Posted on 05/24/2007 6:14:06 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
Kucinich claims war masks the real objective: Iraqi oil
Thursday, May 24, 2007 Stephen Koff Plain Dealer Bureau Chief
Washington- It's all about Iraq's oil - rich, abundant, and coveted by multinational companies waiting to line their deep pockets.
Or so said Rep. Dennis Kucinich Wednesday in an unusual hourlong address on the House floor. He laid out his contention that the White House and Democratic-led Congress are helping oil companies grab a stake in Iraq's vast oil fields while claiming to be interested merely in winding down the Iraq war.
The claim has brought Kucinich derision within his own Democratic Party. Leaders reject the suggestion that they would help "privatize" Iraqi oil. And Republicans dismiss him altogether, with Republican Party spokesman Dan Ronayne saying, "It sounds like congressman Kucinich is trying to get noticed with a nutty conspiracy theory."
But elements of Kucinich's claim appear to be based on theories about geopolitics and oil as much as on any conspiracy.
At the heart of the issue is a measure that, if ratified by the Iraqi parliament, would set the stage for rebuilding the war-torn country's oil industry. Oil in Iraq, with the world's third-biggest reserves, could pay for massive reconstruction and modernization.
But Iraq's pipelines and terminals have been neglected or sabotaged. The industry needs to be rebuilt - yet there is promise, since only 15 of Iraq's 74 discovered oil fields have been developed, according to a study by Amy Myers Jaffe, a fellow in energy studies at Rice University in Houston.
Who should develop that? What role should Baghdad play and what role should provincial governments have? If private industry helps, how should it be rewarded?
The framework for answering these questions is in the bill before the Iraqi parliament - a bill that's been gaining detractors in Iraq. Some members of Congress - but not Kucinich - say it or some other so-called hydrocarbon act could serve as a benchmark for Congress and the administration to measure Iraq's progress. It could be a measure on which to base eventual withdrawal of American troops.
But the measure itself is mired in disagreement in Iraq, with Sunnis and Kurds differing on the central question of provincial versus central control. Some in Iraq also see the measure as a way for Western corporations to gain control through revenue-sharing provisions.
"Everyone knows that the oil law does not serve the Iraqi people, and that it serves Bush, his supporters and the foreign companies at the expense of the Iraqi people who have been wronged and deprived of their right to their oil despite enduring all difficulties," Hasan Jum'a Awwad, head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, said in a May 12 letter to Democrats in the U.S. Congress.
There's another view. Iraq's oil industry is in shambles. It needs help, but outside experts keep getting killed. Multinational oil companies, whose shareholders expect a return on investment, could help.
Iraq could go it alone, but getting higher oil output could require hard decisions, including "possible under-investment in other areas of the country's economy," Jaffe's analysis said. Iraq needs up to $10 billion to restore production to pre-war levels, she said, and more than $20 billion - "a major investment program" - to raise output to about 5 million barrels a day, the high end of its historical production levels.
"If it is decided that higher levels of production are desired," Jaffe wrote, "it is inevitable that the potential role of outside investors and lenders will loom large."
While that does not mean companies would give their resources and expertise out of charity, Karen Matusic, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, says it does not mean privatization, either. She asks why Kucinich would not want to help Iraq, which lacks the tools.
"They don't have the kinds of funds or even technology needed to develop those fields," she said.
Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, shares that view.
"That oil is capital," and all sides in Iraq need it, said Voinovich spokesman Chris Paulitz.
Kucinich agrees with the sentiment. But he worries it won't work out that way.
"It's clear," he said, "that the people of Iraq are under enormous pressure to give up their oil."
They should pay for 100% of it actually.
Because when you buy oil from someone, that transaction "lines your pocket". Right?
But elements of Kucinich's claim appear to be based on theories about geopolitics and oil as much as on any conspiracy.
Wait, what?
So instead of being based on a conspiracy theory, Kucinich's claim is based on "theories about geopolitics and oil"? (As opposed to being based on a conspiracy theory?) Because those two things (1. conspiracy theory, and 2. a theory about geopolitics and oil) are somehow contradictory and mutually exclusive?
Something tells me this journalist isn't exactly a MENSA candidate.
While that does not mean companies would give their resources and expertise out of charity, Karen Matusic, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, says it does not mean privatization, either. She asks why Kucinich would not want to help Iraq, which lacks the tools.
Good question.
Oh, but of course, the answer is, "because that would be lining our pockets". Therefore we should not help Iraq (=some Western companies sign contracts with Iraq to build up the oil infrastructure), but rather, let its oil infrastructure remain in shambles. That's better.
Thank goodness there are brave voices like Kucinich to stand up for the little guy in Iraq.
"It's clear," he said, "that the people of Iraq are under enormous pressure to give up their oil."
Um, what?
You mean, by selling it to other people for money? Yeah, they are under enormous pressure - it's called a market incentive. (Oil is a valuable commodity, and the Iraqis could exchange a lot of it for a lot of money, if they get their act together.)
This would be bad for Iraqis? To "give up" their oil (by exchanging it for money)?
Kucinich really isn't that bright, is he?
Someone was telling me about a comedian who said that when the war started he thought how we were just getting into it for the oil and how terrible that was, but now he'd just settle for the oil.
We most certainly are not going to "get" Iraq's oil. At best we will help arrange for Iraq's oil to reach the market in a stable way. To "get" it we will still have to buy it.
Iran? Russia? China?
Iran and Russia have plenty of oil.
I believe China already has deals to buy Iraqi oil.
Oil is a commodity and will be sold on the world market. Everyone will "get" Iraq's oil. That is, if Iraq can get their act together and bring its full potential to market.
What will not happen (what you seem to be wishing for) is that the U.S. will not take possession of Iraq's oil fields fullstop, and sell it ourselves, keeping the entire net. There are two reasons for this. 1. It would be hard to protect that possession even once seized. We're having a difficult enough time as it is just remaining in-country on secure bases as it is. 2. That would actually just be plain, baldfaced imperialism.
...and since you won't let us drill for our own oil, Kuckoo-Kucinich, we have to get it from somewhere.
Well, then, Dennis, you idiot, let us exploit our domestic oil sources and we don’t need to be in Iraq, you twisted little pipsqueak.
I have to laugh every time I hear this.
It is such a stupid statement, and they think repeating it will make it believeable.
pssssst...
Mexico and Venezuela are a lot closer.
And weaker.
And a lot cheaper to fight and hold.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think if we’re going to keep getting accused of going to war for oil we should just take some, already.
Pinging the N.E. Ohio list!!!
Special thanks to Lady_GOP!
Again? This red herring?
Don’t underestimate the OPP or RCMP!
Kucinich: "The sky is purple!"
BtD: "Uh, Dennis, it's lookin' kind of blue today."
Kucinich: "Sooo...they've gotten to you too, hmm?"
Just when you get tired of hearing the magic negro, the witch, and the silky pony, here comes Kook, making them all look a bit saner...
Why do you say that?
Dimocrats have been using inflammatory language to inflame the little people’s rage at imaginary injustices since the founding of the Republic.
I feel your pain.
I can not believe the fools keep voting him in.
Makes me shudder.
Can Dennis explain why, when we were assembling in Kuwait, we didn't just take over that country?
Would've produced almost as much "free" oil...for a fraction of the cost and effort.
Or Qatar! Could've done the same there.
Damn! What was Bush thinking?
It all comes down to the “D” behind the name.
That will never happen. One can wish, but that is all.
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.