http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359

---

Obviously Oil

By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet March 11, 2003

Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the
preemptive strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print
the presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was
especially frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of
editorial page columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the
Post how you feel about this ommission at ombudsman@washpost.com.

Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes,
the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the
President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every
aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

Ask yourself:

What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the
Persian Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent
deployment of about 25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6
bomber squadrons, 13 air control and reconnaissance squadrons, one
aircraft carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group based at
11 military installations in the countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note,
the disproportionate troop deployments in the Middle East aren't there
to protect the people, who constitute only 2 percent of the world
population.)

What was Iraq's number one export when the U.S. made an alliance with
Saddam Hussein, sold him biological and chemical weapons agents, and
then did not object when he gassed his own people?

For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with
the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those
companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14
(ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush
Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations
speak.)

For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies
receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein? What valuable
commodity does one reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Saddam
Hussein) control that another reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant
(Kim Chong-il) does not?

How do the White House and State Department plan to pay for a
post-Saddam occupation and reconstruction?

The answer to all of these questions is oil, of course. Oil obviously
drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. So who can doubt that this war
in Iraq concerns oil?

Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war
can be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions,
a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an
imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor
has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to
harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore,
there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the
terrorist attacks of 9/11.

No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made.
Iraq did not have anything to do with the anthrax-containing letters
that killed several Americans.

Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is
hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have
or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have
chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological
weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems.
Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.

Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war
in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary
of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter
they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to
be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons
of mass destruction ... a significant portion of the world's supply of
oil will all be put at hazard... The only acceptable strategy is ...
to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the
long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Does President Bush's war in Iraq concern Iraq's oil? Obviously.

Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the
ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats, and International Relations. Visit www.kucinich.us.