Why Dick changed his mind
Posted by Chris Vernon on August 23, 2007 - 10:00am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: David Strahan, dick cheney, iraq [list all tags]
This is a guest article by David Strahan, author of The Last Oil Shock.
In a widely viewed You Tube clip, taken from a C-Span interview conducted in 1994, Dick Cheney argues persuasively that the United States was right not to topple Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. He cites the potential disintegration of the country and the risk of American casualties as good reasons for the decision not to take Baghdad. So what was it that changed his mind by the turn of the century? An acute awareness of impending peak oil.
In a world of looming oil shortage, Iraq represented a unique opportunity. With 115 billion barrels (officially) Iraq had the world’s third biggest reserves, and after years of war and sanctions they were also the most underexploited. In the late 1990s Iraqi oil production averaged about 2 million barrels per day, but with the necessary investment it was thought its reserves could support three times that output. Not only were sanctions stopping Iraqi production from growing, but also actively damaging the country’s petroleum geology by denying the national oil company access to essential chemicals and equipment. In one of a series of reports to the Security Council, UN specialist inspectors warned in January 2000 that sanctions had already caused irreversible damage to Iraq’s reservoirs, and would continue to lead to “the permanent loss of huge reserves of oil”. But sanctions could not be lifted with Saddam still in place, so if Iraq’s oil was to help defer the onset of global decline, the monster so long supported by the West would have to go.
As I reveal in The Last Oil Shock, the CIA was also well aware of Iraq’s unique value, having secretly paid for new maps of its petroleum geology to be drawn as early as 1998. Cheney also knew, fretting publicly about global oil depletion at a speech in London the following year, where he noted that “the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies”. Blair too had reason to be anxious about oil: British North Sea output had peaked in 1999 - and has been falling ever since - while the petrol protests of 2000 had made the importance of maintaining the fuel supply excruciatingly obvious.
Britain and America’s shared energy fears were secretly formalised during the planning for Iraq. It is widely accepted that Blair’s commitment to support the attack dates back to his summit with Bush at Crawford in April 2002. The Times headline was typical that weekend: Iraq Action Is Delayed But ‘Certain’. What is less well known is that at the same summit Blair proposed and Bush agreed to set up the US-UK Energy Dialogue, a permanent diplomatic liason dedicated to “energy security and diversity”. No announcement was made, and the Dialogue’s existence was only later exposed through a US Freedom of Information enquiry by Rob Evans and David Hencke of the Guardian.
Both governments continue to refuse to release minutes of meetings between ministers and officials held under the Dialogue, but among some papers that have been released, one dated February 2003 notes that to meet projected world demand, oil production in the Middle East would have to double by 2030 to over 50 million barrels per day, and proposed “a targeted study to examine the capital and investment requirements of key Gulf countries”. So on the eve of the invasion British and American officials were secretly discussing how to raise oil production from the region and we are invited to believe this is mere coincidence. Iraq was evidently not just about corporate greed but strategic desperation.
The bitterest irony is of course that Dick was right in 1994. The invasion has been a disaster not only for the people of Iraq but also in terms of its hidden agenda - creating conditions that guarantee Iraqi oil production will remain hobbled for years to come.
---
David Strahan is the author of The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man. www.lastoilshock.com
I have long maintained there are two Peak Oil moments.
1. Peak Oil
2. The preceding moment when everyone realised that Peak Oil was due.
Mr Cheney's Damascene revelation was essentially the driver for building a huge Embassy on the banks of the Euphrates.
The motive ...if you haven't got the oil...go and steal it.
And of course this has received "zero" attention in the MSM (Main Stream Media). I haven't even seen the usually brilliant Daily Show (weekdays Mon-Fri, 8.30pm, More4) pick up on this Cheney video clip. Unfortunately that show seems to be veering away from outright (deserved) political attacks on the Bush administration to go for the more jokey story at the expensive of truly explosive stories such as this one. Shame on the MSM :(
>The motive ...if you haven't got the oil...go and steal it.
So it didn't occur to them that the oil could be bought?
Maybe they thought there would come a time when it couldn't just be bought - remember winter 05/06 when the UK tried to buy gas from the continent?
Hello TODers,
Yep, as I have posted many times before: instead of Bush/Cheney expecting to be showered with candies and flowers for invading Iraq, they should have instead gone for Maximum Iraqi Peakoil Outreach.
If a FF-exporting country goes to Maximum Biosolar Conversion, then they will peacefully sell their depleting FFs to further leverage for this change in direction and long term advantage.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
On 60 minutes Geoge Tenet was interviewed about his book. He said that the Bush adminstration had been warned by the CIA repeatidely that Sadaam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons capability before the 2003 invasion.
It seems like Cheney and Powell took orders from Bush, but it is difficult to discern what special interests were involved.
I mean the Bush administration was warned that the Niger uranium documents were forged. There was no evidence that Sadaam had acquired uranium from Niger.
Very good point.
The 1,000,000 lb of refined yellowcake found in nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq came most likely from Russia.
Upon further research, I was wrong.
~260 tons of Uranium dioxide came from Portugal
~200 tons from Nigeria
~ 28 tons from Brazil
~ 12 tons from Italy
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html
All those aquisitions were quite old. Early 80's... From the IAEA's Fact Sheet above we can see the following.
"
As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:
There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.
Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon
There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.
There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material
All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.
There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.
"
totoneilia,
Now that's a brilliant idea. The only world leader with that kind of leadership is Hugo Chavez, and he's just kinky enough to try, or at least announce that's what he's doing.
It would sure beat selling gasoline to his people for $0.25 a gallon and giving away free oil to the poor of other countries as a message.
Sure, but what if it's the Chinese that buy it? China is investing heavily in aid for oil programs in Africa and successfully exploiting African resources (see, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/). The U.S. government couldn't let that happen to a country sitting on the world's third largest reserves. Could the U.S. have maintained enough pressure in the UN to keep Iraq locked up with sanctions forever? At some point China with its deep pockets, could have purchased a good piece of the action in Iraq in return for aid and arms. China's support of Iran for oil concessions has created a strategic nightmare for the administration. Imagine what a Saddam Hussein/China partnership for Iraqi economic development would have meant for U.S. strategic interests as understood by Cheney and company.
Actually Stewart did a piece on the 1994 video. I believe he called it "Dick doesn't know dick." And you are right, it does appear that the Daily Show has lost some of its edge or cockiness. It seems simply more "slapstick" than anything else. I am watching it less.
Stewart talked again about the Cheney Iraq Quagmire video tonight, August 22 2007. This video is mainstream.
I agree with you about The Daily Show, but I don't think it got any dumber over the years - I think we got smarter.
For a while it was easy fun to scapegoat Bush & Cheney for all our problems. But if you're peak-fuels aware, and if you look back at the history of America and Europe, Bush & Cheney are nothing new, and the Republicans aren't the only bad guys.
In fact it was President Carter who in 1980 established the doctrine of securing oil imports by military force. He was a Democrat.
The sad truth is that you and I are complicit in these crimes. We are guilty each time we fill up on ridiculously cheap $3.00 gasoline, or enjoy foods that are insanely cheap by historical standards.
"The sad truth is that you and I are complicit in these crimes. We are guilty each time we fill up on ridiculously cheap $3.00 gasoline, or enjoy foods that are insanely cheap by historical standards."
Very, very, VERY true. We are complicit. Not doing our utmost as individuals to cut our individual consumption of fossil fuels make us BAD PEOPLE.
And that's horrible. I want to be a good person. Still, I eat meat. Because it's so nice. I drive an electric scooter, but I'm still an immoral person. And that's horrible.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not trying to establish that you and I are "bad people," it's not that simple.
We do, however, each play our part causing the problems discussed here at The Oil Drum. We each consume more than the planet can sustainably produce, particularly fossil fuels.
Maybe we're nice guys in person, but our participation in a bad system perpetuates it. We don't need to feel depressed about this fact all the time, but we shouldn't forget it.
Because people forget this fact, they are capable of talking back and forth about whether some Cheney TV clip broadcast everywhere ten years ago, which now plays on YouTube and Jon Stewart, has been "buried by the media" and whether if it "came out" the hypocrisy of the war would finally be exposed, and the bad times in the Middle East might end.
This sort of talk is possible only when people forget their role creating the problem and focus attention on a charismatic "bad guy" like Cheney. It is a kind of entertainment that clouds understanding of what's really going on in the world.
"In fact it was President Carter who in 1980 established the doctrine of securing oil imports by military force. He was a Democrat."
On the whole I agree that the Carter Doctrine was a mistake, but as you note, he was simply being honest about a bi-partisan policy pursued by the US for 60 years.
More importantly, at the same time he laid the groundwork for developing alternatives, and eliminating our dependence on the Middle East. Groundwork which was partially dismantled by Reagan & Bush administrations.
He was also willing to risk "stability" in the ME when he withdrew support for the Shah.
He wasn't perfect, but he was by far the best president we've had in recent history on energy matters.
Quoting SilentPatriot at Crooksandliars:
I agree--it was brilliant. And included the 1994 Cheney video.
Find it on the Comedy Central site by scrolling down the Most Recent Videos column to "America to the Rescue," or find it on Crooksandliars here.
--C
Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com
Yep, somehow I missed the episode with the hilarious "Dick doesn't know Dick" section. Also the way he went after the guy that had done the Dick Cheney book in the interview segment after that was brilliant and brutal...
I have renewed faith in The Daily Show having seen that :)
I'll repeat my advice to The Daily Show: get Kunstler!
Jon Stewart has certainly dumbed it down this year. During an interview with Nikolas Kozloff on 20 Aug., Stewart remarks "what is Chavez going to do when the price of oil goes down... like it did in the 70's". I don't believe Stewart understands peak oil, today's production limits and the increased demand worldwide. Colbert is a more independent thinker for sure.
Charlie, Chicago
It seems that 100% of the time when someone screams that the MSM isn't picking up a story (shame on them), either they did pick up the story or it wasn't worth covering.
In this case the first link to the video on TOD was through the New York Times. Now it seems to have appeared on the daily show twice. There may be other instances. The MSM is all over this story and in fact was the initial source for TOD!
Could people please search Google or something before I assuming that "I have't seen it" means "The MSM is burying it"?
I record every episode shown on Freeview in the UK via my HDD recorder so was suprised I'd missed it. However I had found it linked on Michael Moore's site (via a reddit link) days before the date of the airing.
Cheney lying should have been a bigger story than the bridge falling down.
MSM should be calling for impeachment for any number of things (at least 5). I think the line "Clinton lied but nobody died" sums up the difference between one set of impeachment rules and another!
I think we can BLAME the MSM for ignoring certain stories. It's well known how they pretty well ignored the infamous "Downing Street Memo" story. The Times in the UK unearthed it as I recall. It was virtually ignored in the US and most of the UK papers / TV didn't pick it up either. Channel 4 and Newsnight were the only ones I recall.
It showed that the "US was fixing the evidence around the policy", and had a date "penciled in" for the attack.
So proving it was a lie that they were doing all they could to prevent war.
Also I like the way when Hans Blix says "we haven't found anything" Bush & Co said Saddam's very smart he keeps moving things around.
ie. there was NO way we weren't going to invade... if Blix found anything then we could say "look he's got weapons" invade. If they didnt find anything "youve wasted our time Saddam - stop hiding them".
Even if it was chemical weapons they found - the US sold them to him when Saddam was an ally (during his fight with Iran).
If the MSM were responsible they would go after the administration for the countless lies and when the administration says something without clear evidence point out every time they lied before that.
The latest angle seems to be blaming Iran or Al Qaida for "every" attak in Iraq even if it's Sunni vs Shia or vice versa.
After Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niel resigned, he said that Bush was trying to find a way to invade Iraq before 9/11.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
After 9/11 Bush tried to blame Sadaam for having ties to Al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission later concluded that these assertions were false.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/16/terror/main623504.shtml
GoogledPO - agree with virtually all you said but Jack is right, the shorthand 'MSM' should not be used to tar everyone in the MSM.
One needs to recognize there are individuals, news divisions, and media companies, that don't tow the line. It's a disservice to the likes of, here in the States, Murray Waas of the National Journal, Thomas Ricks of the WaPo, all of the editorial board and columnists of the NYT (don't remind me about J Miller, a 'reporter'), Tom Whipple of the Falls Church News-Press, the list goes on, and a slew of others I should list but my life is short and my brain feeble.
Not all of life revolves around the Daily Show, as good as it often is.
Do you think message was received?
cheers
Actually I did see The Daily Show cover the Cheney clip in a segment titled "Even Dick doesn't know Dick" parodied from his earlier "You don't know Dick" segments.
Philip
Try this - six words, starts with "Project" - ends with "Century".
Note the names of the bottom of the statement of principles page.
BTW, anyone conjecturing the current mess was in fact a strategic decision to obtain long-term presence: Gross incompetence, so unbelievable, often looks like sly genius.
Folks - it's not. It's not even hubris. It's just gross stupid incompetence.
Not that I feel strongly one way or the other.
http://politics.reddit.com/info/2i1ry/comments
if you are so inclined...(posted to reddit 8/23, 2p EDT)
I know Robert is going to scold me, but this is just what is meant in the NPC report that energy independence is silly and we need to concentrate on energy security. In fact, the US once had energy independence and it also had a foreign policy of its own. Now, it is completely reactive, breathlessly following the whims of those who have the oil. Well, real security is not possible with an energy security mindset, but it is just that mindset which has put us in this war. Oil companies are a part this and their efforts to control our policies have harmed us a great deal.
Chris
What do you think is going to happen with Iran?
What do you think Col Feehan is going to do?
What do you think the Persians are going to do?
What is this utter gibberish? Particularly on The Oil Drum:EUROPE (my emphasis) why have links to some byzantinely complicated US legal case without any context or introduction?
Cuchulainn
And what do you think judge Armijo is going to do?
cheers
I've read about these judges and it's scary. Before an empire falls it gets pretty bad. Where's the MSM on this story? If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
I tried to pay attention, but it was legalese gibberish. And one link was a number conversions table? WTF?
MSM????????
Remember that the next time General Electric or WestingHouse has a news story .... Ah Did I say GE/Westinghouse? I'm sorry I should have said MSNBC or CBS has a news story on YOUR nightly news program.
Want a quick dose of reality TV? Hit this link before reading the article, to find out who owns your news source.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php
<<< Here's a taste of the info...
Don;t love it, The Carlyle Group (Bush Sr is a director) has policy control over your news on CBS... What a great country or what?
What do you think the GE or Westinghouse corporate stance is on GLobalism?
How (for example) do you think Anti-Globalism demonstations would be portrayed in THEIR orgainzation's News (society's) Programming?
Here's a taste of how your opinion can be... er... controlled. At the Canadian US/Canada/Mexico SPP NAU summit.
Police accused of using provocateurs at summit
Aug 21, 2007 09:14 PM
Canadian Press
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/248608
This is a video they are talking about. You gotta watch it. It's SOO funny.
Google 'Montebello police dressing like protesters'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow
People, WAKE UP !
I'm The Slime Lyrics (Frank Zappa)
[backing vocals Tina Turner & The Ikettes]
I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set
You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold
That's right, folks . . .
Don't touch that dial
Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor
I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go
I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor
I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go
I've said it before, here it is again:
gov't = corporations = media.
Print this around the edge of a circular piece of paper, stick a push pin in the middle, and SPIN! Now you're gettin' it...
(Thanks for the Frank)
"Nuthin' left to do but Smile, Smile, Smile"
I'm sure this is all very clever, and yes, printing out Frank Zappa lyrics is really on-topic in a blog discussing 'energy and our future' I'm sure. But what the hell is all this about?
Cuchulainn
cuchulainn
Did you read the message I was responding to?
"Where's the MSM on this story?"
Have you read TOD for any length of time?
We are involved in(among other things) getting the message out about Peak Oil(I have been trying to everyone I know since 2001, How about you?)
The post I was responding to was WHY the MSM will not print and tell the people what they need to know about Peak Oil and Energy in general.
I thought it would be good for us to understand WHO we are refering to when we say the MSM, so there is no illusions as to their motivations, goals and tactics.
IF you read my post carefully I said "FOR EXAMPLE"
"How (for example) do you think Anti-Globalism demonstations would be portrayed in THEIR orgainzation's News (society's) Programming? "
To show how we may see MSM's coverage of a subject like AntiGlobalism OR PEAK OIL would play out.
The Zappa lyric was a free bonus...
Hello Samsara,
I did read the message you were responding directly to, yes. As you say, it does ask 'Where's the MSM on this story?' and you do indeed advance a hypothesis about why the MSM doesn't cover certain stories. That's cool - no issue with that whatsoever. But what hasn't been made clear is what 'this story' is here. The previous post (to yours) and the ones above it in this thread do not seem to be about peak oil - if they were I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying. The first two posts in this sub-thread are about some completely incomprehensible legal case in the US.
If you understand what the point of that stuff is (and how it's related to peak oil) can you enlighten me?
Thanks,
Cuchulainn