Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 09:41 AM Mar 2014

I watched Rachel's "Why We Did It" yesterday and guess what?

I learned nothing that had not been discussed here numerous times, at the time. While I thought it was a worthwhile documentary, for those of us that were here at the time it was old news.

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I watched Rachel's "Why We Did It" yesterday and guess what? (Original Post) Bandit Mar 2014 OP
I think what was new was.... Glitterati Mar 2014 #1
for those that couldnt watch, what proof, and did it jibe with Palast? reddread Mar 2014 #3
I don't read Palast Glitterati Mar 2014 #4
can you tell me which commercials they ran during the show? reddread Mar 2014 #5
Not a clue Glitterati Mar 2014 #7
What commercials did they run during the show? Are you kidding? Squinch Mar 2014 #21
for those not allergic reddread Mar 2014 #20
i believe opposite rtracey Mar 2014 #8
I think you need to re-watch Glitterati Mar 2014 #10
AND rtracey Mar 2014 #16
No one said a thing about "lowering" prices Glitterati Mar 2014 #19
Let's look at that. They were going to divvy up Iraq's oil and give it to private oil rhett o rick Mar 2014 #29
As far as oil pricing goes.... CANDO Mar 2014 #11
Documents from the Dick Cheney Energy Commission Glitterati Mar 2014 #12
yes rtracey Mar 2014 #6
Ummm, yeah, there was a GREAT DEAL of proof offered Glitterati Mar 2014 #9
ummm what? rtracey Mar 2014 #17
Again, perhaps you should re-watch Glitterati Mar 2014 #18
True but vindication is a lovely thing malaise Mar 2014 #2
Now they are prepared to make the planet Kelvin Mace Mar 2014 #15
IMO Mr Dixon Mar 2014 #13
you mean that Operation Iraqi Liberation was about OIL? NightWatcher Mar 2014 #14
From Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, 2008 IDemo Mar 2014 #22
That's what I said last night. bigwillq Mar 2014 #23
I was surprised she did not bring up PNAC rustydog Mar 2014 #24
She really couldn't bring up PNAC. justgamma Mar 2014 #30
Yeah I was a little surprised she didn't bring up PNAC, Wolfy, Perl, and Kristol... fujiyama Mar 2014 #31
Exactly. Blue_In_AK Mar 2014 #25
I'm glad I'm not the only one. She omitted the huge amounts of explosives that were left unwatched vanbean Mar 2014 #27
Plus the fact, she carefully omitted the PNAC connection. I was somewhat Cleita Mar 2014 #26
BushCo didn't want to own the Iraqi oil and profit from it. No way !!! BushCo just wanted SDjack Mar 2014 #28
Old news that a good share of the citizens of this country do not know to this day. jwirr Mar 2014 #32
That is exactly what I thought (n/t) Samantha Mar 2014 #33
 

Glitterati

(3,182 posts)
1. I think what was new was....
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 09:45 AM
Mar 2014

the PROOF Rachel offered that it was all about oil.

We, who marched and screamed and raised hell about "No War for Oil" were laughed at, mocked and belittled. We KNEW in our hearts that it was all about oil for Dick Cheney and Halliburton but we had no proof.

Rachel provided proof yesterday.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
3. for those that couldnt watch, what proof, and did it jibe with Palast?
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 09:48 AM
Mar 2014

the primary motivation was keeping oil prices high, according to the documents he revealed a few years ago.
Were they part of the discussion, i presume?

 

Glitterati

(3,182 posts)
4. I don't read Palast
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 09:51 AM
Mar 2014

as I find him to make a lot of promises he never delivers on.

So, I can't tell you how it compares to what Palast says or doesn't say.

However, Rachel offered hundreds of documents and facts as proof.

Her primary premise proved that the war in Iraq was to divvy up the oil in Iraq to the US oil companies. They invaded primarily to take the oil for US corporations.

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
8. i believe opposite
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:16 AM
Mar 2014

The reasoning for the oil war was to put more oil on the market. Documents showed that Iraq was producing 3 million barrels, and US wanted to bump it to 5 million, to keep prices lower.

 

Glitterati

(3,182 posts)
10. I think you need to re-watch
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:22 AM
Mar 2014

because those facts aren't even what was reported.

In fact, she reported that the 3 million was the US GOAL, with 5 million once they turned the Iraq oil fields to US companies. Once they brought in the US oil exec, he found Iraq oils fields literally held together with duct tape!

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
16. AND
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 11:10 AM
Mar 2014

Ok my numbers we mixed, but the goal was not. it was to put more oil on the market to keep prices lower, keep the tap flowing...

 

Glitterati

(3,182 posts)
19. No one said a thing about "lowering" prices
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 11:19 AM
Mar 2014

You really think the goal of a Bush/Cheney administration was to lower gas prices?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
29. Let's look at that. They were going to divvy up Iraq's oil and give it to private oil
Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:14 AM
Mar 2014

companies to keep the price down for the consumer? I doubt that their share holders would approve.

 

CANDO

(2,068 posts)
11. As far as oil pricing goes....
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:23 AM
Mar 2014

there never seems to be an exact formula for that. Some domestic strife in a banana republic somewhere is usually reason enough for the price to rocket upward. A fire on a single oil platform in the Gulf Of Mexico can do wonders for the price of a barrel of oil.

 

Glitterati

(3,182 posts)
12. Documents from the Dick Cheney Energy Commission
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:25 AM
Mar 2014

showed that, within a month of the inauguration, Dick Cheney had divvied up the Iraq oil fields to US oil companies.

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
6. yes
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:10 AM
Mar 2014

Yes, I agree, most of us knew it was about oil, but never saw proof, Maddows piece. I was not shocked by what it said, but I was somewhat furious that so many people, civilians and soldiers died for it. I feel for the parents, husbands, wives, girl and boyfriends of the slain soldiers, and would be furious knowing my child died serving his/her country, not for protecting it, and keeping its citizens out of harm, but for the greed of a few companies and government officials.

 

Glitterati

(3,182 posts)
9. Ummm, yeah, there was a GREAT DEAL of proof offered
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:18 AM
Mar 2014

Starting with tons of documents from the Dick Cheney Energy Commission which have never before been released. Including the list of participants - oil company executives, at the Houston headquarters of KBR.

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
17. ummm what?
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 11:12 AM
Mar 2014

Starting with tons of documents from the Dick Cheney Energy Commission (which have never before been released.) so if this has never been released, who could WE see it

 

Glitterati

(3,182 posts)
18. Again, perhaps you should re-watch
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 11:18 AM
Mar 2014

Because she quotes from these previously unreleased documents EXTENSIVELY. Shows the February 2001 map of the divvied up oil fields on the screen.........

Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if we watched the same show.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
15. Now they are prepared to make the planet
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:44 AM
Mar 2014

a living hell for the populace just so they can make money.

This has got to stop. We need to:

1) Restore progressive tax brackets with a top bracket of 75% on incomes above $1 billion.

2) Institute a tax on all stock/bond transactions of .25%

3) Institute a progressive capital gains tax which encourages buy and hold and discourages speculation. Gains from day trading are taxed at 95%. Gains > 1 day <30 = 90%. Gains > 30 days to 365 = 75%. Gains >1 year to 5 years = 60%. Gains > 5 years to 10 years = 45%. Gains > 10 years to 15 = 30%. Gains > 15 years to 20 = 15%. Gains > 20 years = 5% (This rewards people saving for retirement, penalizes day traders and speculators).

4) Reverse the burden of proof on tax shelters, requiring anyone creating one to prove to the IRS that it does not violate existing law, instead of the current create an illegal shelter, hide it from IRS, then fight it in the courts, then settle at a discount when you threaten to drag the court battle out for years.

5) Remove the cap on income for Social Security taxes.

6) Tax dividend income as ordinary income unless the recipient is disabled, over 65 or the dividends are paid into a retirement account. Qualified dividends are taxed at 5%.

That would balance the budget, fund infrastructure repairs, reline the safety nets and stabilize the economy by greatly reducing speculation.

Mr Dixon

(1,185 posts)
13. IMO
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:26 AM
Mar 2014

Maybe you didn’t learn anything new but believe me when I say the public are morons and this is probably the 1st time they ever considered this information.

IDemo

(16,926 posts)
22. From Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, 2008
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 08:35 PM
Mar 2014
Alan Greenspan: “…Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”


Paul Wolfowitz: “We had virtually no economic options with Iraq,” he explained, “because the country floats on a sea of oil.”


Here’s a recent headline in The New York Times: "Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back."

Read on: "Four western companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power."


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/062708b.html

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
23. That's what I said last night.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 08:37 PM
Mar 2014

I didn't watch, but folks were posting threads about it. I said "didn't we know this already?"


rustydog

(9,186 posts)
24. I was surprised she did not bring up PNAC
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:13 PM
Mar 2014

Their goal before GW took office was to overthrow Iraq and take over the oil.
Cheny, Rumsfeld were original signers

justgamma

(3,666 posts)
30. She really couldn't bring up PNAC.
Sat Mar 8, 2014, 12:25 AM
Mar 2014

The ones who said they couldn't attack Iraq unless we had another Pearl Harbor, were running the country when we had another Pearl Harbor. That would be too tin hattery.

fujiyama

(15,185 posts)
31. Yeah I was a little surprised she didn't bring up PNAC, Wolfy, Perl, and Kristol...
Sat Mar 8, 2014, 01:11 AM
Mar 2014

as well as the other clowns like Bolton and other signatories to it.

But it was only an hour and to Maddow's credit, she mentioned that plans for going into Iraq were made well before 9/11.

vanbean

(990 posts)
27. I'm glad I'm not the only one. She omitted the huge amounts of explosives that were left unwatched
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:45 PM
Mar 2014

so the oil embassy could be guarded. While I am glad she educated some people, I don't think it measured up to the hype, and so I was disappointed. It sure does make you wish we had a real press, one that would have reported these facts at the start of the war.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
26. Plus the fact, she carefully omitted the PNAC connection. I was somewhat
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:21 PM
Mar 2014

disappointed although she did put her facts up pretty much as we discovered them.

SDjack

(1,448 posts)
28. BushCo didn't want to own the Iraqi oil and profit from it. No way !!! BushCo just wanted
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 11:14 PM
Mar 2014

to make sure that Iraq retained state ownership and supplied the world in a responsible way. It looks like BushCo is successful, as the Iraqi state is choosing Chinese companies to exploit and market that crude oil. Hellavajob, "W" and BushCo.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I watched Rachel's "...