Pickens Urged Bush to Take Iraq’s Oil (Pickens, Mad As Hell Turner, Cameron, Wyly Speak At AREDAY)

As the last American combat troops left Iraq last week, Oil-tycoon-turned-clean-energy-innovator T. Boone Pickens was at the American Renewable Energy Day conference in Aspen, lamenting that the U.S. didn’t take hold of the rich oil fields in the war-torn Middle Eastern nation before they left.

Pickens at first elicited laughs from an audience at the Paepcke Auditorium on Saturday night, as he bluntly made the case for America’s right to Iraq’s oil. Those laughs subsided as he recalled how he personally lobbied Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to seize Iraq’s natural resources.

“I’ve heard people accuse President Bush of going to Iraq for their oil,” he began, in a public conversation with CNN founder Ted Turner and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. “That didn’t happen. We didn’t get the oil.”

No, the damn fools are the Freeper Neo Isolationists who continue to shout their emotion based dogmas rather then face the fact they were complete wrong about Iraq from the start.

Rather then welding their mind shut, yet again, perhaps the Neo Isolatists choir around here might finally learn the facts about Iraq.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Winston Churchill

Thanks for quoting Winnie Churchill.

Churchill got his start in the war with the Mahdi in the Sudan - another example of western powers swasting money and lives trying to civilize Islamic Savages.

He went on to a career with the British military in its effort to destroy the Boer Republics in South Africa by introducing the concept of Concentration Camps for civilians.

He moved onwards and upwards with a career in the British Admiralty where he conspired with FDR who was the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, to get us involved in WW1, something we should never have done. One of his famous quotes regarded a question as to how many Americans he wanted sent to help Britain. He stated “Just one. And I would put him somewhere where he was certain to be shot.” He said that KNOWING an American death would encourage the U.S. to help Britain in a war THE BRITISH never should have gotten involved in.

As to WW2, Hitler, the Nazis and that war would NEVER have happened if it were not for the imperialistic leanings of Churchill and his good buddy, Anglophiles Wilson and FDR in WW1. Russia would never have been Boslhevized if it weren;t for WW1 and Eastern Europe wouldn't have been communized if it weren't for Churchill and FDR.

I'm not an isolationist.

Invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was smart. Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan was well done and very necessary.

But wasting American lives and money trying to civilize two collections of Islamic Savages in a long occupation was, and is, stupid and foolish.

America should fight only blitzkrieg like wars - move in fast, totally destroy your opponent, then pull out and let his widows and orphans deal with the consequences of his stupidity.

But globalists wring their hands and think they have a responsibility to bring lightness and democracy to savages who don't understand nor respect it.

When they evolve, if ever, they can find their own way.

So far, the only experiment in Democracy which worked was the one that happened here in 1776. Because the people here were ready for it and understood it. All the rest - France, Russia, South America, etc, pretty much failed.

But wasting American lives and money trying to civilize two collections of Islamic Savages in a long occupation was, and is, stupid and foolish.

ZULU your point is valid and I think MNJohnnie’s post is right on the money and I happen to agree with it, thank you for the post. The invasion of Iraq also was not about oil per se, but I do think oil was part of the equation. If MNJohnnie is correct and I think he is then when do you think we should have left Iraq. If the purpose was to bring them to us and kill them then isn’t true the longer we were there the more of them came and were killed by our boys. Maybe that is one reason why we were spared fron another major attack like 9/11, they were too busy fighting us in Iraq, away from our major cities and population. Like MNJohnnie pointed out, brilliant!

I disagree that American lives were wasted. If anything Bush thought the enemy one thing. We are not weak! And we will strike back if ever we are attacked, one way or another, if not by this President then the next. To me it is a powerful message. Whoever is funding these savages certainly do not want American B2’s possibly carrying nukes over their skies in retaliation for a dirty bomb that went off in one of our cities. That was the mission I think our brave young men and women gave their precious lives for and I for one am ever grateful to them and President Bush for their courage, thank you and GOD BLESS them all!

I guess the definition falls on what constitutes the cost of the war with 50,000 troops remaining in dangerous conditions and the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq. Two parts equal the cost of the whole? I did remember hearing first hand and looked it up:

Washigton Post. The clip showed Wolfowitz telling a congressional panel, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself," and "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." The show's host, Jon Stewart, hooted, "[Bleeped] that one up, too!"

Now Karl Rove in his book disputed a comment was made in regard to Iraq financing their on reconstruction.

Rove flatly denied that the Bush administration said Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for the war:

ROVE: No, no. Tom with all due respect that was not the policy of our government that we were going to go into Iraq and take their resources in order to pay for the cost of the war. … [T]he suggestion that somehow or another the administration had as its policy, “We’re going to go in to Iraq and take their resource and pay for the war” is not accurate

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer: Question: Back on the cost issue. If the U.S. does not get a second resolution, does the President believe that U.S. taxpayers will disproportionately bear the burden of the reconstruction costs in Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction (about 1/2 way down).

And given the fact that Iraq right now suffers under sanctions as a result of Saddam Hussein's repression and Saddam Hussein's attempts to procure weapons which the United Nations have said are sanctionable -- the fact of the matter is that Iraq's reconstruction will be aided by the removal of Saddam Hussein because Iraq will then be able to take its proper place among nations of the world that trades and trades freely, which all benefits the reconstruction of Iraq.

Could Iraqi Oil Help Pay Some Costs?
In its estimates, CBO also analyzed the suggested possibility that proceeds from sales of Iraqi oil could be used to offset the costs of rebuilding damaged infrastructure and occupation of Iraq. (USGOV.INFO)CBO found this idea not to be a reasonable option BUT:
•"Assuming that a post-conflict Iraq complied with all U.N. resolutions and removed the basis for the current economic sanctions, and assuming also that its oil production infrastructure was undamaged, Iraq could pay for reconstruction costs by using funds generated from that 400,000 BPD of oil and still have enough to pay for its country's current level of imports. At today's oil prices, production at that level would amount to approximately $3 billion a year."

Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday. An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds. In the end:
CHECK PLEASE?

China and England get oil contracts..we get a.... 'handshake'?

You are correct, in the end it was all a myth no matter who said what, when, where and how many Americans have given their lives and will continue to do so during this time of "reconstruction" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.