Letter to Howard Dean on Iraq

[yurbud]

Gov. Dean,

I am heartened that the Democrats are finally starting to actually oppose the epically immoral and destructive policies of the Bush administration, but I am concerned that you are criticizing the war in the propaganda terms about the war on terror and being fooled by the intel on WMD when anyone old enough to remember the Cold War should know that just because a country has a handful of nukes doesn't mean that they will be stupid enough to use them on us and invite certain, overwhelming retaliation.

And we are not there to train the troops and police. Iraqis weren't apes living in trees before we got there. They had cops and an army. They can be rehired.

We are certainly not there to spread democracy which is related to the real reason we are there. If the elected government of Iraq told our oil companies to leave and that they were going to honor Saddam's contracts with the Russians and French for oil concessions, they would be killed.

My question for you is will the Democrats EVER address the real motives for the war, which oil companies pushed for it, who is profiting, and what the bigger strategic vision to control the world's oil is?

My fear is that if you do not address this, the Democratic Party is just auditioning to be the smarter, subtler managers of the next oil wars in Venezuela and Iran.

Please don't insult my intelligence by sending me any bullshit about "success strategies" for Iraq. That is not only an insult to me but to our democracy.

Are you at some point going to move the real economic motives to control Iraq's oil and be in a position to intimidate and invade other oil countries to the front of the debate?

If you guys have some game plan to do this, you don't have to tell me what it is, just say "yes we will force that debate into the open," or some variation of just "yes."

If not, please let me and the rest of the progressives know, so we can get started on forming a real party to represent us, instead of being played as fools the way the GOP does with the religious right. We don't need two corporate wh*re parties or even one and a half. Please start representing us by being painfully honest about our energy situation and how it is directly related to Bush's catastrophic foreign policy. If you don't, our democracy will continue to be a hollow joke.

[jaysunb]

1. Hey Bud...

where have you been the past five years ?

True enough Gov. Dean is the party chair, but I think you should get you facts straight on his position and what his role as party chair is.
Other wise, nice letter...just sent to the wrong person.

[bahrbearian]

2. Dear DLC....

[jaysunb]

4. correcto !

as they say....right church , wrong pew .

[yurbud]

7. Do you think the DLC can be persuaded? My point in sending this to Howard

is to remind him where the rank and file are.

Being in Washington, he might begin to forget or be pressured into believing that the corporate position is the only one.

I suspect that he hates the DLC as much as we do, and his goal is to show that the party can survive without corporate money and the toadying required to get it.

[mandyky]

23. Howard Dean has been told by Congressional Dems

to leave policy matters to them and to butt out. Howard Dean knows already, and I am sure he is talking to those who will listen.

[yurbud]

25. Howard is more popular and could get more votes than those asswipes

which is why they didn't want him in the job.

[yurbud]

6. I know what his role is--and what he can make it.

I have sent variations of the same to ALL the Democrats in the Senate.

[Dancing_Dave]

3. GREAT LETTER!!!

Just what I've been wanting to say for some time! Good time to send it to! :yourock:

[sandnsea]

5. Somebody has

“Instead, billions of American tax dollars go to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries, including a last minute, deal that gives another $1.5 billion to one of the most profitable companies in the world - Halliburton…

“In exchange for oil, we transfer wealth to people who would do us and others great harm.

“In recent years U.S. forces had to help protect the pipeline in Colombia. Our military had to train indigenous forces to protect the pipeline in Georgia. We plan to spend $100 million on a special network of police officers and special forces units to guard oil facilities around the Caspian Sea, and continue to search for bases in Africa so we can protect oil facilities there. Our navy patrolled tanker routes in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, and the western Pacific.

“The reality is we have to protect the oil we depend on for our way of life. And this is a serious issue with real consequences because the unstable nature of conflict-ridden oil-producing areas challenges our economic security…

“And our dependence on foreign oil is a bad bargain in the War on Terror. In the past Hamas received almost half of its funding from Saudi Arabia. We know al Qaeda has relied on prominent Saudi Arabians for financing. Saudi Arabia sponsors clerics who promote the ideology of terror.

“The bottom line is the Administration’s energy policy works for Saudi Arabia, it works for big oil and gas companies, but it doesn’t work for the American people.

[yurbud]

8. Is this the Kerry speech? ID the speaker and give a link

[sandnsea]

9. Google broken?

You're the one who said nobody is talking about it. I'm tired of posting speeches and links over and over and over just to have them ignored because Arianna and Amy and Kos didn't give you permission to pay attention to them.

[yurbud]

11. I posted that elsewhere today--even lefties are leaving oil alone

I admired this speech by Kerry, but I get those cryptic emails he sends out, and this isn't really in them.

Likewise, his call for withdrawal of 20,000 troops could be interpreted as a cynical way to placate anti-war activists to get through the 2006 elections without really changing anything.

I want to believe that the Kerry of 1971, BCCI, and Iran-Contra is still in there, but I need to hear bolder words and see more action before I can be certain of that.

The other problem with Kerry is a matter of style. Those great statements on oil were buried in the middle of a speech that didn't hint it was going there in the beginning. Like most democrats, he needs to dare to be blunt, brief, and then shut up so his words can't be distorted.

[sandnsea]

12. Always an excuse to bitch

Harold Ford gave a speech about not being the world's oil cops for chrissake. People talk about this, but because the words don't come out of the mouths of the annointed ones, the people who say they care soooo much, just ignore it. Or piss on it, like you just did. So don't go bitching to Howard Dean that nobody is talking about all of this when you're the one who won't listen when they do.

[yurbud]

15. I'm just trying to get them to turn up the volume so it can't be ignored

[sandnsea]

22. Turn up the volume on placating??

Maybe you don't get how it works, YOU are the volume and me and everybody else. The only way to drown out the garbage the media covers is to bombard them with what we want covered through blogs, letters to the editor, phone calls, fliers, etc.

[yurbud]

24. that's what I'm trying to generate here, and I have written countless

letters to the editor, some of which they felt compelled to respond to as you can see on my blog.

This issue is falling throught the cracks though.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Here ya go:

July 29, 2005

Yep, it's Kerry.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/press/record.cfm?id=242093&&

[sandnsea]

33. see #27

It's why I don't bother anymore. They don't care.

[madfloridian]

13. Do you mean something like this? That the media did not carry?

Or the many times he has said basically the same thing in interviews?

http://www.democrats.org/a/p/drilling_for_kickbacks_the_truth_about_bushs_energy_plan.html

President Bush and the Republicans insist there is nothing they can do to lower gas prices. Fact is, there are plenty of ways to give relief to middle class families, but none of them would line the pockets of President Bush's big oil contributors," said DNC Chairman, Gov. Howard Dean. "The Democratic Party is offering real common-sense solutions to lower gas prices."

Republican Energy Bill Is a Special-Interest
Giveaway That Will Not Reduce Gas Prices

Former Tom DeLay Aide Admits that Energy Bill Will Not Solve Gas Price Problem, But Only Gives Appearance of Doing Something. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Politically, it doesn't matter if such provisions deal with the long term, said . ‘The most important thing for policy makers in the current environment of relatively high gas prices and the approaching summer travel months is action.'"

House Republican Energy Bill Is a Tax Giveaway to Big Energy Companies. According to the Washington Post, "The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices. The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector… Environmentalists are outraged, saying the bill provides giveaways to big energy companies, such as ExxonMobil Corp., whose 2004 profits set a record."

Energy Bill Includes MTBE Waiver Supported by Tom DeLay and Energy Industry. According to the New York Times, "If oil and chemical companies have their way, a majority of lawsuits… will be thrown out by Congress as part of the energy bill backed by the Bush administration. The bill… includes a waiver that would protect the chemical makers, which are some of the biggest oil giants in the United States, from all MTBE liability lawsuits filed since September 2003. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, and Representative Joe L. Barton, who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee, are staunch supporters of the waiver. Both are Republicans from Texas, where more than a dozen MTBE manufacturers are based."


MTBE Is a Dangerous Chemical That Is Seeping into Our Water Supplies. MTBE is used in gasoline to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from cars. MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not readily cling to soil, so it moves rapidly into the ground—making it likely to seep into water supplies. Its powerful turpentine-like taste and odor make water undrinkable. Contamination usually results from leaks in at gasoline stations.


MTBE Waiver is Top Priority for Oil Industry. According to Lawrence Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, "The MTBE waiver issue is Priority 1, 2 and 3 for the refining industry. Without it they aren't going to get behind the energy bill."

Energy Bill Rewards Bush Fundraisers. According to the Washington Post, the 2004 Republican energy bill, nearly identical to the current one, provided billions of dollars in benefits to companies run by at least 22 executives and their spouses who were either "Pioneers" or "Rangers," as well as to the clients of at least 15 lobbyists and their spouses who have achieved similar status as fundraisers. The energy bill provides industry tax breaks worth $23.5 billion over 10 years aimed at increasing domestic oil and gas production, and $5.4 billion in subsidies and loan guarantees.

Democrats Have a Plan to Lower Gas Prices,
While Still Protecting the Environment

More at the link.

[yurbud]

17. Is the word Iraq in there somewhere?

[yurbud]

18. We need to do to "Iraq" and "oil" what Bush did to "9/11" and "Iraq"

except in this case the link is real.

Democrats will mention that we were lied to about Iraq and that the planning was poor, but they will rarely mention that oil is the real motive and that the only plan was to steal Iraq's oil.

To say less than that is to be less than honest.

[madfloridian]

14. Or this part of the DNC agenda?

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/

[yurbud]

16. how that is presented is exactly what I'm talking about

"Reducing dependence on foreign oil" by itself does not get people's attention. "Stop sacrificing American and Iraqi lives for oil companies profits" is both more attention getting and honest.

You have to connect the two for people to see the urgency of our energy situation, and to realize that Iraq is not primarily a national security issue, at least not even remotely in the sense that it was presented by the Bush administration.

[madfloridian]

19. You must not have any idea of things he has been saying.

I figure if you really cared what the candidates had said, you would take time to look up the topics.

You can do a search on certain words like Iraq, oil, Dean, or Iraq oil, Kerry, etc.

On the MTP transcripts, on the CNN transcripts there are real treasures of what Dean has said. The others have said things as well, I just don't keep up with them.

Sometimes holding a person's feet to the fire is the wrong tactic, especially if that person is on your side already. Sometimes it just turns people against the group that is doing it.

[yurbud]

20. I do google this stuff pretty often as well as comb through their sites

but something buried near the bottom of a speech that is said once isn't going to change anything.

As the GOP figured out decades ago, it is only thru boiling down you message to something simple and digestible, and hitting it over and over again that you can burn it into the public consciousness.

When Kerry had the media captive during the debates, he failed to make this issue plain enough.

Other democrats could seize any interview about the war to discuss the real motives. They choose not to do so for the most part.

[yurbud]

21. example of what I mean: Dem website on Cheney Energy task force omits...

one of the few documents released from those meetings was a map of Iraq.

The Dem website page:

http://democrats.org/a/2005/10/bush_and_cheney_1.php



That's pretty damning evidence that they were planning the war at the behest of oil companies. Why not include this crucial bit of evidence that is far more interesting an important than the other corruption angles unless they agreed with the real goals of the war?

[sandnsea]

26. That's part of the National Security Strategy

The Bush Doctrine. That definitely needs more attention, I would agree. But it isn't a good idea for every single thing to appear to be nothing but politicizing the Iraq War. We don't know what happened in the secret energy meetings and that's the whole point of that page. People can, and have, made the connections between oil and the war by themselves.

[yurbud]

30. that's a pretty fucking big element to leave to inference

the other stuff that was mentioned cost us money--the war is costing us lives and decades if not centuries of good will in the Middle East.

I can see leaving out whether you support the metric system or daylight savings time, but the causes for going to war aren't trivial details.


To put it another way, why leave those particular dots unconnected while connecting the less consequential ones?

[sandnsea]

34. There's no inference there

The Energy Meetings are not currently connected to anything because they were SECRET. There's nothing to infer between the war and the Energy Meetings. That's what you posted, an Energy Meeting page.

I am sorry, but in the real grown up world you cannot just pull shit out of your ass because you like the way it sounds. You have to have facts and there's no fact that connects your map and the Energy Meetings.

Your map is a separate issue connected to the National Security strategy. You want more attention paid to the National Security Strategy, the Bush Doctrine, then stick to the subject and stick to it with facts.

Another fact is that most people have connected the war to oil anyway, it isn't really news.

[yurbud]

38. map was released for a FOIA request on ENERGY TASK FORCE

You can see the other supporting documents here:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

If they are looking at maps of oil countries and lists of foreign suitors for concessions, it is reasonable to ask whether they discussed how to replace those suitors since that is exactly what they have done.

You can see all the docs Judicial Watch got here:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1270.shtml

[sandnsea]

42. fine whatever

run around making wild accusations you can't prove. start in your own neighborhood. find a bill for fertilizer in the garbage and turn them in as terrorists. go hog wild. see how long it is before you're locked up in the psych ward.

There is a difference between CONGRESS and watch groups.

[yurbud]

43. How is that a wild accusation if it's documented?

[sandnsea]

45. Oh for pete's sake

Does the map say "Iraq oil targets"??? You're taking a map from our ENERGY POLICY and trying to turn it into a war map and it ISN'T. Do you want a government that doesn't know where the world's energy sources are????

Show me a document that says "steal oil through war" and then you can demand Congress make those claims.

Facts matter.

[yurbud]

46. it is enough evidence to ask the question and ask for more evidence

Congress has spent a hell of a lot of time investigating less important things with less evidence.

[sandnsea]

47. Excuse me

Congress has held or requested investigations into price gouging, oil refinery collusion, contracting preferences, pre-war intelligence, and secret energy meetings, off the top of my head.

They are gathering facts and investigating. They are speaking to the issues of oil and war and corporate power.

Just because they aren't using your map doesn't mean they aren't doing the work.

[yurbud]

48. and some are making this connection--but not loud enough

Most people don't know that there is any evidence for this at least here in the US, while the oil motive has been clearly documented on the BBC equivalent of 60 Minutes. If you are a PR flak or congressional staffer, you've earned your pay trying to pretend this is so obvious it doesn't need to be covered.

But you know this is not part of the PUBLIC debate and it should be or we won't be able to stop future wars like this.

[sandnsea]

50. Maybe you're just young

If you think Americans don't know we wouldn't be involved in the ME if it weren't for oil, then I just don't know what else to tell you. People know. It's as common knowledge as knowing we get involved in the ME because of Israel. People know.

[yurbud]

51. which is it--so obvious it doesn't need evidence or a lack of evidence so

the charge can't be made?

A similar case could be made about Israel.

We know there is some connection, but in that case, without evidence, I don't know if Israel is the tail or the dog in our relationship, especially with Iraq.

[sandnsea]

52. Have you got evidence?

If so, deliver it to Congress if you want them to make charges. As it is, I gave you evidence to refute your claim that Democrats aren't saying anything about oil and wars. They are. And if they find any piece of evidence in those investigations that shows oil corporations and Dick Cheney colluded to go to war, they'll say so. Until then it is nothing but a piece of wild unsubstantiated rhetoric that distracts from the evidence we have.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the majority of Americans and people all over the world know that the US, France, England and other countries would not be involved in the ME if it weren't for oil.

[yurbud]

53. they are saying it as a footnote/ BBC's Palast gave evidence to Conyers

http://www.gregpalast.com/opeconthemarch.html

Palast also interviewed oil execs on camera involved in pre-war plans for how to control Iraq's oil, and how they preferred to accomplish regime change:

http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html

He got Grover Norquist on camera talking about writing the privatization plan he helped write, and Gen. Garner talking about how he refused to implement that plan.

That's all pretty direct, and has been available for over a year.

Instead of talking about this, the real geopolitical motives for the war (which makes this like most others), we are hearing bullshit about terrorism, WMD, and spreading democracy in Iraq.

I am all for spreading democracy, and the real test of that in Iraq will be if we let them decide for themselves what to do with their oil.

Your argument sounds a lot like the after the fact ass-covering of the mainstream media when they said "everyone knew Saddam didn't actually have WMD"--they just didn't bother to put that bit of common knowledge in their columns.

Similarly, we all know oil has something to do with it, but until we start talking about exactly what, whether it's a misguided energy policy or simply gross corruption handing over Iraq as a bloody prize to campaign donors, we can't fix it until we talk about it.

Or are you hoping Democrats can replace the GOP at the corporate teat?

[yurbud]

44. Why are you so invested in squelching this if you admit connection exists?

[yurbud]

39. People know Iraq & OIL connected, but haven't been given evidence to prove

it.

It's a little like the tobacco companies and the cancer risk.

Researchers knew it caused cancer for decades, and it was more than reasonable to assume that tobacco company executives had seen those same documents, yet they refused to acknowledge in public that smoking caused cancer--until their internal memos discussing it were released.

Right now, whenever anyone raises the issue of "blood for oil" it is little more than a slogan and suspicion since the actual evidence hasn't entered the mainstream of the debate.

Evidence of plans to seize Iraq's oil and hand over the concessions to American companies should be as central to the debate as the Downing Street Minutes.

[confludemocrat]

27. You're being swarmed by the usual suspects

You are right, there is nothing about Iraq in the speech being sold by the big-lapeled, stripe-suited, white spats and straw hat-wearin' Kerry touts here. Simple as that. Generalities are offered but no getting down to brass tacks about the Iraq fuckup and its relation to oil. As usual with their hero, so close yet so far away.

[madfloridian]

28. I am a usual suspect, I guess.

I happen to be proud our Democrats are starting to speak out firmly.

I happen to think the OP addressed the letter to the wrong person, but I also know why it was done. It is being done to "hold Dean's feet the fire", so they say. They are going for a third party, and if Dean does well with the DNC it will thwart their plans.

I am proud to be a "usual suspect."

It is going to be ugly, I fear. Dean invited the Progressive Democrats of America to join them at the DNC conference upcoming. I thought that was very nice to do. But it is not enough for them.

They want the DNC to fail, and I will remain a "usual suspect" because I will point out what is going on.

They are not really holding the feet of others to the fire as much, you think?

[madfloridian]

29. Oh, I forgot.

They invited PDA and not DFA that I know of, nor does anyone else. Go figure, huh?

[yurbud]

32. good sig line

[madfloridian]

35. We did not lose our values.

Dean lost the nomination because he did NOT lose his values. And looks like the divisions in the progressive groups and Democratic party contenders for president are well on their way to screwing us up badly next year and in 08.

These groups, and right in this thread you, are making it sound as though Howard Dean is the one who sold out our values. He was centrist, but he is not running the DNC that way. Do your homework.

I have no gripe with legitimate complaints, but I do have a gripe with holding the feet of the wrong people to the fire. It is childish, and all it will do is divide.

I read the other day an op ed by someone who really liked to think of themselves as a pit bull at Dean's heels. Maybe they are just not aware at all. Why not be someone else'e pit bull?

Other candidates blame their IWR votes on Howard Dean, that it is ok for them to have voted that way because one time in early 2003 he admitted Saddam might have weapons.....but they leave out that in the same interview he said it had not been proven that he was an "immediate" threat. Blaming one's vote on that is rather silly.

See, here I go again, opening up myself to being called names....but I get called them anyway. I am not "very bright", and I have "tunnel vision", simpering, and so on. But I had my say. Send your letter.

You did not address the fact that he invited a "progressive" group to the conference. That should tell you something, yet you ignored it. This goes to my philosophy that the uncompromising left is equally as dangerous as the uncompromising right. In fact that is why both sides stay upset with me, because I don't agree with either. And I often say so.

[yurbud]

36. I supported Howard in the primaries, here I am writing him as chair

and so he can say to the sellouts and DLC types that the public is demanding honesty on this.

Also, as I mentioned, I already wrote every Democrat in the Senate and the best response I could get was variations of their happy talk "success strategy" talking point.

I was more blunt in this letter for two reasons:

1. Convey a sense of urgency that being polite doesn't.

2. Hope that it would be echoed with similar honesty in response.

I write to Howard as a friend and although he has stuck to the party talking points on Iraq, I believe his intentions are good, and in fact better than most if not all of the formal democratic leadership.

[yurbud]

31. I want Dean to succeed and the Democrats to succeed as well but

succeed because they are doing the morally right things not because they rallied support based on a blind, stepford-like faith that they MIGHT do the right things at some point in the hazy future.

Foreign and domestic policy are converging so much that we can't afford a party that is half for the people and half for the chamber of commerce. Screwing people abroad has consequences here, both economic and securitywise.

Essentially, those who are begging for us to accept the vaguest of good intentions want us to elect democrats then go back to sleep, be happy that we are spending more on education and not notice that our foreign policy serves oil companies, and sweatshop and plantation owners as much as it does under republicans.

That screwing of foreigners with things like NAFTA and the World Bank are part of what are holding down wages worldwide and therefore sucking jobs out of the country, to the lowest bidder.

And those people we screw are more vulnerable to being recruited as terrorists.

It's a pretty simple calculation, but a lot of Dems can't say it because they are trying to get our votes without alienating big business.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Now wait a minute. I thought the letter was to Dean

not Kerry.

Is anybody close enough for your liking?

[G_j]

37. OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL....(send them this)

Crude Designs: the Rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth (November 22, 2005)

Greg Muttitt's bombshell paper confirms what many have long suspected -- the big US and UK companies have enormous interest in Iraq's giant untapped oilfields. He shows clearly how the companies have been angling to gain control of those fields and now, under the occupation, they are closing in on their goal. Production Sharing Agreements, the companies' favorite legal ploy, have already been negotiated with pliant Iraqi officials. Likely to be rushed-through after the December 2005 elections, these contracts may lock Iraq into decades-long arrangements that siphon as much as $200 billion from the Iraqi government into company coffers. (Platform, Global Policy Forum and others)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

``
Contents

Executive Summary

Glossary

Chapters:


1 - The ultimate prize: Anglo-American interests in Gulf oil

2 - Re-thinking privatisation: Production sharing agreements

3 - Pumping profits: Big Oil and the push for PSAs

4 - From Washington to Baghdad: Planning Iraq's oil future

5 - Contractual rip-off: the cost of PSAs to Iraq

6 - A better deal: Options for investment in Iraqi oil

7 - Conclusion

Appendices:

1 - How a Production Sharing Agreement works

2 - Discounting in oilfield economics – key concepts

3 - Iraqi oilfield data

4 - Economic analysis - methodology and assumptions

References

About the publishers


List of tables:

5.1 - Impact of PSAs on Iraqi state revenues

5.2 - Impact of PSAs on discounted Iraqi state revenues

5.3 - Impact of PSAs on Iraqi revenues at different oil prices

5.4 - Impact of PSAs on oil company profitability

5.5 - Oil company profitability at different oil prices

6.1 - Foreign investment in the world’s major oil reserves

A3.1 - Data on 25 undeveloped Iraqi oilfields


read paper at:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

[yurbud]

40. thanks! put that in news or general discussion too.

[G_j]

41. already has been and btw,

GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5442775

LBN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1941958&mesg_id=1941958

& BTW, I forget to say your letter is EXCELLENT! thanks!