>X-Sender: dscanlan at pop3.oro.net
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:53:17 -0800
>To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
>From: Dan Scanlan <dscanlan at oro.net>
>Subject: [PEN-L:35529] Kucinich rebuts Post
>Reply-To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu
>Sender: owner-pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu
>
><http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15359>http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15359
>Obviously Oil
>Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet
>March 11, 2003
>Viewed on March 12, 2003
>Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by
>Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the preemptive
>strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print the
>presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was especially
>frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of editorial page
>columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the Post how you feel
>about this ommission at <mailto:ombudsman at washpost.com>ombudsman at washpost.com.
>Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the
>obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's
>march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy
>in the Persian Gulf.
>Ask yourself:
>What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the Persian
>Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent deployment of about
>25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6 bomber squadrons, 13 air
>control and reconnaissance squadrons, one aircraft carrier battle group,
>and one amphibious ready group based at 11 military installations in the
>countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note, the disproportionate troop
>deployments in the Middle East aren't there to protect the people, who
>constitute only 2 percent of the world population.)
>What was Iraq's number one export when the U.S. made an alliance with
>Saddam Hussein, sold him biological and chemical weapons agents, and then
>did not object when he gassed his own people?
>For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the
>largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are
>the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco)
>largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known
>to listen when large energy corporations speak.)
>For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies
>receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein? What valuable commodity
>does one reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Saddam Hussein) control
>that another reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Kim Chong-il) does not?
>How do the White House and State Department plan to pay for a post-Saddam
>occupation and reconstruction?
>The answer to all of these questions is oil, of course. Oil obviously
>drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. So who can doubt that this war in
>Iraq concerns oil?
>Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war can
>be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions, a war
>against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent
>threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever
>had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq
>does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible
>evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
>No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made. Iraq
>did not have anything to do with the anthrax-containing letters that
>killed several Americans.
>Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is
>hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or
>might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical
>weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16
>other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush
>Administration is not on the verge of invading them.
>Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil,
>Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in
>Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of
>Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they
>sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added
>that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
>destruction ... a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will
>all be put at hazard... The only acceptable strategy is ... to undertake
>military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it
>means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to
>become the aim of American foreign policy."
>
>Does President Bush's war in Iraq concern Iraq's oil? Obviously.
>Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the
>ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
>Threats, and International Relations. Visit
><http://www.kucinich.us/>www.kucinich.us.
>
>© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
>--
>--------------------------------------------------
>Drop Bush, Not Bombs!
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>"During times of universal deceit,
>telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
>George Orwell
>
>---------------------------------
>
>END OF THE TRAIL SALOON
>Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke
>Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT)
>http://www.kvmr.org
>
>--------------------------------
>
>"I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke
>"I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd Gnawkin
>
>Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube:
> http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030313/2c68e5a9/attachment.htm>