Does Al Gore know the real reason bush invaded Iraq?

I'm currently reading Al Gore's remarkable book The Assault on Reason. I chose to read the book to try to learn whether Al Gore "gets it."

And, exactly what is IT? IT is an understanding that we are no longer a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Those who propose all their cute little programs but fail to tackle the real power structure head on, are bullshitting all of us. This is not to say some of the ideas and programs proposed by various candidates don't have merit; some do. But, it is to say that they will never change the underlying power structure to take power away from the profit seekers and return real power to you and me. Without a major shift in who holds power, any progress on any issue is ultimately illusory or, at best, transitory. That which is given will just as readily be taken away. Who'da thunk we could see the repeal of habeas corpus or see Democrat-sanctioned wiretapping without a court authorization? Ben Franklin and Jefferson and Madison aren't just rolling over in their graves, they might just dig their way out to give both parties the thumps on the head they deserve.

Anyway, ask yourself this: Who among the leading candidates has been willing to speak truthfully about the role oil has played in the decision to invade Iraq? Who among the leading candidates has been willing to explicitly address the heinous Oil Law that will cast the Iraqi people into generations of poverty if it passes? Here's what Mr. Gore wrote about the role of oil in Iraq:



Gore dares to actually name the oil companies who would benefit from the US-imposed oil law. He understands the role that the IMF (and the World Bank formerly under Wolfowitz) would play in pressuring Iraq to yield to US-backed corporate demands. Unlike almost every Democratic Senator and candidate, Gore has told the truth on this most critical issue. It seems clear to me that Gore "gets it" on Iraq; as for most of the others, not so much. The others, including most of the "leading" candidates, either get it and won't tell the American people the truth or they actually don't get it. Neither possibility is very pleasant.

"oil sharing bill" is mostly about the oil being shared by the Iraqis - fair and square among Sunnis, Shias, Kurds...

I know that makes them seem awfully dumb - but that is how the corporate media covers the issue...

however I've believed that ever since his days in Congress, when he championed the Internet, there by empowering the American People. I believed it when he wrote his best seller "Earth In The Balance" warning us against the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change.

It's so frustrating because, he's so brilliant and has such vision and dedication to the American People and our Constitution, only to have the corporate media deny his many talented services to the American People. We desperately needed and still need his leadership and they foist Bush on us!

Petrodollars! Oil for Euros is Evil!

Not only is that oil worth 15 trillion now...the longer it takes to get out of the ground, the greater the artificial shortage here.

Also, permanent bases and 2-6 countries we can use as staging areas.

They weren't kidding when they said "Iraq is the prize"

Sure, oil matters, and it was the one thing that we bothered to guard when things went to shit. But Bush had a hardon for Iraq regardless of the oil, and so did a lot of the PNAC crowd.

Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait, had there not been a dispute over the oil fields. We wouldn't have fought the first Gulf War, had Saddam not invaded Kuwait thus threatening the world's oil supplies. The PNAC crowd wouldn't care one way or the other with out oil as a consideration. What would they fight for without oil as an enticement, sand?

Many of the neocons (and neolibs) hold the mistaken view that somehow the security situation of our ally Israel was improved by our invasion of Iraq - or would be improved by bombing Iran. Again, hard to believe they could be so dumb, but that's the conventional wisdom of the media and our Congress.

if they didn't have all that oil to enable them to purchase weapons and build armies. We are subsidizing them by our oil addiction. We're basically waging a war against our selves.

While I agree, that many neocons and maybe some neolibs believe this is a form of protecting Israel, I don't believe their argument would have carried the day without oil. Oil was going to pay for this war.

but look how hard the Israelis have been pushing on the Iran Nuke issue. By all accounts AIPAC kept the "consult congress before you bomb Iran" language out of the last war funding bill.

Greg Palast actually believes the invasion was supported by both the pro-Israel crowd and the Big Oil crowd (of course they sometimes overlap), and that the factions have been flipping back and forth in control since then. Garner vs Bremer, Baker et al vs Neocons, etc.. (see Armed Madhouse). It may not be 50/50 but both are major factors, IMO.

edit: spelling

We didn't give a single rat's ass about the invasion--even gave Saddam pretty much written permission to go to war with Kuwait via our ambassador--UNTIL the Kuwaiti diplomatic mission to the US and their Swiss bank accounts went to work. Remember the congressional testimony of the nurse who claimed that Iraqi troops were dumping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, so that they could take the hardware back to Iraq? That was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. The idea of oil control and stabilization, in my opinion, was another bit of window dressing. Saddam would have pumped the oil, the Kuwaitis would have pumped the oil, but the Kuwaitis were already business partners of some important companies and politicians, and they had a lot of money to burn.

Gore did not say it was "just about oil". I agree with the main point you raised. There were competing interest groups in the WH. One was PNAC; the other was Big Oil. Absent the oil boys, though, I doubt PNAC would have carried adequate influence to direct the policy. That's just my opinion, of course.

advocates

.... while Gore gets it and is willing to say so, he is not alone in the getting it part.

Every one of them in DC also 'gets it'. And they like what they get. Or they don't give a shit. Or they don't understand it. Or any other of several reasons for them to keep silent. But the fact is, they all 'get it.'

but I do.:-(

if they know and are silent, and I agree completely that they do know, means that they are complicit. what the US is trying to impose on Iraq, ostensibly with the full support of most Democratic Senators and Reps, is an international crime. it's unconscionable. if those who sin by their silence are nominated, I will not support them and I will not vote for them.

until more Americans understand that corporatism deprives them of their futures, and many do understand, nothing will change. our job is to educate. to speak of tipping the balance of power by choosing between corporate right and corporate left fails to understand the forces that are plotting against us.

There was a discussion of the necessity of finding a way that the National Guard could be used to turn on the citizenry.

I think that one of the main reasons for the continuing of tour after tour of duty is that they want to de-moralize these young men and women to the point that when they are needed to round us up, they will do so.

On various blogs, I already can read responses from those in the field that indicate that they view the world as people being "with them - or against them" and by that they mean that if you don't support the necessity of eternal and unwavering USA-led aggression, then the solution would be to do you in.

from the military turning on the American People as it is, the professional privatized mercenaries, Bush/Cheney are promoting. Should the military and the National Guard be over extended, exhausted and for the most part out of the country, I believe the mercenaries could be in a prime position to take advantage of the situation.

The military have swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the President, against all enemies foreign and domestic, the only oath, I'm aware of that the mercenaries swear to, is the almighty dollar. I could see under the worst circumstances, the mercenaries turning on the military, either openly or subtly, if encouraged to do so by a corrupt President; who wished to become a dictator. I believe they would certainly turn on the American People, if told to do so.

And many of them are service guys who opted out of the military in order to get paid the bigger Bucks

The good news is, 4000 troops won't even begin to marshall 300 million people.

Very disappointing. I am finally going to email him about it. Would be great if he got a ton of emails asking for him to do the story.

http://antonia.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=365

Ministry of Oil

"Don't destory the oil wells." paraphrased

We certainly did "shock and awe" the Iraqi people. How could they not be shocked and awed by what we've done to their country and their lives?

I'm pleasantly surprised by his honesty and the boldness of his arguments in Assault.

I liked his efforts on global warming but still worried he was entrenched in establishment power. I agreed to read his book to seek answers to the questions I had. The questions, really just one question, was very simple:

Does Gore acknowledge the undemocratic imbalance money has caused in our democratic processes?

It didn't take long to find my answer. That's what the whole book is about. Unlike the "leading" presidential candidates, Gore doesn't duck the issues of democracy. He talks in clear, candid terms about the poisoning influence of money on the balance of power. He talks about the loss of the Founders' vision. He talks about the loss of a "national dialog." He clearly states that we invaded Iraq, at least in part, for Big Oil.

you said it perfectly, closeupready: "the honesty and boldness of his arguments."

:hi: