War Without End

Guest-98a3 · Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:15 am Post subject: When will we buy oil in euros?

http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,900867,00.html

When will we buy oil in euros?

When it comes to the global oil trade, the dollar reigns supreme. But it has a challenger, writes Faisal Islam

Sunday February 23, 2003
The Observer

Whether the price of oil is surging to new highs, as it is today, or slumping, as is predicted after a war in Iraq, there is one enduring constant: the dollar sign. Oil trading, whether from Norway to the Netherlands, Britain to Bermuda, or Bahrain to Bangladesh, operates through the US greenback. The oil-dollar nexus is one of the foundations of the world economy that inevitably filters through to geopolitics. Recycling so-called petrodollars, the proceeds of these high oil prices, has helped the United States run its colossal trade deficits. But the past year has seen the quiet emergence of the 'petroeuro'. Effectively, the normal standards of economics have not applied to the US, because of the international role of the dollar. Some $3 trillion (£1,880 billion) are in circulation around the world helping the US to run virtually permanent trade deficits. Two-thirds of world trade is dollar-denominated. Two-thirds of central banks' official foreign exchange reserves are also dollar-denominated. Dollarisation of the oil markets is one of the key drivers for this, alongside, in recent years, the performance of the US economy. The majority of countries that require oil imports require dollars to pay for their fuel. Oil exporters similarly hold, as their currency reserve, billions in the currency in which they are paid. Investing these petrodollars straight back into the US economy is possible at zero currency risk. So the US can carry on printing money - effectively IOUs - to fund tax cuts, increased military spending, and consumer spending on imports without fear of inflation or that these loans will be called in. As keeper of the global currency there is always the last-ditch resort to devaluation, which forces other countries' exporters to pay for US economic distress. It's probably the nearest thing to a 'free lunch' in global economics. And for a long time, everything has worked smoothly. The oil industry was born in Texas, and so developed in dollars. The complex web of supply chains, distribution, and futures markets, all run off the central rock that is the US dollar. But now there is the euro. At the time of its launch, various overblown claims were made to its role as 'co-hegemon', sharing the spoils of reserve currency status. The rapid fall in the euro after its launch put paid to such suggestions. But the single currency has since rescued itself, reigniting talk of euro-ised oil. In fact, it's happening already. Iraqi oil, two-thirds of which is being snapped up by US companies, can only be paid for in euros. 'It was a political move on the part of the Iraqi government to show that the euro could be a substitute for the dollar in denominating the oil price,' says Fadhil Chalabi of the Centre for Global Energy Studies. That move was made in the same week that the euro reached its historic low of $0.82 in October 2000. The subsequent 30 per cent rise in the euro has greatly helped the United Nations' oil-for-food programme in Iraq. Soon afterwards, Jordan launched its own bilateral trade scheme with Iraq, carried out entirely in euros. Last year, in a little noticed Opec speech to a Spanish Finance Ministry conference, Javad Yarjani, a senior Iranian oil diplomat, said: 'It is quite possible that as bilateral trade increases between the Middle East and the European Union, it could be feasible to price oil in euros. This would foster further ties between these trading blocs by increasing commercial exchange, and by helping attract much-needed European investment in the Middle East.' Yarjani said the 'critical question is the overall value and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the union adopt the single currency'. The first point is beginning to be answered. The second refers to Britain and Norway. If either joins the single currency, the key Brent benchmark could be redenominated in euros, offering an impetus to movers within Opec. The rising value of the euro makes redenomination in the immediate financial interest of European oil majors such as TotalFinaElf and Shell. Over the past year both companies have seen profits gobbled up by the dollar slump, as their profits are calculated in euros. Opec member countries too would have a strong interest in moving to euros. The eurozone is the biggest importer of oil in the world and 45 per cent of Middle East imports are from Europe. Even US oil majors would benefit from selling their oil in a currency that is increasing in value, say US energy consultants. The Iranian and Russian parliaments have recently discussed adopting the euro for oil sales. Last year Russia entered into negotiations with Germany over the establishment of an exchange to sell oil futures denominated in euros. Russia, which on some measures is the world's Number 1 oil producer at the moment, is awash with petrodollars, but trades mainly with Europe. Russia's foreign exchange holdings recently reached an all-time high of $50bn. At the moment, European consumers are benefiting from the link between oil and the dollar. The euro's surge has, in effect, paid for much of the increase in the price of oil. This, however, is just the flipside of the very high prices in France and Germany in Autumn 2000, which were a combination of a very weak euro and high oil price. US consumers have no such additional worries, as there is no currency risk. So there is a huge list of potential winners from a move to price oil in euros, but movement remains slow. 'At various points in time since the early 1970s, oil producers have discussed this, especially in periods when the dollar has been weak. Opinions have tended to be wide-ranging, depending on the strategic and trade alliances certain members have with particular trade blocs,' said Yarjani. That was an elliptical reference to the overwhelming influence of Saudi Arabia, whose government is the staunchest ally of the US within Opec. 'The Saudis are holding the line on oil prices in Opec and should they, for example, go along with the rest of the Opec people in demanding that oil be priced in euros, that would deal a very heavy blow to the American economy,' Youssef Ibrahim, of the influential US Council on Foreign Relations, told CNN. Last year the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia told a committee of the US Congress: 'One of the major things the Saudis have historically done, in part out of friendship with the United States, is to insist that oil continues to be priced in dollars. Therefore, the US Treasury can print money and buy oil, which is an advantage no other country has. With the emergence of other currencies and with strains in the relationship, I wonder whether there will not again be, as there have been in the past, people in Saudi Arabia who raise the question of why they should be so kind to the United States.' Historically, empires have been exporters of capital, rather than importers like the US. The dollar has been vital to this revolution. At the euro's launch Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, pointed to the possibility that the single currency could weaken the status of the dollar to the extent that it 'could complicate international military relationships'. Feldstein is an outside contender to replace Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. Oil pricing is just the background to a wider issue. The Bank of China and the Russian Central Bank are both rumoured to be waiting for the best moment to increase the holdings of euros. Only 5 per cent of Chinese reserves are held in euros, but more than 20 per cent of its trade is with Europe. Middle Eastern states hold $700bn of US assets, but comparatively little in Europe. So is the euro the missing link between the 'axis of evil' and the 'axis of weasel'? It is greatly appreciated in the former and was invented in the latter. Research by State Street shows that the euro has gained 'safe haven' status since last August as the dollar has lost it. It's likely this shift is a temporary phenomenon. Petroeuros may just change that.

Special reports
Oil and petrol
Global recession
George Bush's America

Useful links
Opec
International Energy Agency
Institute of Petroleum
American Petroleum Institute

Guest-c651

Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro

Faisal Islam, economics correspondent
Sunday February 16, 2003
The Observer

A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the

US dollar - 'the currency of the enemy' - for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time. Almost all of Iraq's oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York. The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars. At the time of the change the UN issued a report saying that the move could cost Iraq up to £270 million. Independent experts questioned the value of buying into a plummeting currency. 'It was seen as economically bad because the entire global oil trade is conducted in dollars,' says Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies. The marked appreciation of the euro, higher interest rates, and the ability to pay mainly European suppliers in euros is believed to have made hundreds of millions for the Iraqi oil-for-food programme. UN officials insist that this benefit helps to pay for humanitarian aid, war reparations, and the cost of weapons inspectors.

Iraq crisis
Special report: the anti-war movement
Special report: Iraq

Observer special reports
Iraq: Observer special
Terrorism crisis: special report
Observer Worldview

Peace protests
16.02.2003: Euan Ferguson reports on a historic peace march
16.02.2003: Mary Riddell: The great unheard finally speak out
Audio: Sarah Left at the peace march
Talk: the peace march
16.02.2003: Glasgow: Clans gather to say No
16.02.2003: Dublin brought to a halt by march
16.02.2003: People power takes to the world's streets
16.02.2003: Baghdad: 'We will fight to the last drop of our blood'
Special report: the anti-war movement

In pictures
Gallery: The peace marches

Iraq crisis news
16.02.2003: Iraqi opposition slams plan for military governor
16.02.2003: US to punish German 'treachery'

Blair's dilemma
16.02.2003: Blair stakes his political future on beating Iraq
16.02.2003: Tony Blair: The price of my conviction
16.02.2003: Andrew Rawnsley: It's do or die, Prime Minister
Comment highlights: best of Andrew Rawnsley

Diplomatic meltdown
16.02.2003: Focus: Worlds apart on war
16.02.2003: Ladies' man who swept UN off its feet
16.02.2003: The war of words between France and the US
16.02.2003: The experts: After Blix, what next?
16.02.2003: What the papers say around the world

Terror crackdown
16.02.2003: Shots in the dark against an unknown enemy
War on Terrorism: Observer special

Observer Comment
16.02.2003: Leader: We must not rule out war
16.02.2003: Anthony Sampson: Why is Britain so committed to this war?
16.02.2003: Nick Cohen: The Left isn't listening
16.02.2003: Dan Plesch: Disarm Saddam without war
16.02.2003: Henry Porter: One US rule for Israel, another for Saddam
16.02.2003: Peter Preston: Ask the press - or the owners

Iraq after Saddam
16.02.2003: Iraqi opposition slams plan for military governor
16.02.2003: Kanan Makiya: Our hopes betrayed
Talk: Iraq's democrats betrayed
09.02.2003: Focus: The Iraq Bush will build
09.02.2003: Robert L Barry: The next Yugoslavia?
02.02.2003: Gil Loescher: Failure to prepare for the refugee crisis

The economics of war
16.02.2003: Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro
16.02.2003: Miserly markets mean a hell of a deficit headache
02.02.2003: War 'would mean biggest oil shock ever'
02.02.2003: What happens when markets go to war?
02.02.2003: Duncan McLaren: What will happen to Iraq's oil?
02.02.2003: Economy: The high price of toppling Saddam
02.02.2003: Vincent Cable: The economic consequences of war

Observer Leader - and your responses
19.01.2003: Leader: Why force may be needed
09.02.2003: Readers' Editor: Considering the editorial line
26.01.2003: Letters: What you say about our stand on Iraq
09.02.2003: Letters: The great war debate
02.02.2003: Peter Preston: Drawing up press battle lines
26.01.2003: More views: international feedback
19.01.2003: Debate: What prominent Britons think
Talk: Where do you stand on Iraq?
Email your views to debate@observer.co.uk

Assessing the evidence
09.02.2003: Jason Burke: Powell doesn't know who he is up against
09.02.2003: Jason Burke: The missing link?
09.02.2003: Focus: First casualties in the propaganda firefight
09.02.2003: Leader: The dossier that shamed Britain

Observer highlights: the broadest debate
09.02.2003: Mary Riddell: With Bible and bombs
02.02.2003: David Aaronovitch: Why the Left is wrong on Saddam
26.01.2003: Andrew Rawnsley: Crunch time at Camp David
26.01.2003: Charles Kennedy: We're being bulldozed into war
26.01.2003: Mary Riddell: Don't disdain the doves
26.01.2003: Terry Jones: I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
05.01.2003: Nick Cohen: Saddam won't run
14.07.2002: John Pilger: The great charade
29.12.2002: Ken Nichols: Back to Iraq as a human shield
22.12.2002: Leader: If it's war, it has to be legitimate
15.09.2002: Jason Burke: Return to Kurdistan
01.09.2002: Dilip Hiro: When US turned a blind eye to poison gas
11.08.2002: Nick Cohen: Who will save Iraq?
04.08.2002: Richard Harries: Not a just war
25.08.2002: Christopher Hitchens: With friends like these
22.09.2002: Terry Jones: The audacious courage of Mr Blair
22.09.2002: Rosemary Hollis: Hawks won't stop with Baghdad
11.08.2002: Mark Leonard: Could the left back war?
17.03.2002: John Lloyd: Anti-Americanism betrays the left
24.02.2002: Andrew Rawnsley: How to deal with the American goliath
17.02.2002: Terry Jones: OK, George, make with the friendly bombs
02.12.2001: David Rose: The doves are wrong - again

Special reports
Iraq: Observer special
Observer Worldview
Afghanistan
Terrorism crisis
Islam and the West

More global commentary
More from Peter Beaumont
More from Jason Burke
More from Ed Vulliamy
More from Mark Leonard
More from Dan Plesch
Worldview highlights: debating American power

Useful links
UNSCOM
UN resolutions on Iraq
British Foreign Office: Relations with Iraq
US State Department Iraq Update
Arab.net - Iraq resources
Campaign against Sanctions on Iraq
Centre for non-proliferation studies

Guest-c651 · Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:26 pm Post subject: When will we buy oil in euros?

http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,900867,00.html

When will we buy oil in euros?

When it comes to the global oil trade, the dollar reigns supreme. But it has a challenger, writes Faisal Islam

Sunday February 23, 2003
The Observer

Whether the price of oil is surging to new highs, as it is today, or slumping, as is predicted after a war in Iraq, there is one enduring constant: the

dollar sign. Oil trading, whether from Norway to the Netherlands, Britain to Bermuda, or Bahrain to Bangladesh, operates through the US greenback. The oil-dollar nexus is one of the foundations of the world economy that inevitably filters through to geopolitics. Recycling so-called petrodollars, the proceeds of these high oil prices, has helped the United States run its colossal trade deficits. But the past year has seen the quiet emergence of the 'petroeuro'. Effectively, the normal standards of economics have not applied to the US, because of the international role of the dollar. Some $3 trillion (£1,880 billion) are in circulation around the world helping the US to run virtually permanent trade deficits. Two-thirds of world trade is dollar-denominated. Two-thirds of central banks' official foreign exchange reserves are also dollar-denominated. Dollarisation of the oil markets is one of the key drivers for this, alongside, in recent years, the performance of the US economy. The majority of countries that require oil imports require dollars to pay for their fuel. Oil exporters similarly hold, as their currency reserve, billions in the currency in which they are paid. Investing these petrodollars straight back into the US economy is possible at zero currency risk. So the US can carry on printing money - effectively IOUs - to fund tax cuts, increased military spending, and consumer spending on imports without fear of inflation or that these loans will be called in. As keeper of the global currency there is always the last-ditch resort to devaluation, which forces other countries' exporters to pay for US economic distress. It's probably the nearest thing to a 'free lunch' in global economics. And for a long time, everything has worked smoothly. The oil industry was born in Texas, and so developed in dollars. The complex web of supply chains, distribution, and futures markets, all run off the central rock that is the US dollar. But now there is the euro. At the time of its launch, various overblown claims were made to its role as 'co-hegemon', sharing the spoils of reserve currency status. The rapid fall in the euro after its launch put paid to such suggestions. But the single currency has since rescued itself, reigniting talk of euro-ised oil. In fact, it's happening already. Iraqi oil, two-thirds of which is being snapped up by US companies, can only be paid for in euros. 'It was a political move on the part of the Iraqi government to show that the euro could be a substitute for the dollar in denominating the oil price,' says Fadhil Chalabi of the Centre for Global Energy Studies. That move was made in the same week that the euro reached its historic low of $0.82 in October 2000. The subsequent 30 per cent rise in the euro has greatly helped the United Nations' oil-for-food programme in Iraq. Soon afterwards, Jordan launched its own bilateral trade scheme with Iraq, carried out entirely in euros. Last year, in a little noticed Opec speech to a Spanish Finance Ministry conference, Javad Yarjani, a senior Iranian oil diplomat, said: 'It is quite possible that as bilateral trade increases between the Middle East and the European Union, it could be feasible to price oil in euros. This would foster further ties between these trading blocs by increasing commercial exchange, and by helping attract much-needed European investment in the Middle East.' Yarjani said the 'critical question is the overall value and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the union adopt the single currency'. The first point is beginning to be answered. The second refers to Britain and Norway. If either joins the single currency, the key Brent benchmark could be redenominated in euros, offering an impetus to movers within Opec. The rising value of the euro makes redenomination in the immediate financial interest of European oil majors such as TotalFinaElf and Shell. Over the past year both companies have seen profits gobbled up by the dollar slump, as their profits are calculated in euros. Opec member countries too would have a strong interest in moving to euros. The eurozone is the biggest importer of oil in the world and 45 per cent of Middle East imports are from Europe. Even US oil majors would benefit from selling their oil in a currency that is increasing in value, say US energy consultants. The Iranian and Russian parliaments have recently discussed adopting the euro for oil sales. Last year Russia entered into negotiations with Germany over the establishment of an exchange to sell oil futures denominated in euros. Russia, which on some measures is the world's Number 1 oil producer at the moment, is awash with petrodollars, but trades mainly with Europe. Russia's foreign exchange holdings recently reached an all-time high of $50bn. At the moment, European consumers are benefiting from the link between oil and the dollar. The euro's surge has, in effect, paid for much of the increase in the price of oil. This, however, is just the flipside of the very high prices in France and Germany in Autumn 2000, which were a combination of a very weak euro and high oil price. US consumers have no such additional worries, as there is no currency risk. So there is a huge list of potential winners from a move to price oil in euros, but movement remains slow. 'At various points in time since the early 1970s, oil producers have discussed this, especially in periods when the dollar has been weak. Opinions have tended to be wide-ranging, depending on the strategic and trade alliances certain members have with particular trade blocs,' said Yarjani. That was an elliptical reference to the overwhelming influence of Saudi Arabia, whose government is the staunchest ally of the US within Opec. 'The Saudis are holding the line on oil prices in Opec and should they, for example, go along with the rest of the Opec people in demanding that oil be priced in euros, that would deal a very heavy blow to the American economy,' Youssef Ibrahim, of the influential US Council on Foreign Relations, told CNN. Last year the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia told a committee of the US Congress: 'One of the major things the Saudis have historically done, in part out of friendship with the United States, is to insist that oil continues to be priced in dollars. Therefore, the US Treasury can print money and buy oil, which is an advantage no other country has. With the emergence of other currencies and with strains in the relationship, I wonder whether there will not again be, as there have been in the past, people in Saudi Arabia who raise the question of why they should be so kind to the United States.' Historically, empires have been exporters of capital, rather than importers like the US. The dollar has been vital to this revolution. At the euro's launch Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, pointed to the possibility that the single currency could weaken the status of the dollar to the extent that it 'could complicate international military relationships'. Feldstein is an outside contender to replace Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. Oil pricing is just the background to a wider issue. The Bank of China and the Russian Central Bank are both rumoured to be waiting for the best moment to increase the holdings of euros. Only 5 per cent of Chinese reserves are held in euros, but more than 20 per cent of its trade is with Europe. Middle Eastern states hold $700bn of US assets, but comparatively little in Europe. So is the euro the missing link between the 'axis of evil' and the 'axis of weasel'? It is greatly appreciated in the former and was invented in the latter. Research by State Street shows that the euro has gained 'safe haven' status since last August as the dollar has lost it. It's likely this shift is a temporary phenomenon. Petroeuros may just change that.

Special reports
Oil and petrol
Global recession
George Bush's America

Useful links
Opec
International Energy Agency
Institute of Petroleum
American Petroleum Institute

Guest-c651 · Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:28 pm Post subject: Euro vs. the US Dollar

Forwarded:

Dear Mr. Clark,

I heard your very interesting interview on KPFK in Los Angeles last night. I forwarded your article (which appears at http://www.mediamontors.net/williamclark1.html) to Tam Dalyell (who is a member of the British Parliament and is mentioned below). You also mentioned that an updated version of your essay also appears at the following URL:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro:

http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,896202,00.html

When will we buy oil in euros?

http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,900867,00.html

Guest-c651

Russert Inter: Kucinich & Perle, 9-11 & Israel in Am Foreign Policy decision
Date: 2/25/03 11:24:00 AM Pacific Standard Time

Russert: needs compliments on bringing up ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm.’ however, HE allowed Perle to escape....Russert needs an email asking for disclosure on the alliance and the role of THINK TANKS IN AMERICAN POLITICS . Russerts email address: mtp@nbc.com

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the president of the United States would risk the lives of American men and women for oil?

REP. KUCINICH: I think that to answer that question would be to put a focus on a person, (SADDAM) and I think the policy is what we have to talk about, that this policy to go against Iraq was promulgated even before 9/11, and the day after 9/11, the secretary of Defense in a meeting of the National Security Council said we could use this moment to go after Iraq, even though there was no connection. I think that when a president commits the young men and women of this country to battle, that it should only be when there is an imminent threat to this country, and that—I believe most sincerely that one of the motivating factors involved in this effort to strike against Iraq is the desire on the part of some to be able to control the oil interests in Iraq. I believe that.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Perle, there’s been discussion about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq. Let me show you an article from The Washington Times, written by Arnold DeBorograf: “The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The destabilization of ‘despotic regimes’ comes next. In the Arab bowling alley, one ball aimed at Saddam is designed to achieve a 10-strike that would discombobulate authoritarian and/or despotic regimes in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Emirates and sheikhdoms. The ultimate phase would see Israel surrounded by democratic regimes that would provide 5 million Israelis—soon to be surrounded by 300 million Arabs—with peace and security for at least a generation. ...The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. the document was titled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm.’ ...Israel, according to the 1996 paper, would ‘shape its strategic environment,’ beginning with the
removal of Saddam Hussein... ...Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint.”
Can you assure American viewers across our country that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?
MR. PERLE: Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam doesn’t disarm—and I doubt that he’s going to—believe it’s in the best interests of the United States. I don’t see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we’d live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.
(NOTE: Perle, twists on the topic concerning the links to Israel, THAN dilutes the subject to an attack on the oil question) & Russert let it slide.

But please allow me to say: I find the accusation that this administration has embarked upon this policy for oil to be an outrageous, scurrilous charge for which, when you asked for the evidence, you will note there was none. There was simply the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me...
REP. KUCINICH: I want to answer that. And that is that I think all over America, people are aware this administration has not made a case to go to war in Iraq. And people are asking, “Well, if America is not at threat, then what’s this about?” And many people are wondering: “How did our oil get under their sand?”
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Perle, Wesley Clark, the former NATO allied commander, was on this program last week and he said this is not a necessary war, it’s an elective war. And then he went on to talk about some of the things the president has to say and do in the coming weeks. Will the president, should the president, talk to the American people about what will happen inside Iraq if there is a war, with the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds? Will it come apart? What will happen in the Arab streets, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia? What will happen in Pakistan? What happens if Saddam Hussein launches a chemical weapon at Israel? What do the Israelis do? What will be the costs, the consequences, the fallout? How long will we be there? How expensive will it be? Will we be perceived as conquerors or liberators? When do you think the president should take the American people through this in an orderly and thoughtful way?
MR. PERLE: Well, I think he’s done it in bits and pieces up until now. I’m sure there’ll be a more comprehensive presentation, if it comes to war, on the eve of that war. Nobody can say precisely what’s going to happen in the turbulence of a war, but there is a positive vision. Wes Clark is besieged by doubts and questions. He is after—running for president, so—but let me say that the positive view is that the liberation of Iraq will free the Iraqi people from what has been a nightmare and we will hear from the Iraqi people once they are liberated about what life has been like. We will also find the weapons of
mass destruction when Iraq has been liberated, so that has the potential significantly to change the climate.
MR. RUSSERT: And you’re convinced we will find Saddam Hussein?
MR. PERLE: Well, I don’t know whether we’ll find Saddam, but if Saddam is separated from his police state, he’s of no consequence. I believe that there is a very good chance that in the aftermath of Saddam’s removal, we will see the beginnings of a democratic Iraq, and that has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential for democracy.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman, same question, do you believe the president should come forward and talk about the risks, the consequences, the challenges of a war with Iraq and the costs and how long we’ll be there?
REP. KUCINICH: Well, I think it’s important that he do so. When you had his former economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, stating a war could cost $200 billion, when you have Professor Nordhouse, a Yale economist, saying the cost could be anywhere from $99 billion to over a trillion dollars, I think it’s important for the president to explain how he intends to meet the domestic needs of this country, for education, for health care, for repair of our infrastructure and at the same time conduct a war. I think people are going to want to know, how can we give Turkey $26 billion to buy a vote and their support
when we can’t meet our domestic needs?
This war will have a devastating effect on our domestic economy. It will cost us jobs; it won’t gain jobs. It will hurt our ability to meet the needs of our country, and I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to tell the American people, especially since it cannot be demonstrated that Iraq represents an imminent threat to this country, why we should be willing to sacrifice not only our men and women, the treasure of our nation, but also our national economic priorities to go to war against Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: As you well know, you announced you’re running for the Democratic presidential nomination this week, and you made an announcement that caused a lot of eyebrows to be raised about abortion. You’ve been pro-life your entire career, over a 90 percent approval rating from the National Right to Life Committee, a 0 from NARL, the National Abortion Rights League, and then suddenly you announce for president and turned on a dime and said, “I’m pro-choice on this issue.” This is what the National Right to Life Committee had to say: “On February 16, 2003 Mr. Kucinich announced he would
henceforth protect ‘abortion rights.’ Clearly, Dennis Kucinich has abandoned the ‘little guy’—and the ‘little girl’—out of fear of the influence of extreme pro-abortion special interest groups in the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination process.”
( complete interview provided on the link)

-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Perle says Bush Regime allowed 9.11 to happen!
Date: 2/24/03 9:39:04 PM Pacific Standard Time

Perle Says Bush Regime was Criminally Negligent in Permitting 9-11 Attack to Occur

This was an astonishing exchange on Meet the Press:

"RICHARD PERLE: The lesson of September 11 was that you shouldn't have been voting on September 12 because we should have acted against al-Qaeda before that. We saw the camps. We heard the communications. We knew that they were planning additional acts of terror as they had undertaken previous acts of terror. And we waited. We failed to take action in a timely manner...

REP. KUCINICH: Are you saying that to be critical of President Bush? Is that what you're saying?

MR. PERLE: I'm critical of the failure to recognize the threat that Osama bin Laden posed before - everything we did after September 11 could have been done before September 11."

Perle's argument is conclusive proof that the Bush administration - in which he plays a key role - was CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in failing to take action to prevent the 9-11 attack. It's time for the families of the 9-11 victims to consider a negligence lawsuit against George W. Bush.

for transcript:

Transcript for Feb. 23

Guest-c651

Subject: Iraqis Will Not Be Pawns in Bush & Blair's War Game

The Guardian (UK)February 20, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk

Comment

Iraqis will not be pawns in Bush and Blair's war game An American attack on my country would bring disaster, not liberation

By Kamil Mahdi

Having failed to convince the British people that war is justified, Tony
Blair is now invoking the suffering of the Iraqi people to justify bombing
them. He tells us there will be innocent civilian casualties, but that
more will die if he and Bush do not go to war. Which dossier is he reading
from? The present Iraqi regime's repressive practices have long been known, andits worst excesses took place 12 years ago, under the gaze of GeneralColin Powell's troops; 15 years ago, when Saddam was an Anglo-Americanally; and almost 30 years ago, when Henry Kissinger cynically used Kurdishnationalism to further US power in the region at the expense of bothKurdish and Iraqi democratic aspirations. Killing and torture in Iraq is not random, but has long been directlylinked to politics - and international politics at that. Some of the
gravest political repression was in 1978-80, at the time of the Iranianrevolution and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. But the Iraqi people'sgreatest suffering has been during periods of war and under the sanctions
of the 1990s. There are political issues that require political solutionsand a war under any pretext is not what Iraqis need or want. In government comment about Iraq, the Iraqi people are treated as acollection of hapless victims without hope or dignity. At best, Iraqis aresaid to have parochial allegiances that render them incapable of political
action without tutelage. This is utterly at variance with the history andreality of Iraq. Iraqis are proud of their diversity, the intricacies oftheir society and its deeply rooted urban culture. Their turbulent recent history is not something that simply happened toIraqis, but one in which they have been actors. Iraqis have a rich modernpolitical tradition borne out of their struggle for independence from
Britain and for political and social emancipation. A major explanationfor the violence of recent Iraqi political history lies in thedetermination of people to challenge tyranny and bring about politicalchange. Iraqis have not gone like lambs to the slaughter, but have fought
political battles in which they suffered grievously. To assert that an
American invasion is the only way to bring about political change in Iraqmight suit Blair's propaganda fightback, but it is ignorant anddisingenuous. It is now the vogue to talk down Iraqi politics under Saddam Hussain asnothing but the whim of a dictator. The fact is that leaders cannot killpolitics in the minds of people, nor can they crush their aspirations. The massacres of leftists when the Ba'athists first came to power in 1963
did not prevent the emergence of a new mass movement in the mid-1960s. Thesecond Ba'ath regime attempted to buy time from the Kurdish movement in
1970 only to trigger a united mobilisation of Kurdish nationalism. Saddamco-opted the Communist party in the early 1970s only to see that party'sorganisation grow under a very narrow margin of legality before he movedagainst it. In the 1970s, the regime tried to control private economicactivity by extending the state to every corner of the economy, only toface an explosion of small business activity. The regime's strict secularism produced a clerical opposition with a massfollowing. When the regime pressurised Iraqis to join the Ba'ath party,independent opinion emerged within that party and Saddam found itnecessary to crush it and destroy the party in the process. In the 1980s,the army was beginning to emerge as a threat, and the 1991 uprising showed
the extent of discontent. In the 1990s, Saddam fostered the religiousleadership of Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, only to see the latteremerge as a focal point for opposition. Even within Saddam's family andclose circle, there has been opposition. Of course Saddam Hussain crushed all these challenges, but in every casethe regional and international environment has supported the dictatoragainst the people of Iraq. It is cynical and deceitful of Tony Blair topretend that he understands Iraqi politics and has a meaningful programmefor the country. Iraq's history is one of popular struggle and also of
imperial greed, superpower rivalries and regional conflict. To reduce thewhole of Iraqi politics and social life to the whims of Saddam Hussain isbanal and insulting. Over the past 12 years of vicious economic blockade, the US and Britainhave ignored the political situation inside Iraq and concentrated onweapons as a justification for their policy of containment. UN resolution688 of April 1991, calling for an end to repression and an open dialogueto ensure Iraqi human and political rights, was set aside or used only forpropaganda and to justify the no-fly zones. Instead of generating a real political dynamic backed by internationalstrength and moral authority, Iraqis were prevented from reconstructingtheir devastated country. Generations of Iraqis will continue to pay theprice of the policy of sanctions and containment, designed for an oil glutperiod in the international market. Now that the US has a new policy, it intends to implement it rapidly andwith all its military might. Despite what Blair claims, this has nothingto do with the interests and rights of the Iraqi people. The regime inIraq is not invincible, but the objective of the US is to have regimechange without the people of Iraq. The use of Iraqi auxiliaries isdesigned to minimise US and British casualties, and the result may behigher Iraqi casualties and prolonged conflict with predictably disastroushumanitarian consequences. The Bush administration has enlisted a number of Iraqi exiles to providean excuse for invasion and a political cover for the control of Iraq.People like Ahmad Chalabi and Kanan Makiya have little credibility amongIraqis and they have a career interest in a US invasion. At the same time,the main forces of Kurdish nationalism, by disengaging from Iraqi politicsand engaging in internecine conflict, have become highly dependent upon USprotection and are not in a position to object to a US military onslaught.The US may enlist domestic and regional partners with varying degrees ofpressure. This in no way bestows legitimacy on its objectives and methods, and itspolicies are rejected by most Iraqis and others in the region. Indeed, themain historical opposition to the Ba'ath regime - including variousstrands of the left, the Arab nationalist parties, the Communist party,the Islamic Da'wa party, the Islamic party (the Muslim Brotherhood) andothers - has rejected war and US patronage over Iraqi politics. Theprevalent Iraqi opinion is that a US attack on Iraq would be a disaster,not a liberation, and Blair's belated concern for Iraqis is unwelcome. · Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi political exile and lecturer in Middle Easteconomics at the University of Exeter

Cowboy · Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 9:19 pm Post subject:

Saddam is in violation of 687, 1441 and the terms of the Gulf War cease fire.

Saddam WILL be disarmed under UN resolution. Soon.

Post away. It will not keep Saddam from being disarmed.

Vera we need you · Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 2:39 pm Post subject:

If the peace march failed to convince you war is wrong, then maybe this will. Put yourself in the mind of a British serviceman heading for the Gulf and focus on the horrendous sight that is bound to confront him once the fighting starts. Dredge up the one truly ugly face of modern warfare he'll be unable to avoid. And if you still believe it is right to inflict Jim Davidson on him I hope you can live with your conscience.

Guest-c651 · Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 11:19 am Post subject:

Guest-43f8 · Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:22 pm Post subject:

Palaces WERE NOT free

$25,000 murder bounties WERE NOT free

Weapons systems WERE NOT free

Saddam DID shut off Iraqi oil, shutting off oil-for-food money

Billions of dollars worth of oil WERE smuggled

Illegal surcharges WERE applied

Oil-for-food babyfood WAS exported by Iraq

Saddam DID kill the Iraqis. But it will be stopped. Soon. When 687 and 1441 are enforced.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq - page 3