| The Kitties here play a lot rougher than the cats over at Fox News . . . |
 |
Here he is saying on his web site that Bush stifled the FBI thus letting 9/11 happen (not on purpose but by gross negligence) in order to protect Enron's dealings with the Taleban.
By this logic, American companies are no better than the French and Bush no better than Chirac......
It is amazing how Fox News will give a guy airtime without letting their viewers know that the guy is a conspiracy nutjob.....
jtesh
Since Sep 22, 2004
So long, John Tesh....
Things that make you say hmmmmm.....
incoming
3-2-1....
>>>. The document was obtained by the FBI but was not allowed to be shared with other agencies in order to protect Enron.
What are they talking about? This stuff was on the Net. Let me see if I can find it again.
BRB
Fooey. Ridiculous stuff, if you read it all. Enron was hired by the oil companies to do a study of the pipeline's feasability. The deal collapsed in August of 01. It was not Enron's deal; they were consultants. It was the oil companies' deal; they were to build the pipeline.
The world has changed. attacking america is not a sport any more. It's sedition. Everyone knows Enron is a POS. He tries to blame Bush, when it was all through the Clinton Admin that the deals were being pushed.
Naughty, naughty, you forgot your tin foil hat. See what happens when you forget?
I think many will confuse your post and comment as being in agreement while I read that you think the guy is a nut job. Good luck in the insuing flame war.
| The Kitties here play a lot rougher than the cats over at Fox News . . . |
|
Welcome aboard! Don't mind us, we're a little twitchy these days with all the trolls and disruptors trying to infiltrate.
So long, jtesh...
First all did Dan Rather produce the document, but seriously if it was true, how would them wanting to build a pipeline stop people from connecting the dots for 9-11. It doesn't make sense. Its not like the Taliban would have told them what was going to happen.
Aren't you a little wary of guys who speak about themselves in the third person?
Tin foil hat time, IMHO>
This is a very weak story. There's no proof that the oil pipeline negotiations which were widely known had anything to do with 9/11.
Secondly, what motive would the FBI have in suppressing the information from other intelligence agencies. Enron stock options for all hands? Please.
I'm sorry, but there is and was no pipeline coverup.
It helps if we understand that oil companies do not "conspire" to pump oil, they pump oil, its their business. There isn't anything secret about what they do beyond normal commercial discretion.
Unocal and a number of other companies sent their people into Central Asia as the Soviet Union teetered and fell, looking for opportunities, and what they found was a ramshackle oil infrastructure, a KGB/mafia administration, but potentially lots of opportunity. The problem was getting the oil and gas to market at a time that the Russians were still smarting over the loss of their near-abroad territories, and trying to use their pipeline monopoly to exert pressure.
The oil companies announced their intention to build a pipeline network that bypassed Russia, the Baku Ceyhan line, and the infamous Afghan line. This basically woke the Russians up to the fact that we were going to operate there with or without their help, and they responded by getting fully into the game, partnering with US companies, expanding their own pipeline network, and building new pipelines themselves.
In other words, the threat to build these lines had the desired effect of opening up the Russian bottleneck.
Since the Russians still like to play games, Baku Ceyhan is going ahead, but so are a lot of other pipelines. China is building a pipeline into the region, they are building pipelines into Iran, and expanding their network to eastern Europe.
I will predict that the Afghan line will not be built in the near term, and maybe never. This is a line from a very spooky place, through a war zone, through another very spooky place. Anyone with a grudge and a souvenir hand grenade can shut you down anytime. And all this to feed gas to a subsidized gas market. The idea of selling gas to India sounds great, but it requires India to change their laws. Enron gambled on that with $3 or $4 billion dollars in generating plants and lost their shirts when India failed to come through with their part. Even Clinton couldn't collect for Enron, which is a big part of why Enron ultimately collapsed.
After the war, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan held a conference to attract investors to their pipeline, and have fairly begged investors, China included, to look their way, but no one is interested, and who could blame them? I wouldn't risk my $3 billion. Turkmenistan is now looking west, to build a pipeline under the Caspian to eastern Europe. Its safer.
The pipeline negotiations were on the Clinton watch and very well might have involved Enron. Enron was heavily involved with the Clinton administration in India, why not Afghanistan too? There is plenty that the public doesn't know about Enron in the 90s that has been covered up, but not by Bush, and probably has no bearing on 9/11 either.
Let's keep in mind that back in the days of the Soviet Union, we supported the Muslims against the Communists, and rightly so.
Then gradually things changed.
It was not clear that the Taliban were our mortal enemies until after 9/11.
Notice that the story from The Enquirer posted among the replies traces this business back to the clinton years:
' "When Clinton was bombing Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan in 1998, Enron was making payoffs to Taliban and Bin Laden operatives to keep the pipeline project alive. And there's no way that anyone could NOT have known of the Taliban and Bin Laden connection at that time, especially Enron who had CIA agents on its payroll!"
'Said an Enron company source, "After the Taliban came to power in 1996, Tliban leaders were invited to Sugar Land, Texas, by Unocal and Enron executives.
' "The Taliban's mullahs were given the royal treatment for four days in 1997!" '
If the agencies are still sitting on this story, it's because they are covering for clinton, not Bush. But the whole business is a non-story. We had good reasons back then to seek other oil sources. And the whole picture has changed over the last 20 years.
He's dead, Jim.
(Click here or on the pic).
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Missed another ZOTTED Troll thread.
Our friends across the aisle have tied themselves into knots over their war-for-oil theories, and can't figure out why they can't make any headway.
The problem is that millions of Americans make their living in this business, and actually know something about it. When someone starts talking about war-for-oil, they already know he doesn't know what he is saying, and the rest gets tuned out.
There is such a thing as war-for-oil, but it isn't the US engaged in it. Genocide in the south of Sudan is partly driven by oil, partly by raw racism. US oil companies pulled out of there long ago, but French, Canadian, and Chinese oil companies are still there.
US companies had been invited into Iraq at the end of the Iran Iraq War, so I'm sure we had a moment where it was tempting to side with Saddam when he rolled into Kuwait. Back Kuwait, and we have to fight. Back Saddam, and we get access to both Kuwait and Iraq. Bechtel was manning up for a mega-job near Baghdad at the time.
We were expecting to do a lot of business there, which would explain April Glaspie's ambiguous response in her infamous meeting with Saddam, trying to play it neutral so we could keep our options open.
But when he invaded Kuwait we walked away from doing business there. France, Russia, Germany, and China were happy to take up the slack there, sanctions or no, and took the lead in protecting Saddam at the UN.
A lot of what passes for "war of civilizations" as Iran and the Saudis fund terror strikes is in practical terms a price war, suppressing production from competing fields. Hence their funding of insurgencies all across Central Asia. If you check into the funding behind enviro groups obstructing pipeline constructing, you will probably find OPEC money. When the Bolivians rose up to stop their pipeline to the sea, Chavez was there to encourage them in their struggle; there is something grotesque about one of the big OPEC producers encouraging the poorest people in the continent to stay out of the oil business for their own good, but there it is.
NGOs working in other Andean nations to resist oil development very likely are funded by the Saudis. I say this because in searching their websites they show as their areas of interest Andean oil, and the rest charity work in the Balkans and the West Bank. You figure it out.
Venezuela seized our oil interests there in the seventies, and we just walked away. Mexico seized our interests there in the late thirties, when we were very interventionist, and again we just walked away. Now, we don't "own" oil, because we know it can always be seized, and no, the US won't invade to stop it. So when we write a contract, the terms of the divorce are built right in from the start. The host country retains ownership.
So there is such a thing as an oil war, but we aren't the ones waging it. Our biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico, and these are the longest undefended borders in the world. When Mexico and Canada militarize their borders you will know that they honestly fear a war for oil. Until then, its just something to say which means nothing.
