Why won't Bushco come clean and tell us the truth? He knows if he does his goose is cooked. I will lay out some contentions that already have sufficient anecdotal and empiracle evidence to substantiate a prima facie case for impeachment and war crimes charges. In no way is this diary intended as the be-all and end-all of these claims. It is only the beginning in a series [I hope] of others to ask the burning questions that beg answers from this criminal gang or regime that is leading us headlong into regional and world war, and financial ruin.
I believe that the Bush administration planned with malice of forethought the removal of Saddam regardless of what Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspections teams revealed months prior to his elective invasion.
He even went so far to try and enlist our own Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay in his plot to "find WMDs anywhere". He being an honorable man refused to play along and fabricate evidence.
It was and is a criminal plan hatched by Bushco and his henchmen against a sovereign nation at peace with us-at least until he invaded Iraq in March 2003, therefore making him and everyone of his underlings war criminals under international law.
It was never about Saddam possessing WMDs. I contend that it was never about the GWOT, that it always about control of Iraq's oil fields and regional hegemony. I further suggest that Bushco has no intention whatsoever of the U.S. ever leaving Iraq in direct defiance of the will of Congress, the American people, his own General Staff, and international laws.
Examples of Preferential Treatment for Halliburton
US House Committee on Government Reform, Minority Staff
Why and How did it all happen?
Despite the magnitude of Halliburton's questioned and unsupported costs, the company has repeatedly received special treatment from Defense Department officials. As the examples below illustrate, the objections of career officials have been overruled, the requirements of federal procurement regulations have been waived, and Halliburton has been awarded millions of dollars in unjustified fees. Source document:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...
- Award of the Iraq Oil Contingency Planning Contract
In the fall of 2002, Michael Mobbs, a political appointee in the office of Douglas Feith, Under Secretary for Policy at the Defense Department, made the decision to award the oil infrastructure work in Iraq to Halliburton. This decision was made in secret without competition from any other companies. [Not only was this plan a secret but it appears so was Bushco's plan to invade Iraq since no mention of it was made until March 2003!] White House officials, including the Vice President's chief of staff, were briefed on this decision. The first sole-source contract that Halliburton received relating to reconstruction in Iraq was a $1.9 million task order under the LOGCAP contract to draw up contingency plans for U.S. occupation of the Iraqi oil fields. This contract was awarded in November 2002. At the time this no-bid contract was awarded, Mr. Mobbs knew that the company that received the contingency contract would also be awarded the much larger RIO contract.
Pentagon admits political appointee had role in awarding no-bid contract to Halliburton 14 June 2004
WASHINGTON, June 14 (HalliburtonWatch.org) - The Pentagon admitted that a $7 billion no-bid contract to extinguish oil fires in Iraq was awarded to Halliburton after a "political appointee" from the Bush administration recommended the company for the job. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said Pentagon officials informed him last week that the political appointee was Michael Mobbs — a special assistant to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.
During the Summer of 2002, Mobbs was in charge of the Pentagon's Energy Infrastructure Planning Group to develop a plan for reconstructing Iraq's oil industry. By the Fall of 2002, Mobbs had decided that three companies could carry out the oil fire contract: Halliburton, Bechtel Group and Fluor Corp.
Questions: Why was the Bush team planning "reconstructing Iraq's oil industry" during the summer of 2002, nearly a year prior to his March 2003 invasion when Bush, Cheney, and Powell all declared Saddam a so-called "imminent threat"?
Why would they be concerned about "oil fires" in 2002 unless the decision was already made to go to war? Sure looks like it was about the oil after all!
Contracting experts say it is highly unusual for a political appointee, rather than career civil servants, to designate which companies will compete for a government contract. "The suggestion that political appointees would be directing that type of investigation does not seem consistent with maintaining the appearance of propriety," contracting expert Steven L. Schooner told the Los Angeles Times.
I believed he used a "political appointee" to avoid the scrutiny and possible whistleblowers' threat that career federal civil servants would pose once they noticed the "irregularities". See paragraph 2.
Defense Secretary Donald H. "Rumsfeld's political lawyers steamrollered the career guys to push through Halliburton's secret deal," law professor Charles Tiefer told the Times, "It creates a disturbing appearance of influence when Cheney's lawyers are told several times Halliburton is getting special deals, and they never say, 'Make sure the career people agree this is being done right.'" Congressman Waxman's Letter to Vice President Cheney (pdf file)
http://www.house.gov/...
The GAO later analyzed the transaction and concluded that it was not "in accordance with legal requirements" because "preparation of the contingency support plan for this mission was beyond the scope of the contract." GAO added that the work "should have been awarded using competitive procedures."
- Award of the RIO Contract
Despite strenuous objections from the chief contracting official at the Army Corps of Engineers, the Defense Department secretly awarded Halliburton a five-year, no-bid contract to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure in March 2003. Bunnatine H. Greenhouse served as the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC) with the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Greenhouse objected for several reasons to the award to Halliburton of the RIO contract, which was worth up to $7 billion.
First, Ms. Greenhouse objected to awarding Halliburton a contract for which it developed the specifications. In particular, she was "concerned that the award to KBR conflicted with the usual practice of excluding contractors who prepare cost estimates and courses of action, such as KBR did in its contingency plan, from bidding on the follow-on implementation contract due to the potential for conflicts of interest and overreaching by the contractor."
Second, Ms. Greenhouse objected to awarding Halliburton a so-called "emergency" contract lasting up to five years. [It appears that Bush's War was more than "pre-emptive". It was pre-meditated. It was more than "liberation". It appears that his plan was indeed one of occupation and subjugation!] Although she agreed that a "compelling emergency" might justify a one-year award, she "could not understand why the emergency conditions would prohibit [the government] from extending the contract the following year or any subsequent years if the prosecution of the war made that necessary."
Ms. Greenhouse also objected to Halliburton's proposed costs, arguing that Halliburton's charges for initial deployment "should be lower" since Halliburton was already deployed, and that the government should not pay for indemnification liability coverage already covered under other contracts.
Finally, Ms. Greenhouse objected to allowing Halliburton access to internal government meetings and information. For example, she attended a meeting at the Pentagon on February 26, 2003, to discuss cost issues before the oil infrastructure contract had been awarded. When Halliburton officials arrived and began participating in the meeting, "she was so disturbed" that she requested that they be told to leave. By that time, she had concluded that the line between Halliburton and government officials "had become so blurred that a perception of a conflict of interest existed."
Despite all of these objections, the Army Corps of Engineers ultimately chose to award the contract to Halliburton in secret after excluding all other potential contractors. The Corps rejected Ms. Greenhouse's specific recommendation for a limited duration arrangement and awarded the contract for a five-year term. Source: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/...
If Bushco has any intention of ever leaving then why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?
The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho.
In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in the Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planed to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah.
But other reports suggest the U.S. military has plans for even more bases: In April 2003 report in The New York Times reported that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."2 According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," to serve as long-term encampments for thousands of American troops.3
As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases (twelve of which are located on the map included in the link I listed) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.
1 Graham, Bradley, "Commander's Plan Eventual Consolidation of U.S. Bases in Iraq," May 22, 2005, p A27
2 Shanker, Thom and Eric Smith. "Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq." New York Times. April 20, 2003.
3 Spolar, Christine. "14 'Enduring Bases' Set for Iraq." Chicago Tribune. March 23, 2004.
4 Information on Iraq bases is from GlobalSecurity.org. More information is available at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/...
Source: http://www.fcnl.org/...
.