Posted on 01/25/2003 2:11:57 AM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON - U.S. troops would try to seize Iraqi oil fields before Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards could blow them up in the event of war, a senior U.S. Central Command official said yesterday."It's fair to say land component commanders have crafted strategies that would allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible," said the official, who spoke on grounds of anonymity.
"Saddam has plans to sabotage the Iraqi oil industry" and blame the destruction on U.S. bombing, said the official, a top adviser to Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of Central Command.
"We've seen military movement into the southern and northern oil fields," the official said, "and we've seen a number of indications from reliable intelligence sources that sabotage has been planned."
The official would not give details but did not rule out action by U.S. paratroopers and helicopter-borne air assault troops to protect the oil wells.
Hard to predict
Blowing up the 1,000 Iraqi oil wells in the south and 500 in the north would double the destruction caused by fleeing Iraqi troops on Kuwait's oil fields in 1991, the official said. He estimated repair costs at $30 billion to $50 billion.
The official would not estimate the impact on oil prices and supplies, and John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, said predictions were difficult.
Iraq produces less than 1.5 million barrels daily, about 3% of the world supply, and if the country goes off-line, "there's excess capacity" in other oil-producing states, Felmy said.
But losing Iraq in combination with continuing strife in Venezuela "really would strain excess capacity," he said.
First off,it's been a couple of days since I've been on FR,and I can't remember if I responed to this one earlier or not. None the less,this looks like a good place to start.
Your facts are twisted to suit your purposes. You are only seeing what you want to see,and ignoring what is "uncomfortable" to you. Don't worry about it too much,you and Chris WILL end up getting your wish. The US WILL spend our youth and our fortune fighting Israel's war for her. Granted,we will also be fighting Saudi Arabia's war for her too and that protecting the Saudi's may be the prime reason we will be fighting,but I suspect you don't really care about what happens to the Saudi's one way or the other.
First off,it's been a couple of days since I've been on FR,and I can't remember if I responed to this one earlier or not. None the less,this looks like a good place to start.
Your facts are twisted to suit your purposes. You are only seeing what you want to see,and ignoring what is "uncomfortable" to you. Don't worry about it too much,you and Chris WILL end up getting your wish. The US WILL spend our youth and our fortune fighting Israel's war for her. Granted,we will also be fighting Saudi Arabia's war for her too and that protecting the Saudi's may be the prime reason we will be fighting,but I suspect you don't really care about what happens to the Saudi's one way or the other.
There is nothing false about these allegations. We were supporting anybody who was willing to fight against Iran,and he was one of those involved in this fight.
(well before he ever became al quaeda head) and whether saddam bought chemicals from USA (dont think so, and you havent stated any facts to support your claim;
IF I remember the news reports right,the US "supplied" Hussein with certain chemicals that CAN be used in chemical or bio weapons. These reports were mostly in foreign newspapers like the London Times,and implied the chemicals were provided for free. While it may be true (and probably is) that these chemicals can also be used for non-sinister purposes,this does nothing to refute the fact that they were supplied to Iraq. The only stories I remember about chemical weapons material being sold to Iraq involved Germany as the seller.
in any case, not relevent,(well before he ever became al quaeda head) and whether saddam bought chemicals from USA (dont think so, and you havent stated any facts to support your claim; in any case, not relevent,
I see. Kinda like "I didn't have sex with that woman,and even if I did,you can't prove it. Which is the same thing as saying it never happened.",huh?
Those aren't the "facts" I remember reading about a couple of years ago. Those facts stated we funnelled some support for the Afhgan rebels though bin Laden and others. Maybe this doesn't count as "support" in your book,but it does in mine.
I don't know. There can't really be any doubt that these were the prime reasons we supported Iraq,though.
No,I haven't. We didn't give him money because he didn't NEED money. This doesn't mean we didn't funnel any money,supples,or equipment to other people through him,though. This is how covert wars are fought.
now you have fallen back to the (still false) "we gave him training" ... no we didnt give Bin Laden anything.
Are you trying to deny that CIA or other covert assets ever provided any equipment or weapons to anybody connected to bin Laden and his organization that they needed training to operate?
Bush administration offers to allow use of pipeline through Syria to help Iraq
Bush team opposes sanctions on Syria
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
U.S. sent Afghanistan $125 million - Washington is largest donor for 2nd straight year
WALL STREET JOURNAL: BUSH SR. IN BUSINESS WITH BIN LADEN FAMILY CONGLOMERATE THROUGH CARLYLE GROUP
Bin Laden comes home to roost - His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
Anatomy of a Victory: CIA's Covert Afghan War
Congressional Record
"Soviet-backed coup in Afghanistan sets stage for explosive growth in Southwest Asian heroin trade. New Marxist regime undertakes vigorous anti-narcotics campaign aimed at suppressing poppy production, triggering a revolt by semi-autonomous tribal groups that traditionally raised opium for export. The CIA-supported rebel Mujahedeen begins expanding production to finance their insurgency. Between 1982 and 1989, during which time the CIA ships billions of dollars in weapons and other aid to guerrilla forces, annual opium production in Afghanistan increases to about 800 tons from 250 tons. By 1986, the State Department admits that Afghanistan is `probably the world's largest producer of opium for export' and `the poppy source for a majority of the Southwest Asian heroin found in the United States.' U.S. officials, however, fail to take action to curb production. Their silence not only serves to maintain public support for the Mujahedeen, it also smooths relations with Pakistan, whose leaders, deeply implicated in the heroin trade, help channel CIA support to the Afghan rebels."
[Page: H2956] - NOTE: CIA admits drug trafficking, cover-up
FinCEN, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury, investigates money laundering. Special agents and analysts from various law enforcement agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Customs Service, are assigned to work with the FinCEN staff. The federal review stems in part from court documents obtained through litigation by Bill White, a former real estate business associate of Bath. White contends the documents indicate that the Saudis were using Bath and their huge financial resources to influence U.S. policy. Such representation by Bath would require that he be registered as a foreign agent with the U.S. Department of Justice. In general, people required by law to be registered are those who represent a foreign entity seeking to influence governmental action or policy. An Annapolis graduate and former Navy fighter pilot, White, 46, claims that Bath and the judicial system, under the veil of national security, have blackballed him professionally and financially because he has refused to keep quiet about what he regards as a conspiracy to secretly funnel Saudi dollars to the United States. White became entangled in a series of lawsuits and countersuits with Bath, who for some six years has prevailed in the courts. White says the legal action has financially devasted him and Venturcorp Inc., the real estate development company in which he and Bath were partners.
|
In sworn depositions, Bath said he represented four prominent Saudis as a trustee and that he would use his name on their investments. In return, he said, he would receive a 5 percent interest in their deals. Tax documents and personal financial records show that Bath personally had a 5 percent interest in Arbusto '79 Ltd., and Arbusto '80 Ltd., limited partnerships controlled by George W. Bush, President Bush's eldest son. Arbusto means bush in Spanish. Bath invested $ 50,000 in the limited partnerships, according to the documents. There is no available evidence to show whether the money came from Saudi interests. George W. Bush's company, Bush Exploration Co., general partner in the limited partnerships, went through several mergers, eventually evolving into Harken Energy Corp., a suburban Dallas-based company. Bush, known informally as George Jr., is a shareholder and director of Harken, which has been granted lucrative offshore drilling rights off the coast of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. One of the top shareholders of Harken, a public company, is Saudi businessman Abdullah Taha Bakhsh. Bush said that to his knowledge, Bath's investment was from personal funds, and no Saudi money was invested in Arbusto. Bath, 55, a former U.S. Air Force pilot, declined to comment for the record. Spokesmen for FinCEN and the FBI also declined to comment. According to a 1976 trust agreement, drawn shortly after Bush was appointed director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Sheik Salem M. Bin Laden appointed Bath as his business representative in Houston. Bin Laden, along with his brothers, owns Bin Laden Brothers Construction, one of the largest construction companies in the Middle East.According to White, Bath told him that he had assisted the CIA in a liaison role with Saudi Arabia since 1976. Bath has previously denied having worked for the CIA. In a sworn deposition, Bath said he was the sole director of Skyway Aircraft Leasing Ltd., a company that a court document shows is owned by Khaled bin Mahfouz. Bin Mahfouz had been a major shareholder in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a banking empire that has been accused of money laundering and of using Mideast oil money to seek ties to political leaders in several countries. Mahfouz and his family own the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia. In 1990, Bath bought the Express Auto Park garage at Hobby Airport for $ 8.4 million, which included a $ 1.4 million loan provided by Mahfouz, according to transaction documents. Bath received a 5 percent interest in the companies that own and operate Houston Gulf Airport after purchasing it on behalf of Bin Laden in 1977. After Bin Laden died in 1988, his interests in the airport were taken over by Mahfouz, according to court documents. Photo: Bill White, a real estate developer, balances a stack of depositions which he plans to turn over to federal authorities. The documents suggest a Houston businessman has been illegally representing the Saudis in the United States; Larry Reese/Chronicle |
February 25, 1998
In a letter dated July 9, 1992, twenty Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee petitioned the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate "serious allegations of possible violations of federal criminal statutes by high-ranking officials of the Executive Branch."
Among the potential criminal violations cited in the petition were making false statements, obstruction of justice, concealment or falsification of records, perjury, mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States or to commit an offense against the United States, and financial conflict of interest by high executive branch officials.
The 1992 letter further cited the Bush administration's "willful and repeated failure" to comply with requests by the House Judiciary and other committees for both documents and witnesses.
According to the 27-month Gonzalez Investigation, the Bush administration set up an "interagency" group after the Gulf War to prevent Congress from finding out about U.S. aid to Iraq before the Kuwait invasion. Gonzalez's concerns centered on the handling by the Justice Department of the investigation into Banka Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) in Atlanta. Most of Iraq's purchases of sensitive technology were handled by BNL. According to Gonzalez, Iraq had set up a secret network to buy equipment for missiles and for nuclear, chemical, and germ weapons. More than $5 billion in soft loans were funneled through the bank to the Iraqis in the five years leading up to the war. According to Gonzalez's compelling investigation, almost half of the $5 billion was funneled directly into Iraq's ambitious weapons program.
The Bush administration's task was to limit the investigation to one low-level bank official in Atlanta, resisting any attempt to connect the Iraqi loans to high administration officials or to BNL's mother bank in Italy and other shady institutions, such as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the CIA's bank of choice.
To this end, at least five federal agencies apparently misled, lied to, and blatantly stonewalled prosecutors in charge of the BNL investigation. According to a strongly worded October 1992 statement by the then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, David Boren, in support of the appointment of a special prosecutor, the CIA "with strong advice" from the Justice Department "authored a misleading letter to the acting U.S. attorney in Atlanta" regarding the BNL investigation. "In light of this new information," Boren stated, "I call on the attorney general to meet his obligations ... and appoint a special prosecutor."
To make his case, Boren cited the concerns of the federal judge in the stymied BNL case. In a sharp rebuke of the government's behavior, Judge Marvin Shoob accused Bush officials of stonewalling and deception in the BNL case and joined the call for a special prosecutor. "High-level officials in the Justice Department and the State Department met with the Italian ambassador," stated the frustrated federal judge, and "...decisions were made at the top levels of the United States government and within the intelligence community to shape this case." Shoob also noted that "the local prosecutor in this matter received ... highly unusual and inappropriate telephone calls from the White House Office of Legal Counsel."
Despite the strong words from Boren, Gonzalez, and Shoob, a special prosecutor was never appointed, and no administration officials were ever indicted or even forced to testify. Low-level bank officials ultimately took the rap for a multibillion-dollar, illegal, secret government scheme, spearheaded by the president of the United States, to arm Iraq.
And the coverup, thanks to Clinton officials, continues to this day. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Gore called the coverup of the secret Bush policy to arm Iraq "bigger than Watergate ever was," but in a Jan. 16, 1995, report, the Clinton Justice Department absolved the Bush administration and stated that it had found no evidence "that U.S. agencies or officials illegally armed Iraq."
And you are a liar and a fool. Who the HELL do you think you are to tell ME what MY core beliefs are,punk?
You would leave Saddam alone to develop WMD.
No,I would let Israel and Saudi Arabia fight their OWN damn battles. I know this disturbs you,as you would clearly rather see American soldiers die fighting Iraq than Israeli soldiers. I seriously doubt you give a damn about Saudi soldiers.
You do not even bother to address my contention that Saddam would be able to supply Al Qaeda with tactical nuclear "suitcase" warheads,
I also don't bother to address who Santa will visit this year,or how much money the tooth fairy will leave children.
Conclusion: Those who support this war are suckers and are being manipulated by Bush, who is a proven liar, and the Jewish Lobby.
You must be slipping. You forgot to call me a "neo-Nazi". Isn't this the typical response to anybody who is critical of Israel in any respect? Never mind the fact that I am lumping Israel and Saudi Arabia together here as fellow parasites.
"No kidding? On the other hand,EVERY Iraqui citizen deserves to die because they are all joined at the hip with Hussein,right?" MY words.
Another cheap little straw man argument. Here you assert that I want all innocent Iraquis to die. That is a lie, and both of us know it, but you went ahead and peddled it anyway. I simply want Saddam and his Takriti Mafia to die. YOUR response.
If anybody knows about strawman arguements,it is you. Go back and include the words of yours that I was replying to that point out your hyprocisy. Your selective editing can't hide this from anybody that bothers to look.
Pray tell, rocket scientist, why the hell should we wait for him to attack us with nukes, then?!
Hey,as long as we are at it,why not attack England,France,Israel,and even Canada,rather than wait around for them to attack us? The first ones have nukes themselves,and Canada is just too close to not be a potential threat? Hey,as long as we are in the "attack them now before they can attack us in the future" mindset,this makes perfect sense,right?
We are concerned about Saddam because we know he has dealt with Al Qaeda in the past and will do so in the future.
WE have dealt with Al Queda in the past. So has Germany,for example. When are we going to attack ourselves and Germany?
You don't just sit and wait until you're attacked by a mystery nuke that came out of nowhere and whose responsibility was claimed by noone.
See what I mean? Nuke 'em all,and nuke 'em often!
I mean, this doesn't take a physics degree to figure this stuff out, fella.
Obviously.
Oh, so we shouldn't mind if all those Israeli Jews are killed off.
Where did I say this? I will admit I would rather see Israelis killed off than Americans,but I would also rather see Germans killed off than Americans. Regardless of if they are Jews,Catholics,Buddists,Heathens,or any other religion or cultural background.
They can be replaced by the non-Israeli Jews who will be drop-dead willing to move to a radioactive desert.
Why should I care if Jews live in a desert,or live in the mountains somewhere? WHERE is it carved in stone that Jews are REQUIRED to live in the desert? I think you are showing your own biases here,and they ain't American biases. Don't be so worried. America WILL go to war to fight the battles that Israeli and Saudi soldiers should be fighting for themselves. You are going to get your wish.
You then proceed to assert that we are fighting for the survival of the Saudis. But I thought you said earlier that Bush was being manipulated by the Jews? Make up your mind!
I know you are desperate to shift the focus of this discussion,but it IS possible to have more than one reason to do something. In this case we are supporting Israel for political reasons,and Saudi Arabia for financial and personal ones.
Besides, if your contention that everything Bush says is a lie is true, than how do the Saudis and the Jewish Lobby know that they're not being lied to?
Beyond the fact that I never claimed EVERYTHING Bubba-2 says is a lie,is the fact that why should either care as long as they are getting the protection they want? People who hire whores know the whore is lying when she says "I love you",but they don't care.
Okay, this is where I get p'od. What business do you have being against this war when you've admitted not once, but twice, of a possible connection between Saddam and AQ and the probability that he will use such a connection to our disadvantage in the future?
What business do I have being against us fighting somebody else's war for them? The answer to this should be obvious,even to someone as biased as you. The US does not have a history of going to war against and invading sovereign nations because of what they MAY do in the future.
For you to be right, everyone else has to be wrong.
No,just the blind Bush-Bots,the Israeli-firsters,and the people with Saudi contacts and contracts who stand to profit from increased oil prices. This is a MINORITY,not a majority. I have yet to hear of any poll that claimed a majority of people were pro-Iraqui war.
For you to be right, the Bush Family and the Al Qaeda have to be working hand in glove.
Wrong! Where the hell did you get this from? Why would Al Qaeda want to get Bubba-2 reelected,and why would they want the US to be more influencial in the middle east? While it is true the Bush family (notice that they aren't royalty or religious icons,so the word "family" doesn't get capitalized.)and certain members of Al Qaeda may have had contacts in the past,this was more of a matter of convenience for both of them than it was conviction.
For you to be right, Bush has to be manipulated by both the Jews and the Saudis.
Really? Are you saying he is too stupid to choose this path on his own?
However, for you to be right, Bush has to be a liar of monumental proportions,
Probbly no more so than any other successful politician.
so the Jews and the Saudis can't be all that sure that he is not lying to him?
Why would they care if he is lying about his reasons,as long as his actions are what the Israeli's and Saudi's want? I also notice that you insist on calling Israeli's "Jews". Why is this? It wouldn't be because you want to try make a bigotry case out of this,would it? Or are you going to claim that Saddam is going to send rockets to attack the Jews living in Milwaukee and Cleveland?
I shall therefore ignore you from here on in, secure in the knowledge that I have soundly horsewhipped you.
ROFLMAO!
Then you aren't really that cynical. The Cynics I am familiar with usually enjoy being proven right. If we did go to war, what would you accept as proof that GWB isn't in it for the money? In other words, for you, what would being proven wrong look like?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The US WILL spend our youth and our fortune fighting Israel's war for her. oh "israel's" war now? is that what eating you up? So you are against a war that can make America safer, the region safer and make the world a better place with fewer WMD and terror threats, because it might also tangentially improve the security of Israel? Wow.
Charges on heads made me think of exploding towels...and grin.
I don't remember if the story I read mentioned that some money would be used to off-set the cost of American action, but it would sense that Bush would have included that.
Cell phones, by definition, need cells (= targets) to operate, computer networks need channels of comm lines which can be cut or disrupted at various points, and wireless RF (etc.) signals can be jammed
Have you ever heard of EMFs; covert anti-demolition operators; indigenous, poor ragheads that can be bought for a case of American cigarets; specop infiltrators from the US, UK, and/or nearby countries (e.g. Israel)?
Have faith, and let us all hope that such is not misplaced.....
Quit while you're ahead, or he'll taunt you again, you silly ssssssuuuuuuhhhhhnnnnnnnneeeekeeeppppeeeeeettttttttt!!
Run away!!!!!! Launch ye The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!!! 8~)
Iran is a really good picture of what happens when you tangle with the Seven Sisters.
You get flung into the dirt of a third world fiscal reality...and you are exploitable...you may find arranged wars on your table.
You are being punished...that point is made clear.
Are you really that blind,or just that devious?
You and a lot of others are missing the point. The point being that the blind supporters of this war started out claiming it was justified because Hussein was directly related to the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC on 9-11. After a couple of months of not being able to find any evidence of this,they are now claiming he has WMD that he might supply to terrorists,and that is a justification for attacking Iraq. You are completely overlooking that WE also supplied known terrorists with weapons,money,supplies,and traing. It was a matter of convenience instead of convictions that led us to do this,but none the less we did do it in the past,and will most likely do it again in the future. Unless we are prepared to accept these same charges being lodged against us by other nations,we need to find a better reason to invade and start a war with a sovereign nation that things we have done ourselves,and things they MIGHT do in the future. Punishing people and nations for things they "MIGHT" so is one huge slide down the slippery slope to a police state.
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.