Why is Iraq's "Oil Law" being discussed in a "closed session" of the US Senate?

[welshTerrier2]

yesterday, during an exchange between Senator Sununu and Sec. Rice, a reference was made to a secret "closed session" meeting between the administration and the Senate regarding Iraq's "Oil Law" ... the Oil Law is a really big deal ... on the surface, it's sort of Iraq's "divorce settlement" about who gets custody of the oil fields ... "let's see, I think the Kurds should get 40%, the Shia 40% and the Sunnis 20%" ... kind of like that ...

responding to charges just a day or two before the invasion that this would be a war for oil, Tony Blair made his case:

On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

"which people claim that we want to seize" indeed!!!

many leading Democrats, i prefer to call most of them prominent Democrats, have emphasized that the US must not withdraw its military from the Middle East because we have "strategic interests" there ... one wonders exactly what they mean by that ... for example, if OPEC decided not to sell oil to the US, or perhaps if Saudi Arabia were overrun by parties hostile to the US, exactly what rights would we believe we had to "protect" our interests?

but i digress ... the reality of Iraq's "Oil Law" does not find the US in an objective role as a court trying to help the parties reach an equitable arrangement ... the US is NOT an honest broker; we are an imperial force ... exactly whose interests are really being catered to at the bargaining table? please ask yourself that? do you envision the US in some form of honest diplomatic role helping the divided Iraqi factions reach an accord so that peace can finally be found? is this the "diplomacy" you're calling for? is this why you argue the "solution" in Iraq can't be military and must be political and diplomatic? the internal turmoil in Iraq is about many things but it is most definitely about OIL ... inside Iraq, he who owns the oil makes the rules!

the negotiation of Iraq's OIL LAW is everything and all the other tactics and strategies and posturing and the rest of it is ultimately nothing ... no one will lay down their weapons knowing that they will not get a square cut of Iraq's future ... so why a secret Senate session? why no daylight? perhaps one would speculate they've come up with a brand new allocation formula that might solve everything and they felt it shouldn't be made public until all the parties have a chance to see it? perhaps they're planning to cut out the Sunnis and they just don't want the information to be public just yet? perhaps it's such a major change inside Iraq that they were worried it would shock the oil markets?

none of that makes much sense ... so, why the secrecy? what is in the US backed OIL LAW that is NOT for public consumption? could it be that the US has its own agenda that is pushing its own interests ahead of the interests of the fighting factions in Iraq? is it possible, instead of "sweetening the deal" so that there's "more to go around" for the Iraqi people, certain commercial US interests are getting the lion share of the oil profits? is it possible the war and occupation are going to be allowed to continue so that an abusive oligopoly can feed the piggy faces of its largest shareholders? you getting this?

THE CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ WILL NOT DISSIPATE IF THE CURRENT THEFT OF IRAQI OIL BY US-SUPPORTED OIL COMPANIES IS ALLOWED TO BECOME IRAQ'S NEW "OIL LAW"!!!!

and as the US withdraws, leaving behind sufficient force to guard the pipelines and the fields, and this is exactly what was done in Afghanistan, Iraq will be tossed on the scrap heap of history ... the US military will have procured trillions of dollars of future Iraqi oil revenues for private commercial gain ... and what lesson will have been taught to those who believed they could find a supportive president to do their bidding? what lesson???

some talk of windfall profits taxes ... a good idea to be sure ... but that is sadly lacking because it will not adequately remove the incentive mega-corporations in the oil industry and in the military-industrial complex have to push for war ... windfall profits taxes are a very good idea ... more important though, is an investigation about WHY we went to war ... here's a hint: we went to war for oil ... and we need to prosecute those who abused the public trust in this manner ... and that is NOT enough either ... perp walking bush and cheney and wolfowitz and the rest locks up the puppets but does not adequately punish the puppeteers ... and they are BIG OIL ...

Big Oil is going to walk away with "legal contracts" signed by the puppet government in Iraq that will yield as much as 85% of Iraq's future oil revenues for the next 30 years to BIG OIL ... this is somehow justified as "pro-American" because "we have an unfortunate dependence on foreign oil" ... so nice they're looking out for each and every one of us, isn't it? we don't make trillions; they do ... they use the lives of our military; they use our tax dollars; they use our diminished prestige in the world; they shatter our national soul - and they make trillions ...

so, secret meetings? not much reason for surprise there ...

can anything be done? let me call on Dems yet again to speak out against private commercial corporations taking one penny of Iraq's oil wealth ... these agreements are nothing more than international blackmail and rape ... got that? are Democrats supporting this? they sure have been quiet about what's going on ... this is the final signing of the "blood for oil" contracts and all we hear is Dems calling for "diplomacy" ... the Iraqis don't need this kind of "closed session" diplomacy; they need an assurance that Big Oil, backed by the US military, will not walk away with their national treasure ...

my measure of any who seek to lead this country will point very directly at how they address this issue ... either the oil belongs to the Iraqi people and any and all contracts with Big Oil should be voided, or we, Democrats and all, are imperialists ... let's hope that is not what we're seeing ...

STOP THE WAR NOW; VOID THE OIL CONTRACTS; BRING THE TROOPS HOME: PROSECUTE THE PERPE-TRAITORS !!!

[fuzzyball]

1. US is NOT after confiscating Iraqi oil....

All US want is Iraqi oil not fall under Iran's control
and the worldwide customers be blackmailed into giving
Iran what it wants...many nukes to attack Israel. The
Iraqi oil (2nd biggest reserves after Saudi A) should be
sold on at market based price and not blackmail price.

Ahmedinejad and gang is on record saying Iran can survive
a nuclear attack because of it size, but Israel will become
a wasteland.

[welshTerrier2]

3. "All US want"

to make sure the Iranians don't steal Iraq's oil, the US will steal it first!

that's your argument?

are you familiar with what's in the "Oil Law"?

here's a link you might find interesting: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

here's another: http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/shdaily_opinion.asp?id=302398&type=Opinion

[irislake]

7. It was about the U.S. and the U.K. stealing the oil

from the Iraqi people from the outset. What do you think Dick Cheney's secret energy meetings were about? See Judicial Watch for maps of all the oil in Iraq. This will make U.S. and U.K terrorist targets and I wonder how much sympathy the rest of the world will be able to muster. I have been feeling just sick about this for days. If the Democrats are complicit you can forget about their high ideals -- they will be as corrupt as the Bush regime. Sickening beyond belief. Has this been on MSM in U.S.? It was on CBC radio a few days ago and is front page news in U.K.

[fuzzyball]

17. Unfortunately Cheney never invited me to his secret meetings but....

I have been reading the news, and what I understand is
that Iraqi oil revenues are under control and ownership
of the Iraqi government.

[welshTerrier2]

19. under control of the Iraqi government?

and who is controlling the Iraqi government?

here are a few links that discuss the oil contracts:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456212,00.html

we have destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and its government and now offer them crumbs for their oil fields ...

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Are you dreamin'? Or smokin'? Whichever, here's the reality

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3108291#3108350

and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3099093&mesg_id=3099093

[welshTerrier2]

14. more links

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/103
(source: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/106
(source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456212,00.html)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/100
(source: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1885258,00.html?=rss)

[caledesi]

30. Oh really? I have 3 words for you. Production Sharing Agreement

It's neat and tidy and the US and the Brits "legally" can take the revenues of Iraqi oil. The Brits get their share next week. Funny that they are beginning to withdraw their troops in within weeks. Something smells

http://www.uruknet.org.uk/?s1=1&p=26801&s2=21

[Peace Patriot]

2. Excellent points, welshTerrier!! The secrecy is UNCONSCIONABLE!

We pay--with lives and money--70% of us want this war ended, and they're kibbitizing in secret....

Your best point of all...the whole shootin' match...

"Big Oil is going to walk away with "legal contracts" signed by the puppet government in Iraq that will yield as much as 85% of Iraq's future oil revenues for the next 30 years to BIG OIL ... this is somehow justified as "pro-American" because "we have an unfortunate dependence on foreign oil" ... so nice they're looking out for each and every one of us, isn't it? we don't make trillions; they do ... they use the lives of our military; they use our tax dollars; they use our diminished prestige in the world; they shatter our national soul - and they make trillions ... "

[rgbecker]

4. Now we know the reason for the timing of the Surge.

When the Iraqi people learn about what the US has in store for their oil reserves, they'll take to the streets big time. Follow the money...to the oil...to the blood. If it isn't about the oil, that only leaves Israel as the reason for this Fiasco.

[welshTerrier2]

6. this is NOT about Israel

this is about corporate greed and a foreign policy that caters to it ... the PSA's (i.e. contracts) will put trillions in the pockets of Big Oil and the parties and politicians who help them ...

as for supporting Israel, those with the deepest concern for Israel would be wise to call for a real energy policy in the US that rapidly transitions the US away from its addiction to oil ... Israel can build no wall high enough to protect itself from the inevitable advance of weapons technology ... the path to a secure future for Israel lies in meaningful diplomacy and not IDF oppression ... and it lies in a real energy policy in the US over which the Israelis have no control ...

[Peace Patriot]

8. It's about Big Oil and other war profiteers USING Israelis' fears and their

PTSD (60 years in an almost constant state of war), as well as the interests of the rightwing 'christian' nutball minority in the US, and global corporate predators of every kind (they all use oil--the Gap, Taco Bell, Wal-Mart--not to mention slave labor in foreign lands), together in an unholy alliance with our war profiteering corporate news monopolies, to force an unjust, illegal, horrendous war--that the majority of Americans rejected BEFORE IT STARTED (56% opposed, Feb. '03)--down our reluctant, peace-loving, democratic throats. The war profiteering corporate news monopolies handed a Big Trumpet to the rightwing nutballs, way out of proportion to their numbers, to demoralize the rest of us, shut us up and make us think we are the minority; and they furthermore fiddled their exit polls on election night '04 to force their exit polls to FIT the impossible results of Diebold/ES&S's "trade secret" programming--thus denying us a change of course, and demoralizing us some more. And the Israel lobby did their part as well--the rightwing war profiteers in Israel are as bad as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, for keeping their people in a state of terror, profiting from their fear, and doing everything possible to stir up hatred among the Palestinians and prevent a Mideast peace settlement. Everybody in this ungodly coalition did their part. The trouble is that the Bush Junta is loyal to no one. This despised gang of criminals and thieves, hated around the world, and at home, is the worst possible ally Israel's government could have chosen. The Bush Junta's buds are the Saudi/UAE/Kuwaiti sultans. They will abandon Israel in a cold minute, if they see profit in it. Good Israelis--who want peace and a future for their children--are left with no options except violence, in the interest of the Oil Cartel. Which is where the Bush Junta wants to leave the American people as well. They are using us all.

I don't think you can say it's not about Israel. It is. The behavior of the Democratic leadership and the NYT tells me that it is--and common sense tells me. Protecting Israel is their top priority--mostly for cultural, political and religious reasons. (Some are tied to war profiteers and big oil, but most have somewhat better reasons than that.) But that's not what the Bush Junta is about. And that is my point. When Bush says that this is "the ideological war of the century," or whatever Stalinist crap he said yesterday, he is lying. He and his Junta are about greed. They don't care about ANYBODY. They are psycho greedbags. And Israel, and all of their train of allies--from the non-war profiteer business sector (if you can call global corporate piracy "business") to the sincere rightwing Christians (if there are any), and everybody in between, including the so-called "conservative" Republicans, had better realize this, and some are realizing it, obviously. They have all been had, big time. And so have the people of Israel and all of the people of the Middle East. And, frankly, I hope all of them--Israelis included--evict all current leaders and band together to throw the Bush Cartel out of the region. It's time the REGIONAL interest of the Middle East and the welfare of ALL of its people be asserted. The Bush Junta is nothing but trouble. They thrive on blood and chaos. They have deliberately pitted one set of asshole leaders against another, and they are, quite literally, laughing all the way to their Cayman Islands banks.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "it"

when you say "I don't think you can say it's not about Israel. It is.", I think we may be having pronoun problems ...

first, my main focus here was on the "Oil Law" which I don't believe has anything to do with Israel ...

nor do I believe, as you so articulately pointed out, that bush et al give a damn about ANYBODY ... Saddam was pathetically weak after 10 years of sanctions and posed no threat to anyone ... bush knew that before he invaded ... in that context, my statement about saying "IT" is not about Israel intended as it's focus the motivations of bush and his puppeteers ...

broadening the perspective to the American strategic objectives in the greater Middle East, I certainly agree with your statement ... I did not intend to detach the objectives of many Democrats from valuing the protection of Israel ...

[fuzzyball]

18. It is 50% Israel, 49% FREE MARKET ACCESS to iraqi oil

and 1% democracy in Iraq.
Without that oil, United States economy will tank badly.

[caledesi]

31. Good point! nt

[donkeyotay]

5. National security has been abused. The secrecy is for corruption.

Washington better get serious about cleaning it all up. The ship of state is sinking fast.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. Dems should be opposed to Big Oil getting a cent from Iraq.

My fear is that Big Oil will promise to give a hefty cut to the U.S. Federal government to help reimburse for the war we started and that the Dems will go for that. I.e. the contract will make Iraq a debtor nation to the U.S. with the oil companies raking a profit from managing the oil deal.

No way Congressional Democrats would reward the GOP Oil donors with contracts that give them all of Iraqs oil wealth no strings attached, not after the way they price gouged American (Democratic) voters. Big Oil is going to have to do something for the Dems to make up)

Problem is will the Dems do anything for the Iraqis? It is THEIR oil.

[ProudDad]

11. Check it out

The dems haven't been paid as much as the pukes lately but that will change now that they're "in power".

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01

It still ain't chump change they've been paid even when not in power.

The Dems and pukes are almost ALL corporate tools.

I believe I read or heard that the "oil law" gives foreign oil companies 75% (THAT THREE QUARTERS) of the oil revenue for 30 years (to start). That's why they want to keep it a secret -- they're all on the take for an obscenely lopsided "agreement"...

[welshTerrier2]

13. we need to get every Dem on the record on this issue

while the cheerleading is going on during primary season, i fully intend to hold their feet to the fire over this issue ...

no candidate should be given a free ride ... there will be no place for them to hide ... it's time both they and their supporters take a clear stand ...

is American going to remain an imperial nation? is Big Oil going to get away with their theft of Iraqi oil? will bush be left laughing all the way to the bank?

Democrats need to put this issue on the front page ...

[alfredo]

33. The Kurds are being cut out of the oil. They will not take this

sitting down. They wanted the oil proceeds from the oil in their region.

[mikehiggins]

15. I don't see any names mentioned as to who was at these

secret meetings. Who were there and present, besides Cheney and Co.?

What exactly did the Democrats have to say about how this law was put together and imposed on Iraq?

Are we now to get blamed for what BushCo and the Reptilians did before January 2007?

Bullshit.

[welshTerrier2]

16. "closed session of the Senate"

at a minimum, i believe the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was in attendance ...

your bullshit is bullshit ...

the question is whether Dems will speak out about the new Iraqi "Oil Law" ...

in response to: "What exactly did the Democrats have to say about how this law was put together and imposed on Iraq?" the Dems have said nothing that i've been able to find ... how about you? you been hearing criticism from the Dems? do you think the Dems should object to the new "Oil Law"? i do!!

how was the law put together and imposed on Iraq? well, how about shock and awe? how about having virtual control over the Maliki government? how about being an occupying country? how about destroying Iraq's infrastructure and making them so desperate that they were in no position to reject Big Oil's demands? how about recognizing that Iraq's elite white collar crowd has long since fled the country and those left behind were in no position to negotiate? how about bush sticking Wolfowitz at the World Bank to close the deal?

you think maybe the Dems should have something to say on the subject? or do you think it's just fine and dandy for the Dems to go along with Big Oil's theft of Iraqi oil?

[rman]

20. Corporate dealing usually are behind closed doors

And corporations own the government.
That's why.

[OregonBlue]

21. No one in MSM will touch this. Why? Not Keith, Not Lou. Where's Kucnich?

have they been warned? Why hasn't a single White House "reporter" asked Tony Snow about this? Has Helen? Why haven't Kucinich, Waxman, etc. spoken out?

[welshTerrier2]

22. British press has several articles; Mother Jones; not US MSM

amazing, isn't it?

corporate controlled media will not cover the real reason for the war ... and neither will anyone in Congress ...

[OregonBlue]

25. How do we make them cover it? Are there NO brave congresscritters?

[primative1]

23. Some great reading on this thread ...

I woke up this morning thinking about alternative energy, particularly the lack of recent progress made in crafting solar panels over recent memory. Odd, I thought, that computers have evolved so far in this same time but solar panels largly are as they were decades ago, only more expensive .....
Then I read this thread ...
There is a connection here ... no?

[welshTerrier2]

24. the silence of the lamps

they will squeeze and squeeze and squeeze every penny from us until America and the whole world finally will go dark ... when there is no more money to be made from oil and the foolish policies it imposes, only then will a new way be possible - unless we stop them!

perhaps some, especially Dems in the Congress, may acknowledge our dependency on oil and may see fighting wars to procure it as a noble cause ... to be sure, we are desperately dependent on oil and changes in the Middle East that blocked US access to oil would no doubt be devastating ... so, for some, their motivation may not be to support the corporate greed of Big Oil ...

but even here, i see this as badly misguided ... first, of course, it's just not appropriate to build a colonial empire and use our military might to steal oil from other countries ... and second, absent a very aggressive push to break our oil dependency, continuing such conduct is well beyond immoral ... it leads only to dead-ends ...

the changes we need, which unfortunately exceed any expertise i possess, clearly have to address our most wasteful practices ... i've been told that the number one use of fossil fuels in the US is agriculture (i thought it was autos) ... we need to re-engineer our entire society ... you might sort of use the dirty word: central planning ... i'm not arguing for communism - i'm arguing for making some common sense decisions to address our desperate dependency on oil ... the Federal government should provide incentives to relocate growers and food producers closer to their end consumers ... we need to re-engineer where employers are located so that they are closer to where their workers live ... we need to help more workers work from home ... we need to build real mass transit ...

on top of all this, we need to support meaningful technological change ... solar, battery technology, wind, geo-thermal, even wave power ... without a real national commitment, none of this is going to happen until there is just no money left to be made from oil ... worse, i wouldn't be surprised to see the oil boys make a big push for nuclear ... that's an insane path in my opinion ... i'm afraid they may have the necessary infrastructure to make it happen though ...

the connection you see between oil, war and the suppressed technologies that could make our lives better and our country more secure is undeniable ... that is THE political struggle ... either greedy corporations and their largest shareholders will dictate national policy or We The People will final overcome their power and begin making the changes we so desperately need ... that's the battle ... if we fail, everything will be lost ...

[primative1]

32. Suppressed Technologies

Exactly the term I was reaching for.
The technologies already exist, they have for some time.
Technologies are brought right to the edge of economic feasability and then mothballed. I have watched this activity first hand for decades. Why?
Its so ilogical that there must be some logic, I just cant see it.
Are we truly "dependant" on oil by choice? If so who chooses and why? Noone asked for my opinion. Did they inquire after yours?
The best part of the movie "inconvenient truth" was when Gore showed the Reagan era "scales of consideration" where the planet was held in balance versus the pile of gold.
Screw greed. Its a disease the same as any other, in need of treatment and cure.

[leveymg]

26. It's against Int'l Law for the US to privatize Iraqi oil - only the Iraqis can do that

The major reason for The Surge and the war threats against Iran are to buy enough time to coerce the Shi'a and the Kurds into inking the oil concessions deal.

The Hydrocarbon Law was DOA a few days ago. They're trying desperately to revive it. The Bush Administration is willing to sacrifice another 1000, 2000 or 3000, or 30,000 American troops to get it done. That's how they do business.

[MasonJar]

27. US and UK interests like Exxon, taking over the oil fields. It must be

stopped. This has to come from Bush/Cheney. Why would this be something that the Iraqis would want?

[welshTerrier2]

28. exactly!

source: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/01/3212_big_oil_wins_ir.html (based on an article in the Independent)

The large Iraqi unions of oil workers are protesting the deal: "This law has a lot of problems. It was prepared without consulting Iraqi experts, Iraqi civil society or trade unions. We reject this draft and demand more time to debate the law," according to Hasan Jum’a, President of the Federation of Oil Unions.

Adnan Saffar, member of the Executive Committee of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers, said "The Iraqi national interest is surrendered in this law which allows foreign companies investment terms that exploit Iraq's oil wealth. They benefit the foreign investors more than they benefit Iraqi workers, through long term oil contracts that negatively impact Iraq's sovereignty and national independence."

[Hoping4Change]

29. Excellent post. K & R.