Now Even the Conservative Line Is "Oil War"

[PatriotX]

Here @ World Net Daily

Crude Politics is the latest release for WND Books.

“Crude Politics: How Bush’s Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism” makes the unsettling case that the Bush administration, though engaged in an unavoidable and moral war on terror, also tried simultaneously to secure future energy production in the terrorists’ home turf and ended up compromising America’s national security interests.

While the United States was still reeling from the horror of Sept. 11, 2001, says “Crude Politics” author and WorldNetDaily Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry, Bush administration diplomats were resuming talks with Pakistani officials over gas and oil pipelines in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ultimately, the U.S. seized the opportunity of the war-on-terror as a reason to oust the Taliban – the major obstacle blocking plans for the precious pipelines linking Caspian reserves to hot Asian markets. Indeed, the book documents how the Bush administration tailored the war on terrorism around oil interests in the Caspian region, and to a lesser extent, in Iraq.

*  How commercial gain within the current oil-friendly administration has undermined America's war on terror

* How our safety has been jeopardized because of an overriding effort to charge ahead with a new "Silk Road" through Afghanistan and Pakistan, making the capture of Osama bin Laden a secondary concern

* The nature of war and the politics behind the major decisions being made in the current administration, including those regarding Iraq and other "axis of evil" countries

• Bush’s behind-the-scenes operator for regime change in both Afghanistan and Iraq – former energy consultant Zal Khalilzad.

I don’t know what to make of this. I don’t find WND to be equal to its influence. But, I certainly didn’t expect them to get into bed w/ the far left conspiracy theorists.

Did anyone expect this from such a source?

[Jackmannii]

Without knowing exactly what evidence this book (only $5 - wow!) presents, it’s hard to know how compelling its thesis is.
Certainly, the far right is as given to conspiracy theory as the far left (in fact, they tend to meet at their extremes).

Securing stable energy supplies is a strategic interest of the United States. Preventing hostile and terrorist elements from gaining control of strategic resources critical to the U.S. is a legitimate foreign policy goal. War aims can include protecting such interests.

If the book includes documentation that Bush cronies in the oil industry were preferential beneficiaries from efforts to secure energy supplies in Afghanistan, that would be significant further evidence of sleazebaggery in the White House. If the thesis merely claims that considering oil supplies as part of an overall anti-terrorist strategy is evil, I’m not impressed.

It’ll knock the socks off the “NO WAR FOR OIL!” crowd, though.

[Milum]

For the sake of green greed, SimonX, the damn WorldNetDaily is in the business of selling their books.

Big deal if they want to help out their → " Washington DC bureau chief" <— :), by promoting his new book.

[december]

I have no source for refuting or confirming this idea, except that AFAIK there have been no efforts to begin building gas and oil pipelines in Afghanistan and Pakistan – at least not so far.

[elucidator]

Isnt he the Senior Washington DC bureau chief?

[PatriotX]

Jackmanni,
I assume that the liner notes are essentially accurate as to the book’s contents. ( The book’s not been released yet so there’s no way for me to know. ) The liner notes use phrases like:
“the Bush administration…ended up compromising America’s national security interests.”
“…commercial gain within the …administration has undermined America’s war on terror”
“…Bush administration tailored the war on terrorism around oil interests in the Caspian region…”
I get the impression that they’re talking about what is in their opinion more than just securing resources in our national interest. The implications are that there was corruption that jeopardized “our safety.”
Milum,
I’m glad you were able to figure out that it was an advertisement. Did it take you long?

[PatriotX]

Jackmannii,

The $5 is just to reserve the book. The actual cost is 25.95, IIRC.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by december *
**I have no source for refuting or confirming this idea, except that AFAIK there have been no efforts to begin building gas and oil pipelines in Afghanistan and Pakistan – at least not so far. **

Well it’s very hard to confirm or deny vague allegations. W/o seeing the specific facts and theories set forth in the book I’d be surprised if anyone could.
I’m just fascinated that this sort of thing is coming from this sort of source.

[Squink]

Pakistan to make gas pipeline choice by year end

Pakistan said on Friday it hoped to select a major new regional gas pipeline project by the end of this year, choosing between three options to meet increasing domestic demand.
The government has been actively investigating the possibility of piping gas from the rich fields of Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, and experts say this project remains the most likely option.

[PatriotX]

Afghanistan isn’t stable yet. Major combat operations in Afghanistan were declared over the same day as those in Iraq, 05/01/2003. We’d had major combat operations in Afghanistan for over a year. The last reports that I’d heard were that Karzai was in charge of most all of the Kabul area. Maybe things have changed since April. Maybe he’s in charge of the entire area now.

Anybody got some better, more recent info on the state of Afghanistan?

[astorian]

I’m not sure what the OP thinks he’s proven. NOBODY on the Right has changed his opinion on the war! There were ALWAYS people on the far Right who opposed this Iraq War- and many of them were equally opposed to the previous one.

Many right-wing extremists are isolationists by nature, and inclined ascribe all wars to sinister big business interests and/or to the Jews. When such people start ranting, they often sound a lot like leftists.

The conservatives the OP cites aren’t gung ho, pro-war types who’ve changed their minds about this particular conflict. They’re paranoid isolationists who always opposed going to war on behalf of Big Business or “the Jews” (which, in their minds, usually amount to the same thing).

[PatriotX]

While I’m not intimately familiar w/ WND, my encounters w/ it have been mostly of a certain character. Aside from their monthly proof-of-creationism articles, I’ve seen their articles and comlumns used to bolster support for the Bush admin asnd the invasion of Iraq.

The WND is loaded w/ ads for pro-Republican, pro-Bush books and products. The “Christian Right” is often touted as a bastion of Bush support.
All of the previous cites @ the SDMB of WND related to Iraq were used to bolster pro-war cases.

Previous WND articles related to Iraq show things like Iraq-al-Qaida links, Why we’re going to liberate Iraq,

And if you didn’t like what terrorists did to us with four stolen jets and box cutters, you’ll really dislike what they can do with weapons of mass destruction.

—from WND March 14, 2003

Joseph Farah, WND founder, editor, and chief executive officer runs editorials like these:

The ‘we didn’t know’ defense
I predict many of those who opposed this war will defend their bad judgment by saying, “We just didn’t know.”
“We didn’t know about the chemical weapons,” they will say. “There was no proof. Saddam Hussein said he didn’t have any.”
“We didn’t know about the brutality of the Fedayeen Saddam,” they will say. “We couldn’t have imagined the horrors of men who would dress in U.S. Army uniforms, accept the surrender of Iraqi troops and then execute them in cold blood.”

Europe ought to be ashamed
There’s a dirty little secret behind Europe’s refusal to join the effort to oust Islamo-fascist Saddam Hussein – one I outline in more detail in the latest issue of my new G2 Bulletin online intelligence newsletter.

But here’s a taste.

France and Germany, the two obstacles in Europe, share a recent historical link with Iraq – to Nazism. Saddam Hussein was raised from the age of 10 by a Nazi backer – and that’s just how he runs his country today.

**What if … ?
**
There’s no question that, for the short term, the terrorist threat will increase with an invasion of Iraq. But, in the long term, we will be far better off for having destroyed the terrorist infrastructure in Iraq.

In 1993, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the man we just arrested in Pakistan for his role in planning the Sept. 11 attacks, helped coordinate the first big terror attack on America – the World Trade Center bombing.
There was no response to that attack – even though Iraq’s fingerprints were all over it.

**What I mean by ‘Islamo-fascism’**
Some people still maintain Iraq could not possibly be in league with the likes of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network because, after all, Saddam Hussein is a “secular” dictator, and bin Laden is an “Islamic fundamentalist.”

While it’s true that most Arab regimes fear the jihadists, it is also true that many have sponsored them – Iraq being just one example.

In fact, Iraq actively supported al-Qaida for a full decade leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. That support is well-chronicled in Yossef Bodansky’s “Bin Laden: The Man Who declared War on America.” (Keep in mind this book was published a full year before Sept. 11.)

**Iraq is part of terror war**
It has taken a good deal of time for the Bush administration to draw the links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida – connections that go back at least a decade, according to intelligence experts.

Was Iraq directly involved in planning and approving the attacks on the United States Sept. 11, 2001?

It might be tough to prove in a court of law, but it’s not difficult to make a case that Baghdad is technically, legally and morally responsible for the airline hijackings and the destruction America faced that day. In fact, I make that case, based on the evidence, in the latest issue of G2 Bulletin, my new online, subscription-based intelligence newsletter.

There are even stronger Iraqi links to two previous acts of U.S. terrorism – the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City and the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

Yes, there’re conspiracist on both sides of the aisle. I’m just surprised that the anti-war movement has found such a seemingly unlikely ally in a publication such as the WND. Maybe I’m just naive, but permit me my surprise.

[Milum]

I agree SimonX, maybe you are naive, but you are permitted your surprise.

[astorian]

Yes, Simon is permitted his surprise, but if he’s surprised, it’s because he wrongly assumed that conservatism is a monolithic force. If he were to pick up a copy of National Review some time, he’d find that there are many factions within the conservative “movement,” and many of these factions have very little use for each other.

There are those who are hawkish on foreign policy and generally liberal or moderate on domestic issues. This is where you’ll find most of the so-called neoconservatives.

There are those whose main concern is low taxes and the shrinking of government. The libertarians fall here.

There are those whose primary concern is traditional morality. Such people are passionate about issues like abortion and school prayer, but may support many government spending programs, and are likely to be isolationists on foreign policy.

If you read some of the major conservative publication, you’re likely to find a host of articles and essays in which representatives of these different branches of thought snipe at each other.

Conservative magazines usually reflect ALL of these contradictory views on a regular basis, and so do conservative book clubs. Such clubs will sell books by both Pat Buchanan (“bring all our troops home, reimpose old-fashioned morality at home, and crack down on big business”) AND Charles Krauthammer (“old-fashioned morality isn’t the government’s business, big business is mostly a good thing, and the U.S. needs to get tough on foreign policy”).

So, it’s NOT as if formerly hawkish conservatives are saying, “We were wrong about this war!” Rather, many isolationist conservatives are saying, “See- we TOLD you not to get involved in Iraq in the first place!”

[elfje]

SimonX,

france and Germany did not support Saddam Hussein - they opposed the war because the cause for it had not been made, that is to say: had not been made sufficiently in their eyes.
Bush and Blair were talking about WMD Saddam could launch within 45 minutes. After the war they were talking about WMD. Two weeks aftert the war, they were talking about a WMD programme. And now they’re saying: “we know Saddam Hussein was going to develop a WMD programme.”

So, was the cause for this war made? No.
Was the war justified? No
Are B&B backtracking like hell to save face? Yes.

Nobody, i repeat, nobody liked Saddam Hussein, and the “they supported Saddam Hussein because he wants to destroy Israel” is utter bollocks (pardon the language, but it is).
That doesn’t mean you can invade a country and bomb it to hell and back. Regime change is an illegal reason for going to war, I believe.
And if you’re going to oust one dictator “for the good of the people”, well, then you have to oust them all.

France and Germany have seen enough war. Especially Germany. There’s probably not another country in the world, that is as opposed to war as the Germans are. They wanted to solve the issue through diplomatic means. That does not mean that they actually supported SH.

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by december *
**I have no source for refuting or confirming this idea, except that AFAIK there have been no efforts to begin building gas and oil pipelines in Afghanistan and Pakistan – at least not so far. **

They haven’t started building, presumably due to security worries, but the plan was approved by Hamid Karzai last December.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by elfje *
**SimonX,

france and Germany did not support Saddam Hussein **

elfje,
I think that you missed some context to this thread.

[Radon]

Also remember that Osama bin Laden is Oil-connected. The bin Laden family is rich from the Saudi construction business paid for by Saudi oil. So as long as you’re constructing oil-based conspiracy theories, count him in. Why can’t the Saudis play too?

Also, Saddam Hussein and Sons ran the Iraqi oil business, so you’ve got to include them.

France has a national oil company, too.

Funny, if you include the oil producers and the oil consumers, you have to include just about everybody! I wonder why that is ?

I think that leaves the Eskimos out of the conspiracy.

[Radon]

Actually, depriving the Terrorists and other anti-Americans of Oil Revenues might be the single most important weapon. Neither Saddam nor Osama could have afforded to make trouble without oil money from the developed countries.

[system]

Where to start?

*Originally posted by Radon *
Also remember that Osama bin Laden is Oil-connected. The bin Laden family is rich from the Saudi construction business paid for by Saudi oil. So as long as you’re constructing oil-based conspiracy theories, count him in. Why can’t the Saudis play too?

Osama is also disowned by the family.

Also, Saddam Hussein and Sons ran the Iraqi oil business, so you’ve got to include them.

No, the hydrocarbons ministry did, Sadaam et al skimmed off of that, however the oil sector was professionally run.

France has a national oil company, too.

No, it does not. TotalFinaElf is a French based firm, but not a state firm.