Mailbag

As usual, Ty has selected several questions and comments that have popped up in e-mails. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, and Wally of The Daily Jot





Brody e-mails that he's really unhappy with C.I.'s "lack of response" to BlueDogYouDog last mailbag.



Ty: I'm grabbing this because I really don't want to waste the one e-mail C.I. may respond to on this. C.I.'s attitude was "I've had my say, have your say." When the questions were being discussed, because they were supposed to go into a roundtable but had been scrapped due to time limits, Dona said we should make time for it, Jess, who was looking over the questions with Dona, said he was going to respond one. At that point, the question was which one? It was obvious that the question would be responded to here by several and C.I.'s contribution was to ask, "Did that come in from somebody named BlueDogYouDog?" Yes. And he e-mails the public account for The Common Ills all the time on everything under the sun. C.I., Jess and Ava have all responded to him at one time or another and it makes no difference. He will, as Jess remembers, argue something as ridiculous as what countries border Iraq and when, as Jess did, he's sent a link to a map of the region, he will still insist that the map is wrong.



Jess: He believes Israel and Iraq share a border in southern Iraq.



Ty: So C.I. wasn't going to comment to begin with to BlueDogYouDog. If others hadn't announced ahead of time that they would be commenting, and Ava planned to but she just got mad that we were even addressing a "drip," C.I. may or may not have commented. A number did e-mail about that, Brody was the only one offended.




Margaret wrote to say she was completely unaware that someone named Greg Behrendt had a talk show until she read "TV: The 'boys' are back in town." She writes: "Having suffered, BIG, to find out what you two were talking about, I had to suffer some annoying woman who wouldn't shut up and stop distorting guests' words. Who was that loon? Loved the review, hated, hated, hated that talk show."




Ava: The loon is Stacy Kaiser and she also dispenses garbage on Tyra Banks' talk show. We almost worked in her into this TV week commentary because, like Charlie Rose, she really doesn't want to listen. She's always rushing in before a guest can finish a statement to tell them what they think or what they would have said or whatever else her non-psychiatric and non-psychologist mind thinks. She has a BA and an MA. She has no doctorate. She's licensed and, watching her theatrics, you have to wonder if it's LCDC?



Betty, not our own Betty, e-mailed that she's a Green like Jess and wondered if there were any problems discussing politics with the others since Jess is the only Green?



Jess: No. Betty might have some, might not, because people get worked up, wrongly, over a Ralph Nader vote in 2000. Nader didn't cost Gore the election and fortunately, no one involved in these editions would ever be stupid enough to make that suggestion. This site has a lot of help, for which we are grateful, but the core is Jim, Dona, Ty, Ava, C.I. and myself. When this site started, Jim, Ty and me were already roommates, they already knew I was a Green. It didn't even have a novelty effect at that point. Ava and I are a couple and it's honestly never come up as any sort of disagreement. It usually only comes up, since we all moved out west, in terms of, "Isn't their some Green activity you should be working on?" That's not sarcasm, by the way. Just her worrying that I'm not down at a party headquarters due to her or something. Dona and C.I. didn't know I was a Green until we started this site and it's never been a problem. In terms of everyone helping, I'm not trying to make any converts but I do think Elaine will end up a Green by 2008. When Rebecca was voting in 2006, she did come to me asking about Green candidates and I hooked her up with my mother who knows that area better than I do. Wally and Cedric are die hard Democrats but we've never had a problem. Betty has noted, our Betty that she's got a soft spot for Bill Clinton and if I ever temper my statements for anyone, it's her, not that she's ever asked me to. Kat says she's a Democrat but I bet if we had a camera in the voting booth, we'd find out otherwise, at least on local races. And that just leaves Mike who I've never had a problem with but who does want to speak.



Mike: Yeah, I just wanted to add that I actually was stupid enough at one point to blame Ralph Nader's campaign and the people who voted for him for the 2000 election. That was before I started helping out here. When I said I'd be willing and happy to do so, C.I. started talking to me about Nader and sending me various things. I could be wrong, but I think that was to help me avoid embarrassing myself and also to make sure I wasn't getting into it with Jess. As someone who did believe that nonsense, I want to pass on to the Betty that e-mailed that if her friends do, she needs to realize that it's something that's repeated on a lot of left and supposed left talk shows and at a lot of left and supposed left websites. A few years back, I believed it completely. So, if she's willing to try, she might be able to educate her friends if any of them believe the nonsense.



Larry wrote in to note that "once upon a time" we did "The Third Estate Sunday Review News Review" where we would cover various topics and we would include sports in that. Now, there's never any sports talk at all except for Wally, Jim and Mike riffing on it recently. He wants the news review brought back.




Jim: You know, Larry, I would agree with you but Dona would make me sleep on the floor. Seriously, those were a lot of fun but they just took way too much time. The whole point of it, and it may have been Dona's idea, I don't remember now, was to do a 'transcript' piece. We'd do our news review in one hour and whatever made it made it and what didn't, didn't. It was a way to have a piece that we could complete in basically one hour. We'd start basically 15 minutes before we ticked off the hour. Everyone would have a topic --




Dona: Except C.I.




Jim: Right. Everyone else would have a topic. The first one done before the ticking off of the hour would be the one speaking with C.I. While that was going on, Dona and I would be helping the others. We'd be figuring out who was ready to go next and it was fun and a way for journalism majors to play out the realities of a live broadcast. But what happened was that we weren't getting done in an hour or, if we were, a lot of people who worked really hard would find out that their part got cut down or they were cut completely. What I liked best, along with us being able to cover sports, was the interplay between Cedric and C.I. The first time Cedric elected to do that, we were all thinking, "What? He sounds like a conservative? What's going on?" C.I. got, right away, that Cedric was using humor to make a point and I always enjoyed the way those bits unfolded.



Dona: I'll just add that along with being time consuming it wasn't fair. Ava and C.I. are the ones who get stuck note taking. Ava was having to prepare for her 'segment' and take notes during the process, C.I. was having to 'anchor' and take notes in the process. It was too much work right there. I also enjoyed Cedric and C.I.'s interplay and thought it was a great way to show off Betty's talents. I think Betty, the way we know and love her, really came through in the news review. Time and again, when the next person wasn't ready, we could ask C.I. to stretch and C.I. and Betty could, and did, stretch. Reading over those things, and I have, it flows naturally and you have no idea that either Jim or I was screaming in C.I.'s ear, "Stretch, we're not ready! Stretch!" I should also note that C.I. hated being 'anchor,' didn't want to be 'anchor' and begged for each and everyone else to be it. No one wanted to. The 'anchor' never knew anything ahead of time but a single sentence such as "Jess is going to talk about a peace march in DC." We need someone informed with a broad base of knowledge and the best choice for that was C.I. If Larry or anyone reads over those at any point, please register that C.I.'s questions, introductions, etc. are all coming from C.I. off the top of the head. There was no prep work for 'the anchor' and C.I. was usually in the dark completely about what might be coming up other than something as broad as "Ava's going to talk about Puerto Rico."




Betty: I'll jump in quickly to note a thank you to Dona for her kind words. I'll also add that during those stretch periods, C.I. would always think of a comment or question about something I'd almost included in my report but had decided to leave out. It would have been very easy to toss out something I knew nothing about so I was always grateful the questions would follow up on what I'd been talking about.



Ty: I think Cedric should talk about it like Betty's doing. We heard Jim and Dona's opinion but they were acting as 'producers.'



Cedric: Sure. Betty usually came in closer to the end. And that was because they knew Betty and C.I. could stretch so well. At the end, if you were one of the last ones going at the end, you weren't just figuring out your report and preparing it, you had Dona and/or Jim telling you exactly how much time you had, it might just be two minutes, and timing you to make sure you could do it in that time. Most of the time, Jess opened because he was usually talking about something he already knew about -- a protest or a rally. So he didn't need to do a great deal of research and was ready quickly. Betty, Ty and I also did humor reenactments and play-lettes in those. After we'd done that a few times, I decided to go for a more comic thing. At that point, I was going right after Jess. That was because while Jess was talking to C.I., Dona and Jim would be asking, "Who's ready? Who's ready?" And everyone was still researching. I remember one time they were wanting to toss Mike upfront and he was covering sports and kept explaining that one of the games he was covering wasn't over yet so he couldn't go. Because it would be over when the thing posted. But if you were ready right after Jess, Dona and Jim really didn't want to hear your piece. They just wanted to know how many minutes you thought you needed and then they'd tell you that you could have that or you couldn't. I think one time I wanted seven minutes and Jim said, "No way. There are too many topics." This was one week when Kat had to go on because she and Ava had been skipped the week before because time ran out. Ava didn't care and since she's one of the people doing the site, it wasn't really an issue. But Kat, like the rest of us, is considered a guest and there was a lot of concern about the fact that Kat had done her work and time had run out.




Ava: And the week prior to that, Kat had done her work and gotten three lines. So it was three lines one week. Nothing the next.



Cedric: Right. So I just focused on what I wanted to say and would time it myself, in my head, leaving 30 seconds or so after for C.I. to make a comment. Everyone seemed to think we'd worked it out. But we didn't. C.I. just knows how to go with the flow. At the start of that, I was preparing lines. Then I took a page from C.I.'s book and just decided to go with the flow. So I'd just study my topic in the 15 minutes before we started and tell Jim or Dona, while Jess was speaking, I need four minutes or five minutes or whatever it was. After, and I've been talking too long.



Ty: No. The after's important and it's you or Jess who can talk about the after.



Cedric: Okay, after. Jess and I would usually be done at the start. That meant we were then helping others with their research. If you'd thought of the topic yourself, that was great because you knew something about it. But sometimes people wouldn't have an idea so they'd grab a suggestion and that could be rough to track down in the limited time. So even if you were 'finished,' you really weren't because you were helping look up stuff.


Kat: As someone who usually went last, I'll add that Betty was always helping me. My beat was "music." And I'd usually be attempting to pull together various things and, more often than not, it would be severely cut because time would run out. C.I. would go over for me and that was from knowing how long I'd worked, and Betty had worked, pulling the thing together. Dona would be yelling "30 seconds!" and C.I. would keep talking and asking me questions. It was a lot of rushing and, although I enjoyed it at the time, I honestly do not miss it.


Dona: I sound like such a bitch.


Kat: No. Please, most weekends the only thing that would be up at this site would be Ava and C.I.'s commentaries if you weren't there to call time. You'll play the bad guy or the grown up but no one blames you for that.


Jess: Agreed.



Mooki e-mails that Rebecca usually so front up about everything and in roundtables is usually the one to "name the elephant in the room whatever it may be." Mooki wonders if there's anything other than her baby that Rebecca's not willing to address?



Elaine: I'll grab that and let Rebecca add to it in any way she wants. Rebecca, C.I. and I all went to college together. Rebecca's not allowed to post her age. That's imposed on her by the two of us but C.I. and I have been surprised not only that she's been able to do that but also that she's managed to avoid announcing that she started college when she was 16. For the record, and this is something in real life that Rebecca has to bring up at least four times a year -- on each of our birthdays and at the end of the year -- Rebecca is two years younger than C.I. and me.


Rebecca: It's true and who knew me for a Doogie Howser! For whatever reason, I was an expert speller in elementary. So much so that they sent me from third to fifth grade. I skipped fourth grade completely. In eighth grade, I was taking freshman algebra and other courses at the high school and had to go back and forth each school day. It would have made more sense to have me in eighth grade or to have me in ninth. Instead, when I officially was in high school, they started me out at tenth grade. I developed early and . . . rather well, if I do say so. It was no problem keeping quiet about that online because when Elaine and C.I. found out in college, I begged them not to tell anyone. I was already considered an airhead and didn't need to add "child" to the list. In terms of other things, I don't know. Nothing comes to mind that I would censor myself for. Earlier, there would have been a long list, I'm sure. These days, who cares? Other than my child, who cares?



Satchel e-mailed about how so many help out each edition and wondered "why they bother and what's in it for them?"



Dona: That should probably go the ones who help out only and Wally's not spoken yet so he should start.



Wally: A big weekly check! I'm joking. It's fun. I like everyone working on these editions. At one point early on, Jess and Jim were both telling me, "You don't have to help out each weekend." And to be honest, I had lost my cell phone and was stuck with that bill and a new bill for a brief time so I was pretty cash strapped. This was a way to have fun on the weekend, when minutes are free, and not worry about spending any money. That's not an issue now so it's just for the fun and just for being able to look at something we all worked on and know I had a hand in it. Or at least a finger or thumb! But, everybody likes each other. We're all looking forward to getting together this summer. The conversation between working on pieces are a lot of fun and so is arguing for your point of view or your points when we're working on them. When there's a piece that someone really responds to, Ty will forward the e-mail to everyone who worked on it and there have been a lot of really great e-mails that have really made me proud to have worked on something. Even if I just contributed a thumb.





Mike: Yeah, what Wally said. I get great e-mails but nothing like what my mother who does Trina's Kitchen, link please so I don't hear about it from my brothers, or what comes in for stuff we all work on here. I love my e-mails so don't get me wrong. And I'm not doing at my site what we do here. So I'm not complaining and couldn't if I wanted to but when Ty sends something that gets a response, this really deep thing, it does mean a lot.





Betty: Absolutely. Like Mike, I don't do, at my site, what we do here and it is really is something to read those forwards and know something had an impact. Especially if the person's writing went through or is going through the topic we wrote about, either themselves or due to a family member.

Jim: Good point. And Betty, you were done right?

Betty: Yes.

Jim: Okay, Dona's saying we need to wrap up and just to drop back quickly to statements about those who are a part of the site and those who help. First, Dallas always helps but never wants to jump in. The only time we've gotten Dallas on record for anything was when C.I. surprised him during a "Third Estate Sunday Review News Review" to get a rundown of the area that some Hurricane Katrina evacuees were being house in because Dallas knew the layout of the town. But Dallas helps on everything. Also, we need to note that only two people have worked on every edition since the start of the site, Ava and C.I. Last Christmas, the rest of us who do this site took off. Ava and C.I. were the only ones from the core six participating. The Christmas before, Ava's contribution were limited to the TV commentary she and C.I. do but she did participate. They are the only the two who have participated every week -- of helpers or of the core six. And Dona just realized C.I. didn't speak so Ty's grabbed an e-mail.

Raylene writes, "I happen to like who you call the Bubble Headed Pundit and wonder if it would kill you to say something nice about her? Or can you even say anything nice about the mainstream media?"

C.I.: Ava and I came up with "The Bobble Headed Pundit" for Helene Cooper of The New York Times. We didn't call her "The Bubble Headed Pundit." Bobble head because of the way she can't stay still when on TV. As for something nice about Helene Cooper, she films lovely. Every gas bag in the world should have skin that looks so good onscreen. The only equivalent that comes to mind is Marilyn Monroe and that's not sarcasm or a hidden joke. Whatever faults she may have in my opinion, the way she films is not one of them. As for anything nice about mainstream media? How about it's provided a vocation for many who would otherwise be street criminals? Seriously, the latest issue of Business Week has an article beginning on page 57 by Brian Grow and Keith Epstein entitled "The Poverty Business" and it should be a must read for everyone but especially members of Congress. They are detailing the various schemes, lending schemes, that attack the poor and working poor. It's the May 21, 2007 issue and they are addressing everything from car loans, students loans, Blue Hippo, you name it. In print, it's eleven pages counting photos and sidebars. Again, I'd argue it's a must read.

And from the world of music . . .

That Bono. So busy being Bully Boy's best buddy, he's got no time for rock and rolling. But he does want to save the world. It's right up on there on his list, right behind stopping Billy Squier from using his (Squier's) fireplace. (Evan Seprick humps the project in the May 31st issue of Rolling Stone, page 16. Those wanting to sidestep the wet spot can click here for USA Today's months old article on the project.)



So what's Bono up to these days besides petty grudge f*cks, refusing to live in Ireland because he won't pay taxes and packing on more pounds than Sam Kinison near the end?



Well Bono's concerned. He's worldly.



He's seen destruction in the world and he is mad, MAD, MAD!!!! we tell you.



No, not Iraq. Our supposed brave leader will never say one damn word against the illegal war. It might jeopardize that money (that still hasn't come in). See the one who once sang about "Silver and Gold" is now all up in it and he will never speak out against Iraq until his blessed Bully Boy leaves office.



But what he will do is steer a double disc for the "Save Darfur!" cause. "Save Darfur!" How?



Apparently by singing John Lennon songs.



Mr. Ass Hole wants the world's attention because he's about to speak. (Not about Iraq, never about Iraq. Iraqi refugees outnumber refugees in Darfur, Iraqis killed in the illegal war outnumber the killings in Darfur but Bono's all dizzy, like Peggy Lee after a hair relaxer treatment.)



Bono and the nobodies (which is how the other three have allowed themselves to be seen) will record "Instant Karma" and that will apparently keep Our Modern Day Carrie Nations marching for a bit more. Now it doesn't help that the double disc CD has no heat. (It doesn't. One offs from Green Day don't draw a crowd. And the rest have largely seen their best day sometime ago. Jackson, we love you, but put out an album of new songs already. Ben, we've avoided listening to "Beautiful Boy" so we wouldn't have to comment.) But what it really underscores is that one time rocker Bono was grossly overrated.



How so?



He wants to draw attention to Darfur . . . by singing "Instant Karma." The alleged songwriter and one time rocker cares so much . . . that he's doing a cover. Apparently compassion doesn't allow the time required to write your own song. Who knew?



Silly John Lennon and Yoko Ono, wasting time writing "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" during Vietnam. Didn't they know the true way to draw attention to a crisis was an album of cover songs!



Bono crapped out somewhere around the time of Pop and he's never found his way back (even when offering the MOR All That You Can't Leave Behind). Now he wants to "Save Darfur" and knows the best way to do that is by recording an old (a great, but an old) Lennon song. And
Christina Aguilera, in an apparent homage to Barbra Streisand, has re-recorded "Mother" for the same project. (And it sounds, note for note, just like Streisand's cover.) No word on whether Fergie raps about her "lady humps" in the middle of "Power to the People."



Mainly, we think contemporary CD buyers (the few that purchase the pricey project) will mainly just wonder what "Jealous Guy" has to do with anything or marvel over the fact that anyone ever even bothered to speculate about Michael Stipe's sex life (he and the boys perform the very political "# Nine Dream"). The only real winner is Yoko Ono who gets to draw some attention (misguided though it is) to Lennon's worthy catalogue. (Ono's donating all royalties.) CD buyers? Listing for $21.98 and without even a group sing-along like "We Are The World," most will avoid it. Someone pass it on to Larry Cox that he's a lousy spokesperson for Amnesty International USA and making many miss the equally weak (and equally compromised) William Schulz. We look forward to the next "crisis" CD from AIUSA and suggest Where the Boys Are as a Free Tibet event featuring Ricky Martin on the title track, Britney Spears performing "Everybody's Somebody's Fool," Brandy offering up "Who's Sorry Now?" and assorted others working to free Tibet through the songs made famous by Connie Francis.

Avoid it wherever stale offerings are sold.

Dennis Kucinich addresses Iraq's oil

As Trina noted it was a long speech. What's that? Dennis Kucinich's floor speech in the US House of Representatives Wednesday, May 23, 2007. As most members of Congress were preparing to cave on the 'supplemental' (funding the illegal war), Rep Kucinich took to the floor to speak about the realities of Iraq and zoom in on the oil issue. We weren't surprised that the mainstream media showed no interest.

We were surprised it didn't get more online attention. Trina passed on (through her son Mike) that she wanted it highlighted here (she is among those community members supporting Kucinich's 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination) but she wanted to speak Jess and C.I. first. Jess because he's a Green, C.I. because C.I.'s not going to publicly endorse anyone. They each listened to Trina and then explained, she didn't need to hard sell or soft sell, it was an important issue and if Hillary Clinton had done it, they'd be glad to highlight her. (Their opinion of Kucinich is considerably higher, to put it mildly.) This is Kucinich's speech and, hopefully, you're already familiar with it. If you're not, you might want to ask why that is?

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of critical importance facing this Congress, and that issue relates to whether or not this Congress should pass legislation to continue to fund the war in Iraq.

The legislation contains a particular provision that would lead to the privatization of Iraq's oil, a provision that I'm quite concerned about, because I think that if we take that position, it will make it very difficult for us to ever be able to end the war.

So today I'm going to lay out the case as to why this provision that's in the bill would advance privatization and as to what the options are for this Congress.

As many know, the administration has set forth several benchmarks for the Iraqi Government, including the passage of a hydrocarbon law by the Iraqi Parliament. The administration has emphasized only a small part of this law, what they call the "fair distribution," that's in quotes, of oil revenues.

I want this House to consider the fact that this Iraqi hydrocarbon law contains a mere three sentences that generally discusses the so-called fair distribution of oil. Except for three scant lines, the entire 33-page hydrocarbon law is about creating a complex legal structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraqi oil. As such, it is imperative that Members of Congress read the Iraqi Parliament's bill, because passage of any legislation that includes insisting that the Iraq Government push the passage of a hydrocarbon act puts this Congress on record to promote privatizing Iraq's oil.

Now, I have maintained from the beginning that the war has been about oil. We must not be a party to any attempt to set the stage for multinational oil companies to take over Iraq's oil resources.

There have been several benchmarks set by the administration for the Iraqi Government, including passage of a so-called hydrocarbon law by the Iraqi Parliament. Many inside the Beltway are contemplating linking funding for the war in Iraq to the completion of these benchmarks, including passage of the hydrocarbon law by the Parliament.

This administration has led Congress into thinking that this bill is about fair distribution of oil revenues. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, except for three scant lines, the entire 33-page hydrocarbon law creates a structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraq oil.

Now, the war in Iraq is a stain on American history. Let us not further besmirch our Nation by participating in an outrageous exploitation of a nation which is in shambles due to the U.S. intervention.

Let me provide this House with an analysis of the underlying bill in the Iraqi Legislature, which this administration is trying to get Congress to pass to pressure the Iraqi Government to accept privatization. And this analysis that I'm offering at this moment is a version that passed the Iraqi Cabinet and was referred to the Iraqi Parliament.

The legislation contains only three sentences in regards to the fair distribution of oil, but does not resolve any of the issues facing this challenge. The legislation simply requires that future legislation be submitted for approval; thus, this legislation does not even meet the benchmark of the administration.

The legislation ensures that "chief executives of important related petroleum companies," follow that now, "chief executives of important related petroleum companies" are represented on a Federal Oil and Gas Council, which approves oil and gas contracts. This is akin to foreign oil companies approving their own contracts.

This legislation ensures that the Iraqi National Oil Company, which is the oil company of the people of Iraq, has no exclusive rights for the exploration, development, production, transportation, and marketing. The Iraq National Oil Company must compete against foreign oil companies with rules that benefit the foreign oil companies. This is for their own oil.

The legislation gives the Iraqi National Oil Company some control of developed oil fields and rights to participate in undeveloped oil fields in the Annex I and II of the legislation, but these annexes have never been made public, so we don't know for sure.

The legislation gives the Iraq National Oil Company temporary control of the oil pipelines and export terminals, but then it directs the Federal Oil and Gas Council, which is run by chief executives of oil companies, it directs them to turn these assets over to any entity with no further instructions. The opportunity for a foreign oil company to have control over the Iraqi oil pipeline and export terminals would give that company enormous control of the Iraqi oil market.

The legislation demands that contracts, and this is a quote, "must guarantee the best level of coordination" with the Oil Ministry, Iraqi National Oil Company, the regions and oil companies. The legislation mandates that undeveloped oil fields be developed quickly, and oil companies are given explicit authority to collaborate.

The legislation does not require contracts to be published for public review for up to 2 months after approval. The legislation provides for up to 35 years of exclusive control over oil fields for foreign oil companies. The legislation provides for a preference to Iraqis for jobs and services, but only if these benefits do not place extra costs or inconveniences on the foreign oil companies. The legislation states that disputes between the State of Iraq and any foreign investors shall be submitted for arbitration to an international court and will not be decided upon by an Iraqi court.

This legislation has four appendices whose contents remain secret. Annex I, which is secret, regards to present producing fields allocated to the Iraqi National Oil Company; Annex II, discovered or undeveloped fields allocated to the National Iraqi Oil Company; Annex III, discovered undeveloped fields outside the operations of the Iraqi National Oil Company; and Annex IV, exploration areas. These appendices will effectively make clear which old fields will be controlled by the Iraq National Oil Company and which are open to foreign control of oil companies.

And I might add that when you look at this, out of about 98 oil fields, Iraq will have control of approximately 80, 81 of those oil fields. Excuse me. The foreign oil companies will have control of about 80, 81 of those oil fields, or over 80 percent of Iraqi oil under this agreement will be controlled by foreign oil interests. This is an analysis that I'm offering based on facts that are ascertainable.

Now, what are others saying about this draft Iraqi oil law and what it will do? Here's a quote from the Christian Science Monitor of May 18, 2007, in an article entitled "How Will Iraq Share the Oil?" In the U.S., the demand that Iraq pass an oil law is a benchmark that is becoming a flash point. Here's the quote.

"The actual law has nothing to do with sharing oil revenue," says former Iraqi Oil Minister Issam Al Chalabi, in a phone interview from Amman, Jordan. The law aims to set a framework for investment by outside oil companies, including favorable production-sharing agreements that are typically used to reward companies for taking on risk, he says.

"We know the oil is there. Geological studies have been made for decades on these oil fields; so why would we let them," that is, the international oil companies, "have a share of the oil?" he adds. "Iraqis will say this is solid proof that Americans have staged the war ... because of this law."

The next quote comes from the Dow Jones Newswires of March 4, 2007, the headline: "Iraq Oil Law Details Untouched Fields, Blocks -- Document." And the text says:

"Iraq's draft hydrocarbon law, the centerpiece in the development of the country's shaky oil industry, details dozens of untouched oil fields loaded with proven reserves and scores of exploration blocks that may prove a magnet to international oil companies, according to a document seen by Dow Jones Newswires."

In an article from the Dow Jones Newswires again, on March 10, 2007, the headline: "Some Iraqi Politicians Urge Rejection of Draft Oil Law." Here's the text:

"The law, if passed, is expected to open the country's billions of barrels of proven oil reserves, the world's third largest, to foreign investors."

From an article from the American Lawyer, April 25, 2007, "Our Man in Iraq." Here is the text:

"Under the new law, the Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of only about 17 of Iraq's approximately 80 known oil fields." So that number, then, is 17 of Iraq's approximately 80 known oil fields. "The law would also allow the government to negotiate different kinds of exploration and production contracts with foreign oil companies, including production-sharing agreements, or PSAs. Energy lawyers favor these because they allow oil companies to secure long-term deals and book oil reserves as assets on their company balance sheets. Under the proposed law, foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in Iraq, hire Iraqi workers, or partner with Iraqi companies."

Next, from the U.S. Morning Star Online, January 28, 2007, headlined "Iraqi Officials Insist Oil Law Won't Favor U.S."

"The proposal would provide for production-sharing agreements that would give international firms 70 percent of the oil revenues to recover their initial investments and subsequently allow 20 percent of the profits without any tax or restrictions on transferring the funds abroad."

This from CommonDreams.org, April 18, 2007, entitled "Time to Do the Math in Iraq":

"The most notable feature of the law is a revival of exploitive type of contact widely used prior to the rise of Arab nationalism in the 1960s, known as a production sharing agreement. Although the Oil Law uses an alternative term, 'exploration and production contract,' the effect is identical. The new arrangement would allow the bulk of Iraq's reserves to be controlled by outside oil companies, privatizing what until now has been a nationalized resource under the auspices of the Iraq National Oil Company. It specifies the royalty that will be paid to Iraq: '12.5 percent of gross production, measured at the entry flange to the main pipeline.' And as if the rest of the law were not already explicit enough, article 35(A) reiterates: 'Holders of exploration and production rights may transfer any net profits from petroleum operations to outside Iraq after paying taxes and fees owed.'"

This, from a publication called PLATFORM in 2005, entitled "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth," by Greg Muttitt:

"At an oil price of $40 per barrel," and keep in mind that the price of oil is about $65 a barrel right now, heading towards $70 a barrel, but at a "price of $40 a barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts.

"Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of returns from investing in Iraq would range from 42 to 162 percent, far in excess of the usual industry minimum target of around 12 percent return on investments."

Next, on March 13, 2007, Antonia Juhasz, an oil industry analyst, in an op-ed contribution, asks: "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?" Here is what Antonia Juhasz writes:

"Today more than three-quarters of the world's oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn't always this way. Until about 35 years ago, the world's oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP. They are among the world's largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back. Iraq's oil reserves, thought to be the second largest in the world, have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998 Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas, reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'

"A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq's oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi Government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.

"In March, 2001," continuing to quote from this article, "the National Energy Policy Development Group, better known as Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended that the United States Government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries 'to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.' One invasion and a great deal of political engineering ..." later, this is exactly what the Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of oil companies but to the great detriment of Iraq's economy, democracy, and sovereignty.

"Since the invasion of Iraq, the administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the administration's benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that" the administration officials "are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency." And, that is that these are the benchmarks of the administration.

"The administration has highlighted the law's revenue sharing plan, under which the central government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis. But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law's many other provisions. These allow much, if not most, of Iraq's oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies."

Continuing quoting from the article:

"The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies, except for limited although highly lucrative marketing contracts, into a commercial industry."

So, again, the nationalized model is now closed to American companies except for limited marketing contracts. It would transform that into a commercial industry, all but privatized, that is fully open to international companies.

"The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known and as of yet undiscovered oil fields open to foreign control.

"The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers, or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current 'instability' by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi Government is at its weakest, and then wait at least 2 years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq's oil would then be left underground for at least 2 years rather than being used for the country's economic development.

"The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production-sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry's preferred model but are roundly rejected by all the top oil-producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts, 20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq's draft law, and greater control, ownership, and profits to the companies than other models. In fact," this kind of contract is "used for only approximately 12 percent of the world's oil.

"Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services, as needed, for a limited duration and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.

"Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the administration, the oil corporations, and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.

"Iraq's five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting 'the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.' They ask for more time, less pressure, and a chance at the democracy they have been promised."

Let me share with this House some basic facts about Iraqi oil because, over the past several months, we have had many different news agencies citing diverse reports about how much oil Iraq has.

From the Petroleum Economist Magazine, they estimate that Iraq has 200 billion barrels of oil. The Federation of American Scientists' estimate is 215 billion barrels of oil. The Council on Foreign Relations estimates Iraq has 220 billion barrels of oil. And the Center for Global Energy Studies estimates 300 billion barrels of oil. These figures, by the way, from a report from the Brookings Institution dated May 12, 2003.

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's take this figure of 300 billion barrels of oil so we can see how much money we are talking about here. As I mentioned earlier, the price of oil, somewhere around $65 a barrel right now and moving up quickly, as American consumers are finding out. It is not unusual to predict at this moment that the price of oil could go to $70 a barrel. Now, if it does go to $70 a barrel, we are looking here at a potential value of Iraqi oil at being about $21 trillion. Now, if the foreign oil companies have control over 80 percent or more, you start to get an idea of the kind of money that is at stake here and why there is such pressure being put on the Iraqi Government to privatize their oil.

Now, I would like to turn to a quote further talking about the Iraq oil, a basic fact. This, from the Global Policy Forum called "Oil in Iraq: the Heart of the Crisis," December 2002:

"According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Western oil companies estimate that they can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than a $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all exploration, oil field development and production costs and including a 15 percent return.

This is similar to production costs in Saudi Arabia, and lower than virtually any country. So again, the desirability of a private corporation having Iraq's oil is that their production costs would be very low.

A word about the history of oil exploitation in Iraq. Following World War I, the British assumed control of Iraq from the Ottoman Empire. In 1925, a 75-year concession contract was granted to American, French, and British oil companies. By 1930, the consortium was in complete control of all Iraqi oil. The oil companies controlled the oil fields and reaped almost all the profits. It was not until the overthrow of the British-installed monarchy in 1958 that the foreign control of oil was challenged. In 1961, the consortium's rights were limited to current production. And beginning in 1972, Iraq oil resources were nationalized, a process that was finalized in 1975.

Now, here is a statement issued by the Iraqi Labor Union Leadership at a seminar held in December of 2006 to discuss this draft Iraqi oil law: "Iraq is rich in national wealth, foremost among which is its oil wealth, the essence of the economic life for Iraq and the world, which has been a focus of attention of the large, industrialized countries, in particular.

"The British and American oil companies were the first to obtain concessions to extract and invest in Iraqi oil nearly 80 years ago. After Iraq got rid of this octopus network, these foreign oil companies had again attempted to dominate this important oil wealth under numerous pretexts and invalid excuses."

Indeed, Iraqi oil unions have objected to the Hydrocarbon Act. In an open letter to the U.S. Congress dated May 13, 2007, just a little more than a week ago, here are some excerpts:

"Peace be unto you and greetings to all.

"We wish to clarify certain matters relating to events in Iraq for our friends among the Members of the U.S. Congress. It is common knowledge that the occupation spared neither the young nor the old, and that Iraq is passing through the most difficult of times because all and sundry are hounding it and covet a share of its riches. We see no good reason for linking the passing of the feeble Iraq oil law to the withdrawal of the occupation troops from Iraq.

"Everyone knows that the oil law does not serve the Iraqi people, and that it serves the administration, its supporters, and the foreign oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people, who have been wronged and deprived of their right to their oil, despite enduring all difficulties.

"We ask our friends not to link withdrawal with the oil law, especially since the USA claimed that it came to Iraq as a liberator and not in order to control Iraq's resources.

"The general public in Iraq is totally convinced that the administration wants to rush the promulgation of the oil law so as to be leaving Iraq with a victory of sorts.

"We wish to see you take a true stance for the children of Iraq. And we always say that history will remember those who advance peace over war.

"With my regards, Hassan Jum'a Awwad, Head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions."

This now from the Oil union leader's speech on oil law. This is a speech of the head of the Federation of Oil Unions in Basra on Tuesday, February 6, 2007:

"Recently, the Constitution of Iraq, on which the Iraq people voted in the most dire and difficult of conditions, notes in clause 111 that oil and gas are the property of the Iraqi people. But, alas, this clause in the Constitution will remain but ink on paper if the oil law and oil investment law being presented to the Parliament are ratified, laws which permit production-sharing agreements, laws without parallel in many oil producers, especially the neighboring countries. Why should Iraqis want to introduce such contracts in Iraq, given that applying such laws will rob the Iraqi Government of the most important thing it owns?"

"We send a message to all of the members of the Iraqi Parliament, when debating the oil and investment law, to bear the Iraqis in mind, to protect the national wealth, and to look at the neighboring countries. Have they introduced such laws even when their relations with foreign companies are closer than in Iraq?"

Now, there is a question that's being raised. Are these oil companies just trying to help Iraq gain its wealth? What if Iraq doesn't have the ability or the money to be able to get its own oil industry on its feet? Does Iraq have to privatize in order to tap its oil wealth? Well, the fact of the matter is that Iraq has options beyond privatization to develop its own oil capacity.

According to the Middle East Economic Survey, volume 49, number 2, dated March 19, 2007, entitled "Iraq Open Letter from Iraqi Oil Experts to Parliament":

"We anticipate that the motive behind the issuance of this law is based on the increase of production capacity through the attraction of foreign investments. In this regard, we feel and recommend to plan the increase of the capacity gradually, starting with the rehabilitation of currently producing fields by national effort, Iraqi National Oil Company, followed by the development of the giant discovered, but not developed or partially developed, fields, and to schedule the priority of their development according to their capacities and development costs, irrespective of their geographical locations." And it goes on to say that there ought to be an avoidance of long-term contracts with foreign companies at the present time.

This is a statement issued by the Iraqi Union Leadership in a seminar. And another statement in a seminar in December 2006 in Amman, Jordan:

"Whereas oil and gas are greatly important for the Iraqi economy and whereas the building of the state and its institutions are dependent on it as the main source of national income, it is therefore the right of the Iraqi people to read the draft oil law under consideration. The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors."

In an article by Michael Schwartz called "The Prize of Iraqi Oil," "None of these conditions apply in Iraq. Huge reservoirs of easily accessible oil are already proven to exist, with more, equally accessible fields likely to be discovered at little expense. That's why none of Iraq's neighbors emphasize production-sharing agreements. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates all pay the multinationals a fixed rate to explore and develop their fields, and all the profits become state revenues."

Christian Science Monitor, May 18, 2007: "How Will Iraq Share the Oil?" "In New York, oil industry analyst, Fidel Geit of Oppenheimer Company, Incorporated, has reviewed both the official Arabic version of the draft law and the unofficial English translation and say they are ambiguous and seem to be written in haste." Quote, "Why shouldn't Iraq use Iraqi nationals to decide how contracts will be awarded? They have oil engineers. Use the best brains in the country and hopefully they will do what is in the best interest of the country," he says, "otherwise there is an impression that American companies are telling Iraqis what to do."

Now, I have stated many times on this floor that I believe that the war against Iraq was about oil. Now let me provide you with some quotes that may reflect on my thinking on this.

Mr. Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton, in a speech at the Institute of Petroleum in 1999, said, "By 2010, we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and national oil companies are obviously controlling about 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies. Even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."

In an article from Platform, November 2005, called "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth." Chapter 4, "Planning Iraq's Oil Future. Pre-invasion Planning." And when you listen to this, it's pretty astonishing to see how all these facts have been available for people to be able to gain, and perhaps only now people are reflecting on the real meaning of this.

This is what Greg Muttitt writes: "Prior to the 2003 invasion, the principal vehicle for planning the new postwar Iraq was the U.S. State Department's Future of Iraq project. This initiative, commencing as early as April 2002, involved meetings in Washington and London of 17 working groups, each composed of 10 to 20 Iraqi exiles and international experts selected by the State Department.

"The 'Oil and Energy' working group met four times between December 2002 and April 2003. Although full membership of the group has never been revealed, it is known that Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, the current Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member. The 15-strong oil working group concluded that Iraq 'should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war,' and that, 'the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment of oil and gas resources.'

"The subgroup went on to recommend production-sharing agreements as their favorite model for attracting foreign investment. Comments by the handpicked participants revealed that 'many of the group favored production-sharing agreements with oil companies.' Another representative commented, 'Everybody keeps coming back to production-sharing agreements.'

"The reasons for this choice were explained in the formal policy recommendations of the working group, published in April 2003," and I quote from this article from Platform:

"Key attractions of production-sharing agreements to private oil companies are that, although the reserves are owned by the state, accounting procedures permit the companies to book the reserves in their accounts; but, other things being equal, the important feature from the perspective of private oil companies is that the government intake is defined in terms of the production-sharing agreement, and the oil companies are therefore protected under a production-sharing agreement from future adverse legislation," which means it would be very tough to be able to have a government, once it gives up its oil wealth, to be able to get it back.

"The group also made it clear that in order to maximize investments, the specific terms of the production-sharing agreements should be favorable to foreign investors: 'PSAs can induce many billions of dollars of direct foreign investment in Iraq, but only with the right terms, conditions, regulatory framework laws, oil industry structure, and perceived attitude toward foreign participation.'

"Recognizing the importance of this announcement, The Financial Times noted: 'Production-sharing deals allow oil companies a favorable profit margin and, unlike royalty schemes, insulates them from losses incurred when the oil price drops. For years, big oil companies have been fighting for such agreements, without success, in countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.'

"The article concluded that: 'The move could spell a windfall for big oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, and TotalFinaElf.'"

Now, this article goes on to talk about what has been done to try to shape the new Iraq with respect to oil.

"The U.S. and the U.K. have worked hard to ensure that the future path for oil development chosen by the first elected Iraqi Government will closely match their interests. So far, it appears they have been highly successful. Production-sharing agreements, which were first proposed by the U.S. State Department group, have emerged as the model of oil development favored by the post-invasion phases of Iraqi Government.

"Phase one: Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi Governing Council. During the first 14 months following the invasion, occupation forces had direct control of Iraq through the Coalition Provisional Authority. Stopping short of privatizing oil itself, this Coalition Provisional Authority began setting up a framework for a longer-term oil policy.

"The Coalition Provisional Authority appointed former senior executives from oil companies to begin this process. The first advisers were appointed in January 2003, before the invasion even started, and they were stationed in Kuwait, ready to move in. First, there were Phillip Carroll, formerly of Shell, and Gary Vogler of ExxonMobil, backed up by three employees of the U.S. Department of Energy and one of the Australian Government. Carroll described his role as not only to address short-term fuel needs and the initial repair of production facilities, but also, 'begin planning for the restructuring of the Ministry of Oil to improve its efficiency and effectiveness.' Another point: 'Begin thinking through Iraq's strategy options for significantly increasing its production capacity.'

"In October 2003, Carroll and Vogler were replaced by Rob McKee of ConocoPhillips and Terry Adams of BP, and finally in 2004, by Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips and Bob Morgan of BP. The £147,000 cost of two British advisers, Adams and Morgan, was met by the U.K. Government. Following the handover to the Iraq Interim Government in June 2004, Stinson became an adviser to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad."

Again, from Platform, On the 13th of July, 2003, "In the first move towards Iraqi self-government, the Coalition Provisional Authority's Administrator Paul Bremer appointed the quasi-autonomous, but virtually powerless, Iraqi Governing Council. On the same day Mr. Bremer appointed Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, who had been a member of the U.S. State Department oil working group, as Minister for Oil."

Within months of his appointment, Bahr al-Uloum announced he was preparing plans for the privatization of Iraq's oil sector, but that no decision would be taken until after the election scheduled for 2005. Speaking to the Financial Times, Bahr al-Uloum, a U.S.-trained petroleum engineer, said the Iraqi oil sector needs privatization, but it is a cultural issue, noting the difficulty of persuading the Iraqi people of any such policy. He then proceeded to announce that he personally supported production-sharing agreements for upstream development, giving priority to U.S. oil companies and European companies, probably.

The second phase, the Iraq interim government. In June 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority handed over Iraq's sovereignty to an interim government headed by Prime Minister Allawi. The position of Minister of Oil was handed to Thamir al-Ghadban, a U.K.-trained petroleum engineer and former senior adviser to Bahr al-Uloum. In an interview in Shell Oil Company's in-house magazine, al-Ghadban announced that 2005 would be the "year of dialogue" with multinational oil companies.

"About 3 months after taking power, Allawi issued a set of guidelines to the Supreme Council for Oil Policy from which the Council was to develop a full petroleum policy. Preempting both the Iraqi elections and drafting of a new constitution, Allawi's guidelines specified that while Iraq's currently producing fields should be developed by the Iraq National Oil Company, all other fields should be developed by private companies, through the contractual mechanism of production-sharing agreements.

"Iraq has about 80 known oil fields, only 17 of which are currently in production. Thus the Allawi guidelines would grant the other 63 to private oil companies."

The third phase, the transitional government and writing the constitution: "The interim government was replaced in 2005 by the election of Iraq's new National Assembly, which led to the formation of the new government with Ibrahim al-Ja'afari as Prime Minister. In a move which no doubt assisted policy continuity from the period of U.S. control, Ibrihim Bahr al-Uloum was reappointed to the position of Minister for Oil.

"Meanwhile, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's former favorite to run Iraq, was appointed chair of the Energy Council, which replaced the Supreme Council for Oil Policy as the key overseer of energy and oil policy. Back in 2002, Chalabi had famously promised that 'U.S. companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'

"By June 2005, government sources reported that a Petroleum Law had been drafted, ready to be enacted after the December elections. According to sources, although some details are still being debated, the draft of the Law specifies that while Iraq's currently producing fields should be developed by Iraqi National Oil Company, new fields should be developed by private companies."

Now, this again comes from an article, Foreign Policy in Focus. The title, "When It Comes to Oil, the U.S. Administration is Bypassing Democracy in Iraq," an article "Oil Pressure" by Greg Muttitt, August 28, 2006. It goes on to say, "Since the new Iraqi Government was formed in 2006, the U.S. Government has dramatically scaled up its efforts to provide 'advice.' Last month, the administration and major oil companies reviewed and commented on the new law governing Iraq's crucial oil sector before it had even been seen by the Iraqi Parliament.

"Violating the very notions of freedom and democracy" the administration invokes in nearly every speech, "the U.S. Government has actively intervened in the restructuring of Iraq's oil industry since at least 2002.

"In December 2002, the State Department established a working group on oil and energy as part of its 'Future of Iraq' project. The project brought together influential exiled Iraqis with U.S. Government officials and international consultants. Later, some members of the group became part of the Iraqi Government. The result of the project's work was a draft framework for Iraq's oil policy. Despite Iraq being rich in oil and technical expertise, the group recommended a major role for foreign companies through long-term contracts, an approach that would set Iraq at odds with the rest of the Middle East where major oil producers keep their oil in the public sector.

"In March 2003, the wheels started to turn as the Coalition Provisional Authority appointed the former head of Shell USA as a senior oil adviser, in direct contact with the Iraq Ministry of Oil. He was joined by an executive from ExxonMobil, and after 6 months, the post was rotated to former managers of ConocoPhillips and BP.

"In December 2003, the framework was set out in more detail when USAID commissioned a report by the privatization specialists BearingPoint," is the name of the company, entitled 'Options for Developing a Sustainable Long-Term Iraqi Oil Industry.' The report reinforced the 'Future of Iraq's' report, recommending long-term contracts with foreign companies.

"Pointing to the success, as they call it, of this model, BearingPoint used Azerbaijan's privatization model as an example. The report commented approvingly that Azerbaijan's high corruption and lack of democracy had not impeded investment; the government had simply given away a higher share of revenues in order to attract companies. The implication was that Iraq, which has a nascent democracy and chronic corruption, might follow the same approach.

"After the handover to the interim government in June 2004, senior oil advisers, now based within the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office in the U.S. Embassy worked closely with the Iraq Oil Ministry in shaping policy. Post holders included executives from ChevronTexaco and Unocal.

"In 2006, these efforts intensified. In February, the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office advisers accompanied eight senior officials from the Oil Ministry on a trip to the U.S., sponsored by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. On the trip, they met oil company representatives to discuss the future structure of the Iraq oil industry.

"The same month, at the request of the State Department, USAID provided an adviser to the Oil Ministry, again from BearingPoint," the privatization specialist, "to work directly on a new oil law providing 'legal and regulatory advice and drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment.'"

"The U.S. campaign on the fledgling Iraqi Government has been successful. Following his appointment in May, new Oil Minister Husayn al-Shahristani announced that one of his top priorities would be writing of an oil law to allow Iraq to sign contracts with 'the largest companies.'"

"This would be the first time in more than 30 years that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil. Oil was brought into public ownership and control in Iraq in 1975.

"With the ink not yet on the paper, the U.S. has maintained its pressure. On his visit to Baghdad in 2006," the U.S. Energy Secretary "insisted that the Iraqi government must 'pass a hydrocarbon law under which foreign companies can invest.' But the work to make this case had already been done: 'We got every indication they were willing and also felt a necessity to open up this sector,' he commented after a meeting with the Oil Minister and Iraqi officials.

The Energy Secretary did not stop at reviewing the draft law himself in Baghdad. He also arranged for Dr. Al-Shahristani, the new Oil Minister, to meet with nine major oil companies, including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips, for them to comment on the draft as well, during the Minister's trip to Washington, D.C. the following week.

"Given the pressures involved, perhaps the Minister felt he did not have much choice. His promise to pass the law through Parliament by the end of 2006 was set in Iraq's agreement with the International Monetary Fund last December. According to that agreement, IMF officials would also review and comment on a draft in September.

"And still, the draft law had not been seen by the Iraqi Parliament. Meanwhile, an official from the Oil Ministry had stated that Iraqi civil society and the general public will not be consulted at all.

"These issues could hardly be more important for Iraq. Oil accounts for more than 90 percent of government revenue, is the main driver of Iraq's economy. And decisions made in the coming months will not be reversible--once contracts are signed, they will have a major bearing on Iraq's economy and politics for decades to come."

There is much that has been written, an article in the Associated Press on March 13, 2007, about how Iraqi leaders fear ouster over oil money. Continued White House support for Iraq depended on positive action and all the benchmarks, especially the oil law and sectarian reconciliation, by the close of this parliamentary session. June 30.

In an article in the Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2007, Iraqis resist U.S. pressure to enact oil law. Foreign investment and Shiite control are primary concerns. Here is a quote. "I did make it clear that we believe it is very important to move on the issues before us in a timely fashion and any undue delay would be difficult to explain." That is a quote from Vice President Cheney, who recently visited Iraq to urge the passage of the Hydrocarbon Act, among other matters.

"The U.S. Energy Secretary calls on Iraq to open up its oil sector to foreign investment." This is an article from the 21st of July, 2006, saying that U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has urged Iraq to establish a legal framework that would be instrumental in attracting foreign investment.

Other articles. From a Department of Energy press release, July 26, 2006: Secretary Bodman hosts Iraqi Ministers of Oil and Electricity. Energy leaders sign memorandum of understanding to further promote electricity cooperation.

From Agence France-Presse, U.S. wants new Iraq oil law so foreign firms can take part. July 18, 2006. The United States on Tuesday urged Iraq to adopt a new hydrocarbon law that would enable U.S. and other foreign companies to invest in the war-torn country's oil sector.

We all know that the Iraq Study Group, in one of its major recommendations, Recommendation 63, said the United States should encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and international energy companies; that the United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise; that the United States should ensure the World Bank's efforts to assure that best practices are used in contracting.

Mr. Speaker, the last 50 minutes that I have spent talking about the effort to try to privatize Iraq's oil, if you go to one of the search engines, you can find perhaps 1 million different citations relating to this. So it is impossible to cover this kind of a subject, even in a period of an hour. But it needs to be said that this administration has pushed the Congress to put language in funding bills for Iraq that would set the stage for the privatization of Iraq's oil.

I am going to quote from the first war supplemental, that the President shall make and transmit to Congress a determination, No. 2, whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydrocarbon law. Then under subsection (b), it says if the President fails to make this determination, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of our Armed Forces from Iraq.

In other words, privatize your oil, or we are leaving you without having a security and peacekeeping force to replace the United States Army.

In the second supplemental, the administration language promoted the President transmitting to Congress a report in classified and unclassified form, article 2, whether the Government of Iraq has enacted a broadly accepted hydrocarbon law that equitably shares revenues among all Iraqis.

Now again, they don't talk about what the real purpose of the Hydrocarbon Act has been. It is not about sharing revenues equitably; it is about a complex restructuring of Iraq's oil industry for the purpose of turning Iraq's oil over to private oil companies.

Finally, in the third supplemental that is before this Congress this week, there is an article from the Senate side that relates to Iraq oil, and I quote: "The United States strategy in Iraq shall hereafter be conditioned on the Iraqi Government meeting certain benchmarks." And one such benchmark, "enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq." And it goes on to pay homage to the issues of equity and ethnicity.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the people of Iraq are under enormous pressure to give up control of their oil. When you consider that there was no cause to go to war against Iraq, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda's role in 9/11, that the administration kept changing the reason why we went into Iraq, and here we are, years later, we are still in Iraq, and enormous pressure is being put on the Iraqi Government to privatize their oil.

I am here to say that there is another path that can be taken, and that path is part of H.R. 1234, a bill that I have written that would enable the war to end by Congress determining that no more money will go for this war, telling the administration that it must open up diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran, and moving in a direction where we put together an international peacekeeping and security force that would move in as our troops leave. And then we set the stage for real reconciliation that cannot come with the U.S. serving as an occupying army.

We have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people whose country we have ravaged with war to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars of damage, whose people may have experienced the loss of perhaps as many as a million Iraqis during this conflict, innocent people, whose social bonds have been torn asunder. We have a moral responsibility to work to bring about a program of reconciliation between the Sunnis, Shiites and the Kurds which can only come when we end the occupation. We have a moral responsibility to bring about an honest reconstruction program, absent the U.S. contractors who have been gouging the Iraqi people, and gouging the American taxpayers as well, but we have to make sure that the Iraqi people have control of their oil.

I would like to believe that this war has not been about oil. I would like to believe that there was some kind of a righteous cause connected to what we did; but I know better, and the proof is in this Hydrocarbon Act.

This Congress has an opportunity to finally take a stand and reject this Hydrocarbon Act. We can strip out this provision forcing Iraq to privatize its oil. We can strip that out of the legislation. Or we can simply defeat the legislation because that is in there, and then go back to the boards and tell the President, look, Mr. President, we are not going to give you any more money for this war, which is what I believe we should do. Tell the President, this war is over, Mr. President, and use the money that is in the pipeline to bring the troops home. Let's go and reach out to the international community. With the end of the occupation and the closing of bases, we will have people who will start listening to us internationally, and we will have some credibility.

But the morality which this country rests on, our heart and soul of who we are as Americans, is not reflected by this obscene attempt to steal the oil resources of Iraq. That is why I have chosen to take this time to come before the Congress, to lay these facts out for Members of Congress and for the American people so that you can see without question the relationship between war and this oil and the relationship between the pressure that is being put on the Iraq Government right now and privatization and the continuation of the war.

Let's end this war. Let's end the attempt to control Iraq's oil. Let's challenge the oil companies in this country as this House has done this morning. Let's take a stand for truth and justice. Let's take a stand for what is right. Let us not be seduced by this idea that somehow we have the military might, and we can, therefore, grab other people's resources. That is not what America is about.

America has a higher calling in the world. It is time we began a process of truth and reconciliation in our own country, in reaching out and creating the healing of America. But we must first begin with the truth, and the truth is what I have told this Congress today.

Madam Speaker, thank you.

Members of Congress, thank you.

Highlights

This feature was written by Wally, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Elaine and Mike. We also made all selections unless otherwise noted.



"Thomas Friedman Stereotypes Again!" -- Betty's latest where Betinna learns that Thomas Friedman can stereotype a group other than Muslims.


"Pizza in the Kitchen" -- Trina walks you through homemade pizza and continues to explain why she feels Dennis Kucinich is the strongest candidate.



"The faux who are our foes" -- Go Mikey! Picked by Rebecca, Jim, Kat and Cedric as well as by 15 readers e-mailing to this site. When Congress caves, you need to know who you can trust.

On a similar note you can read Elaine's "Katrina vanden Heuvel stabs her mag in the back" and it's not a highlight per Elaine who notes it was dashed off quickly "and mainly quotes C.I. I didn't know C.I. was going to be in my area or that we would all be going out. Mike and I were each typing away madely trying to get something up at our sites so we could go have some fun with C.I."



"we don't stand up for cowards" -- "You could be nicer." We get that a lot. We're not here to play nice, in case you missed it. Rebecca's explaining why we don't share the love easily with those who have a long history of buckling. Elaine adds, "Yeah, you buckle with the weight of the words" and notes that's from Stevie Nicks & Tom Petty's "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around" which may need to become the theme song for grassroots Democrats.



"We worry about the wrong immigrants" -- You think you love Kat. We love Kat. In fact, we'll fight you over who loves her more! :D But this is Kat explaining that all the hoopla over "Mexicans" is nonsense and using a real life example to do so. (There was one angry e-mail to Kat on this, sent to The Common Ills public account. The woman insisted that the 'prisoner' isn't a spy. Kat told us her reply: "Okay, then she's stupid. I said she was either stupid or a spy.")



"Dems come up with 'brave' new plan!" & "THIS JUST IN! TRANSLATING DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP!" -- Cedric and Wally walk you through how to read Democrats.



"And the war drags on . . ." -- Elaine and Trina argued it first on Friday. Ty said he lost count of the number of e-mails coming into this site saying this was the pick for C.I.'s entries this week. Read it and find out why.



"THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY'S 1ST VICTORY!" & "Those generous Democrats!" -- Wally and Cedric on what it takes for Bully Boy to win. (Hint, a lot of help.)



"This and that (Betty guest posting)" -- Betty 'filling in' for Rebecca. Rebecca and Betty both posted on the same day. They knew each was posting. Rebecca says she loves that Betty posts and Betty can do so anytime she wants. That goes for everyone but she's noted that to Betty when she's filled in before. Betty says she started a post (lost) mainly because she had a toothache and couldn't get to sleep. She says as long as no one minds "my chatter," she'll probably do this every now and then even when Rebecca doesn't need anyone to fill in. Betty's talking about the need to use your voice and not let anyone -- including yourself -- stop you.



"Iraq snapshot" -- Rebecca loved C.I.'s "And the war drags on . . ." but she argues this is the perfect example of how there are so many topics not being covered. She says any paragraph could be a full blown entry or post and that all the silence on Iraq "is inexcusable."



"End of the week" -- Of the ones who write this each week, Elaine's the biggest roadblock. She'll champion everyone else but insist on only one highlight from her and frequently fight against even that. She agreed to this one for only one reason: Fridays will probably be like this. She's at Mike's for the Iraq study group. She's tired. It's been a long week. Fridays will most likely be a 'just talking' type piece.



"Law and Disorder: Mumia, Cuban Five" -- Mike catching you up on Law and Disorder. A lot of stuff covered last week.

Truest statement of the week

AMY GOODMAN: John, we just have thirty seconds, but do you think oil is a secret motive with US relations with Sudan?
JOHN GHAZVINIAN: Possibly. I mean, yes and no. I mean, look, I think China is much more transparent about oil in Sudan. The US relationship with Sudan is a complex one, and for the last few years it’s had a lot to do with cooperation on counterterrorism and intelligence gathering, as well. The Sudan conflict is a lot more complicated than it tends to get presented out as in the media, to be honest, especially the Darfur conflict. And oil kind of plays a part, but it’s not the main driving factor.



-- from "'Untapped: The Scramble for Africa's Oil'," Democracy Now!, last Thursday. The sound you hear is 100 Modern Day Carrie Nations hissing and their flock scratching their heads in confusion.

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
We are all tired. But I'll be damned if I let Mike beat me without putting up a fight! (Personal note to Mike: ":D")


Here's who helped out the edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Wally of The Daily Jot

We thank all of them. We also thank Dallas for all of his help.

Biggest problems this edition? Illustrations. Which is why you're only getting one new one online. When we had no luck repeatedly, we started searching for illustrations we'd used in the past that might work this time.

What else are online only readers missing? A lengthy feature that will be much sharper and focused when it goes up here next week. (We'll also be rewriting parts of it, not just editing.) That took forever and a day. After 3 hours, Ava and C.I. bailed us on to go work on their TV commentary. That was a long one for them. They rejoined us an hour later and Ava's first remark was, "You're still working on the same feature!" We were. It never came together to our satisifaction. We have hope for it next week -- after some sleep.

Two other features were also pulled. That was fine with Dona because it forced "Short Features!" (Her mantra.)

Content that made it online:

Truest statement of the week -- an obvious choice. Once Kat pointed it out.

Editorial: Who's failing? -- quit blaming students, the peace movement and everything else. Pin the tail on the ass: the media.

TV: The lows and the really lows -- Taking a deep breath because this is where Mike beats me every week! Ava and C.I. didn't think they had anything to write. We know, you've heard it all before. We have too. But they were on the road for the first half of last week, they really didn't have time to watch much. They had watched the CMAs at a friend's house while they were on the road. They had done a funny bit when they got back about the perverse Reba. When they kept saying, "We've got nothing," we suggested they write about the CMAs. The print version of this includes when they could no longer watch. The friend is in the country music industry and he told them about a closet case early on and they made a game of attempting to guess who it was. (Ava and C.I. note that Kenny Chesney has been accused of camp and high drama, they have not accused him of being gay. Kenny Chesney was not the man in question.) When they saw the man, they both exclaimed, "It's him!" How so? These are my words (they fear if they're quoted it will give it away and they're really not interested in outing anyone), when you don't want to be seen as gay, you don't butch it up, you rob yourself of every bit of personality you might have. (This is very funny in the print version but they weren't sure -- they didn't know or know of the guy until watching the awards -- if they were saying anything that would out someone.) As Ava and C.I. explained to their friend (Ava says we can note it's a music producer) how they were able to figure it out, they were all laughing so hard that even Reba in close up couldn't top it, so the TV was turned off. So there was there Reba bit. But they didn't see an entire commentary in that. This took them an hour and it was mainly in figuring out what to pair it with. When they decided to pair it with the networks' announced fall line ups they were finally able to begin writing. This is really a strong commentary that had us all laughing and Ava (who has not and will not read over it -- nor will C.I.) said that's just because it looked like there wouldn't be anything so our expectations were tremendously lowered. Not true.

1 Book, 10 Minutes -- The embargo is over. C.I. had agreed to wait two weeks before quoting from the book when some community members said they were going to purchase it when it came out. With Joshua Key's book, C.I. was quoting from it to soon for some book readers in the community. So C.I. said, "If you're serious, I'll wait two weeks. But I expect people to buy it when it comes out." So today we did the book discussion.

So you wanna be a war resister -- This is a piece C.I. has advocated for the last few weeks and we've never had the time to do it or remembered to do it. (C.I. notes, "It figures we would do it the week when we are all beyond wiped out." True.)

The Nation Stats -- We grab four issues.

Yo George -- Tori's new CD is out, please check it out. This was short feature number one.

Vote Vets says, "Whatever Kagan said!" -- We were trying like crazy to come up with things to fill the hole from losing the extremely long piece and 2 others. It was so bad, we had the chat & chews on. We saw Newt make a fool out of himself (to no one's surprise and felt Chris Dodd should have shot back, "By your logic, when you shut down Congress in the 90s, you were aiding America's enemies!") on Meet the Press. We saw Dianne Feinstein sport a new hair color (C.I. notes, "As described" -- C.I. was rubbing the eyes long before Face The Nation came on). And we saw this 'debate' on Iraq that didn't even qualify as a discussion. We went with that.

Listings -- We're going to attempt to do this weekly but probably won't have time every week. We had a new illustration for it (and it ran in the print edition) but we'll probably go ahead and stick with this illustration in the future.

Highlights -- Mike, Wally, Cedric, Betty, Rebecca and Elaine worked on this. We thank them for it.

And that's it. We're finally done. But let me give a shout out to my bud Mike who does his own version of this note at his site (usually on Mondays). "Kevin Zeese, Third Estate Sunday Review" was his note for last week's edition. Mike does a great job summarizing and frequently remembers and notes things I forget.

One more thing. Last week's "Nation Isle" came dangerously close to being the most talked about feature. (As always the honor went to Ava and C.I.'s commentary.) Some of this was due to the piece itself but it's also true that apparently a cruise ship to Alaska encountered problems last week. We hadn't heard of that except for C.I. who saw something in The New York Times on it (believes it was either Thursday or Friday, a photo of an African-American woman who had survived the cruise -- C.I. read the caption but wasn't interested in the article). If you're e-mailing about that this week, please tell us when the crash (or sinking or whatever) was. To the best of our knowledge, Katrina vanden Heuvel was not on board. (That last sentence was a joke.)

See you next week.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: Who's failing?

Let's see if we remember all the excuses correctly.

The war hasn't registered because there isn't a draft.

The war hasn't registered because young people are apathetic.

The war hasn't registered due to a failure of the peace movement.

All the (false) claims above have been widely repeated. We're having a hard time thinking of anyone outside CounterSpin's Peter Hart who has challenged any of this nonsense. Noting the hand wringing and blaming of the American people when one poll (ONE POLL) found that those Americans polled could not correctly estimate the number of Iraqis who have been killed in the illegal war, Hart didn't join in the hand wringing, he rightly rejected it and place the blame squarely where it belonged: on the media.

Not yesterday, but the Saturday before last, an attack killed 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator and 3 US soldiers were missing -- presumably captured and, although offering no proof, an organization reportedly linked to al Qaeda claimed credit for the kidnappings.

If you don't know about it, we're sure it's because there's no draft, we're sure it's because of students level of participation and we're sure it's another sign of failure on the part of the peace movement. Except . . .

Did you know that a woman works a gondola in Venice? She does! Her name is Alexandra Hai! And doesn't that effect, alter and change your entire life!

Did you know that Oscar Pistorius (South Africa) runs with a prosthetic and some racing opposite him think it gives him an unfair edge? That's what we're told! And won't that put food on your table and provide you with health coverage!

Did you know that Bono says smoke from Billy Squier's fireplace "is drifting" into his own Central Park West co-op? Doesn't knowing that enrich your daily life?

Those are among the stories that The New York Times could not only cover last week, but also front page. The New York Times didn't front page the news of 4 dead US soldiers and 3 missing (don't bring up the translator, the paper doesn't care about Iraqis) until last Friday. Seven days later, it's finally front page news to the paper. Prior to that, there was time to waste on every topic no matter how minor.

Why does the illegal war not register to some Americans? Blame the media. Blame a media that thinks Bono 'suffering' from Billy Squier's smoke is bigger news than 4 dead and 3 missing US soldiers. Now this wasn't The New York Post. This was The New York Times and that's the best they could do.

That's something to think about, file away and remember the next time some blowhard starts pinning the blame elsewhere. Who's failing?

Not the students, not the peace movement, it's the media. Need another example? On Thursday, the 3400 mark for number of US service members killed in Iraq was passed. On Saturday, in The New York Times, readers got a sob-fest for contractors which noted that the body count for US service members was "almost" at 3400. The count on Saturday was 3415. However, if you made the mistake of assuming, "I get everything from The New York Times!" -- you were left uninformed. We're also not seeing, on Nightline, "Day 9: US Soldiers Missing."

We'll repeat: Who's failing? The media.


The illustration above includes the Bono front page story, the Venice front page story and, on Friday, 7 days later, 3 missing US soldiers is finally front page news.

Please also see:
"Other Items"
"NYT: Gives up even pretending to be in the news business"
"NYT: Bono's front page news while US soldiers get left on A10"
"NYT: Cave joins the cast of Scrubs and he can't do it all on his own, he's no Superman"
"Guest post by Mike"
"The Bono Times?"
"7 Days Later, NYT Front Pages the 3 Missing US Soldiers"