The Truth is out....

[MoonBeam]

"US Senator Richard Lugar, a leading member of the Bush administration and Republican Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Russia and France "must be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in any US-led military intervention" if they want a share of Iraqi oil."

Want to hear more?

here

So much for the democracy excuse.....

[Guest Low Roller]

Wow. Holy shit. I'm speechless.

[KarinGarage]

i can't believe they were s blantant about it.

i knew it was about the oil, but I never thought they'd admit it.

[Ms.Huxtable]

May this be a lesson to all the little American children. Blackmail resolves conflict and gets you friends.

I'm disgusted but not surprised.

[paisley]

kind of a given really...

that whole scene is pretty obvious

they've had biological weapons for 20 years and have never tried to use them on the west... bin laden denounces Hussein as an infidel who is bent on westernizing his corner of the middle east, thus no terrorist ties... they have no nukes or would be threatening to use them... they have in no way threatened any other country in the past 10 years and only went after Kuwait, their neighbour... how many times has the states tried to take over Cuba?

all just a fight between 'oil babies' (people born into oil-rich families, like kids in a sandbox fighting over the best toy)

there are marches for peace happening around the world this coming Saturday, Feb. 15... if all this upsets you, get out for a walk and show your non-support for war

United for Peace

[h]

interesting how their only source though is

"According to a report in today's Tehran Times"

so i dunno why he's sayign this to the iranians (thats where tehran is isnt it?)

[DevO]

Yeah I can't help but question the accountability of this article. Note that the "if they want a share of Iraqi oil" is NOT a part of Lugar's quote. The article says,

"The paper quoted Lugar as saying that Paris and Moscow oil companies will be deprived of Iraqi oil and have no share in the country's resources if they refuse to join in the US war to oust Hussein."

-- but they don't give us what Lugar exactly said. Not that I don't think that this war all about oil cause it is!! Just being critical.

Here's A LIST of all the cities around the world who are holding demonstrations this coming Saturday.

[Blaze-0]

"ARE YOU SURE ITS JUST THE OIL IT ALSO COULD BE FOR YOU KNOW THE LUCITIVE POPPY TRADE AS WELL.

[piranha132]

I think the last few comments are missing the point a little. Don't discredit the report because it uses the Tehran Times, or whatever, as a secondary source. The OGI had to be sure enough it was said and printed to refer to Tehran paper, which it did. It did this to avoid a lawsuit so you can be sure the idea presented itself in the original article. Most likely it wasn't a direct quote because it would have been in Iranian, something not so palatable in the midst of an article written in English and featured in America. Sure Iran raises bells and whistles among the rest of us comfortably-living Westerners, but as someone who's privy to many Wire services and lots o' news organizations from the globe, you'd be surprised how man American higher-ups will say silly things while in foreign lands.

oh yeah, and this just proves we've really entered some crazy times, eh? I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this. Something similar you can read in the GlobeandMail.com was an article printed on Feb. 23. It mentioned another American higher-up, Colin Powell maybe, speaking to whether the U.S. will use profits from Iraqi oil to fund the War on Iraq once it gets in there and takes over. So yes, they're thinking about taking over the country, its resources, and revenues to pay for taking over the country, its resources, and revenues. Boggles the mind how they don't understand everyone else's trepidation.

p132

[Davey Boy 2.0]

Alright, this isn't the most insightful article floating around, but it does kinda remind you about what dubbya has been saying about post-war Iraq, and makes his lack of rebuilding promises/focus all the more indicative of his questionable motives:

The Wimps of War

By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYTimes)

George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein as "Churchillian."[Note from DB- blech!] Yet his speeches about Iraq — and for that matter about everything else — have been notably lacking in promises of blood, toil, tears and sweat. Has there ever before been a leader who combined so much martial rhetoric with so few calls for sacrifice?

Or to put it a bit differently: Is Mr. Bush, for all his tough talk, unwilling to admit that going to war involves some hard choices? Unfortunately, that would be all too consistent with his governing style. And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media, a lack of faith in Mr. Bush's staying power — a fear that he will wimp out in the aftermath of war, that he won't do what is needed to rebuild Iraq — is a large factor in the growing rift between Europe and the United States.

Why might Europeans not trust Mr. Bush to follow through after an Iraq war? One answer is that they've been mightily unimpressed with his follow-through in Afghanistan. Another is that they've noticed that promises the Bush administration makes when it needs military allies tend to become inoperative once the shooting stops — just ask General Musharraf about Pakistan's textile exports.

But more broadly, they may have noticed something that is becoming apparent to more and more people here: the Bush administration's consistent unwillingness to take responsibility for solving difficult problems. When the going gets tough, it seems, Mr. Bush changes the subject.

Last week's budget is a perfect example. The deterioration in the long-run budget outlook is nothing short of catastrophic; at this point a fiscal train wreck appears inevitable once the baby boomers retire in large numbers. Should we be reconsidering those tax cuts? Should Mr. Bush tell the American people how he plans to cut Social Security and Medicare?

The White House has an easier solution. First, it has conveniently decided that budget deficits are not a bad thing after all. Second, it has stopped making long-run projections, and now looks only five years ahead. And even those projections don't include any allowance for the cost of an Iraq war.

Which brings us back to the war. Mr. Bush apparently regards Saddam Hussein as a pushover; he believes advisers who tell him that an Iraq war will be quick and easy — a couple of days of shock and awe, followed by a victory parade. Maybe. But even if it does turn out that way, is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody task of rebuilding Iraq?

The Europeans don't think so. In fact, they view Mr. Bush's obsession with invading Iraq as a demonstration of why he can't be trusted to deal with what comes next.

In the United States it is taken as axiomatic that America is a country that really faces up to evildoers, while those sniveling old Europeans just don't have the nerve. And the U.S. commentariat, with few exceptions, describes Mr. Bush as a decisive leader who really gets to grips with problems. Tough-guy rhetoric aside, this image seems to be based on the following policy — as opposed to political — achievements: (1) The overthrow of the Taliban; (2) . . . any suggestions for 2?

Meanwhile, here's how it looks from Paris: France was willing to put ground troops at risk — and lose a number of soldiers — in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't. The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no?

And French officials have made no secret of their belief that Mr. Bush wants to invade Iraq not because he is truly convinced that Saddam Hussein is a menace, but because he'd rather have an easy victory in a conventional war than stick to the hard task of tracking down stateless terrorists. I'm not saying they're right; I have no idea what Mr. Bush is really thinking. But you can understand their point of view.

In the days ahead, as the diplomatic confrontation between the Bush administration and the Europeans escalates, remember this: Viewed from the outside, Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust

[Mr. Musicface]

Hey FYI, I found at least one other source for this story, it's from a French press feed:

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cp/Qus-politics-iraq.R4jU_DJN.html

And this article actually quotes Lugar's spokesman, and has some contrasting quotes from the White House as well for balance. Personally I'd totally with h and KevO, it's important to be critical when it comes to this stuff, but this certainly sways the tide of my thinking.

Peace,

Mr. M.