JUDICIAL WATCH, July 17,2003

WMDs were always bull**** and every top official in the Bush White
House knew it, apart from Colin Powell, who was duped by Bush and
Cheney. There was another reason for going in. Maybe several reasons
but the most attractive was the oil and what it would mean for
stablizing the world economy and ensuring that the American economic
recovery from the tech bubble failure.

Our dependence on oil-based products and the spiking prices of barrel
oil and gasoline meant the American economy would be under pressure
until we found a way to get the supplies we needed.

Cheney's task force included plans to take over Iraqi oil fields. That
Saddam was a piece of **** dictator was never in dispute but the fact
that the weapons inspectors were never allowed to complete their
mission told of something else going on. They had other plans,
reasons for invading.

Oil was always the objective.


Title: Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi
Oilfields
Author: Judicial Watch staff

FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, January 2004
Title: “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy:Procuring the Rest of the World’s
Oil”
Author: Michael Klare

Faculty Evaluators: James Carr, Ph.D., Alexandra Von Meier, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Cassie Cypher, Shannon Arthur

Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department
as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney
Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines,
refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil
and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”
The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian
and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker
terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil
and gas development projects in each country that provide information
on the project’s costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion
date.

Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11
confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the
dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch
President, Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the
Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the
public.”

When first assuming office in early 2001, President Bush’s top foreign
policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of
weapons of mass destruction-or any of the other goals he espoused
later that year following 9-11. Rather, it was to increase the flow of
petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before
he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and
natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with
periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil
imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time
in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the
country’s long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the
nation’s “energy crisis” was his most important task as president.

The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force
charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy
requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign
contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick
Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task
Force formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report,
bypassing possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil
consumption with a declaration of ambitions to establish new sources
of oil.

The Bush Administration’s struggle to keep secret the workings of
Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been ongoing since early in the
President’s tenure. The General Accounting Office, the investigative
arm of Congress, requested information in spring of 2001 about which
industry executives and lobbyists the Task Force was meeting with in
developing the Bush Administration’s energy plan. When Cheney refused
disclosure, Congress was pressed to sue for the right to examine Task
Force records, but lost. Later, amid political pressure building over
improprieties regarding Enron’s colossal collapse, Cheney’s office
released limited information revealing six Task Force meetings with
Enron executives.

With multiple lawsuits currently pending, the Bush Administration
asserts that its right to secrecy is a matter of executive privilege
in regard to White House records. But because the White House staffed
the Task Force with employees from the Department of Energy and
elsewhere, it cannot pretend that its documents are White House
records. A 2001 case, in which the Justice Department has four times
appealed federal court rulings that the Vice President release task
force records, has been brought before the Supreme Court. The case
Richard B Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia,
No. 03-475, to be heard by Cheney’s friend and duck hunting partner,
Justice Scalia, is now pending. Cases based on the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and Freedom of Information Act which require the Task
Force a balanced membership, open meetings, and public records, are
attempting to beat the Bush Administration in its battle to keep its
internal workings secret.

UPDATE BY MICHAEL KLA The issue of U.S. dependence on imported oil
has only become more critical over the past few months as U.S. oil
demand has risen and global supplies have contracted, pushing up
gasoline prices in the U.S., and thereby threatening the economic
recovery now (supposedly) under way. This, in turn, has made oil
prices and dependency an issue in the presidential election, with
President George W. Bush defending the status quo and Senator John
Kerry, the presumed Democratic nominee, calling for dramatic action to
reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum.

The contraction of global supplies is due in large part to political
turmoil in the major producing areas – precisely the sort of situation
I predicted in my article. In particular, the pace of overseas oil
production has been moderated by repeated sabotage of oil
infrastructure in Iraq, terrorist strikes on foreign oil firms in
Saudi Arabia, ethnic unrest in the Delta region of Nigeria, and
continuing political turbulence in Venezuela. Together, these
developments have pushed oil prices to their highest levels in
decades. At the same time, the Bush Administration has shown no
inclination to reduce U.S. military involvement in major overseas
producing areas, especially the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea basin
and Africa.

All of this has had one effect: The major news media are beginning to
pay much closer attention to the links between political turmoil
abroad and the economics of oil at home. Most major newspapers,
including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have
published articles on various aspects of this problem. Still, the
media remains reluctant to explain the close link between the energy
policies of the Bush Administration and U.S. military strategy.

A number of new books have come out (or soon will) that bear on this
subject. My own book, “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of
America’s Growing Petroleum Dependency” will be published by
Metropolitan Books in August. Also highly recommended a “Out of
Gas,” by David Goodstein (W.W. Norton); “The End of Oil,” by Paul
Roberts (Houghton Mifflin); and “The Party’s Over,” by Richard
Heinberg (New Society Publishers).