Fwd: Elliot/Wolfowitz/Cheney plans to steal oil

[Connie Clark]

--0-333888998-1039551339=:5109
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


This made me laugh.  I don't know anything about Insight magazine, or credibility of these facts, but this sounds about what I expect from the Bush's right-most administration.
 Roger Baker <rcbaker@EDEN.INFOHWY.COM> wrote:Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:41:03 -0600
From: Roger Baker 


Political Notebook
Iraqi Oil Strategy Divides State, White House
Posted Dec. 9, 2002
By Jamie Dettmer
http://www.insightmag.com/news/338761.html

Abramsī proposal for post-Saddam Iraqi oil fields has stunned State
Department officials. Abramsī proposal for post-Saddam Iraqi oil fields
has stunned State Department officials. The question of what should
happen to Iraq's oil fields if Saddam Hussein is removed from power has
become yet another source of fierce division between hawks and
Republican "moderates" within the Bush administration. A sharp and very
inside-the-Beltway struggle is taking place behind the scenes over
planning for a post-Saddam Iraq with the future of Iraqi oil taking
center-stage.

A proposal drafted by Elliott Abrams, a special assistant to President
George W. Bush on the National Security Council (NSC), arguing for the
United States to assert de facto control of Iraqi oil fields has stunned
State Department officials. It doesn't help that Abrams (right) was
convicted of withholding information from Congress during the
Iran-Contra scandal, only to receive a presidential pardon from the
current president's father.

Bush-administration "moderates" have raised legal and practical
objections to the Abrams proposal, arguing that only a puppet Iraqi
government would acquiesce to U.S. supervision of the oil fields and
that one so slavish to U.S. interests risks becoming untenable with
Iraqis. Furthermore, they argue, the move would trigger a wide political
backlash in the Middle East and confirm overseas suspicions that U.S.
actions against Saddam are driven by oil politics.

Abrams, who in early December was promoted within the NSC to senior
director for Near East and North African affairs, heads one of a dozen
administration working groups tasked with drafting post-invasion plans.
But critics in the State Department say his group has been going beyond
its authority -- officially, it is meant to focus on planning for a
humanitarian crisis in the immediate wake of an invasion -- and is
involving itself in post-Saddam politics and broader issues of economic
reconstruction.

Pentagon sources say Abrams has the backing of Paul Wolfowitz, the
conservative deputy defense secretary, and the support of the office of
conservative Vice President Dick Cheney. "This is a case of stealthy
micromanagement by the Wolfowitz hawks -- they use what bureaucratic
vehicles are available to make their imprint on policy," says an ally of
Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The group has not been forthcoming in providing information, refusing to
brief not only top State Department officials but also aides of Gen.
Tommy Franks, the commanding officer of the U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM), about what it is doing, claim rival Defense Department sources.

Powell allies fear that the Abrams group is part of a concerted and
stealthy effort by hawks to steal a march on reconstruction planning, in
the process keeping it away from the State Department and the United
Nations. CIA sources say there also is frustration at Langley about
post-invasion planning and that agency heads there believe they are
being shut out as well. Conservatives who hear such complaints respond
that they hope this is just what is happening.

The Abrams group includes Joe Collins, a deputy assistant secretary at
the Pentagon and a one-time Wolfowitz speechwriter, and Robin Cleveland,
a former aide to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and now an
influential staffer in the president's Office of Management and Budget.
All the members of the Abrams group are fiercely opposed to U.N.
involvement in post-Saddam planning, are closely allied to Wolfowitz and
are firmly pro-Israel.

In their efforts to derail the group, internal administration critics
are questioning why a convicted felon, pardoned or not, is being allowed
to help shape policy. Abrams, who served as an assistant secretary of
State during the Reagan administration, was a key player in Iran-Contra
and pleaded guilty to "withholding information from Congress." President
George H.W. Bush pardoned him. Abrams' supporters say the conviction was
part of a political vendetta by Democrats against Reagan.

Other Wolfowitz foes argue that focusing on Abrams' past is irrelevant.
They contend that his role should be placed in the broader context of
the split within the Bush administration pitching liberals and
supporters of Powell against hawks who cleave to Wolfowitz and his boss,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Within that broader split, the philosophical and ideological
disagreements are sharp. The Wolfowitz hawks argue that Iraqi oil -- the
second-largest reserves in the World -- could be a godsend for the
United States. Supervision of it could help Washington shape U.S. and
global energy prices, act as a counterweight to Saudi Arabia's dominant
influence in the oil markets and erode the power of the Arab-led
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

In the event that Saddam doesn't set fire to the oil wells, the hawks
maintain that during a "transitional reconstruction period" the United
States should supervise Iraqi oil to prevent future sabotage and avoid
disruption of the oil market. Certainly a surge in production would do
no one -- except possibly Western consumers in the short term -- much
good. As one British oil-industry source pointed out, increased Iraqi
oil production would be harmful even to the major U.S. oil companies,
which would see their profit margins cut with lower prices.

For oil-producing countries the results could be devastating. The
Kremlin already has let it be known that it could not live with the
price of Russian crude falling below $18 a barrel. And the Saudis
reportedly are amassing a huge "war chest" to be ready to weather a
period of low oil prices.

Bush-administration sources say that Powell and Franks favor a
continuation of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program following Saddam's
removal. The program, which allows Iraq to use its oil revenues to buy
humanitarian goods, could be used to hold production down and allow
nondisruptive phased-in increases over years.

U.S. allies, who also are being shut out in terms of information, are
becoming increasingly anxious about the possible division of Iraqi oil
spoils following Saddam's removal. Downing Street privately has urged
British oil companies to press their case in Washington, say British
government and oil-industry sources.

Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight.

-- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
--0-333888998-1039551339=:5109
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P>This made me laugh.&nbsp; I don't know anything about Insight magazine, or credibility of these&nbsp;facts, but this sounds about what I expect from the Bush's right-most administration.
<P>&nbsp;<B><I>Roger Baker &lt;rcbaker@EDEN.INFOHWY.COM&gt;</I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:41:03 -0600<BR>From: Roger Baker <RCBAKER@EDEN.INFOHWY.COM><BR><BR><BR>Political Notebook<BR>Iraqi Oil Strategy Divides State, White House<BR>Posted Dec. 9, 2002<BR>By Jamie Dettmer<BR>http://www.insightmag.com/news/338761.html<BR><BR>Abramsī proposal for post-Saddam Iraqi oil fields has stunned State<BR>Department officials. Abramsī proposal for post-Saddam Iraqi oil fields<BR>has stunned State Department officials. The question of what should<BR>happen to Iraq's oil fields if Saddam Hussein is removed from power has<BR>become yet another source of fierce division between hawks and<BR>Republican "moderates" within the Bush administration. A sharp and very<BR>inside-the-Beltway struggle is taking place behind the scenes over<BR>planning for a post-Saddam Iraq with the future of Iraqi oil taking<BR>center-stage.<BR><BR>A proposal drafted by Elliott Abrams, a special assistant to President<BR>George W. Bush on the National Security Council (NSC), arguing for the<BR>United States to assert de facto control of Iraqi oil fields has stunned<BR>State Department officials. It doesn't help that Abrams (right) was<BR>convicted of withholding information from Congress during the<BR>Iran-Contra scandal, only to receive a presidential pardon from the<BR>current president's father.<BR><BR>Bush-administration "moderates" have raised legal and practical<BR>objections to the Abrams proposal, arguing that only a puppet Iraqi<BR>government would acquiesce to U.S. supervision of the oil fields and<BR>that one so slavish to U.S. interests risks becoming untenable with<BR>Iraqis. Furthermore, they argue, the move would trigger a wide political<BR>backlash in the Middle East and confirm overseas suspicions that U.S.<BR>actions against Saddam are driven by oil politics.<BR><BR>Abrams, who in early December was promoted within the NSC to senior<BR>director for Near East and North African affairs, heads one of a dozen<BR>administration working groups tasked with drafting post-invasion plans.<BR>But critics in the State Department say his group has been going beyond<BR>its authority -- officially, it is meant to focus on planning for a<BR>humanitarian crisis in the immediate wake of an invasion -- and is<BR>involving itself in post-Saddam politics and broader issues of economic<BR>reconstruction.<BR><BR>Pentagon sources say Abrams has the backing of Paul Wolfowitz, the<BR>conservative deputy defense secretary, and the support of the office of<BR>conservative Vice President Dick Cheney. "This is a case of stealthy<BR>micromanagement by the Wolfowitz hawks -- they use what bureaucratic<BR>vehicles are available to make their imprint on policy," says an ally of<BR>Secretary of State Colin Powell.<BR><BR>The group has not been forthcoming in providing information, refusing to<BR>brief not only top State Department officials but also aides of Gen.<BR>Tommy Franks, the commanding officer of the U.S. Central Command<BR>(CENTCOM), about what it is doing, claim rival Defense Department sources.<BR><BR>Powell allies fear that the Abrams group is part of a concerted and<BR>stealthy effort by hawks to steal a march on reconstruction planning, in<BR>the process keeping it away from the State Department and the United<BR>Nations. CIA sources say there also is frustration at Langley about<BR>post-invasion planning and that agency heads there believe they are<BR>being shut out as well. Conservatives who hear such complaints respond<BR>that they hope this is just what is happening.<BR><BR>The Abrams group includes Joe Collins, a deputy assistant secretary at<BR>the Pentagon and a one-time Wolfowitz speechwriter, and Robin Cleveland,<BR>a former aide to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and now an<BR>influential staffer in the president's Office of Management and Budget.<BR>All the members of the Abrams group are fiercely opposed to U.N.<BR>involvement in post-Saddam planning, are closely allied to Wolfowitz and<BR>are firmly pro-Israel.<BR><BR>In their efforts to derail the group, internal administration critics<BR>are questioning why a convicted felon, pardoned or not, is being allowed<BR>to help shape policy. Abrams, who served as an assistant secretary of<BR>State during the Reagan administration, was a key player in Iran-Contra<BR>and pleaded guilty to "withholding information from Congress." President<BR>George H.W. Bush pardoned him. Abrams' supporters say the conviction was<BR>part of a political vendetta by Democrats against Reagan.<BR><BR>Other Wolfowitz foes argue that focusing on Abrams' past is irrelevant.<BR>They contend that his role should be placed in the broader context of<BR>the split within the Bush administration pitching liberals and<BR>supporters of Powell against hawks who cleave to Wolfowitz and his boss,<BR>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.<BR><BR>Within that broader split, the philosophical and ideological<BR>disagreements are sharp. The Wolfowitz hawks argue that Iraqi oil -- the<BR>second-largest reserves in the World -- could be a godsend for the<BR>United States. Supervision of it could help Washington shape U.S. and<BR>global energy prices, act as a counterweight to Saudi Arabia's dominant<BR>influence in the oil markets and erode the power of the Arab-led<BR>Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).<BR><BR>In the event that Saddam doesn't set fire to the oil wells, the hawks<BR>maintain that during a "transitional reconstruction period" the United<BR>States should supervise Iraqi oil to prevent future sabotage and avoid<BR>disruption of the oil market. Certainly a surge in production would do<BR>no one -- except possibly Western consumers in the short term -- much<BR>good. As one British oil-industry source pointed out, increased Iraqi<BR>oil production would be harmful even to the major U.S. oil companies,<BR>which would see their profit margins cut with lower prices.<BR><BR>For oil-producing countries the results could be devastating. The<BR>Kremlin already has let it be known that it could not live with the<BR>price of Russian crude falling below $18 a barrel. And the Saudis<BR>reportedly are amassing a huge "war chest" to be ready to weather a<BR>period of low oil prices.<BR><BR>Bush-administration sources say that Powell and Franks favor a<BR>continuation of the U.N.'s oil-for-food program following Saddam's<BR>removal. The program, which allows Iraq to use its oil revenues to buy<BR>humanitarian goods, could be used to hold production down and allow<BR>nondisruptive phased-in increases over years.<BR><BR>U.S. allies, who also are being shut out in terms of information, are<BR>becoming increasingly anxious about the possible division of Iraqi oil<BR>spoils following Saddam's removal. Downing Street privately has urged<BR>British oil companies to press their case in Washington, say British<BR>government and oil-industry sources.<BR><BR>Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight.<BR><BR>-- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the<BR>merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>
--0-333888998-1039551339=:5109--