This is a point-by-point recitation on how the politics of oil have been the foundation of both the Afghani and Iraqi Wars, and how both wars were already planned and ready before the actions of 9/11 took place.

Take the time to read this chronology and there can be no doubt that oil was, is and always will be the driving force of our military actions in the ME before and after 9/11. I await how anyone can take this information and formulate a conclusion different than what was just stated. Perhaps the next question is what should be done about this in the present? And lastly, why hasn't there been a comprehensive review of these facts by anyone inside the American MSM, creating a clear picture of the motivations driving the Bush foreign policy machine since day one?

Unocal wanted exclusive control of the trans-Afghan pipeline, and hired a number of consultants in its conflict with Bridas: Henry Kissinger, Richard Armitage (now Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush Administration), Zalmay Khalilzad (a signer of the PNAC letter to President Clinton) and Hamid Karzai.

Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy--Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad--also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

Just how incestuous can a situation get? Of all the people in the world, only people connected to US oil interests can be given important posts within Afghanistan and Iraq while being foist to the world as independent players only trying to create peaceful governments for the good of the people, while their true goals are to allow multinational oil companies to disproportionately gain control over the resources belonging to the people?

Is there any wonder our "interests" are being fought against tooth and nail by indigenous fighters unwilling to capitulate to this kind of extortion?

Good article Tony!

"State Department official Christina Rocca told the Taliban, at their last pipeline negotiation in August of 2001, just five weeks before 9/11, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

Really connects the dots.

Wot a slimy oiligarchy this admin is.

Spuds been saying fer a while now how the impetus fer this war was always corporate and here's the proof.

Guess war profiteering runs in the Baby Bushlings blood.

Righty tighties still occasionally try that "not about oil" argument round here.

Is fun fer Spud to edumacate them.

Be Well.

The pre-planned attack on Afghanistan, as we have seen, was meant to nullify the contract between the Taliban and the Bridas Corporation, to assure access to the Caspian Basin riches for American oil companies. It was a pure play of international energy policy. It had nothing to do, as designed, with apprehending Osama bin Laden--a pure play of security policy.

But the two "seemingly unrelated areas of policy" had been "melded," so here was an epic opportunity to bait-and-switch--and the opportunity was not missed for a moment. Conjoining the terrorist and the state that harbored him made a "war" plausible: it would be necessary to overthrow the Taliban as well as to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. (As it turned out, of course, the Taliban was overthrown instead of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, but the energy policy goal was achieved, at least. And years later President Bush was astonishing in his candor, when he admitted "Osama bin Laden isn't important.")

The first monstrous and intentional deception--the declaration of a "war on terror"--took place. There was no talk of contracts, pipelines, or Argentinian oil companies. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were cleverly, ingeniously conflated, and there was only talk of war.

TonyRoma these folks around here don't want to know the Truth of the matter. They want to live in their collective Bubbles called right winged spin Machine.

Larry

This could be considered the fountainhead of our surreal politics. The PNAC proposed premeditated war explicitly, in a bizarre retrogression to the centuries of unapologetic European imperialism. Since World War II and the birth of the United Nations, however, the world has been seeking to surpass imperialism, struggling to settle international difficulties peaceably--and here was an open, sad, and radical rebuff.

(In addition to Mr. Rumsfeld, 10 others of the signatories would serve in the Bush Administration: Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, William Schneider, Jr., Robert Zoellick, and Paul Wolfowitz.)

When George W. Bush took office, a concern for the "significant portion of the world's oil supply" was never far from view, because the Administration's personal linkages to the oil industry were intimate, historic, and numerous. The president and vice president were just the first examples: eight cabinet secretaries and the national security advisor were recruited directly from the oil industry, and so were 32 others in the secretariats of Defense, State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.

The Bush Administration came to power anxious, we know from published sources, to fulfill the PNAC's vision of regime change in Iraq.

Spud...

Good to see that your're keeping your "eyes" on the ball instead of watching the magician's hands, or in this case mouth. I certainly hope the upcoming hearings will reveal the things this article does, for its time for America to face the truth instead of the continuing obfuscations put forth for our consumption.

This country has been duped and we've been duped beyond our capability to comprehend the possible damage. Give the people the truth and let the chips fall where they may. We're big boys and girls, we can take it.

TonyRoma these folks around here don't want to know the Truth of the matter. They want to live in their collective Bubbles called right winged spin Machine.

Larry...

I want to see them spin this! I want them to try and tell us that all these facts and coincidences are just that. As you've said, most of us have seen many of these facts but never in such a damning, unignorable compilation stating exactly each and every step that was taken along the way, and just who was driving the policies we're all familiar with.

It still begs the question though, without the actions of 9/11 to use as cover, could they have gotten away with all they have? It continues to make it harder to believe that 9/11 was just a fortuitous event leading to the very conditions needed to impliment this oil grab. There was too much at stake for 19 bumblers to do there do in order to start this unholy progression of events. But for these facts, it doesn't matter. Oil speaks for power, and thats all that matters.

Wonder where the righty tightys are at Hmmmmmmmmmmm Can't face the facts nor the Music I see ehhhhhhhhhhhhh. Quite Typical if You ask Me.

Larry

This caught my eye:

The story told here has to be considered "circumstantial." None of it results from testimony under oath, none of it has been admitted as legal evidence in a jurisprudential undertaking, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven remains axiomatic.

I love these opinion pieces. But I need evidence people.

The story told here has to be considered "circumstantial." None of it results from testimony under oath, none of it has been admitted as legal evidence in a jurisprudential undertaking, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven remains axiomatic.

Just like every single word given to the 9/11 Commission by Bush and Cheney. Same level of evidence, isn't it?

Not saying that the Commission was any better, but this is just an opinion piece in an unknown website.

Have to show something real man.

"I want them to try and tell us that all these facts and coincidences are just that."

Actually, the burden is on you to show that coincidences are more than just coincidences. If your coincidences are good enough evidence, then why haven't you filed a lawsuit against the US Government? Certainly if everyone else has been duped and you are the one with the real facts, you should be willing to show them to a federal judge. It won't even take that long and the filing fees will be worth it when you show the world what really happened (.com).

Come on tony, pony up already. I'm sure if you started a paypal account you could get the nuts on this site to support your lawsuit against the US government for fraud, treason and conspiracy. Stop bitching and get the ball rolling already.

Just what charges would I bring Joe? What federal laws have been violated in your opinion? At present, I just want people to be aware of information that most aren't, then once informed, let the people have the debate on what to do next. Unlike you, I feel that others have as much of a right to learn as I do. If the people have been lied to by their elected leadership, they have the right to know the truth, if this indeed is the truth. That's the beauty of America, neither you nor I can decide for anyone other than ourselves. I wouldn't want it any other way.

"What federal laws have been violated"

If you believe everything you post here, then members of the US government have committed treason and conspiracy. Bring the charges already. You have suffered long enough due to these crimes. File a lawsuit. Include whatreallyhappened.com as "exhibit a." I can't wait to hear the results.

If you believe everything you post here, then members of the US government have committed treason and conspiracy.

Then I believe you would back a Congressional investigation into these charges then, is that the case? I certainly hope this happens when Biden holds his hearings, though I doubt it. As far as Bush may have taken these things, the fact that the Democrats have allowed it by their own acquiesence puts them into the same category as the Republicans: accomplices after the fact, if these allegations and facts paint the real picture of what happened.

Conspiracy is not a cause that a civil action can undertake without damages. IOW, Joe, standing becomes an issue.

The fact is, gaining control of oil and gas reserves -- as opposed to allowing China to control them -- is really in the nation's interest.

And good luck with an Order of Mandamus. First you have to convince a court and then rely on the US Attorney appointed by the President to prosecute the case, and the FBI to investigate it.

The attempts to build a pipeline from the Caspian Basin through Pakistan to a powerplant in India built by Enron only follow the attempts of Unocal to do the same.

Contractor for the pipeline?

bin Laden family's construction firm.

I would also add two things.

Remember the missionaries who were in Afghanistan before 9-11, and then held by the Taliban? If there is truth to this story, they may have been pawns in giving cause to a military effort.

Second, after 9-11 the White House found out that the Pentagon had no plans for invading Afghanistan. It simply wasn't on their radar.

But the CIA -- probably because of the work done by Milt Bearden in the 80's -- was all geared up and ready to go. So I would suspect that any action in the works would have been covert aid to the Northern Alliance if the Taliban couldn't be persuaded.

At best this is a circumstantial case and without testimony and documents it merely fuels suspicion. Perhaps Cheney should make public those meetings he had and remove all doubt.

Yeah, come on Dick, stick it to the libs.

Careful, Tony, you could find yourself traveling by train at 3 am, with a couple blackhawks providing security.

Gitmboy...

Do you still think its that intense? Haven't these guys stood down at all with all the leaks and stories coming out all over the world? Is the MSM that incestuous, or is Olbermann on the endangered list as well?

Mike,

I don't think there's a problem with standing for the lawsuit I've suggested to Tony. You can assert standing as a taxpayer if funds have been allocated in furtherance of something else prohibited by the Constitution. That would include treason. Clearly if all of Tony's "facts" and "coincidences" are real, members of our government have used taxpayer dollars to commit treason.

Bring the lawsuit, Tony. You clearly know more than the lemmings who keep their heads in the sand on this issue. Do something more with your knowledge than simply whining about it.

Then I'd like to hire you as council Joe. Want the case?

As a 2nd year student, I am not licensed to practice law. I can, however, give you advice on how to file your lawsuit and answer any questions you may have on the law. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. Courts look kindly upon pro se litigants anyways.

Courts look kindly upon pro se litigants anyways.

My butt is stinging already!

In all candor, Joe, I do wish I had the time and resources available to take on the fight you propose. If this indeed is correct, the largest, most eggregious crime has been perpetrated upon this nation by a select few that will continue to have repercussions for years after they've left the halls of government.

It not often said here, but I think all of us who hold this view understand that from the standpoint of those implimenting policy, they do believe their actions are what's best for this nation as a whole. Even though I don't agree, I understand these types of sentiments. However, when the thing blows up, and the lives of millions hangs in the balance because of these actions, those responsible should be held accountable for what they did and didn't do that brought about the current state of chaos.

To abdicate from this responsibility isn't living up to their sworn oaths, nor is purposely obfuscating the actual reasons why certain actions were undertaken. The PNAC doesn't mince words on why the US must remove Saddam and take control of Iraq's oil fields, or at least, make sure we have market access in perpetuity. It isn't a conspiracy to call our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq what they appear to be based on volumes of information: related to US oil interests and fueled by the same outside the actions of AQ.

"Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council, meanwhile, was directed by a top secret memo to "cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas of policy."

A copy of this memo please. If you can't produce it then it doesn't really exist!

"and that was intolerable. Mr. Cheney's task force concluded,"

Hmmm, supersecret task force and you have a direct qoute from one of its meetings?

"Unocal stayed on the attack until 1999, frequently wooing Taliban leaders at its headquarters in Texas, and hosting them in meetings with federal officials in Washington, D.C."

Was Mullah Mohammad Omar there? This all sounds like a crock of shit to me!

"members of our government have used taxpayer dollars to commit treason."

And how is it treason that the administration sought to control energy resources?

The oil business was developed by the US. It was one of two main exports in the 1800s. Access to oil --as demonstrated in the 70s -- is essential to our economy. And while we may deplore the tactics and greed of the major oil companies, we are in a way complicit, and it might surprise you that these same "crooks" really believe that they are patriots.

The Taliban was split on whether or not to okay the pipeline. Saddam was courting the idea of establishing the Euro as the currency of exchange, and he had brokered a deal with the Chinese who had invested 100 million dollars in a facility in Iraq.

Would it be good for America if the currency of exchange were to be the Euro?

Would it be good for America is the Chinese gained additional access to oil?

Certainly there are arguments pro and con on these questions -- even to the feasibility of such scenarios -- but I doubt that the executives at Exxon/Mobil harbor any doubts that America would worst for the bargain if either were to happen.

Alleging treason has become so banal, unless you can state explicitly what in this article actually supports such a charge it really doesn't wash. As for a civil suit, I believe there are actions underway to gain documents and obtain testimony regarding the energy policy meetings, but to date I believe they have been unsuccessful. So it would be foolish to tread that road.

But I'll tell you this: If you can elucidate what constitutes a charge of treason and provide citations, then come January when I know that I'll be in St Louis, I will take a complaint to the Federal District Court requesting an Order of Mandamus upon the US Attorney to proceed on that charge.

So you have the holidays to prepare this. And as a future Officer of the Court I'm sure you feel it is your duty to assist in punishing those who have committed treason.

LOL

If you can elucidate what constitutes a charge of treason and provide citations, then come January when I know that I'll be in St Louis, I will take a complaint to the Federal District Court requesting an Order of Mandamus upon the US Attorney to proceed on that charge.

treason
n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Certainly if members of the US government conspired to assist foreigners in committing terrorism upon the US, as Tony consistently alleges, that would be considered treasonous. So why not go file the lawsuit? That is, of course, only if you believe all the bullshit he posts all over the site, and you think a judge will too.

Joe...

I think you're point would be impossible to prove short of a confession. Let me be clear. My view is that it appears the attacks of 9/11 were allowed to happen to set into play everything we've seen since. I have never alledged that anyone from inside our government actually planned the attacks on our soil.

Come on Joe, show me something in this thread that constitutes treason.

I don't see it.

In fact we have agencies in our government charged with facilitating commerce and promoting American companies. And invading Iraq to secure our interest would not -- if true -- be the first time we landed Marines to do just that.

While the quote, "The business of America is business" is attributed to Coolidge, I think you might find that in a Supreme Court opinion as well.

So "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields" seems to be in line with our business interests, and therefore in line with America's interests.

"My view is that it appears the attacks of 9/11 were allowed to happen..."

Okay, that crosses the line. Failure to protect the security of this country would be treason.

Adios

Mike...

Joe's point is that he finds my assertions to be "bullshit," and unless you post notarized documents from inside the government or the oil companies mentioned, he will view this topic as just that. Regardless of one's views on 9/11, how can any rational person be exposed to the PNAC, which calls for a "Pearl Harbor" type event so that its plans can be implimented, then say any talk of 9/11 being connected to this plan as "bullshit"?

You've pretty much mirrored myself, or vice versa, on how this policy was likely viewed by its architects and proponents. It was good for American enterprise and for the continued dominance of our economy over particularly an ever increasingly thirsty China. The ancillary facts are that many of the closest friends and advisors of the Bush Administration either played leading roles in these events, or stood to gain enormous monetary gains from their implimentation, and this might have been secondary to the goals of the policy, but now as the policy lay in shambles, and the US coffers have been emptied of hundreds of billions, its hard to ignore the vast sums realized by some of these people even as the policy is failing before our eyes.

"show me something in this thread that constitutes treason."

I was never talking about "only this thread." I was unaware that bringing in allegations someone has made in the past that are obviously relevant to the topic at hand was not allowed. If you're going to confine our discussion to this thread only, then fine, there is nothing sufficient to constitute treason in this thread. Now are we allowed to talk about past allegations Tony has made? Sir?

"he finds my assertions to be "bullshit," and unless you post notarized documents from inside the government or the oil companies mentioned, he will view this topic as just that."

There's a lie. I never said I required notarized documents proving a conspiracy. But spelling out "coincidences" and providing notarized documents are not the only two types of evidence possible to be presented. The burden of proof is on you to show that what you are alleging is true. Otherwise, you are "choosing" to believe that coincidences are more than just that, with nothing to support your choice to do so.

Joe...

I'm leaving for the evening, but you can bring whatever you wish into the discussion, it is a free thread/world. Look at the language I use when I talk about these things. Yes, I may use definitive terms and imply that I believe speculative evidence, but its all subject to be wrong as it is in being right.

It is no secret that I believe things occured beyond the official story of events. I present largely uncorroborated evidence that backs this contention, and it will never likely be proven to a standard that would apply in court. (just for an example) Its more than ok to believe what you want to, though I may challenge these things with evidence possibly showing them wrong. I'm trying to put all the information together and throw out the absurd and the purposeful disinformation. Yes, there are people always trying to obscure the view by acting as allies while they're really enemies.

In the end, it is what it is, and those involved know the truth of what they've done or haven't done during their watches. Have a good evening, and I'll check back in the morning.