President George W. Bush, in 2003, told the world of an Iraqi threat to world peace. President Bush then set out to solve the “peace” problem with the war tool.
President Bush explained, in part, his concern about Iraq by saying what became known as “16 words” The 16 words linked Niger and Iraq via a uranium connection. The truth of that uranium connection could not be proved. Was Mr. Bush lying?
FactCheck.ORG came up with an interesting response to the statement associating those 16 words with lying. FactCheck.ORG said:
Bush’s “16 Words” on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying
… But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that’s not the same as lying. …
So, if you believe you are telling the truth – you are not lying?
Since the Bush team’s reason for the Iraq war did not quite “square” with the world’s common sense and investigative powers, America asked its neocon administration if OIL was the basis for the neocons’ war on Iraq?
The neocons’ Secretary of Defense suggested something akin to “perish the thought”. The neocons’ Secretary of Defense suggested that America had no designs on Iraq oil.
Iraqi Oil Law
Not long after Iraq’s oil well fires were extinguished the winners and the losers sat down at a table to create an Iraq Hydrocarbon Law. The idea of “to the winner go the spoils” was not violated. The website at: priceofoil.org had this to say:
The Bush/Cheney administration is prioritizing the passage of an Iraqi oil law before it leaves office. This renewed push began with Dick Cheney’s visit to Iraq in March 2008 and the next six months will be key to the future of Iraq’s oil. In the mean time, the Iraqi government plans to sign service contracts for development of the largest oilfields. The first six were due to be signed on June 30 with Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total and four smaller companies, but were not for reasons that are not immediately apparent. …
http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law/
Were all the Iraqi war starters well represented at the Hydrocarbon Law decision-making table? What does the below sound like?
Australia ‘has Iraq oil interest’
BBC NEWS
5 July 2007
Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq.
He said maintaining “resource security” in the Middle East was a priority.
But PM John Howard has played down the comments, saying it was “stretching it a bit” to conclude that Australia’s Iraq involvement was motivated by oil.
The remarks are causing heated debate as the US-led Iraq coalition has avoided linking the war and oil. …
Australia was a major player in the attack on Iraq.
Tags: 16 words, attack on iraq, Bush team, factcheck.org, if you believe you are telling the truth you are not lying?, peace problem, war tool
