Showing posts with label lobbying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobbying. Show all posts

March 28, 2008

The "West's" view of the Iraki oil situation .

Exxon Mobil Lobby Spent $16.9M

Thu Mar 27, 2008

This is pocket change to Exxon, cheap protection for their racket. -oom

Exxon Mobil spent $16.9M lobbying
March 19, 2008
http://money. cnn.com/news/ newsfeeds/ articles/ newstex/AFX-
0013-23905827. htm
<http://money. cnn.com/news/ newsfeeds/ articles/ newstex/AFX- 0013-23905827. htm>

WASHINGTON (AP) - Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) Corp., the largest U.S. oil
company, spent more than $16.9 million to lobby the federal government
in 2007, according to a disclosure form. The company lobbied on
various appropriations bills and on legislation dealing with Federal
Aviation Administration reauthorization, patent reform, taxes and
royalties, international relations and trade agreements, lobbying
reform, railroad security and more, according to the form posted
online Feb. 14 by the Senate's public records office.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil spent $10.5 million in the second half
of 2007 to lobby on those issues. The energy bill President Bush
signed in December did not include billions of dollars in higher taxes
for large oil companies that many Democrats wanted to use to fund tax
breaks for various clean energy (NASDAQ:CLNE) industries.

Similar proposals were revived earlier this month and are working
their way through Congress. Besides Congress, Exxon Mobil lobbied the
White House, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Trade
Representative' s office, the departments of Energy, Defense, Interior,
State, Commerce, Homeland Security and more. Lobbyists are required to
disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and
legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.

===

Iraq to pay oil firms to boost its output

By Randy Fabi and Ahmed Rasheed
http://www.guardian .co.uk/feedartic le?id=7397775
<http://www.guardian .co.uk/feedartic le?id=7397775>

BAGHDAD, March 19 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government is expected to pay
up to $2.5 billion to five top oil companies to increase the country's
oil output by nearly a quarter, a government adviser told Reuters on
Wednesday.In what would be the biggest foreign involvement for
decades, Baghdad is close to signing technical support contracts with
BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Thamir Ghadhban, energy adviser to Iraq's prime minister, said he
expected the contracts, which would add 500,000 barrels per day (bpd)
to current production of 2.27 million bpd, would be signed by early
next month.

"There is a rough estimate that it could cost about $400 to $500
million per field," he said in an interview."So a total could be up to
between $2 (billion) and $2.5 billion over two years that should be
paid by the government to companies.

"With oil prices at around $100 a barrel, the contracts could mean
extra revenues to Iraq of around $1.5 billion a month before costs,"
according to Reuters calculations.

Ghadhban said Iraqi representatives met with company officials last
week in Amman, Jordan, to discuss final details of the initially
two-year contracts, including whether payment would be by cash or by
oil."As far as we are concerned, everything is positive and it's a
matter of time for the minister of oil and oil companies to finalize
and shake hands," he said.

Shell is negotiating for the northern Kirkuk oilfield and is also in
talks, along with BHP Billiton, for the development of the Maysan
fields.BP also has its eyes on Iraq's southern Rumaila field, while
Exxon wants the contract for the Zubair oilfield in Basra.

Finally, Chevron and Total are looking to work together to develop the
West Qurna oilfield.

Ghadhban said he expected the companies to boost output by around
100,000 bpd at each of the fields
.

HEAD START

The ongoing talks have also given the five major oil companies a head
start in efforts to bid for future oil contracts.

"I have no doubt whatsoever those five major companies are going to be
qualified," he said. "They are major oil companies and of course they
will be qualified."

More than 100 companies have registered to compete for oil extraction
and service contracts to help develop Iraq's oil reserves, the world's
third largest.

Ghadhban said the government was expected to announce the list of
qualified companies next month, a month later than initially
expected.He said the technical support contracts with the five oil
majors needed to be finalized before the government could move on to
other contracts.

===

Forbidden fields: Oil groups circle the prize of Iraq's vast reserves

By Roula Khalaf and Steve Negus
March 19 2008
Financial Times

http://www.ft. com/cms/s/ 0/5b24f674- f5e6-11dc- 8d3d-000077b0765 8.html?nclick_ check=1

Royal Dutch Shell has been quietly working with Iraq's oil ministry
over the past two years, advising it on how to increase the production
of two oilfields. Under an agreement struck after the 2003 invasion,
no one from the company, Europe's largest oil group, has set foot in
the troubled country; instead, monthly face-to-face meetings with the
oil ministry have been held in Amman, the Jordanian capital, and
weekly contact has been maintained by video-link.

The Shell-financed project and the attention showered on Baghdad
appears to be paying off: Shell is now negotiating a technical support
agreement in which it will be compensated for helping upgrade
production of producing fields. The oil company will again set up a
team outside Iraq, helping, among other things, to bring new equipment
into the country and training Iraqis in its use. Shell is one of
several inter­national oil companies including BP and the US groups
Exxon Mobil and Chevron that have been tapping into Iraq's oil
industry by remote control. But now, five years after the invasion,
the oil groups are hoping to take their involvement in the country to
a new level. Baghdad, desperate to increase oil production yet starved
of investment, is starting to dangle what the companies have been
after all along: a chance to develop and later explore what may be the
world's most promising untapped oil reserves. Indeed, as the companies
gear up for technical support agreements, they are also registering to
pre-qualify for the first bidding round of oil development contracts
that are to be offered by Baghdad.

"The [initial projects] were done to work with the Iraqis, get a
feeling for fields and build relationships and knowledge," says one
oil executive, speaking of the assistance projects provided so far.

With parts of the global oil industry threatened with nationalisation
and much of the Middle East still closed to foreign ownership of
reserves, access to Iraq, with the world's third-largest oil reserves,
has long been viewed as a huge prize. Although no decision has yet
been made in Baghdad over the nature of the development or the
eventual exploration contracts that will be on offer, Iraq could prove
one of the rare countries in the region where companies will be
allowed to claim reserves as their own.

"This is the big frontier,"
says Raad Alkadiri, a senior director at
Washington-based PFC Energy. According to the oil ministry, only 27
out of 80 discovered fields are producing in Iraq, the result of
decades of under-investment. A report by Wood Mackenzie, the
consultancy, meanwhile says the scale of Iraq's remaining oil
resources surpasses all other countries in the Middle East, including
Saudi Arabia, and its high-quality reservoirs ensure that production
costs would be very low. But Iraq is also a dangerous frontier.
Companies invited to invest in its oil industry and satisfy
Baghdad's plans at least to double oil production from the current
2.5m barrels a day will be walking into a political, security and
legislative minefield. Their involvement threatens to exacerbate the
sectarian tensions that have torn the country apart since the US-led
invasion.

International oil companies acknowledge that security, although better
over the past year, will still need to improve significantly before
workers are dispatched to Iraq. The weakness of the central government
and its patchy control over the southern part of the country, home to
80 per cent of proved oil reserves, will also be taken into account.
Perhaps most important, however, is that they could be entering a
country with deep political fissures and lingering anger at foreign
intervention, without clear legislation allowing for foreign
participation. Despite American pressure and government desperation, a
law to regulate foreign access to the oil industry has languished in
the Iraqi parliament, a victim of sectarian disputes, particularly
between the Kurds and Arabs. Frustrated by the delays, and virtually
giving up on a successful outcome, the oil ministry has now invited
oil companies to pre-qualify for development of existing fields and
says a cabinet decision will be enough to legitimise foreign
participation. Later bidding rounds are envisaged for exploration
contracts.

Officially, companies say they will insist on having new legislation
in place before investing the billions of dollars that would be needed
for development and exploration. Yet the absence of a law is not
preventing them from embarking on negotiations.
"The companies are positioning themselves; they're playing the game and the oil ministry is trying to create a game for them to play,"
says Mr Alkadiri.
"Of course you can hit a whole set of problems and the companies are aware
of that and they will factor it in. But [outside Iraq] there are no
such reserves in an un­explored territory."

Adding to the complications is uncertainty over who has the rights to
sign contracts in Iraq. The Kurdish regional government, based in
Irbil, claims that the constitution gives it power over its own
resources within the borders of Kurdistan, while the government in
Baghdad rejects this claim completely. It insists it has the sole
constitutional authority to dispose of Iraq's oil resources. A further
difficulty is that oil is unevenly distributed throughout the ethnic
regions of Iraq, with resources concentrated in the Shia south of the
country and the Kurdish north. The minority Sunni Arabs, who formerly
controlled the levers of power under Saddam Hussein, can boast few oil
reserves in their ethnic areas. Their priority in negotiating in the
new Iraq has been to ensure they receive their fair share of oil
revenues. But the competing expectations of Iraq's communities have
never been confronted head on, and were sidestepped by the framers of
the constitution, agreed in 2005, by means of ambiguous language.
Specifically, the constitution' s article 112 says the "federal
government, with the producing governorates and regional governments"
should manage oil and gas, but only from "present" fields. The
document's Article 115, meanwhile, declares that "all powers not
stipulated in the exclusive powers of the federal government" belong
to local or regional authorities. The KRG has taken this to mean that
the federal government has the conditional right to manage fields
currently producing, but that a regional government such as itself has
the power to manage exploration and the production from newly
discovered fields. To exploit this loophole, the KRG has passed its
own oil law, which allows it to sign contracts with foreign oil
companies. It has signed such agreements with several (smaller) groups
from Norway, Turkey, Austria, South Korea and other countries in the
face of Baghdad's objections.

"In the Kurdistan region, there is a constitution and there is a law.
We have two instruments that we can rely upon: the law and the
constitution are a pair, and they're consistent and in harmony with
each other in our case," says Ashti Hawrami, KRG oil minister.

Baghdad, however, has declared the KRG contracts ­illegal,
blacklisting companies that deal with the Kurdistan region and, more
recently, ­cancelling export deals with South Korean and Austrian
groups that signed exploration deals with the KRG. This has kept
bigger companies away from the north. The Kurds' assertive attitude
has heightened the Sunni Arabs' attachment to strong central control
over the country's regions and their inclination towards economic
nationalism. Their political leaders have pressed for the constitution
to be rewritten to strengthen the federal government and reduce the
powers of the KRG. With no agreement on the constitution, the
hydrocarbons legislation which would set terms for foreign oil
companies along with an agreement on the sharing of oil revenues
locally was controversial from the start.

After months of wrangling, the Iraqi cabinet in February 2007 came to
an agreement on a draft framework that did not include revenue-sharing
legislation. Even that has not been passed by parliament. Moreover, as
talks over the oil law have dragged on, opposition to the
production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favoured by western oil
companies, once relatively muted, has grown among the majority Shia as
well underlining a resurgence in nationalism as much as a reaction
to Kurdish unilateralism. According to Hussein Shahristani, the oil
minister, the cabinet's approval of a draft hydrocarbons law last year
made no reference to PSAs, and what his ministry will offer companies
are "model contracts" that would attempt to balance investors'
expectations of financial return against domestic political concerns,
not least the determination of Iraqis to maintain ownership and
control of oil wealth. Kurdish officials, however, say the contracts
envisaged by Baghdad are PSAs in all but name.

"What's happening is that various parties are jostling for position
now rather than reaching agreement on the oil legislation,
says Yahia Said, Iraq expert and Middle East director at Revenue Watch, a project
at the London School of Economics.
"The KRG is trying to move with as many facts on the ground as possible and the federal government is trying to show that it's in control."
Apotential flashpoint for the oil dispute between Kurds and Arabs is in the oil field of Kirkuk, the
city that Kurds claim as part of their region but whose status is to
be settled by a long-delayed referendum. It is to minimise the risk
of such confrontation that the US has put enormous pressure on Iraq's
politicians to agree the hydrocarbons legislation. Judging it a
crucial element for Iraqi stability, the Bush administration listed
the oil law as one of the benchmarks the Baghdad government was
expected to achieve as the US military surge helped to reduce violence
over the past year.

Even with the likelihood of an oil law approval fading, US officials
continue to insist that it is essential for signing oil contracts with
foreign groups. For international oil companies, the hope is that as
the negotiations proceed over the next year, Iraq's political and
legislative landscape will gain more clarity. Iraqi experts, however,
warn that the oil law may be dead and Baghdad's only choice,
ironically, will be to fall back on legislation from the Saddam
Hussein era. Although meant to protect the nationalised status of the
industry, the legislation did not stop the previous regime from
negotiating specific contracts with foreign companies, which were then
agreed by the rubber-stamp parliament.

"The ministry might be able to get away with [contracts] by leaning on
Saddam-era regulations. Saddam negotiated contracts that were not PSAs
[the oil companies' preferred arrangement] but with Iraq the only
remaining major resource in the world, companies will have to have
some investment there," says Tariq Shafiq, a former director of Iraq's
national oil ­company.

Shut out elsewhere, executives await the end of a long exile Just
months before US tanks rolled into Baghdad and Saddam Hussein was
toppled, US government officials met allies from Iraq's opposition and
decided it was in the country's interest for a new government to open
its oil industry to foreign participation as quickly as possible,
writes Dino Mahtani.

The so called "Oil and Energy" working group of the US state
department, which met four times in 2002 and 2003 and included
influential Iraqi exiles, had put forward the idea as a crucial plank
in Iraq's postwar reconstruction plans. Increased foreign
participation in Iraq's oil industry, members argued, would help
revitalise its most important economic lifeline ravaged by years of
neglect and under investment under Saddam's regime. But it would also
get US oil companies close to Iraq's reserves, which remain
significantly under-exploited compared with those of other big
producers and, according to some geologists, could hold the world's
largest deposits, surpassing even those of Saudi Arabia. The Middle
East has largely been off-limits to international oil companies ever
since a wave of oil industry nationalisation swept the region,
starting in the 1950s.

In Iraq's case, the military coup that forced out the British- and
US-backed royal family in 1958 was followed by the gradual takeover
over the next 14 years of the Iraq Petroleum Company, previously a
concession that gave ownership of Iraq's oil reserves to a consortium
dominated by US, British and French interests. Access to Iraqi oil
today would give western oil companies an important foothold in the
Middle East, home to about 60 per cent of global oil reserves, at a
time when resource nationalism is on the rise and companies are having
trouble finding new oil reserves to replace those they exhaust. The
reserves they claim are a main determinant of their stock prices.

Western oil executives had long been impatient with the reluctance of
Middle Eastern countries to open up to foreign participation. This was
summed up in 1999 by the US vice- president Dick Cheney (below), then
a director at the oil fields services company Halliburton.

"Even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."
he said in a speech to the oil industry. After
the US invasion, American officials collaborated closely with their
Iraqi political allies and oil industry executives. Many members of
the Oil and Energy working group had pushed for production-sharing
agreements to be introduced in Iraq after the invasion. These
arrangements would allow companies to claim a share of the reserves
produced as their own, at least for accounting purposes.

In effect, such contracts would amount to a significant step in
reversing Iraq's nationalisation process. The oil industry was
well-placed to lobby for such an arrangement. After the invasion,
former executives of big multinationals acted as consultants to the
new Iraqi oil ministry. The US then hand-picked oil ministry officials
under the coalition provisional authority, which eventually handed
over to the interim government of Iyad Allawi. This in turn advocated
partly privatising Iraq's oil industry. When a transitional government
came into place, the US backed Ahmad Chalabi a man who famously said
in 2002 that
"US oil companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil"
to chair Iraq's Energy Council.

Today, however, the openness of Iraq's oil industry to foreign
participation is still in doubt, not only because of the security
situation. Iraq has no national oil law in place. Its constitution is
vague about the degree of control regional governments can exert over
oil policy.

Iraqi officials know they will have the power to dictate terms to
foreign oil companies. "Iraq is definitely in the driver's seat. They
[the government] know they have one of the most prolific resources
left in the world," says Bob Fryklund, vice-president of IHS, the
international consultancy.

Energy producers such as Russia, Venezuela and Algeria have typified a
new wave of resource nationalism, in effect expropriating foreign
ownership of oil projects. In Libya, another country whose oil
industry has only just opened up to foreign participation after years
of sanctions, the government has now increased its take from all oil
projects to an average of 95 per cent, from 81 per cent in 2000. Even
in Kurdistan, where the regional authority has signed
production-sharing agreements, the government's take of future oil
produced is estimated at 87 per cent, says Mr Fryklund. Oil industry
executives say their companies will not invest if they do not get a
significant part of "the upside", industry jargon for expected
increases in production.

But Tariq Shafiq, a former director of Iraq's national oil company,
says companies would be prepared to accept variations of service
contracts that pay companies fixed returns rather than rewarding them
with control over reserves.
"Given how prolific Iraq is, the return
to international oil companies [under service contracts] would be just
as favourable as under investment [contracts]. And I believe the
companies are aware of that,"
he says.

===

US Company to Help Expand Iraqi Refinery
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN

http://ap.google. com/article/ ALeqM5i3MIE14CmM Tl3e-zkwuFBsPOsO eQD8VGQ6OG0

BAGHDAD (AP) Iraq's Oil Ministry has signed a contract with the
Colorado Industrial Construction Services Co. to help expand a
refinery in Najaf, south of Baghdad, an official said Wednesday. The
$85 million contract is designed to increase the refinery's current
capacity of 20,000 barrels of oil per day by roughly 10,000 barrels
per day, a senior ministry official said.

"We are expecting the work to be done in one year or one year and a
half," the official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition
of anonymity because of a lack of authorization to release the
information. The Colorado-based company did not respond to telephone
calls seeking confirmation.

The refinery, about 100 miles south of Baghdad, was constructed in
October 2006 to help meet increasing needs in central Iraq for
petroleum products, including kerosene. The U.S. company will build a
third production unit, the official said.

Last week, the oil ministry inaugurated a second production unit at
the facility and pledged more refineries would be built across the
country, including in Nasiriyah and Karbala, two other cities in the
predominantly Shiite south. Together the new refineries will be able
to refine more than 450,000 barrels daily, it said.

Iraq has the world's third-largest known crude oil reserves, with an
estimated 115 billion barrels, but it suffers acute shortages in
petroleum products as most infrastructure has been damaged or
destroyed after years of U.N. sanctions and then five years of war.

Iraq's three main oil refineries are running at roughly half the
700,000 barrels daily capacity they maintained before the U.S.-led
invasion on March 20, 2003. The shortfall has forced Iraq to turn to
imports from neighboring Iran, Kuwait and Turkey. The country has been
forced to import about 8,000 tons each day, or about 60,000 barrels,
according to figures released last month by the State Oil Marketing
Organization. Insurgents frequently attack pipelines, hoping to rob
the government of oil revenue.


Also of interest in very recent news:


Javno.hr
Global Insight: Violence in Southern Iraq threatening oil exports
Petroleumworld.com, Venezuela - 7 hours ago
New constitutional allowances for provinces to be bound together into autonomous regions of the likes of the northern Iraqi Kurdistan region are also coming ...
Democracy in the making Ha'aretz
all 710 news articles »
Heritage Oil announces intention to list on the London Stock Exchange
Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada - 1 hour ago
The timing is opportune given the high-impact drilling campaigns we will undertake in Uganda and Kurdistan this year. I am delighted to welcome General Sir ...
Shareholders of Heritage Oil Corporation Overwhelmingly Approve ... CNW Telbec (Communiqués de presse)
all 2 news articles »

BBC News
Return to Kurdistan
BBC News, UK - 26 Mar 2008
Kurdistan's future will be difficult enough, with or without the oil from Kirkuk, and these passionate students are the key to the region's growth. ...

Ghana Broadcasting Corporation
Five Years On - Invasion And occupation
CounterCurrents.org, India - 14 hours ago
The Turkish government is negotiating oil concessions with the Kurdish “Regional” government and Turkish companies have been heavily investing in the area. ...
Wobbling all over the place Economist
all 9 news articles »
KRG Natural Resources Ministry: Oil, gas, mining sector appointments
Kurdistan Regional Government, Iraq - 25 Mar 2008
As well as developing a robust private sector, the MNR’s petroleum programme will include the institutional development of a Kurdistan National Oil Company ...

San Diego Union Tribune
Iraqi Forces Clash With Sadr Militants in Basra for Third Day
Bloomberg - 22 hours ago
An oil pipeline in southern Iraq was on fire after a bomb exploded underneath it, the Associated Press reported, citing an unidentified official in Basra. ...
The Shiite - Shiite "Awakenings"...or Chalabi's revenge ? uruknet.info
Good Morning, Vietnam! Huffington Post
Iraqi Prime Minister Gives Shiite Militia 72 Hours to Surrender Bloomberg
Bloomberg - Bloomberg
all 3,964 news articles »

AFP
Norway's DNO revises oil deal with Iraq's Kurdish authorities
AFP - 14 Mar 2008
OSLO (AFP) — Norwegian oil company DNO International said Friday it had revised an agreement with Kurdish authorities on splitting oil production in two ...
Dispute over Kurdistan oil deals might be solved at federal court ...
International Herald Tribune, France - 10 Mar 2008
A national oil and gas law is stuck in parliament, with Kurdish and Arab leaders fighting over who has the final say in managing oil and gas fields. ...
Oil-rich Kurdistan still under thumb of Baghdad ministers
The Herald, UK - 20 Mar 2008
Kurdistan's oil minister, Ashti Harami, told us there are no limits to the success they can achieve: "You could create a new Dubai in every city in Iraq. ...
Iraq says it won't recognize oil deals with regional Kurdish ...
International Herald Tribune, France - 8 Mar 2008
AP ANKARA, Turkey: Iraq's oil minister said Saturday his government will not recognize any oil deals that the northern Kurdish self-governing region has ...

January 27, 2008

November 15, 2006

THE HIGHJACKING OF A NATION

Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor

By Sibel Edmonds

In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must be constantly awake against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence…since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.

Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought to influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal; those who are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy themselves a few strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in DC circles referred to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who facilitate and bring about desired transactions. These successful foreign entities have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying influence in Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few ‘Dime a Dozen Generals,’ bid high in the ‘former statesmen lobby auction’, and put in your pocket one or two ‘ex-congressmen turned lobbyists’ who know the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.

The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens when the active and powerful foreign entities’ objectives are in direct conflict with our nation’s objectives and its interests and security; and when this is the case, who pays the ultimate price and how. There is no need for assumptions of hypothetical situations to answer these questions, since throughout recent history we have repeatedly faced the dire consequences of the highjacking of our foreign and domestic policies by these so-called foreign agents of foreign influence.

Let’s illustrate this with the most important recent case, the catastrophe endured by our people; the September Eleven terrorist attacks. Let’s observe how certain foreign interests, combined with their U.S. agents and benefactors, overrode the interests and security of the entire nation; how thousands of victims and their loved ones were kicked aside to serve the interests of a few; foreign influence and its agents.

Senator Graham’s Revelation

It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

In his book, "Intelligence Matters," Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham’s statement from the July 24, 2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured [sic]….The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

In his book Graham reveals, “Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.” He then cites another case, “We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

The most explosive revelation in Graham’s book is the following statement with regard to the administration’s attitude on page 216: “It was as if the President’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.” Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists’ money trail, to look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham adds: “To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed…Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States.”

What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.

In covering up Saudi Arabia’s direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their report ignores all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security threat facing our nation and the world today?

Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and interests in order to advance the interests of another state?

How can a government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?

More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the people?

How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and implementing our nation’s policies, evolve into this foreign influence-peddling operation?

In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands to lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being exposed and facing consequences of its involvement in terrorist networks activities. In addition to identifying the nations in question, we must identify the interests as well as the actors; their agents. Let’s look at Saudi Arabia as one of the successful foreign nations that have mastered the art of ‘covering all the bases’ when it comes to buying and peddling influence in Washington DC, and identify its hired ‘agents’ and ‘agents by default.’

Foreign Agents by Default

Although when it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi Arabia the easiest answer appears to be the ‘oil factor,’ upon further inspection the Saudi’s influence and role extends into other areas, such as the Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.

According to the report published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990 the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive buyer of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report. Saudi Arabia’s position as a strategic Gulf ally has blinded U.S. officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports that should never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a poor human rights record.

Further, there are indications of Saudi’s active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan's nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having the congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government’s role in supporting the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure would have meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would have risked the loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its ‘top customer.’ These companies don’t even have to officially register as foreign agents; after all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond with foreign elements exists by default; it is called mutual benefit. They are ‘Foreign Agents by Default.’

This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC network; the contractors and the investors. Let’s look at one of these famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims’ family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi Royal Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa Bush’s Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Baker was reportedly at a Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin Laden family in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC, while Bush Sr. was on the payroll of the Carlyle group.

The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle’s investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker’s far reaching influence within the Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.

The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies have given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton's first presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In 1997 alone the defense industry spent $49.5 million to lobby the nation's decision-makers.

Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent more than $57 million in lobbying. For the same period of time, Lockheed Martin poured over $55 million into lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both by investing $83 million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by POGO, it contributed over $4 million to individuals and PACs.

With ‘dime a dozen’ generals on their boards of directors, numerous high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the ‘K Street Lobby Quarter,’ tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government. They appear to have had all the reasons to ensure that the report would not see the light of the day; no matter what the effect on the country, its security, and its interests.

K Street Lobby Quarter

The fact that Saudi Arabia pours large sums into lobbying firms and public relations companies with close ties to congress does not come as a big surprise. The FARA database under the DOJ website lists Qorvis Communications as one of Saudi Arabia’s registered foreign agents. In 2003, for only a six months period, Qorvis received more than $11 million from the Saudi government. Another firm, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP, another registered foreign agent, received more than $840,000 for the same six-month period, and the list goes on. Just for this six month period the government of Saudi Arabia paid a total of more than $14 million to 13 lobbying and public relations companies; all registered as foreign agents.

Why do the Saudis spend nearly $20 million per year in lobbying activities in the U.S. via their hired agents? What kind of return on investment are they getting out of the United States Congress?

Let’s take Loeffler’s group and examine its value for the Saudi government, since it was paid over $3 million in three years between 2003 and 2005. The firm was founded by former Republican Congressman Tom Loeffler of Texas. Loeffler served in the Republican Leadership as Deputy Whip, and as Chief Deputy Whip during his third and fourth term. He was a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Budget Committee. In the two Bush campaigns for governor, Loeffler, who contributed $141,000, was the largest donor. In 1998, he served as national co-chair of the Republican National Committee's "Team 100" program for donors of $100,000 or more, and afterwards held the same title during George W. Bush's presidential campaign. Loeffler’s generosity extends to the members of congress as well. In 6 years, he has given more than $185,000 to members of congress, 97% of it going to only Republican members. During the same six-year period, Loeffler’s firm received more than $18 million in lobbying fees.

The firm’s managing director happens to be William L. Ball. Ball served as Chief of Staff to Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Herman Talmadge (D-GA). In 1985, he joined the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. Later he was assigned to the White House to serve President Reagan as his chief liaison to the Congress. Wallace Henderson is also a Partner; he was Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff to Representative W. J. Tauzin (R-LA), Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA).

By having foreign agents such as the Loeffler Group, in addition to their foreign agents by default, the MIC, the Saudis seem to have all their bases covered. Former secretaries and deputy secretaries with open access to the current ones, former congressmen and senators who used to be positioned on strategically valuable committees and know the rules of the congressional game, and millions of dollars available to be spent and channeled and re-channeled to various PACs go a long way toward ensuring results. Money counts. Money is needed to bring in votes. Professional skills and discretion are required to get this money to various final destinations. The registered foreign agents, the lobby groups, are geared for this task. The client is happy in the end; so are the foreign agents and the congressional actors.

Other Savvy Nations

Of course, the sanction and legitimization of far reaching foreign influence and strongholds in the U.S., despite the many dire consequences endured by its citizens, is not limited to the government of Saudi Arabia. Numerous well-documented cases can be cited for others such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel, to name a few.

I won’t get into the details and history of my own case, where the government invoked the state secrets privilege to gag my case and the congress in order to ‘protect certain sensitive diplomatic relations.’ The country, the foreign influence, in this case was the Republic of Turkey. The U.S. government did so despite the far reaching consequences of burying the facts involved, and disregarded the interests and security of the nation; all to protect a quasi ally engaged in numerous illegitimate activities within the global terrorist networks, nuclear black-market and narcotics activities; an ally who happens to be another compulsive and loyal buyer of the Military Industrial Complex; an ally who happens to be another savvy player in recruiting top U.S. players as its foreign agents and spending million of dollars per year to the lobbying groups headed by many ‘formers.’ Turkey’s agent list includes generals such as Joseph Ralston and Brent Scowcroft, former statesmen such as William Cohen and Marc Grossman, and of course famous ex-congressmen such as Bob Livingston and Stephen Solarz. Turkey too seems to have all its bases covered.

Another well-known and documented case involves Pakistan. Over two decades ago Richard Barlow, an intelligence analyst working for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney issued a startling report. After reviewing classified information from field agents, he had determined that Pakistan, despite official denials, had built a nuclear bomb. In the March 29, 1993 issue of New Yorker, Seymour Hersh noted that “even as Barlow began his digging, some senior State Department officials were worried that too much investigation would create what Barlow called embarrassment for Pakistan.” Barlow's conclusion was politically inconvenient. A finding that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, and it would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad. A few months later a Pentagon official downplayed Pakistan's nuclear capabilities in his testimony to Congress. When Barlow protested to his superiors, he was fired. A few years later, the Executive Branch would slap Barlow with the State Secrets Privilege.

As we all now know, Pakistan provided direct nuclear assistance to Iran and Libya. During the Cold War, the U.S. put up with Pakistani lies and deception about their nuclear activities, it did not enforce its restrictions on Pakistan's nuclear program when it counted, and as a result Pakistan ended up with a U.S.-made nuclear weapons system. Yet again, after 9/11, the Bush administration issued a waiver ending the implementation of almost all sanctions on Pakistan because of the perceived need for Pakistani assistance in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who ironically were brought to power by direct U.S. support in the 1980s in the first place.

Weiss, in the May-June 2004 issue of the Bulletin states: “We are essentially back where we were with Pakistan in the 1980s. It is apparent that it has engaged in dangerous nuclear mischief with North Korea, Iran, and Libya (and perhaps others), but thus far without consequences to its relationship with the United States because of other, overriding foreign policy considerations--not the Cold War this time, but the war on terrorism.” He continues: “But now there is a major political difference. It was one thing for Pakistan, a country with which the United States has had good relations generally, to follow India and produce the bomb for itself. It is quite another for Pakistan to help two-thirds of the "axis of evil” to get the bomb as well.”

FARA & LDA

An agent of a ‘foreign principal’ is defined as any individual or organization which acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreign principal, or whose activities are directed by a foreign principal who engages in political activities, or acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal, or solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal, or represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government.

In 1938, in response to the large number of German propaganda agents in the pre-WWII U.S., Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was established to insure that the American public and its lawmakers know the source of propaganda intended to sway public opinion, policy, and laws. The Act requires every agent of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. Any agent testifying before a committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most recent registration statement. The agent must keep records of all his activities and permit the Attorney General to inspect them. However, as is the case with many laws, the Act is filled with exemptions and loopholes that allow minimization of, and in some cases complete escape from, warranted scrutiny.

There are a number of exemptions. For example, persons whose activities are of a purely commercial nature or of a religious, academic, and charitable nature are exempt. Any agent who is engaged in lobbying activities and is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) is exempt. The LDA of 1995 was passed after decades of effort to make the regulation and disclosure of lobbying the federal government more effective. However, LDA also has serious and important loopholes and limitations that can be summed up as: Inadequate Disclosure, Inadequate Enforcement, and Inadequate Regulation of Conduct. The recent congressional scandals make this point very clear.

In addition, neither act deals with an important issue: Conflict of Interest. Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand that feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions, commissions and special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger and his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White House. Take a look at Jimmy Baker’s current appointment on the Iraq commission. Same goes for the father of all the ‘dime a dozen generals’, Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new protégés, General Joseph Ralston. In short, neither FARA nor LDA creates meaningful oversight, control, or enforcement; neither deals with conflict of interest issues, and neither provides any deterrence or consequences for unethical or illegal conduct.

It used to be congressional ‘pork projects’ and ‘corporate influence’ that raised eyebrows now and then; here and there. Gone are those days. Today the unrestricted and uncontrollable money game and influence peddling tricks within the major decision-making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government have reached new heights; yet, no raised eyebrows are registered. Sadly, today, a new version of ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ would have to be produced as a documentary.

The other day I received a request to sign on to a petition put forth by a group of 9/11 family members urging the congress to reopen the investigations of 9/11 and declassify the infamous 27-pages which deal with foreign governments, U.S. allies, that provided support for those who carried out the attacks on our nation. My heart goes out to them. I do sympathize with them. I am known to take on similar propositions and methods of activism myself. However, looking at the realities, seeing what it takes to get things done in Washington, realizing how this beast works in the Real Sin City, I would encourage them to look at the root cause, rather than the symptoms. There are only two ways I can see that can bring about what they have been fighting for and what the majority of us desire to see in terms of bringing about Truth, Oversight, and Accountability; Justice.

The family members, and their supporters, us, either have to tackle the major cause; the corruption of our government officials via unrestricted and undisciplined ‘revolving doors’ and ‘foreign influence & lobby’ practices, and push for expedient meaningful reforms by the new ambitious congress, and have them prove to us their worth. Or, they may as well give up their long-held integrity, go bid high for one or two former statesmen, hire a few dime a dozen generals, and buy themselves a couple of ex-congressmen turned lobbyists; that will do the job.

# # # #

Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award.

© Copyright 2006, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Information in this release may be freely distributed and published provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

January 26, 2008

A story is told of a Londoner, a Jewish man who was riding on the London Underground reading an Arab newspaper. A friend of his, who happened to be riding in the same underground car, noticed this strange phenomenon. Very upset, he approached the newspaper reader.

"Moishe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading an Arab newspaper?" Moishe replied, "I used to read the Jewish newspaper, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to the Arab newspaper. Now what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews are all rich and powerful, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!"

Truth must be said, Moishe, is telling the truth here. The Jewish press in Britain is panicking lately and they have good reason, too. While the British papers are filling their mouths with water hiding the real story behind the huge Labour donation sleaze,
the UK Jewish press is overwhelmingly concerned with the unveiling saga. We have already learned about Lord ‘cash machine’ Levy who acted as ‘No 1 Labour fund raiser’. We have learned recently about David Abrahams who donated his money to the party by proxy. Both Levy and Abrahams were overwhelmingly active at the time Britain was taken into an illegal war by the Labour government. David Abrahams already admitted in an interview to the Jewish Chronicle that he donated money by proxy to “to quell conspiracy fears”.

Interestingly enough, the ‘Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
’ introduces some clear regulations concerning donation to political parties in Britain. According to the 2000 Act, donators have to report donations worth more than £1,000 from permitted donors (individuals on the UK electoral register, or UK-registered companies) and donations worth more than £200 from unidentified or impermissible donors. The 2000 act is there to protect Britain’s political world from being subject to any criminal or foreign interests. The act is there to protect Britain from conspiracy or anything that may even look like a conspiracy.

Levy and Abrahams were prominent activists in the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ and ‘Jewish Labour’. They both operate as Israeli lobbyists. It is more than possible that their interests as openly rabid Zionists do not exactly match the British interests. I am not here to suggest that this is indeed the case. However, Abrahams’s confession to the JC is there to suggest that at least Abrahams himself thought that his donation to the Labour party could be interpreted as a conspiracy.

Yesterday, Peter Hain, a senior British Cabinet minister resigned. Once again following a row over political donations and guess what, once again it is Zionist donators who put money into his campaign by proxy.

Hain, who served as Work and Pensions Secretary said he was leaving to clear his name after electoral authorities referred questions to the police about the funding of his unsuccessful campaign to become deputy Labor Party leader. Clearly, the British press avoids questioning the identity of the donators, and more crucially there is the disturbing question: what was it that they tried to buy? But as Moishe confesses in the joke above, Jewish newspapers are there to spread the depressive news.

Last week Jewish Chronicle’s report
on the Hain affair is indeed very revealing yet concerning.
“International diamond broker Willie Nagel, 83 — one of two Jewish benefactors to Mr Hain’s campaign through the Progressive Policies Forum — told the JC he had donated and loaned money to PPF and had “no objection that this money [had been] used to support Peter Hain’s campaign”.

Seemingly, Mr. Nagel changes league quite easily. As much as was happy to donate to Labour candidates in power, he was delighted to donate to the Tories at the time when they ran this country.

Here is the JC report:

“Mr Nagel, a member of St John’s Wood Synagogue, was also known to be close to the Conservatives during the premierships of Baroness Thatcher and John Major. He reportedly donated to Mr Major’s Huntingdon constituency, giving rise to reports in the media that he had attempted to interest the then-prime minister in Israeli-made unmanned aircraft at a time when the UK maintained an arms embargo on Israel.”

Clearly, Mr Nagel operates here as a foreign lobbyist for Israeli interests and even military interests. As much as Peter Hain was happy to receive Mr Nagel’s money, it does raise big questions as to whether Mr. Nagel was a ‘permissible’ donator. Though, he is a UK citizen, he clearly represents some foreign interests.

The JC continues. Mr Nagel “has been a vice-chairman of Israel Bonds UK, and played a major role in the Balfour Diamond Jubilee Trust and the British Overseas Trade Group for Israel. He is also a life-long supporter of both the Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel and appears regularly in the JC “Guest List” pages alongside leading Israeli and communal figures.”

Clearly Mr Nagel was there to buy Israeli interests and it is NO coincidence that Peter Hain ‘forgot’ to report of his voluntary contribution. I ask myself whether there are many donators in this country who openly send money to the two rival parties. I guess the answer is no. There are not many, there are just very few.

However, Mr Hain’s other benefactor is another prominent Zionist named Isaac Kaye. Mr Kaye is a South African-born multi-millionaire who was known for his support of the South African Apartheid regime.

Mr Kaye, 78 year old a man with dubious past “is the former chairman of Norton Healthcare, which was investigated by police looking into an alleged £400 million price-rigging of pharmaceuticals sold to the NHS.” Mr Kaye is obviously a rabid Zionist and a major Israeli Lobbyist. Again the JC report that Mr Kaye “has backed the Community Security Trust, UJIA and other Jewish and pro-Israel organisations. He is on the board of Bicom, the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre, and is a governor and major benefactor of the Hebrew University, where he has endowed the Kaye Research Awards.”

Interestingly enough, the Tories here do not do much to expose the identity of the Labour proxy donators. The reason is simple, they are backed by the very same people. We have read about Mr Nagel swinging between the two parties. Recently Parliament's sleaze watchdog has launched an inquiry into complaints made against shadow chancellor George Osborne. Mr Osborne allegedly received money from some of the wealthiest people in Britain, including banking heiress Lady Serena Rothschild, believed to have donated £190,000 to Mr Osborne.

Moishe is correct, the JC report is very concerning. The truth of Israeli lobbying in Britain is totally revealed in the Jewish Chronicle paper, God bless them. Interestingly enough, the British press wouldn’t touch the crux of the matter yet.

From Moishe’s point of view, the Guardian and the Independent are not a major concern for the time being. This might be the biggest asset of Britain and its tolerant culture. However, bearing in mind the genocide in Iraq, Britain has been led into its most devastating colonial phase ever by the Labour party. At a certain stage the question will be raised and it won’t be too long before the names Levy, Abrahams, Kaye, Nagel and a few others to pop up. This is very depressing and may even be very worrying as far as Moishe is concerned. I understand Moishe’s concerns and even feel for him.

However, since we have launched this article with Moishe’s joke it would be rather appropriate to end it with just another very short one,

A Jewish Telegram:
‘Begin worrying, details to follow.’

ShareThis