Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
October 23, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed


Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

American Fingers in Iraq’s Cookie Jar

Posted on Jun 29, 2008
Flickr / YouLocalDave

Spilled oil soaks Iraqi soil.

The theory that the Bush administration wanted Iraq for its oil has just gotten a major boost. It turns out that the U.S. State Department sent over a team of lawyers and consultants to help the Iraqi government work out several high-profile no-bid contracts with five Western oil giants.

New York Times:

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.

The disclosure, coming on the eve of the contracts’ announcement, is the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism.

In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By mrmb, July 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Interesting analysis of our duplicitous and criminial involvement in Lebanon’s internal affiars to the detriment of all Lebanese.

House resolution that is a mockery and a joke pushed by zionists.

Report this

By mrmb, July 2, 2008 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Report this

By mrmb, July 2, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


On the one hand you can not implicitly deplore interference in Iraq’s internal affiars and declare that they are a soverign nation and then turn around justify acts of aggression and interference in their internal affiars by referencing congressional resolutions and .....

Since when our congress can pass laws authorizing such blatant acts of aggressions against another country?
Last time I checked they had no such extra-judicial and extra-territorial authority and neither do they have the moral or legal standing and right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and to be clear its no business of our congress.
Thats how an empire and imperialists behave not a republic, no matter how they sugar coat their objectives.

Congress should get their act together and behave for the primary purpose of them being there else they should resign and leave it to individuals who actually understand their legal and moral obligations to this nation.

I think you already know the answer to your question. I will make it as simple as possible. Our polity is occupied territory. We are under zionist occupation, plain and simple.

Anything that has to do with israel will be scripted by xionists and blindly supported by members of both party even if its detrimental to US national interests.

Clinton was a zionist and like king george followed the line and did what was required of him. Obama will be the same too.

Report this

By Frank Cajon, June 30, 2008 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

The Bush/Cheney Reich must be frustrated that it has taken 5 and a half years, $1.5 trillion, and 30,000 American casualties (4100+ dead), along with 300,000 Iraqi casualties to start turning a profit for his oil conglomerate pals who stood the most to gain from this war from the outset. Oh, well, no use crying over spilt blood; now we’re ready to ‘no bid’ fuck the few of the people there who don’t despise us already by stealing their last natural resource and shipping it out, pocketing the massive profits now that Herr Bush’s Saudi princes and their American equivalents are done jacking the price of gas to $5 a gallon domestically (while quadrupling profits and assuring the drilling of the offshore shelf, Alaska reserve, and everywhere we don’t environmentally want to drill at the same time). I know it makes me proud to be an American to know that our troops have died for such a noble purpose.

Report this

By Thomas Billis, June 30, 2008 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

It was about oil it is about oil and will always be about oil.Allen Greenspan said it and every other objective analysis of the situation comes to the same conclusion it was always about oil.Sadam was a bad man.The ruler of China is a bad man.In world opinion George Bush is a bad man.Not enou8gh to lose the lives of 4000 American kids.Apparently the neo cons think it was a cheap price to pay for access to the Iraqi oil fields.I wonder what the families of those dead serviceman think.

Report this

By mrmb, June 30, 2008 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


1- Wrong. We put him there and kept him there and used him just as a mob boss would use his gangsters to terrorize the neighborhood and collect dues. When he became a headache we set him up and by extension the destruction of Iraq.

The removal of Saddam Hussein could have taken place by the Iraqis without our continued interference in their internal affairs. Eventhough on the surface his removal and subsequent demise is a good thing but it should not have been done in this manner.

2.  The premise of my question is exactly what the war criminals in this administration and before them have refused to address honestly. I am not surprized by your attempt to turn the question on its head.

I will respond to you in this manner. The US, like every other country on this planet has a right of self defence. That right only applies to when we are actually attacked not perceiving an attack by a meglomaniac like little goerge and his type.

Now go ahead and explain the premise of the US defending itself against an Iraqi act of aggression against us.

3.  Iran supports actors that we consider terorists. But then again we have been combating terrorists since we first set foot on this land. The Indians were terrorists. The blacks that resisted our enslavement were terrorists. Nelson Mandela and the ANC were terorists.
The list is very long and not very flattering.

Anyone who opposes our imperial plans is a terrorist.

I also did address your question regarding Iran’s alledged acts of aggressions in a previous thread by listing our acts of aggression against Iran sine the 50’s that are historically documented and Iran’s alledged acts of aggression against the US. I beleive you should refer to that since you posed the question back then.

Please do not list governments that are totally dependent on us for their very survival and are despotic for making a point.

As far as Britain, France are concerned I am surprised that you mention old colonial powers that have created this mess in the ME in the first place and our problem is that we listen to such colonial powers who ride on our back to retain influence in their former colonies and have basically stepped right in their place.

With respect to ther countries that are lined up behind us I suggest you look at our relationship with them and tell me if they really have too many options to oppose us when our diplomats are twisting their arms every chance they get and threaten them on a regular basis?

The fact that the UN security council passed a resolution is inconsequential in my opinion. The security council has no legal mandate in getting involved in the nuclear dossier since there have been no violation of the NPT by Iran, refer to Dr. Gordon Prather’s numerous articles on this matter for further clarification.
We do strong arm countries, people, organizations into positions that are in the end self defeating, arrogant, and criminal.

We are not a spokesperson and poilcemen for everyone. These countries that you mentioned are more than capable to handle their bilateral relationship with Iran without our interference.

Report this

By mrmb, June 30, 2008 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


An important part of the interaction here is actually the personal opinions of readers.

Since you did answer the questions I posed then I would like to go a bit deeper to the basic fundamental set of questions:

1- Did we do the right thing by invading Iraq? The pretexts dont matter. WMD, democracy, israel, oil, ....

2- Do we have the moral and legal right to invade and attack countries at will?

3- If the answer to the above 2 questions is NO then by extension you should oppose our continuing occupation of Iraq and planned war of aggression against Iran.

Therefore do u oppose the planned acts of aggression against Iran and the continued occupation of Iraq?

Report this

By purplewolf, June 30, 2008 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

Like the take over of this country, which originally belonged to the indigenous people, now comes Iraq and it’s false “treaties”, brought to you by the same government. Looks like they can write a sequel to the book, A Century of Dishonor by Helen Jackson, about the treaties that were made to the Native American Indians and how they were all broken by the same government. Indian+Iraqi? Treatment similar?

Report this

By mrmb, June 30, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Got a few questions for you:

1- Do we own the natural resources of Iraq?

2- Does Iraq owe it to us to give the contarcts to american companies for infrastructure, drilling, pumping, marketing and sales and etc…?

3- Are the Iraqis allowed to ask us to leave them alone and get the hell out of there?

4- Are the Iraqis allowed to do as they wish with their country and their natural resources?

Would really appreciate a response.


Report this

By tyler, June 30, 2008 at 9:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

rus7355,  please enlighten us further on your vague explanation that seemed to be just more beaurocratic jargin that amounts to a large pile of bulls@#t meant to hide whats really going on. 

if what we’re being told is just 2% of the story, please tell us the other 98%, and please don’t say its too complicated, try us.

Report this

By TJ55, June 30, 2008 at 9:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced measures to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, said Thursday that oil executives who secretly met with the vice president in 2001 should be held criminally liable for pushing an illegal war.

“In March of 2001, when the Bush Administration began to have secret meetings with oil company executives from Exxon, Shell and BP, spreading maps of Iraq oil fields before them, the price of oil was $23.96 per barrel. Then there were 63 companies in 30 countries, other than the US, competing for oil contracts with Iraq,” the Ohio Democrat said during a speech on the House floor.

“Today the price of oil is $135.59 per barrel, the US Army is occupying Iraq and the first Iraq oil contracts will go, without competitive bidding to, surprise, (among a very few others) Exxon, Shell and BP.”

Just more coverup at our expense and it was setup in 2001

Report this

By Jim Yell, June 30, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Of course it was the oil, either the owning of it out right or the control of it was clearly the motive, otherwise there could not have been any real reason tp invade the only country of the Islamic world that had nothing to do with 9/11.

But, like other things that is only part and debatable if it was 60% or or 75% of 95% of the reason. One of the immediate reasons for branding the none attacker as the attacker was to divert attention from the decades of duplicity and bankrolling of terroism and religious aggression by the Saudi’s. The Saudi’s are nobodies friends. They are only reasonable when the long term plans require them to avoid immediate conflict and being a nation of small numbers that is their primary defense. The first time they have opportunity to take someone down without danger to themselves they will do it and have done it. 9/11 was the consequence of decades of Saudi money flooding into the hands of terroists and destablizing the strong was its goal. So who did we put in the presidency a man who is a Saudi bootlicker and has a history of rather oddly being bailed out by Saudi’s.

Do the math and follow the money.

Report this

By Hank Van den Berg, June 30, 2008 at 6:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why does the New York Times describe this as some sort of surprise?  We have known for several years that the U.S. State Department was also directly involved in writing the Iraqi Oil Law that has still not been approved by an appropriately sceptical Iraqi parliament.  That law, which the press falsely describes as being concerned with allocating oil revenues among the factions, provides the detailed procedures for effectively privatizing Iraq’s oil reserves unuder very favorable terms for the corporate oil giants.  Dennis Kucinich even revealed a draft of this law on the House floor more than a year ago, yet the press refused to run with it.
It is just incredible that the press, and the NYT in particular, continues to pretend to be “shocked, shocked!” when facts that were there for them to report on finally get to the public’s attention.  With hindsight, it is obvious that the oil motive for invading Iraq should have been actively investigated ever since the first troops entering Bhagdad left just about everything to the looters except the Oil Ministry.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook