Palast: leaked State Dept memo - why we invaded Iraq

[welshTerrier2]

well, most of us knew it's always been about oil ... but Palast's recount provides some very interesting details and even ties the 2002 coup in Venezuela directly back to the US State Department ...

the following article (an excerpt from Palast's latest book) is very worth reading ... there's also an audio link to an interview between RFK Jr. and Greg Palast ...

audio link: http://www.gregpalast.com/podcasting/radiointerviews/PalastonRingofFire_7-29-06.mp3

source: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/338

With Saddam out of control, jerking markets up and down, the price of controlling the price was getting just too high. Saddam drove the oil boys bonkers. For example, Saddam's games pushed the State Department, disastrously, to launch, in April 2002, a coup d'etat in Venezuela.

This could not stand. Saddam delighted in playing cat-and-mouse with the USA and our oil majors. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't playing with mice, but a much bigger and unforgiving breed of rodents. Saddam was asking for it. It was time for a "military assessment." The CFR concluded:

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon to manipulate oil markets... United States should conduct an immediate pol icy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political / diplomatic assessments.

The true motive to invade Iraq, Saddam's "manipulation of oil markets," was there, but not yet, in April 2001, the official excuse. <skip>

And whose plan was it? I knew the membership of the Baker-CFR group was Big Oil and its retainers. But I was curious to know who put up the cash for drafting the extravagant report that was so protective of OPEC and Saudi interests. This document was, after all, the outline on which the Bush administration drew its grand design for energy, from Iraq to California to Venezuela. According to Jaffe, the cost of this exercise in Imperialism Lite was funded by "the generous support of Khalid al-Turki" of Saudi Arabia.

[Cocoa]

1. I don't trust most of Palast's reporting

this article is a good example.

It's too hard to figure out what he is asserting and what his evidence is.

It seems written so as to make it hard to analyze critically.

[Ouabache]

2. I could take Palast more seriously if he didn't wear goofy hats

Makes him look like Drdge. ugh.

[Igel]

7. The evidence seems to be a report submitted to the

State Department.

The assertion is that it constituted the real reason for the Iraq invasion. (As though there were just one, Sam Tanenhaus knocked that bit of thinking for a loop.)

The logic seems to be that since there's a report, and it was in writing, and maybe even read, it must have been accepted as the premise for any actions. After all, that conclusion agrees with what Palast thinks was the reason.

[Oversea Visitor]

3. So no more Saddam

What the fuck happen to oil price.

Well the sure did not acheive much if we look at the price today and the price when he was around.

[welshTerrier2]

4. what they've achieved is ...

all time record oil profits ... we may not be very happy but somebody sure is ...

[Oversea Visitor]

5. Well I guess Saddam

did not have a big DICK.

He try doing some screw up

Looking at condition now, I say it is totally screwed up.

Sure need a big DICK for a big screw up

[Mountainman]

6. In order to make this plan work they needed a second Pearl Harbor.

Is it so hard to imagine that the oil interests worked with the Saudis to make 9/11 happen? That is my feeling. Then comes the phony reasons to go to war which are believed because 9/11 happened and the lie connecting it with Saddam.

The problem is that they were so over confident that they could kick ass in Iraq and have their way. But the insurgents stopped them in their tracks. They still think they can pull it off and that's the reason for "stay the course."