RIGHT WING THINK TANKS THAT PUSHED UNKNOWING US PUBLIC TO WAR FOR OIL

Project for The New American Century - PNAC
"A secret [PNAC] blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).....The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
Sunday Herald, 15 Sept 2002

More on PNAC - Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
ABC News, 10 March 2003

"It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard....  We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts... We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. "
PNAC letter to President Clinton, 1998
Signed by Donald Rumsfeld and others associated with the subsequent Bush Administration

"With demands for a full-scale investigation of the manipulation of intelligence by the administration of Pres. George W. Bush mounting steadily, it appears increasingly clear that key officials and their allies outside the administration intended to use the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq within hours of the attacks themselves. Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department. Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief James Woolsey -- both members of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Center for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others. PNAC, which is based on the fifth floor of American Enterprise Institute (AEI) building, in downtown Washington, was founded in 1997 with the signing of a statement of principles calling for ”a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity”, signed by 25 prominent neo-conservatives and right-wingers, including, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Libby, as well as several other senior Bush administration officials. A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals -- both in and outside the administration -- were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks, for an eventual attack on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al Qaeda."
Key Officials Used 9/11 As Pretext for Iraq War
Inter Press Service, 16 July 2003

Baker Institute for Public Policy
"The United States is entering a period of relative shortages of energy that will require an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including possibly revamping sanctions against Iraq, an independent task force of energy and foreign policy experts told the White House in a report released Thursday. The report, drafted by a panel assembled by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations, was submitted this week to the White House energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. In its comprehensive look at the United States' energy situation, the panel warned that increasing domestic energy supplies and reducing consumption would not be enough to insulate the United States from the ups and downs of world oil markets... 'Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil,' the report said. 'Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.' Political turmoil in the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and potential internal unrest in the Persian Gulf states, gives Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein greater leverage in using his vast oil reserves as an economic and diplomatic weapon. 'Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade,' the report said."
Oil-Hungry U.S. Reconsiders Iraq
UPI Newswire 11 April 2001

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary. Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report [on which this policy was built] from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr...."
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
Sunday Herald, 6 October 2002

"... the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma.... the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience... [with the] energy sector in critical condition, a crisis could erupt at any time [which] could have potentially enormous impact on the US ...[Iraq is the] key swing producer ... turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest... [there is a] possibility that Saddam may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time.."
Baker Institute for Public Policy Report
The West's battle for oil
Sunday Herald, 6 October 2002

Heritage Foundation
"To make it clear that a post-war U.S. military operation in Iraq is not a nation-building exercise, the Bush Administration should state that the U.S. military will be deployed to Iraq to secure the vital U.S. security interests for which the campaign is undertaken in the first place. Specifically, these war aims should be [amongst other goals] to .... Protect Iraq's energy infrastructure against internal sabotage or foreign attack to return Iraq to global energy markets and ensure that U.S. and world energy markets have access to its resources.... Removing that regime from power and contributing a post-war military presence in Iraq to assure stability in the region and in energy markets is justified."
In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure Vital U.S. Interests, Not for Nation-Building
Heritage Foundation Report, 25 September 2002

"Your frequent publications, timely research, policy papers, seminars and conferences account for your enormous influence on Capitol Hill and - believe me, I know - at the White House."
Ronald Reagan, on Heritage Foundation
More on Heritage - click here

Why They Did It
"Washington has a long history of intervening in the affairs of other countries, with the oil-rich Persian Gulf being a key focus of past interventions. So, yes, it's not only about oil this time, it's often been about oil... U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made it clear that oil was front and centre in the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq the first time. Cheney, who served as secretary of defence in that war, explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1991 that, after invading Kuwait, Iraq controlled 20 per cent of the world's oil reserves. Cheney said that this — and the possibility that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia — put Saddam Hussein 'clearly in a position to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most other nations of the world as well.' The 'stranglehold' image is apt. Because of the acute importance of oil to the modern world, whoever controls the massive reserves of the Gulf effectively has a stranglehold on the global economy."
Rebuffed president recklessly saddles up for war
Toronto Star, 9 March 2003

"The Project for the New American Century [PNAC, supported by key members of the current Bush administration including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz] seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.... The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States... Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.... France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again. Would that we Americans could be so wise."
William Rivers Pitt, 27 February 2003
New York Times best-selling author of two books - 'War On Iraq' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence'

"In a political world blackened with the stinking pitch of lies, distortion and death-dealing hypocrisy, a shining knight of truth stepped boldly forth last week. With admirable -- if ruthless -- honesty, Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz openly declared that his nation joined the Anglo-American crusade against Iraq for one purpose only: a share of the plunder from the conquered country's oil fields.... Last week, Coalition commander General Tommy Franks admitted that he launched the invasion two weeks ahead of schedule, before the full complement of troops, supplies and support were in place, the Guardian reports... Franks said he jumped the gun because 'intelligence sources' thought the Iraqis were planning to set fire to the oil fields."
Global Eye - Barge Poles
Moscow Times, 11 July 2003

"...the fact is that oil—who has it, who produces it, who fixes its price—governs everything of significance in the Persian Gulf and affects economies everywhere.... the stakes go far beyond Iraq. The amount of oil that Iraq brings to market will not just determine the living standards of Iraqis but affect everything from the Russian economy to the price Americans pay for gasoline, from the stability of Saudi Arabia to Iran's future. Why is Iraq such a prize? Not only does it have the potential to become the world's largest producer, but no other country can do it as cheaply. .....The average cost of bringing a barrel of oil out of the ground in the U.S. is about $10. In Saudi Arabia, it's about $2.50. And in Iraq, it's less than $1. That's why everyone has cast a covetous eye on the country. And why each one of the world's major powers and international groups has an agenda for Iraqi oil."
Iraq's Crude Awakening
TIME magazine 19 May

"U.S. civilian ruler Paul Bremer said on Tuesday Iraq should consider privatising its state-owned sectors and foreign investment in its oil industry before a permanent sovereign government takes over."
Bremer says Iraq should consider oil investment
Reuters, 8 July 2003

"BP, PLC, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group said yesterday they have each won the right to purchase 2 million barrels of Iraqi crude in what industry sources said was the first sale of crude pumped in Iraq since war ended. BP and Shell plan to load the oil later this month at Mina Al Bakr. BP said it planned to ship its oil to the U.S. while Shell refused to say where it expected to sell its crude."
US, UK Giants Get Bulk Of Iraqi Crude
Reuters, 11 July 2003

"My forecast is that between 2000 and 2005 the world will be reaching peak production from our known fields."
Franco Bernabe, chief executive of the [30% government owned] Italian oil company Eni SpA
Energy apocalypse looms as the world runs out of oil
Observer, 26 July 1998

"...the long-term goal, say big-picture analysts, has been in the works for far more than the 23 years since former U.S. president Jimmy Carter linked American security — 'the vital interests of the United States'' — to the Persian Gulf and its oil, and threatened military intervention. This war, say analysts, is about power and oil. It's about control of the Gulf states by means of strategic Iraq and, by extension, a final post-Cold War shakeout to give the U.S. more economic clout over China and Russia by controlling the oil spigot. This is the moment, Thomas Barnett, from the U.S. Naval War College, wrote recently in Esquire magazine, 'when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.' The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves. 'The only precedent to what is shaping up now is the Roman Empire,' says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. 'There is only one power. I don't think Britain, France or Spain even came close in other centuries to the United States today. 'If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy,'' adds Klare. Washington is betting, Klare believes, that 'controlling Gulf oil, combined with being a decade ahead of everybody else in military technology, will guarantee American supremacy for the next 50 to 100 years.' These ideas aren't new. For years, a small and powerful group, with corporate and political links, pushed the idea of controlling Persian Gulf oil. They did it publicly, at think-tanks and in the media. Now, this coterie of like-minded strategists controls both the Pentagon and the strategic aims of President George W. Bush's White House. 'You've got a team in the White House that is unafraid of world public opinion because they know it is unreliable, self-serving and hypocritical,' says George Friedman, chair of the intelligence organization, Stratfor. Originally, this was the 'Kissinger plan,'' says James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He lost his state department job for publicly criticizing administration plans to control Arab oil back in 1975 when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. 'I thought they were crazy then and they're crazy now,' Akins tells the Star, adding that Congress studied plans to control Persian Gulf oil and concluded the idea was absolute madness. 'I thought this whole thing was dead. But now you've got all these `neo-cons' in power, and here we go again,' says Akins, a Washington-based consultant. 'They figure once they take over Iraq, they don't have to worry about the Saudis.'' Akins adds: 'These people with their imperial ideas see themselves as part of the Great American Empire.' The players have moved steadily through the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush and Bush himself."
Oil war: 23 years in the making
Toronto Star, 9 March 2003

U.S. ENERGY POLICIES UNDER BUSH & CHENEY

"President Bush, asked about the Niger issue at a news conference during his visit to South Africa, did not answer directly but said that he was 'certain that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction programme'. Like Mr Blair, he has dropped the assertion that Iraq actually had weapons. Both now say that it had a 'programme.' "
Did Iraq try to get African uranium?
BBC Online 9 July

"There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious....  even people who aren't partisan Republicans shy away from confronting the administration's dishonest case for war, because they don't want to face the implications."
Denial and Deception
New York Times, 24 June 2003

  NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex