George W. Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein would have lowered the price of oil and would have insisted upon payment in Euros. It had nothing to do with fighting "terrorism" in Iraq where, in fact, there had been none. It had nothing to do with WMD in Iraq where, in fact, there had been none. It had nothing to do with bringing Democracy to Iraq where, in fact, there is none still.
It had everything to do with protecting the interests of the big oil corporations who supported George W. Bush from the start. George W. Bush, therefore, completes the transformation of the US to fascism. Bush auctioned off America, sold it out to Big Oil.
The Bushies, who think themselves clever dicks, gave the game away with an adolescent inside joke. The attack and invasion of Iraq was originally called "
Operation Iraqi Liberation", or, OIL! One can envision Rove and Bush snickering. In a concession to the "intelligence" of a US population held in contempt by Bush, Rove and the other criminal conspirators, the acronym OIL was changed to
Operation
Iraqi
Freedom. Try burning OIF in your SUV! We weren't suppose to conclude, however, that oil men would invade an oil producing country for oil reasons. The US planned to privatize Iraq's oil and it's other assets from the start.
One theory gained currency: the oil industry didn’t go along with a plan that would have resulted in lower oil prices and thus lower profits. I don't buy that theory. It assumes "facts" not in evidence. Who says Bush wanted lower oil prices? Who but naive consumers thought that invading Iraq would bring about lower gasoline prices at the pump? One cannot imagine Bush, himself a failed oil man, ever supporting lower oil prices.
Dick Cheney's
Energy Task Force literally carved up the Middle East, Iraq in particular. Is it reasonable to assume upon no evidence whatsoever, that this gang, having gone to extraordinary lengths to keep their meeting secret, would want to invade Iraq because they wanted the people of the US to enjoy the blessings of cheap oil? What utter bullshit!
The fact that the Bush family and the US oil industry in general support not lower, but higher prices for oil can be found in the transcript of US Ambassador April Glaspie's interview with Saddam Hussein on the very eve of Persian Gulf I. Before Glaspie literally entrapped Hussein, the conversation went like this:
Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.
You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.
HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.
TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.
HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.
GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.
--The April Glaspie Transcript
It was not about oil per se. It's always been about the
price of oil. As several authors, including Greg Palast, have pointed out, since Bush's attack and invasion of Iraq, the price of oil has soared. At the time of this writing, the spot market price is 69.23.
Clearly, as the transcript proves, Saddam had wanted to lower the price of oil. The administration of Bush Sr., predictably, did not. That the US would wage war on Iraq upon a mere pretext in order to keep prices high is proven by the following exchange, in which Ambassador Glaspie literally set Saddam Hussein up.
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
US Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles) GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
--Transcript of US Ambassador April Glaspie's Interview with Saddam Hussein,
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. One month later, the transcript of Glaspie's meeting with Saddam became public when British journalists obtained a tape and a transcript. Glaspie's meeting of July 29, 1990 astounded the British press who confronted Glaspie as she left the US embassy in Baghdad.
Baghdad, September 2, 1990, US Embassy
Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?
US Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the US would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
One of the reporters had asked:
what were you thinking? I have a theory. Glaspie had been instructed by the administration of Bush Sr. to lure Saddam into invading Kuwait. In fact, the invasion gave the senior Bush the pre-text he needed to wage a neat little war against Saddam, a limited war in which much would be promised and little delivered except to the senior Bush's cabal of big oil backers and robber barons who, alone, benefit by keeping the world addicted to high priced oil.
Had Saddam remained in power, his policy would have remained as he described it to US Ambassador Glaspie i.e., he would have supported lower prices for oil. Had there been no Persian Gulf II, he would have required that he be paid for oil in Euros --not US dollars. Imagine for a moment the effect on the dollar, the US economy!
$30 a barrel? Clearly --this is the real reason for the US attack. But it was not a reason that Bush could have sold to the American people, the UN, or to the world. He would need a juicy pretext and would lie one into existence.
A decline in oil prices might have been a good thing for car markers and the SUV addicted but it would not have been a good thing for the big oil companies. It would not have been a good thing for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia always had a motive for involving itself in some way with pulling off 911.
Gregory Gause III, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont, is the author of
Oil Monarchies. He wrote an essay for the May/June issues of
Foreign Affairs magazine entitled, "
Saudi Arabia: Over a Barrel.
A key reason for today's skyrocketing oil prices is the behavior of one of America's closest allies: Saudi Arabia. The world's largest oil exporter was the driving force behind the deal that turned off the spigots. Riyadh is risking a crisis with Washington because the once-flush kingdom has gone broke sustaining a vast welfare state for an exploding population. America must push the Saudis toward privatization and fiscal reform. The House of Saud must get its house in order.
Other academics, likewise, link oil prices to the health of the Saudi welfare state. In a
2004 article for the same magazine, Michael Scott Doran, an Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote:
Saudi Arabia is in the throes of a crisis. The economy cannot keep pace with population growth, the welfare state is rapidly deteriorating, and regional and sectarian resentments are rising to the fore.
--The Saudi Paradox, Foreign Affairs
Former CIA operative, Robert Baer notes in a
May 2003 article that was published in The Atlantic Monthly and based on his book, "
The Fall of the House of Saud" that "per capita income in Saudi Arabia fell from $28,600 in 1981 to $6,800 in 2001".
Over several decades now, the American people have been lied to, exploited and duped. Respected TV journalist, Bill Moyers, analyzes the threats to constitutional government posed by an illegitimate network of "superpatriots", spies, profiteers, mercenaries and ex-generals. His documentary gives a fascinating overview of what this Secret Government has done to this country over the last fifty years or so. It is a story of the Cold and hot wars, US sponsored coups d'etat, and the state suppression of popular struggles for freedom. US intervention has subverted governments and financed mercenaries in Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Vietnam and Chile.
Bush told numerous "stories" about Iraq, many of which conflicted with one another. In one instance, Bush implied that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks and and, in yet another, he said that it was not. Here are both videos of the liar at work:
A growing number of Iraqis, meanwhile, say that life was better under Saddam Hussein.
Following the first Gulf war, Saddam remained a "loose canon". The lesser Bush had personal reasons, made public, for wanting Saddam Hussein dead. One of them was ego. The lesser Bush would succeed where the elder Bush had failed. He would beat his chest and crow that he had removed Saddam from power. Secondly, he would put the American oligarchs in complete control of the price of Iraqi oil. It would not be done, as many naive Americans believed, in order to lower the price of oil. It would be done to maintain higher prices for oil. For this, the lesser Bush would commit war crimes and atrocities against the Iraqi people. He would lie to and betray the American people. He would endanger the lives of US military personnel. He would outsource the very sovereignty of the United States. The term for all this is high treason.
Additional resource:
The Existentialist CowboyConservative LiesRule of LawWhy Conservatives Hate AmericaGOP Crime SyndicateBushSpread the word:
