a result of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. Opinion surveys show international approval of the United States at all-time lows. VOA's Michael Bowman reports form Washington, America's continued involvement in Iraq remains a major irritant in global perceptions of the United States.

Nearly five years after-the-fact they figured this one out?  Really?  This is sort of like learning about the Red Sox winning the 2007 World Series . . . in January 2008.

Then again, there is that 30% or so that still doesn't get it.

Tags: Iraq,  BUFU, War

We Won't Get Fooled Again . . . Right?

President Bush, October 7, 2002:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. . . . It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

President Bush on October 17, 2007:

I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

We know how the first one turned out.  And if we let ourselves get dragged towards another senseless war, this time with Iran, the results will make the mess we have with Iraq seem like a small error.  Particularly when you read stuff like this:

Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric. . .

If conclusive proof exists, however, Bush hasn't revealed it. Nor have four years of IAEA inspections.

It's like watching a remake.  Like the "new" Psycho or Halloween.  And they are alike in that this time will be worse than the first one.  But they are not alike in that here, the terror is real.

Tags: Foreign Policy, Iraq,  BUFU, War

The Democrats' Death Wish

Sometimes, there's such a thing as over-thinking one thing.  Or overestimating the strength their  support.

Sometimes, people are just plain stupid.

The Democrats control the House and have a majority on the Senate - I wouldn't say they "control" the Senate since they haven't been able to push through their agenda.  The overwhelming majority of the people in the U.S. are opposed to the Iraq war, but we're stuck with a President whose idea of "mission accomplished" now is staying in Iraq until January 20, 2009 so he hand off that mess to whoever the next President is so he's not blamed when everything goes to hell in a handbasked in Iraq - that's not an "if" but a "when."  The Republican presidential candidate field has a Mormon - evangelicals can't stand that - a pro-choice, formerly moderate but now conservative former mayor who can't complete a sentence without mentioning "9/11," a former actor, congressman, etc., with the vitality and charisma of a carrot, and a former POW who's fortunes are pretty much tethered to the President's "stay the course" message.  The same President who can't rise above the 30s in approval rating.

At a time when, after seven years of screwed-up priorities at the federal level wiped out a projected surplus and turned it into a significant deficit, when we're spending billions of dollars a year in that bottomless pit called Iraq, the Democrats' big idea is this:

Raise taxes.

But not just "raise taxes."  Call it a "war tax."

If this was a joke it would be brilliant and hilarious.  But the fact that someone thought about putting forth a proposal combining two of the least popular things out there - the Iraq war and tax increases - is downright scary.

[Democratic Representative from Wisconsin David R.] Obey provided only a few details of his tax plan, saying he envisioned that low- and moderate-income taxpayers would pay about $2 more for every $100 of income taxes; wealthier taxpayers would pay an extra $12 to $15. Obey said he would exempt military service members and their families.

I understand their frustration with not being able to force the President to bring the troops home and I understand their concerns regarding de-funding the war.  After all, the House would pass the bill, it may or may not be approved in the Senate, but if it is approved, the President would veto it, triggering a game of chicken between Congress and the President.  The President isn't running for reelection, so he doesn't care about the political fallout from it.  With Congress, its a different story.

But a "war tax"? 

Why didn't they just get a whole bunch of baseball bats, walk across the aisle, and hand them over to the Republicans saying "here, beat the crap out of us"?

Tags: Elections 2008, Iraq, Politics, Democrats

Do as I Say, Not as I Do . . .

The Governor of Puerto Rico on August 26, 2007:

Tenemos que unir fuerzas para traer a nuestras tropas de regreso [de Irak], sin importar nuestras creencias políticas o ideológicas. El pueblo americano demanda este curso de acción.

Which, roughly translated, means:

We must join forces to bring back our troops [from Iraq], notwithstanding our political or ideological differences.  The American people demands this course of action.

Alrighty then.  If the war in Iraq is such a bad thing, why is the government of Puerto Rico in on it?

El gobierno autonomista es socio inversionista en la operación de una base de operaciones de la compañía DynCorp –una empresa que recluta personal para fuerzas de seguridad privadas en conflictos bélicos incluyendo Irak --en el aeropuerto civil de Aguadilla a tal punto que tiene mayoría en la junta de directores de la subsidiaria y no cobra un centavo por el uso de cuatro hangares y otras instalaciones, según documentos oficiales.

Which means, for the benefit of my Spanish-impaired readers,

The pro-Commonwealth government is co-investor in the DynCorp's operating base - an enterprise that recruits security personnel to serve as private security forces in war-torn areas such as Iraq - at the civilian airport in Aguadilla to such an extent that the government holds a majority in the board of directors of DynCorp's subsidiary and does not charge rent for the use of four hangars and ancillary facilities, according to official documents.

I guess it is consistent - if hypocritical - on the Governor's part.  Bring the troops home so we can get a bigger piece of the pie for the private security forces that may need to be deployed there to provide security for some.

Unbelievable.

Tags: Politics, Iraq,  BUFU, Puerto Rico

Most People Hate The War - No Surprise There

So CNN releases poll results yesterday and concludes that "[a] majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll."

This is nothing new.  However, some of the answers are pretty interesting:

In general, do you think the U.S. military is or is not making progress in improving conditions in Iraq and bringing an end to the violence in that country? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)
Aug. 6-8 2007
Is making progress 47%
Is not making progress 49%
Mixed/depends (vol.) 2%
No opinion 2%

Emphasis added.  Compare these results with these:

In general, do you think the Iraqi government is or is not making progress in improving conditions in Iraq and bringing an end to the violence in that country? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)
Aug. 6-8 2007
Is making progress 26%
Is not making progress 69%
Mixed/depends (vol.) 1%
No opinion 4%

Emphasis added.  If that's not a textbook case of "blaming the victim" I don't know what is.  The U.S. was very heavily involved in drafting a constitution and crafting the Iraqi governmental structure that is currently in place.  Part of the reason the legislature can't get anything done is that the Iraqis don't recognize Maliki et al. as legitimate leaders.

Besides, how much do you think our Congress would accomplish if we had things blowing up all over the place day in and day out?

However, this is truly remarkable:

As you may know, in September the top U.S. commander in Iraq will report to the President and Congress about how the war is going. Do you trust him to report what's really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it actually is, or don't you feel that way? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)
Aug. 6-8 2007
Trust him to report what’s really going on 43%
Do not trust him to report what’s really going on 53%
No opinion 4%

Emphasis added.  Essentially, a majority of the people polled expect General Petraeus to lie to the President, Congress, and the public.  And since Bush has been so eager to wait for General Petraeus, this finding also means that a majority of the people expect the President to lie to them as to how well the war is going.

When you've lost your credibility, you've lost everything.  And that's exactly where this administration stands.

Tags: War, Iraq,  BUFU