Does Bush really want to go there?

For years, every time the left would say the war in Iraq is really about oil, the right would scoff and reject the argument out of hand. And yet, there was Bush yesterday, laying out a new argument for the importance of the war: we have to look out for all that oil.

President Bush on Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country’s vast oil fields that he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists. […]

A one-time oilman, Bush has rejected charges that the war in Iraq is a struggle to control the nation’s vast oil wealth. While Bush has avoided making links between the war and Iraq’s oil reserves, the soaring cost of gasoline has focused attention on global petroleum sources.

Bush said the Iraqi oil industry, already suffering from sabotage and lost revenues, must not fall under the control of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

“If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks,” Bush said. “They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition.”

At a political level, I can see the reasoning behind the argument. The White House is a) desperate to find an argument to justify the war that might resonate with the public; and b) anxious to show that the president, like the typical consumer, is worried about the high price of gasoline.

But I’m not sure if the White House has thought through the implications of this new argument.

First, by connecting the war to concerns about Iraq’s oil, the president may simply be reinforcing the widely held belief in Iraq that we’re only there because we want the country’s national resources. Bush’s new selling point may only serve to buttress the worst fears of those in Iraq who are anxious to see us leave anyway.

Second, by bringing up the issue, Bush is inadvertently reminding us of how poorly his administration has handled the issue from the beginning. Remember, before the war, the Bush gang insisted that Iraq’s oil money would be key to a post-Saddam future. Paul Wolfowitz, on March 27, 2003, said, “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Donald Rumsfeld told Fortune Magazine in the fall of 2002 that we needn’t be worried about the excessive costs of the war in Iraq: “If you [worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan… Iraq has oil.”

That was, of course, before Iraq’s oil money started disappearing.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States took control of all of the Iraqi government’s bank accounts, including the income from oil sales. The United Nations approved the financial takeover, and President Bush vowed to spend Iraq’s money wisely. But now critics are raising serious questions about how well the United States handled billions of dollars in Iraqi oil funds.

Iraq’s oil resources generate billions of dollars — money the United States promised to protect after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Now, Frank Willis, a former senior American official in Iraq, tells NBC News the United States failed to safeguard the oil money known as the Development Fund for Iraq.

“There was, in my mind, pervasive leakage in assets of Iraq, and to some extent, those assets were squandered,” says Willis. […]

NBC News has learned that a draft government audit faults the United States for “inadequate stewardship” of up to $8.8 billion in oil money, handed over to Iraq’s ministries but never fully accounted for.

Oil revenue was supposed to be the one thing the Bush gang was good at. The Bush-Cheney ticket, after all, was the first ticket in American history to feature, not one, but two former oil industry executives. Nevertheless, the gang that can’t shoot straight managed to screw up Iraq’s oil money. Badly.

Now Bush is arguing that we need to stay in Iraq so we can look after Iraq’s oil? Given the circumstances, I’m a little surprised Bush would want to go there.

I had the same reaction. On the one hand, yes we don’t want Al Qaeda to have control of Iraqi oil revenue. OTOH, you just told the world that the oil was the reason we are there.

This also betrays the thinking about Al Qaeda. Exploiting oil revenues is not the work of a loose band of terrorists. That is the work of a nation-state. My inference is that someone in the White House is still thinking in terms of nation-state sponsorship of terrorists. Besides, Saudi oil revenue is already flowing to Al Qaeda.

If we were serious about denying funding to Al Qaeda, we’d pump 50-100B into alternative fuels, solar, wind, etc… so we could reduce oil imports.

  • The Iraq oil fields may be in danger of falling into the hands of Osama. That would be because (1) Bush made the oil fields open to takeover by anyone, except us apparently and (2) Bush long ago gave up any interest in looking for Osama.

  • Our band of corrupt ( VERY RICH ) leaders are lining everyones pockets and draining the coffer’s of the U.S. taxpayer’s and they did it all by pretending to be religous and having friends at Diebold. They are so good at what they do half of our country could see a video of Bush getting a BJ and deny it saying someone was praying in front of him.

  • Actually, I think it’s a brilliant political
    move. We’re there to prevent the
    terrorists from taking over the Iraqi
    oil industry. I think that will resonate
    with the gullible American people,
    who don’t care how we got there,
    but only care about why we have
    to stay. They can understand the
    oil reason.

    And, that’s why we went there in the
    first place, to control – privatize – the
    Iraqi oil industry so American corporations
    own it and profit from it.

    Perfect circle. A ring of lies finally ends
    in the truth. Clever. And I think it might
    get them additional mileage if gasoline
    prices stay high. Americans will make
    the connection between all that oil over
    there – supply – and high prices here –
    demand and . . . You get the picture.

    Someone, some time ago, wrote a piece
    on all the excuses for this war and boiled
    it down to the American people ultimately
    accepting the dirty little secret, and shrugging
    it off as, “We need the oil, don’t we?”

    We’re getting there.

  • Huh. Guess I can dig out that NO WAR FOR OIL button that so many people derided a couple years ago.

  • Yes, well since the truth is finally out….shouldn’t we dismiss this whole ‘Iraqi constitution’ thing and just take the damn country over in the name of the empire?

    I know, I know, it is easier to control a populace if they have some notion of self-government, but c’mon….

  • Back up a second, if Osama really “took control of the oilfieds” would we be buying oil from him? Hell no, and what a incredibly ridiculous thought. Would his gas stations have mini-marts?

    Even in that world they live in, the one that produced TV commercials that claimed if you bought drugs you were “supporting the terrorists”, the notion that we are beholden to whoever has the oil (just as the heroin addicts are beholden to whoever has the heroin) and have no choice but to purchase from them should cause alarm in any thinking person.

    This also has pretty horrible timing to it when taken in the context of nutty Pat Robertson’s fatwa on Hugo Chavez. The nutty right wingers, who don’t really stand by Robertson the man, do not distance themselves from the desire to see Chavez either out of power or dead, and worse, they’ll accuse him at the drop of a hat of supporting terrorism (not to mention yesterday’s Drudge headline about Chavez selling oil to America’s poor).

    If Bush is really saying this kind of stuff, he’s really lost. I’d also be willing to bet that someone in the Justice Department will give the administration some kind of advance warning on any Fitzgerald news, so watch out, when that happens we’ll get about a weeks worth of stone tossing in the water to cause any sort of distraction possible. My guess is that there will be another “high-level” capture in Pakistan, complete with computer discs, a video, possibly of Osama, including some sort of training footage that has some masked man mixing chemical weapons.

    Now, back to the laughing about Osama’s mini-mart idea.

  • I can see “protecting the oil fields” being legitimate for the time being but the claim that OBL and Zarqawi could take over Iraq or even the oil fields is preposterous. Bush is resorting to scaring people again.

    Like the Shites, Kurds and even the Sunnis are going to say “Here you go, Mr. Bin Laden, take our oil fields and the billions in revenue that go wtih them. You can the new Iraqi president and Mr. Zarqawi can be the minister of defense” Come to think of it, Back in 2/03, Bush said bin Laden was marginalized – now he’s primed to take over Iraq? What gives?

    Re the missing $9 billion – I’ve been following the story for awhile now but I hadn’t seen the NBC one. So Paul Bremer was supposed to have a certified auditors in Iraq but instead hired a four-man consulting company.Bremer is the same guy who cried foul when Bush’s own guy, Stuart Bowen, inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, concluded that the $9 billion was embezzled. Brremer claimed that it was impossbile to audit the fund expenditures.

    I’m an auditor and I’m saying that the Bush administration did NOT lose track of $9 billion.

  • Oh, hark, you nailed it! Before the invasion, when the war talk began in earnest protesters were carrying “No Blood for Oil” signs, and they were reamed by just about everybody – right, left and center. I even began to wonder if we (the left) weren’t being naive. Of course, I now realize I was naive to have thought I was naive.

    As I’ve said before, they have created an Iraq which really IS a threat to our national security – which may have been the plan all along. And they’re counting on the fact that the mindless majority of Americans won’t remember that there was no threat until we arrived on the scene. Which, sadly, is a pretty safe bet. And again, those pussies in the MSM can’t be bothered to point out the truth.

    Has there ever been a more brazenly corrupt, inept, greedy administration anywhere? It seems the only questions they ask before embarking on a course of action is (a) “Will this help my wealthy business cronies/family members?” or (b) “Will this placate the religious right until we get through the next election?” The rest of us are just cannon fodder as far as they’re concerned.

    I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone – this can’t really be happening. How are we ever going to recover from this mess?

  • Comments are closed.