Deep Blade Journal

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.

This guy is poison

Jonathan Schwarz at A Tiny Revolution describes Beck’s propaganda technique, “Locate the most extreme statements by anyone on the other ’side,’ and hype it as much as you possibly can to your ’side’ as embodying the true spirit and goals of your ‘enemies.’

I’ve become quite a fan of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in recent months. My appreciation is very strong for his fighting spirit in taking on bigoted right-wing media figures like O’Reilly and the utterly bombastic Glenn Beck, wingnut purveyors of war, and fascistic violence against whole groups and classes, perceived as their “enemies.”

So I was glad today to read about Olbermann’s recent remarks about Beck at Think Progress,

Olbermann, on Beck: A wolf in sheep’s clothing. The very dangerously bigoted guy who is selling himself as a pragmatic philosopher. I don’t think he sees his own bigotry. There’s something about him that suggests that, one night, he’ll say something that will cost him his career in television.

Oh, that’s good, perfect. “He doesn’t see his own bigotry.” That probably describes 90% of the Little Green Footballs crowd that hangs on Beck’s every word.

This provoked a response from Beck. He tried to turn the tables on Olbermann, saying that if he were to be shut down, it would be because of an “intolerant ideologue like Keith Olbermann” and that would “smack of the same McCarthyism [Edward R.] Murrow fought so valiantly against.” Beck added, “Hey, Keith, you’re not saving the world’s democracy; you’re killing it, my friend, by trying to limit the marketplace of ideas to only those that reflect your own.”

Okay, Glenn, here’s a peek at the contents of your store in that marketplace of ideas. Readers are free to judge whether or not these ideas have a damn thing to do with democracy, freedom, or any other positive values.

BECK (August 10, 2006): The world is on the brink of World War III… All you Muslims who have sat on your frickin’ hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, ‘Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head.’ I’m telling you, with God as my witness… human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it. When things—when people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, it is Nazi, World War II wrong, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen.

It’s typical Beck technique. He blurts out a statement reflecting a “final solution” mentality from the deepest recesses of fascism while clumsily trying to distance himself from it, but not really.

Media Matters has 183 items (today) on examples of misinformation and bigotry broadcast by the insufferable Glenn Beck.

Update: And he’s a lascivious creep too, on the air no less. Check this from Crooks & Liars.

Iran-contra redux, this time with radical Sunni enemies of Iran & Hezbollah; trouble is, these radicals are of the same strain as those responsible for the 9/11 plot

Click image for mp4 video of entire Hersh interview on CNN Late Edition for February 25 (quicktime plugin recommended, 50 MB download, about 3-5 minute delay with minimum 2 Mbit connection, not recommended for dial-up. Think Progress has a Flash excerpt that will play faster.)

Seymour Hersh has a new article in The New Yorker magazine. This one is a real blockbuster. In it Hersh writes that he has learned from confidential sources that off-the-books aid to anti-Iran, anti-Hezbollah factions in the Lebanon’s Siniora government—possibly diverted from swampy Iraq slush funds—is making its way to “the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south.”

Hersh writes that these groups “are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.”

Furthermore, concerning former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte,

I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.)

The former senior intelligence official also told me that Negroponte did not want a repeat of his experience in the Reagan Administration, when he served as Ambassador to Honduras. “Negroponte said, ‘No way. I’m not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.

Wow. Negoponte–a guy who had little compunction about running death squads out of the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa during the 1980s, or helping implement the “Salvador option” for Iraq–is the moralist who can’t sanction the activities emanating from the Veep’s office. Cheney seems to have thrown down the covert gauntlet, daring someone to stop him. I think that spate of articles a few months ago suggesting Vice President Crooked Scowl’s diminished power were premature.

In a wide-ranging interview today with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition, Hersh discussed plans long underway for an attack on Iran. I found this item to be quite interesting:

Well, I don’t think there’s any question but much of the senior military leadership do not think it’s the wise thing to do. Of course, if the president orders it, it will happen. But they are very skeptical.

For example, I was told — I hinted at it in the article — that we could have a carrier in trouble in the Straits of Hormuz. There’s very little room to maneuver, and a carrier, when it’s recovering planes that are, you know, landing after attacking and trying to recover the planes, their motions, their movements are predictable. They have to have the wind in a certain direction. They could be vulnerable to attack.

Iran has hundreds of PT boats they can load up and make them more or less suicide boats. So the Navy is extremely worried about that possibility. We could have some serious damage to our fleet. And also, what’s Iran going to do in response?

I will tell you also that there’s a lot of evidence — I didn’t get into this that much into the piece — that the Iranians are digging more holes, moving their leadership into underground bunkers in other places besides Tehran in case of a bombing. They are anticipating the worst.

Big questions now are: Will any other media pick this up? Will Congress take any interest in the Pentagon’s evidently extremely deep, extremely murky covert operations?

The new WordPress 2.1 version of Deep Blade Journal finally is coming together. It’s been installed for a couple of weeks, but just now it is settling into its permanent look & feel. I’d sure appeciate any comments readers would like to post concerning how you like this new site design.

Blogger translates leaked copy, scoops the New York Times

This should be a major story. Iraq-born blogger Raed Jarrar has obtained a leaked copy of Iraq’s new oil law. You also can get a look at this document here. Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman interviewed Raed Jarrar along with the important Iraq oil policy researcher, Antonia Juhasz.

New Iraq Oil Law To Open Iraq’s Oil Reserves to Western Companies

RAED JARRAR: The document was leaked by Professor Fouad Al-Ameer and published on a website called al-ghad.org. And then it was leaked to other important websites like niqash.org and other places. There are different ways of — different copies of it. Some of it are scanned, and others of the original document, but it just hit the internet last week.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what it says, now that you’ve finished translating it.

RAED JARRAR: It said so many things. I don’t think we can summarize it this short, because it’s a very long document, around thirty pages. But majorly, there are three major points that I think we should talk about. Financially, it legalizes very unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.

And the second point is concerning Iraq’s sovereignty. Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels — the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let’s say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.

And the third point is the point about keeping Iraq’s unity. The law is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund. The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces’ authorities. It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future.

To me, it is very clear that what the Iraq oil law seeks to preserve is the ability of hyrocarbon-connected elites in Washington to make fundamental decisions about development and distribution of profits from Iraq’s oil. It will keep the Iraqi public in the dark and at bay while very, very costly decisions about oil are made below the table. The basic effect of the law will be to ensure that, according to Antonia Juhasz,

ultimate decision making on contracts rests with a new council to be set up in Iraq, and sitting on that council will be representatives — executives, in fact — of oil companies, both foreign and domestic. In addition, it does maintain the Iraq National Oil Company, but gives the Iraq National Oil Company almost no preference.

Whatever oversight the Iraqi people may have, foreign oil executives will be responsible for all decisions and all accounting concerning Iraq’s oil.

Blogger scooped the New York Times
It is difficult to recognize and interpret the complex, clandestine methods Bush administration officials and their collaborators in the Iraqi government are using to insure Iraq will pay a heavy price for development of its key resource with the boot of Washington on its neck. To misdirect public scrutiny officials give lip service to the claim that the new law will be a great thing for Iraq. According to yesterday’s story by regular New York Times Iraq oil correspondent James Glanz, “the law is considered an essential element of creating a stable and functioning government.”

The way Glanz sources his knowledge of the draft law seems to me to be pathetic, “Earlier drafts of the law” were “described to The New York Times”. With all the resources of the Times no actual text of the law could be published. But a mere blogger has been able to issue the whole thing.

There is some disconnect between the Times interpretation and Raed’s. Raed notes that the law empowers regions the “final say to deal with the oil”, while Glanz reports that under the law, “Iraq’s central government in Baghdad would retain substantial control over oil revenues and the right to review the contracts that regional governments sign with Iraqi and international companies to develop the fields and to pump oil.”

And that,

Negotiations had snagged because of the insistence by the Kurds that they maintain a degree of autonomy in managing their northern fields. But two members of the negotiating committee confirmed that a draft had been sent to the cabinet, indicating that a compromise might be in sight.Neither of those negotiators — Hussain al-Shahristani, the current oil minister, and Thamir Ghadban, a former oil minister — provided details of the compromise. But a senior official in the Kurdish regional government also said that a deal was near and hinted that the Kurds had received concessions on how the law would affect existing contracts with oil companies that agreed to work in the north.

My question to Raed would be, at what stage of this “compromise” does the available version of the document reflect? I guess it will be important to follow Raed’s blog.

Iraqi opposition to the oil law
In a speech two weeks ago, Hasan Jum`ah `Awwad al-Asadi, head of the Federation of Oil Unions gave called on the international community to, “Open the way to Iraqis to manage their own oil affairs.”

He disputes the notion that there should be a rush to invite foreign companies into the country while giving them such dominant, long-term control.

They [Iraqis] are able to do that [manage their own oil affairs]; they have the experience in the field and the technical training, have overcome hardships and proven to the world that they can provide the best service to Iraqis in the oil industry. The best proof of that is how after the entry of the occupying forces and the destruction of the infrastructure of the oil sector the engineers, technical staff and workers were able to raise production from zero to 2,100,000 barrels per day without any foreign expertise or foreign capital. Iraqis are capable of further increasing production with their present skills. The Iraqi state needs to consult with those who have overcome the difficulties and to ask their opinion before sinking Iraq into an ocean of dark injustice. Those who spread the word that the oil sector will not improve except with foreign capital and production-sharing are dreaming. They must think again since we know for certain that these plans do not serve the sons and daughters of Iraq.

The crux of the matter behind the US occupation of Iraq is denial by the US of what al-Asadi clearly states Iraqis want—control of their own affairs. A permanent military occupation is the only way the US will be able to hold this new oil law in force. Otherwise, Iraqis would be able to develop their oil in their own best interests.

Not much is heard these dark days from Riverbend, a long-time Iraqi blogger. But today she has a most disturbing post.

Riverbend: … She might have been one of those subtitles you read on CNN or BBC or Arabiya, “13 insurgents captured by Iraqi security forces.” The men who raped her are those same security forces Bush and Condi are so proud of- you know- the ones the Americans trained… I translated what she said below,

“I told him, ‘I don’t have anything [I did not do anything].’ He said, ‘You don’t have anything?’ One of them threw me on the ground and my head hit the tiles. He did what he did- I mean he raped me. The second one came and raped me. The third one also raped me. [Pause- sobbing] I begged them and cried, and one of them covered my mouth. [Unclear, crying] Another one of them came and said, ‘Are you finished? We also want our turn.’ So they answered, ‘No, an American committee came.’ They took me to the judge.

Riverbend concludes,

Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.