Deep Blade Journal

On March 7, peace activists from Maine acting in concert with the national Occupation Project delivered a strong message to our representatives in Congress. This 3-1/2-minute clip records visits to the Bangor, Maine offices of Congressman Mike Michaud and Senator Olympia Snowe with the demand they STOP FUNDING WAR. Two additional clips below contain statements from Robert Shetterly and Doug Rawlings prior to entering the office of Senator Susan Collins with the same demand.

Update: Twelve were arrested at Susan Collins’s office in the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building in downtown Bangor. No news story appears to be available on the Internet by the end of the day on March 8. The only media covering this protest (besides Deep Blade) appears to have been WERU community radio and the print edition of the Bangor Daily News (not the Internet edition) for Thursday.

President Bush has asked for an extra $93 billion on top of the $439 billion military budget appropriated by Congress in the fall. Congress is poised to vote for more war, and indeed to increase the expenditure beyond the president’s request. It’s time to demand that they STOP FUNDING WAR.

Below is video of the statement given prior to the March 7 visit to US Senator Susan Collins’s office by Brooksville, Maine artist Robert Shetterly.

President Bush has asked for an extra $93 billion on top of the $439 billion military budget appropriated by Congress in the fall. Congress is poised to vote for more war, and indeed to increase the expenditure beyond the president’s request. It’s time to demand that they STOP FUNDING WAR.

Below is video of the statement given prior to the March 7 visit to US Senator Susan Collins’s office by Doug Rawlings of Veterans for Peace, Maine Chapter.

On March 6, 2003, President Bush issued his clearest case for attacking Iraq. By my count, he gave the reason– “disarm” Saddam Hussein –45 times, while underlining that disarmament was “in the name of peace and the security of our people.” This implied that the president believed Iraq to be an immediate threat to the US proper. Even the answer to a question about the specter of Vietnam was “our mission is very clear: disarmament.”

Of course, because Saddam Hussein had none of the weapons the president said must be disarmed, the casus belli was a fraud. Iraq had been truthful in its December 2002 declaration when it said it did not possess weapons of mass destruction. It appears that the rush to war was more about heading off the threat that the UN weapons inspectors would certify Iraq free of WMD before the country could have been forcibly taken than any threat Iraq itself posed. Mr. Bush’s handpicked inspectors later did just that.

And talk about “willful” charades! The president’s gibberish–”I hope we don’t have to go to war, but if we go to war,” and “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully,” and “We hope we don’t go to war; but if we should, we will present a supplemental [budget].”–should have been transparent at that point. For the most part, the sheepish press corps was more interested in Mr. Bush’s “faith.”

It is also striking how almost nobody in the room seemed at all interested in the president’s long-term plan for Iraq, and what the costs of a lengthy occupation might be. Only that question about Vietnam even raised the issue about going down a long, destructive path. Of course if the attack had been presented as leading to a lengthy occupation possibly costing thousands of American lives, which at the time even this administration certainly could have expected, support for it would have been much lower.

Below are excerpts of what Mr. Bush said that night in March 2003, including all the phrases containing “disarm.”

• THE PRESIDENT: “The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?”
• “These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world.”
• “If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it, because we would see it. Iraq’s weapons would be presented to inspectors, and the world would witness their destruction.”
• “Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein’s response is to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.”
• “The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council — total disarmament.”
• “Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.”
• “The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed.”
• “Well, we’re still in the final stages of diplomacy. I’m spending a lot of time on the phone, talking to fellow leaders about the need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts, which is Saddam Hussein hasn’t disarmed.”
• “Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn’t disarmed. And so we’re working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.”
• “I believe it’s an important moment for the Security Council, itself. And the reason I say that is because this issue has been before the
  Security Council — the issue of disarmament of Iraq — for 12 long years.”
• “We, of course, are consulting with our allies at the United Nations. But I meant hat I said, this is the last phase of diplomacy. A little bit more time? Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to disarm. He is deceiving people.”
• “This is what’s important for our fellow citizens to realize; that if he really intended to disarm, like the world has asked him to do, we would know whether he was disarming. He’s trying to buy time.”
• “Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn’t disarm, we’ll disarm him.”
• “A lot of countries realize that the credibility of the Security Council is at stake — a lot of countries, like America, who hope that he would have disarmed, and a lot of countries which realize that it may require force — may require force — to disarm him.”
• “I recognize there are people who — who don’t like war. I don’t like war. I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the demands of the world and disarmed. That was my hope.”
• “That’s why, months later, we went to the Security Council to get another resolution, called 1441, which was unanimously approved by the Security Council, demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm.”
• “I’m hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won’t do so voluntarily, we will disarm him. And other nations will join him — join us in disarming him.”
• “Our transatlantic relationships are very important. While they may disagree with how we deal with Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, there’s no disagreement when it came time to vote on 1441, at least as far as France was concerned. They joined us. They said Saddam Hussein has one last chance of disarming. If they think more time will cause him to disarm, I disagree with that.”
• “He’s a master at deception. He has no intention of disarming — otherwise, we would have known. There’s a lot of talk about inspectors. It really would have taken a handful of inspectors to determine whether he was disarming — they could have showed up at a parking lot and he could have brought his weapons and destroyed them. That’s not what he chose to do.”
• “Well, I hope we don’t have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq.”
• “Well, Bill, if they believe he should be disarmed, and he’s not going to disarm, there’s only one way to disarm him. And that happens to be my last choice — the use of force.”
• “So, in the name of security and peace, if we have to — if we have to — we’ll disarm him. I hope he disarms. Or, perhaps, I hope he leaves the country. I hear a lot of talk from different nations around where Saddam Hussein might be exiled. That would be fine with me — just so long as Iraq disarms after he’s exiled.”
• “And it’s hard to believe anybody is saying he isn’t in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm.”
• Q: “…how is your faith guiding you?” THE PRESIDENT: “I appreciate that question a lot. First, for those who urge more diplomacy, I would simply say that diplomacy hasn’t worked. We’ve tried diplomacy for 12 years. Saddam Hussein hasn’t disarmed, he’s armed.”
• “And in the case of Iraq, it is now time for him to disarm. For the sake of peace, if we have to use our troops, we will.”
• “And out of that disarmament of Saddam will come a better world, particularly for the people who live in Iraq.”
• “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed — and others have placed — that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”
• Q: “What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?” THE PRESIDENT: “That’s a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I’m confident we’ll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there’s risks in any military operation; I know that. But it’s very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won’t change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.”
• “It makes no sense to allow this issue to continue on and on, in the hopes that Saddam Hussein disarms. The whole purpose of the debate is for Saddam to disarm. We gave him a chance. As a matter of fact, we gave him 12 years of chances. But, recently, we gave him a chance, starting last fall. And it said, last chance to disarm. The resolution said that. And had he chosen to do so, it would be evident that he’s disarmed.
• “If we have to, for the sake of the security of the American people, for the sake of peace in the world, and for freedom to the Iraqi people, we will disarm Saddam Hussein. And by we, it’s more than America. A lot of nations will join us. Thank you for your questions. Good night.”

2006 average production level decrease precipitous 8%;
Does the US see its Iraq project as a sort of replacement OPEC?

Monthly Saudi production levels for 2006, assembled by Stuart Staniford at The Oil Drum

Here is another major story about oil that has received no ink in the mainstream press: According to data from official sources, oil production in Saudi Arabia has been declining since the beginning of 2006.

Stuart Staniford at The Oil Drum has written a very careful analysis, citing key news stories about production in specific Saudi fields. Staniford unpacks recent Saudi press releases suggesting production cuts have been intentional.

Staniford writes, “The entire ‘production cut’ may be a public relations exercise to disguise other processes.”

In my own analysis, this story suggests there is yet another nail in the coffin containing Saudi’s history as the world’s swing oil producer. Staniford bets against Saudi posturing that it will optimize “upstream operations, and development and depletion strategies” in order to achieve “maximum sustained capacity to 10.7 million barrels per day.” If he is right, Saudi’s swing producing days are over.

Furthermore, Saudi oil decline suggests an underlying motivation behind the continuing US project in Iraq. The new Iraqi oil law (discussed below, updated HERE by blogger Raed Jarrar with the “final, official” version) could allow the US occupation to appoint itself a sort of OPEC on the Tigris through the new Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council established in the law, replacing Saudi as the world’s swing producer. That is, when or if conditions in Iraq ever allow development of the resource to full production potential of six or eight million barrels per day (from barely two million barrels per day today), Washington itself would acquire power it has until now always cooperated with the Saudi royals in order to exert.

The notion of American “success” in Iraq that officials so often bandy about in reality means that there will be permanent military enforcement of the swing production role that Bush-connected Washington elites desire. It should be emphasized that it is not that oil itself that is at issue, but the hand on the tap. Noam Chomsky has it right, as outlined by Daily Kos diarist indefinitelee last week, “if the United States controls Middle East resources it’ll have veto power over its industrial rivals.”

Control of oil is the linchpin behind the unspoken US strategy in the Middle East. Ability to control swing production through its Iraqi client, backed by the US military in order to make the oil law stick, is a major long-term goal of this endless occupation.

UPDATE 3/7: See THIS item at The Oil Drum for important additional discussion.

So far, Akismet has been 100% effective at detecting and sequestering spam comments. It has caught all spam, and there are zero false positives. This is good news! I can leave the comment forms open for posting, even by non-registered users. There are these restrictions in place, however: the first comment by a user will be held for approval, after which that user’s posting will appear immediately; the comment form closes after 45 days or 10 days since the last posting, whichever is later; and, postings are limited to no more than two urls each. Please read the comment policy page for more information.