After Denying ‘Involvement’ In Iraq’s No-Bid Oil Contracts, U.S. Revealed To Be ‘Integral’ To Deals
After Denying ‘Involvement’ In Iraq’s No-Bid Oil Contracts, U.S. Revealed To Be ‘Integral’ To Deals
Nearly two weeks ago, the New York Times’ Andrew Kramer reported that four Western oil companies — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP — were in the final stages of “talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields.” The Times wrote at the time that it was “not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts,” but noted that “there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.”
Last week, after Senate Democrats wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requesting that she try to block the oil deals, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino claimed the U.S. had no involvement in the deals:
“Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
“And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that’s for them and the Iraqis to decide,” Perino added. “But I don’t think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved.”
State Department spokesman Tom Casey was more more explicit in his comments, saying that “the United States has had no involvement” in the deals, and thus couldn’t be expected to “block the Iraqi government from contracting in the way it sees fit.”
But, according to a follow-up Times article published today, the State Department actually “played an integral part” in the deals:
A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say. [...]
In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said.
Frederick D. Barton, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Times that “citing issues like sovereignty, when we have our hands right in the middle of it” undermines the U.S.’s credibility.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
46 Responses to “After Denying ‘Involvement’ In Iraq’s No-Bid Oil Contracts, U.S. Revealed To Be ‘Integral’ To Deals”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This election will define who we are as a people for the next 20 years.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pmWell Duh... OperationIraqiLiberation (OIL)...
June 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pmCHENEY'S SECRET MEETINGS ON IRAQ OIL FIELDS
June 30th, 2008 at 12:22 pmCondoleeza Rice is up to her elbows in blood and oil.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pmHopefully someone will confront Perino & Casey with this. Time to stop lying.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pmIn other words, BushCo is saying: "Cheney you, it's OUR oil! so STFU!"
June 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pmAnd if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business....
As usual, Barbie Perino is a little unclear on the concept. How is a "no bid" contract considered "competing"?
Of course the US had a hand in the contracts. They can't get the Iraqi government to agree to turning over 70% of their profits to our oil companies for 30 years so they negotiated this small contract to get their foot in the door. It's going to be interesting to see what Obama does about this mess.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pmHowinhell did our oil wind up under everybody else's sand?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pmWhen Baghdad fell, the army guarded one building. Not the bank, nor any of the museums filled with priceless antiquities. Nope under someones orders they guarded the empty Oil Industry. Like all the other lies about this adventure, it was always about the oil.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pmLying again, Dana? I guess honesty wasn't your strong suit, either.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pmKinda sounds like what lobbyists do, doesn't it?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pmZivnuska Says:
This election will define who we are as a people for the next 20 years.
Amen, we have the choice between continuing to be the biggest bullies on the planet or going back to being a team player. I vote for the team player concept.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:39 pmBut, why is the U.S. fronting for three foreign oil companies...French Total, Dutch Shell, and British BP?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pmMore lies from the Bushits.
W is handing out compliments like lollipops to McCain & Graham on a bill they clearly didn't support.
Dana Peroxide is consistently clueless on most everything, other than the lies she's handed in print to parrot like a good bird.
I remember a time when President's didn't lie, and it wasn't that long ago.
Why do 1% of Americans control what we hear?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pmPerino's statement is very telling about the admin's overall view of Iraq:
“Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino."
You can see, Iraq is not a country of people, which would have been reflect in the use of the wors "they or their" but rather "it or its". The Iraqis are simply the inconvenient things in the way of it, and it would be OIL
PEACE
June 30th, 2008 at 12:45 pmThe audacity of mendacity, simply Bush. His minions never cease to amaze me.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pmLast week, after Senate Democrats wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requesting that she try to block the oil deals, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino claimed the U.S. had no involvement in the deals:
Even if it could happen, who's to blame for the stupid dems letter being denied.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:51 pmLies from the start of the War and Occupation of Iraq. Hallmarks of this administration, Lies, Deceit, Greed, Arrogance and Total Incompetence. Why should the American People expect this Administration to all of a sudden start telling the truth about oil? The lies will continue until there is a change in the Whitehouse.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pmYou've got no-bid fascism! Iraq used to be a sovereign country, until Bush and Cheney illegally and criminally occupied it in 2003. Three-hundred thousand foreign occupiers from the USofA.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:55 pmImagine if China invaded and occupied the USofA with three million armed Chinese troops, overthrew our government, set up dozens of military bases, set up a puppet government and held "elections," and then created some no-bid oil service contracts with Chinese oil companies? Would we be fighting tooth and nail to get the foreign occupiers out of our country? I guess that the Chinese occupiers would be calling us "terrorists" and "Al-Christo-fascists..."
Americans are being treated like children by the Bushits.
'Do as we say, not as we Do', should be the Bush mantra.
It's like they don't think we can handle the truth, but they miss the point entirely. Americans have always been up to tough challenges. Bushits know we would object to invading for oil, spying on our own citizens, no bid contracts, increased corporate subsidies, offshore 'no tax' shelters, torture ad nauseum. Therefore, they choose to lie to us. Deliberately.
If the stock market crashes and corporations really need Federal law enforcement protection Martial Law is feasible.
It would also solve their little problem of McSame losing an election, now, wouldn't it?
I really, really hate being lied to.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:57 pmObamaFan Says:
What ever happend to TheRight? Does he not post any longer? He had some interesting things to say.
No he didn't. Just another right wing sock puppet. Kind of like, well, you.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pmBecause the President and Vice President are oilmen. Their loyalty is not to the United States, but to Their People.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:01 pmSame reason they're loyal to the interests of corporations based in the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. Itdoesn't matter: they're Their People.
Zimzone Says:
But, but, but Bushie was going to restore "honor" and "integrity" to the White House, remember? Another one for the "uniter, not a divider" and "not a nation builder" and "going to ride herd on the ME peace process" file, I guess.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:02 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Amen, we have the choice between continuing to be the biggest bullies on the planet or going back to being a team player. I vote for the team player concept.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Recommend (2) | Report Abuse
I prefer a better team player than the one before Bush. Remember, the USA didn't sign Kyoto nor the International Court, and has voted a lot of things togheter with Israel and no one else in the UN...
June 30th, 2008 at 1:05 pmOr vetoed, best said.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:05 pmBut, why is the U.S. fronting for three foreign oil companies…French Total, Dutch Shell, and British BP?
Or Exxon/Mobil for that matter? These companies are actually transnational in their interests and organization.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pmgee, the administration lies again. wow. wonder what Congress will do now. as addington pointed out, all executive power resides in the President, so I guess the President lied. whoppee. let's add it to that long list of lies and half truths.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pmpbg Says:
But, why is the U.S. fronting for three foreign oil companies…French Total, Dutch Shell, and British BP?
Because the President and Vice President are oilmen. Their loyalty is not to the United States, but to Their People.
Same reason they’re loyal to the interests of corporations based in the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. Itdoesn’t matter: they’re Their People.
Exactly. There is no such thing as an American oil company. They are all multi-national corporations. The invasion of Iraq was all about making sure that Iraq's oil fields did not remain nationalized, as they were under Saddam. The Bush administration is doing everything they can to give over control of Iraq's oil fields to the multi-national oil corporations.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pmAt least only the cowards believe them nowadays.
REAL Americans know better.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:20 pmI posted this in the open thread, but after reading about the State Department being involved with these oil deals earlier today, I think it's okay to post it again on this thread.
I grew very suspicious when I read the artile in the link.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pmartile=article. Sorry people.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:24 pmso, what exactly is the democratic party's response to flat out lying by the Press Secretary for the POTUS? I mean, if all Presidential power resides in the President, then shouldn't the President know what is going on and be bound (by say honor, ethics, a sense of responsibility, the law) to tell the American People - his darn boss after all - the truth about such weighty matters?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:25 pm“Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
Oh Dana, you are so cute when you are stupid! You're stupid all the time, so you're cute all the time! That's so-o cute! And stooopid!
June 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pmHow many exposed lies from this administration will it take to wake up the most close minded conservative? Our military was used to benefit oil companies that are sucking the life out of Americans. So, kill our kids and bleed us economically for your profit. Is this what America is about ?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pmThis also comes after we were told, time and again, that suggesting oil had anything to do whatsoever with the invasion was unAmerican, and could hurt the troops' morale.
Well, there you have it: Reality does have a liberal bias...
June 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pm“Iraq is a sovereign country,
Since when is "sovereign" a synonym of "occupied".
June 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pmIt has always been about the oil. Always.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pmAnd now bushie wants Iran...and our representatives just keep handing him the money. The sheeple believe bush is keeping the axis of evil away while the axis of evil is right here in the White House.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm“citing issues like sovereignty, when we have our hands right in the middle of it” undermines the U.S.’s credibility.
Yeah, well, just add that to the list of a thousand and one other things that BushCo has done to undermine the U.S.'s credibility.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pmThe worse, and so far most least mentioned, part of this story is that the State Dept worked hand in hand with a consulting group called Tatweer (arabic for "development"), a Washington consulting group that is teeming with oil lobbyists:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/todays_must_read_359.php
Fess up Dana, the US Gov't is INDEED integrally involved in lobbying for the oil companies.
p.s.-Tatweer is also the organization behind the Iraq skateboard/theme park if I'm not mistaken
Lobbying for Iraqi oil goes back at least as far as back as May 2003. Remember Paul Bremer?
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:d6SkOGfP4h8J:www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/0714confidential.htm+paul+bremer+oil+lobbyists+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
June 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pmPerhaps Iraq is just thinking ahead. (Something the US is currently unable to do.) Perhaps their plans are to let the Oil Companies develop their oil fields for them before they nationalize them. Besides, Oil Company Contracts are made to be broken, just like US law.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pmMore lies. And this is going to hurt the administration's credibility? What credibility? Something needs to be done to stop this.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:52 pmAs Gomer Pyle would say, "Well surprise, surprise, surprise."
Now as the US was involved, why did they deny it ? What would they want to hide ?
June 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pmJus sayin, if it looks like a morally bankrupt duck and walks like....
June 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pmHow long are "we" to continue this us vs them excuse? Like it or not Bush is "our" president, the crimes, against our Constitution, civil rights, the people of Iraq, the economy, etc are the result of all our actions & inactions. We allowed our government cabal to prostitute us for the pimps of the real power. Shakespear's "Whether this nobler in the mind to suffer the slings & arrows of outraged fortune or to take up arms against them.." is trully the question. How do we as a people answer it?
July 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pmNovember's election could be the answer, or only another fasade which the fearfull will accept no matter the out come. (Remember 2000!)
So many are focused not on the National level but their own immediate reality & prosperity that it's OK just as it is. That's until they like the factory workers, farmers, computer techs, etc are layed off, homeless, incarcerated, what ever. But then it'll be to late. No we don't torture, kidnap, destory, invalidate lifetimes of sacrifice, not Americans.
Again, we are participants in all the evils done in our name, we did it, we do it , we can stop it. In every thing we do, say, and allow. Responsibility of each of us must shift to a longer, broader vision of what the we should aspire to, not what the I can accumulate. Real democracy & freedom is a helicious ride, why settle for less? Vote, protest, take action, demand the elected do their job, pay attention of how they do it, it never ends. Never give up hope, never give them that power!
I agree with Yesca_Again, we have put ourselves in this position by our votes. However, there's one point that everyone ALWAYS seems to forget. The President's power is quite limited. The president only has the power to hold war for 60 days. After that, he must be endorsed by Congress. Also, Congress is the bill-providing body, not the president. To continue this point, money spending must go through the bill-to-law process, meaning all our money spending is caused by congress' wishes, though the president gets to choose whether he endorses congress' wishes. Go back to high school and learn about political process again, please.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pmIn conclusion, it's not just the president we need to focus on, but our Congressional candidates as well, if not more.
Reasonably yours,
Biashawk