Corner turned in Iraq?

[Freak Out]

Maliki Criticizes U.S. Demands to Stay in Iraq
Iraqi Prime Minister Says Security Talks at Impasse

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 13, 2008; 1:43 PM

BAGHDAD, June 13 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Friday denounced demands made by the United States to extend the presence of American troops in Iraq, saying that the two sides are deadlocked and far from reaching an agreement.

"We found out that the demands of the American side are strongly violating the sovereignty of Iraq, something we could never accept," Maliki said.

Speaking during a visit to Amman, Maliki for the first time added his voice to the growing chorus of senior Iraqi politicians opposed to U.S. proposals for a status of forces agreement, which would authorize the presence of American troops, and a long-term strategic agreement between the two countries. He said the drafts presented by the American side were unacceptable, but that both parties would continue to work toward a deal.

"The initial drafts that were presented have reached a dead end," Maliki said.

But Maliki specifically rejected two positions that American officials have signaled are nonnegotiable. He said the Iraqis expected the United States to commit to protecting Iraq from foreign aggression, and he ruled out allowing Americans to be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

The Bush administration has said it cannot promise to protect Iraq from foreign aggression without submitting such a commitment to Congress for approval, a step the White House does not wish to take.

The United States initially demanded that both American troops and private contractors be granted immunity, but over the past week Washington has softened its position and dropped its demand for immunity for contractors. Maliki, however, said that was an unacceptable compromise.

"We could not give amnesty to a soldier carrying arms on our ground," he said. "We will never give it."

The United Nations mandate that authorizes the presence of American troops in Iraq is due to expire on Dec. 31, and the U.S. and Iraqi governments are working toward a bilateral agreement to allow American troops to remain.

Although Iraqi politicians have becoming increasingly angered by U.S. demands during the talks, top American officials have insisted that an agreement could be reached by their established deadline at the end of July.

Yet Maliki appeared to dismiss such talk as far too optimistic.

"I am astonished by those who are talking about how close the agreement is to be signed," Maliki said.

[texaspackerbacker]

None of this would be a serious issue if not for the fact that one of the hallmarks of Obama's foreign policy is unconditional negotiation with the lunatic, Ahmedinijad--who probably more than anybody other Bin Laden symbolizes the absolute blood enemy of America and all we stand for.

Unconditional? Bullshit. So Iran nukes us and Obama gets him on the phone? Don't think so.

You lost me there with that comment, Freak Out. Could you possibly elaborate a bit?

Sorry Texas......
I have never heard Obama sat he would "unconditionally" talk with any Iranian leader. I heard him say he would open up a dialog with Iran to talk about our differences and regional issues. Hell....I think were talking to Iran right now.

True, "we" as in Condoleeza Rice and other lower level officials. Nothing wrong with talking to enemies in general. However, Obama was talking about legitimatizing an all out terrorist and lunitic like Ahmedinijad with a face to face meeting with the president of the United States--and this from a guy who as a mere candidate, refuses to meet with Petraeus, the general who commands our troops in the middle east.

Besides, it's one thing for people from a cowboy-esque America-loving administration to talk from strength to enemies, and quite another for a weakling who spews weakness and anti-American positions to go and give away the farm.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

I understand it was a joke, it was about as funny as those jokes about conservatives being rascists and bigots. I really think the healing you guys want (as do I) can't begin until those little stereotypical shots are as frowned on as people making rascist jokes. They are not different and it saddens me that you don't get that. It hurts me just as much to be lumped in with bigots as it hurts blacks to get stereotyped in the ways they are.

The BTW could have just as easily been aimed directly at me, implying that I had mad such a claim and now your were asking me a question throwing my laguage back at me...remeber, the clarity of the message is the senders responsibility.

No. You are getting it wrong. It is like when a black person uses the n word. We liberals can make fun of ourselves..but, like the analogy it is hurtful when others do it.

I was not trying to lump you in with anybody.

Message: Point taken (or should i now weasel out..and pretend i agree with patler? ). I don't know why you think that it was implied that you had made that point. I shoulda made it a P.S.

BTW, waiting for you to give us McCain's side....which was THE WHOLE POINT.

[bobblehead]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

I understand it was a joke, it was about as funny as those jokes about conservatives being rascists and bigots. I really think the healing you guys want (as do I) can't begin until those little stereotypical shots are as frowned on as people making rascist jokes. They are not different and it saddens me that you don't get that. It hurts me just as much to be lumped in with bigots as it hurts blacks to get stereotyped in the ways they are.

The BTW could have just as easily been aimed directly at me, implying that I had mad such a claim and now your were asking me a question throwing my laguage back at me...remeber, the clarity of the message is the senders responsibility.

No. You are getting it wrong. It is like when a black person uses the n word. We liberals can make fun of ourselves..but, like the analogy it is hurtful when others do it.

I was not trying to lump you in with anybody.

Message: Point taken (or should i now weasel out..and pretend i agree with patler? ). I don't know why you think that it was implied that you had made that point. I shoulda made it a P.S.

BTW, waiting for you to give us McCain's side....which was THE WHOLE POINT.

Since I have roundly criticized mccain without ever (that I can think of) defending him I don't think you asking me a question where I am supposed to defend him now is relevant. I have no clue where he stands on it, and I'm not doing the research to defend a man I'm not going to vote for. If you feel the need to point out something, point it out, I'll probably agree with you.

[Freak Out]

June 17, 2008

Army Overseer Tells of Ouster Over KBR Stir

By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — The Army official who managed the Pentagon’s largest contract in Iraq says he was ousted from his job when he refused to approve paying more than $1 billion in questionable charges to KBR, the Houston-based company that has provided food, housing and other services to American troops.

The official, Charles M. Smith, was the senior civilian overseeing the multibillion-dollar contract with KBR during the first two years of the war. Speaking out for the first time, Mr. Smith said that he was forced from his job in 2004 after informing KBR officials that the Army would impose escalating financial penalties if they failed to improve their chaotic Iraqi operations.

Army auditors had determined that KBR lacked credible data or records for more than $1 billion in spending, so Mr. Smith refused to sign off on the payments to the company. “They had a gigantic amount of costs they couldn’t justify,” he said in an interview. “Ultimately, the money that was going to KBR was money being taken away from the troops, and I wasn’t going to do that.”

But he was suddenly replaced, he said, and his successors — after taking the unusual step of hiring an outside contractor to consider KBR’s claims — approved most of the payments he had tried to block.

Army officials denied that Mr. Smith had been removed because of the dispute, but confirmed that they had reversed his decision, arguing that blocking the payments to KBR would have eroded basic services to troops. They said that KBR had warned that if it was not paid, it would reduce payments to subcontractors, which in turn would cut back on services.

“You have to understand the circumstances at the time,” said Jeffrey P. Parsons, executive director of the Army Contracting Command. “We could not let operational support suffer because of some other things.”

Mr. Smith’s account fills in important gaps about the Pentagon’s handling of the KBR contract, which has cost more than $20 billion so far and has come under fierce criticism from lawmakers.

While it was previously reported that the Army had held up large payments to the company and then switched course, Mr. Smith has provided a glimpse of what happened inside the Army during the biggest showdown between the government and KBR. He is giving his account just as the Pentagon has recently awarded KBR part of a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for KBR, said in a statement that the company “conducts its operations in a manner that is compliant with the terms of the contract.” She added that it had not engaged in any improper behavior.

Ever since KBR emerged as the dominant contractor in Iraq, critics have questioned whether the company has benefited from its political connections to the Bush administration. Until last year, KBR was known as Kellogg, Brown and Root and was a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas oil services giant, where Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive.

When told of Mr. Smith’s account, Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said it “is startling, and it confirms the committee’s worst fears. KBR has repeatedly gouged the taxpayer, and the Bush administration has looked the other way every time.”

Mr. Smith, a civilian employee of the Army for 31 years, spent his entire career at the Rock Island Arsenal, the Army’s headquarters for much of its contracting work, near Davenport, Iowa. He said he had waited to speak out until after he retired in February.

As chief of the Field Support Contracting Division of the Army Field Support Command, he was in charge of the KBR contract from the start. Mr. Smith soon came to believe that KBR’s business operations in Iraq were a mess. By the end of 2003, the Defense Contract Audit Agency told him that about $1 billion in cost estimates were not credible and should not be used as the basis for Army payments to the contractor.

“KBR didn’t move proper business systems into Iraq,” Mr. Smith said.

Along with the auditors, he said, he pushed for months to get KBR to provide data to justify the spending, including approximately $200 million for food services. Mr. Smith soon felt under pressure to ease up on KBR, he said. He and his boss, Maj. Gen. Wade H. McManus Jr., then the commander of the Army Field Support Command, were called to Pentagon meetings with Tina Ballard, then the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for policy and procurement.

Ms. Ballard urged them to clear up KBR’s contract problems quickly, but General McManus ignored the request, Mr. Smith said. Ms. Ballard declined to comment for this article, as did General McManus.

Eventually, Mr. Smith began warning KBR that he would withhold payments and performance bonuses until the company provided the Army with adequate data to justify the expenses. The bonuses — worth up to 2 percent of the value of the work — had to be approved by special boards of Army officials, and Mr. Smith made it clear that he would not set up the boards without the information.

Mr. Smith also told KBR that, until the information was received, he would withhold 15 percent of all payments on its future work in Iraq.

“KBR really did not like that, and they told me they were going to fight it,” Mr. Smith recalled.

In August 2004, he told one of his deputies, Mary Beth Watkins, to hand deliver a letter about the threatened penalties to a KBR official visiting Rock Island. That official, whose name Mr. Smith said he could not recall, responded by saying, “This is going to get turned around,” Mr. Smith said.

Two officials familiar with the episode confirmed that account, but would speak only on the condition of anonymity out of concern for their jobs.

The next morning, Mr. Smith said he got a call from Brig. Gen. Jerome Johnson, who succeeded General McManus when he retired the month before. “He told me, “You’ve got to pull back that letter,”’ Mr. Smith recalled. General Johnson declined to comment for this article.

A day later, Mr. Smith discovered that he had been replaced when he went to a meeting with KBR officials and found a colleague there in his place. Mr. Smith was moved into a job planning for future contracts with Iraq. Ms. Watkins, who also declined to comment, was reassigned as well.

Mr. Parsons, the contracting director, confirmed the personnel changes. But he denied that pressure from KBR was a factor in the Army’s decision making about the payments. “This issue was not decided overnight, and had been discussed all the way up to the office of the secretary of defense,” he said.

Soon after Mr. Smith was replaced, the Army hired a contractor, RCI Holding Corporation, to review KBR’s costs. “They came up with estimates, using very weak data from KBR,” Mr. Smith said. “They ignored D.C.A.A.’s auditors,” he said, referring to the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Pentagon spokesman, disputed that. He said in a statement that the Army auditing agency “does not believe that RCI was used to circumvent” the Army audits.

Paul Heagen, a spokesman for RCI’s parent company, the Serco Group, said his firm had insisted on working with the Army auditors. While KBR did not provide all of the data Mr. Smith had been seeking, Mr. Heagen said his company had used “best practices” and sound methodology to determine KBR’s costs.

Bob Bauman, a former Pentagon fraud investigator and contracting expert, said that was unusual. “I have never seen a contractor given that position, of estimating costs and scrubbing D.C.A.A.’s numbers,” he said. “I believe they are treading on dangerous ground.”

The Army also convened boards that awarded KBR high performance bonuses, according to Mr. Smith.

High grades on its work in Iraq also allowed KBR to win more work from the Pentagon, and this spring, KBR was awarded a share in the new 10-year contract. The Army also announced that Serco, RCI’s parent, will help oversee the Army’s new contract with KBR.

“In the end,” Mr. Smith said, “KBR got what it wanted.”

[oregonpackfan]

This type of financial abuse by private firms allied with the military and political parties is what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the country about in 1960 when he coined the phrase "Military Industrial complex."


Eisenhower was no pot-smoking, liberal who "hated" America. He was:

--a former American general

--the former Commander of the Allied Invasion Force on D-Day, Normandy, France in 1944.

--a Republican

[falco]

This type of financial abuse by private firms allied with the military and political parties is what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the country about in 1960 when he coined the phrase "Military Industrial complex."


Eisenhower was no pot-smoking, liberal who "hated" America. He was:

--a former American general

--the former Commander of the Allied Invasion Force on D-Day, Normandy, France in 1944.

--a Republican

too bad Eisenhower isn't running for president I would vote for him.

[hoosier]

This type of financial abuse by private firms allied with the military and political parties is what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the country about in 1960 when he coined the phrase "Military Industrial complex."


Eisenhower was no pot-smoking, liberal who "hated" America. He was:

--a former American general

--the former Commander of the Allied Invasion Force on D-Day, Normandy, France in 1944.

--a Republican

So he was a pot-smoking liberal who LOVED America. :P

[oregonpackfan]

Here is the portion of President Eisenhower's outgoing speech of '61 warning us of the dangers of "The military industrial complex"--a phrase he created.

V.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

* and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

I understand it was a joke, it was about as funny as those jokes about conservatives being rascists and bigots. I really think the healing you guys want (as do I) can't begin until those little stereotypical shots are as frowned on as people making rascist jokes. They are not different and it saddens me that you don't get that. It hurts me just as much to be lumped in with bigots as it hurts blacks to get stereotyped in the ways they are.

The BTW could have just as easily been aimed directly at me, implying that I had mad such a claim and now your were asking me a question throwing my laguage back at me...remeber, the clarity of the message is the senders responsibility.

No. You are getting it wrong. It is like when a black person uses the n word. We liberals can make fun of ourselves..but, like the analogy it is hurtful when others do it.

I was not trying to lump you in with anybody.

Message: Point taken (or should i now weasel out..and pretend i agree with patler? ). I don't know why you think that it was implied that you had made that point. I shoulda made it a P.S.

BTW, waiting for you to give us McCain's side....which was THE WHOLE POINT.

Since I have roundly criticized mccain without ever (that I can think of) defending him I don't think you asking me a question where I am supposed to defend him now is relevant. I have no clue where he stands on it, and I'm not doing the research to defend a man I'm not going to vote for. If you feel the need to point out something, point it out, I'll probably agree with you.

I wasn't asking you to defend him..just to give his views. I thought you might know them.

[Freak Out]

Consider the source.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=127048

Five years on, Saddam's successor resurfaces
17/06/2008 03:06:00 PM GMT

Izzat Ibrahim Addouri has resurfaced despite a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head.

By Nicola Nasser

* Addouri Outlines Anti-U.S. Strategy

For the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in April 2003, the deputy of Saddam Hussein, the late President of Iraq, Izzat Ibrahim Addouri has resurfaced, despite a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head, in a lengthy interview with Abdel-Azim Manaf, the editor-in-chief of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Mawqif Al-Arabi, not a mainstream, on May 26 to lay out the strategy and tactics of the Iraqi resistance led by the former ruling party, Al-Baath. Addouri's resurface and the resistance strategy he has laid out represent a direct challenge to the U.S. occupying power.

Manaf told The Associated Press (AP) he interviewed addouri "on the battlefield." The "dialogue" was conducted "with a commander in his lion's den and among his soldiers," in the "war zone" and on the "combat field while weapons were talking," Manaf said in his introduction. Addouri spoke in his capacity as "the Supreme Commander of the Jihad and Liberation Front, the Pan-Arab Secretary General of the Al-Baath Arab Socialist Party and the Secretary of Iraq Region," the Egyptian editor added.

The AP said "Addouri is believed to play an important role in financing" the resistance, "though little is known about how directly he leads fighters on the ground." However the U.S. occupying power, as well as Iran and the Iranian-allied regime Washington brought about in Baghdad after the occupation, have been keen to downplay the role played by Addouri and his party in the national resistance and instead highlight the marginal role played by Al-Qaeda, which was brought into Iraq for the first time ever thanks to U.S., and other terrorists.

If history could illuminate current events, Addouri's reference to this "blackout" media policy is vindicated by the precedent of the U.S. – British planning for the coup that brought down the Iranian leader Mohamed Musaddiq's government in August 1953, which installed the Shah in power.

"One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs (against Musaddiq, which was "a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. The mob was paid for by American dollars.") as supporters of the Iranian Communist Party - Tudeh … As in every other British and U.S. military intervention until the collapse of the USSR, the 'communist threat' scenario was deployed as the Official Story … The real threat of nationalism (and dirtier aims like protecting oil profits) were downplayed or removed from the picture presented to the public." [Mark Curtis, "Web of Deciet," Vintage, 2003] In Iraq, the U.S. propaganda machine has only replaced the "communist threat" by that of Al-Qaeda.

Manaf, in his introduction, noted how much Addouri was a dedicated religious man, very well versed in Islamic theology and Arab history, and familiar with Sufism. His Arab and Islamic culture was reflected extensively in his answers, which were full of quotations from the Holy Qur'an and the sayings of historic Arab and Muslim leaders, a fact that makes the translation of his interview into English an impossible mission sometimes.

Addouri identified Al-Baath as a "revolutionary organization, a brave and innovative leadership, an armed revolutionary organization; it represents a fearless army and glorious armed forces."

Denying media reports about his ill health (born July 1, 1942), Addouri confirmed that, "I am in good health," adding that, "today, I believe I am immigrating to God and His Prophet," and "left the world, myself and its fortunes behind my back" to be totally dedicated to and "garrisoned for God and for His Sake" until "either victory or martyrdom."

* Three chapters of resistance

"Our resistance and battle with the (U.S.) occupier is not new," Addouri said. "It started during the early years of Al-Baath formation to expand and deepen after the glorious Tammuz (July) revolution of 1968 … Prior to 2003, the imperialist enemy used local forces from Iraq, and the (Arab) nation sometimes; other times it used regional powers to fight us on its behalf. When its local and regional instruments failed to stop the Pan-Arab renaissance march of Iraq, the U.S. enemy directly entered the field of struggle and combat, amassed great powers, and led the invasion and occupation by itself."

He identified three stages of the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. -led invasion and occupation. "The first chapter was the official showdown, when the regular formations of the brave armed forces stood up to the U.S. invasion; then the launch of the popular confrontation against the invasion, which inter-wined with this chapter. The popular, official and military integration occurred immediately and the people's war of liberation started during the first week of the invasion, as was planned by the leadership and according to its strategy."

During this second chapter of the resistance formations from the civil organizations of the party, Fedayeen Saddam and volunteers took part in carrying our "martyrdom operations." The "glorious women of Iraq participated in the first formations of the popular resistance." Some of those women carried out "martyrdom operations, the first of which was the heroic operation carried out by two women in Baghdad on the third day of the occupation; another operation was carried out by a glorious Iraqi woman in Al-Nassiriyah south of Iraq."

The "third chapter is sustaining the resistance and continuing the battle until the liberation of Iraq."

Addouri said that during the occupation more than one million and three hundred thousand Iraqis fell martyrs, and "so far the number of Al-Baath martyrs in this battle amounts to one hundred and twenty thousand."

He sees "this historic decisive showdown," which he described as "the holy battle," as the "fate and the responsibility of Al-Baath as much as it is the responsibility of the great people of Iraq, and the free people of our (Arab) nation and humanity as a whole," all who were "targeted by the invasion."

* Ready to negotiate U.S. withdrawal

Addouri sounded definitely confident of victory and reiterated that the U.S. -led occupation has already been defeated, and "in despair is looking for an exit." The resistance "has destroyed the alliance of evil, the parties of which are escaping one after another. Only (U.S. President George W.) Bush remains blundering in his debacle," he said.

Replying to questions about the truth in media reports that there were "contacts between you and the Americans," whether he made any "direct or indirect contact with official U.S. authorities," whether "you are willing to negotiate with the Americans" and if the answer was positive "what are your negotiating terms," "would you lead the negotiations personally" or would authorize others to negotiate, would such negotiations be bilateral (between Al-Baath and the U.S. ) or in the name of the resistance "front," and whether he was sure that the yield of the negotiations would correspond to the real weight of the resistance on the ground, "as the saying goes, you cannot reach at the negotiating table farther than your artillery can reach," Addouri said:

"Friends and foes" are very well aware of our strategy, which was made public by the media; "Al-Baath doesn't negotiate with anybody at all if they don't recognize this strategy beforehand, and will negotiate neither with America nor with intermediaries or friends except on this basis. If the enemy recognized this strategy we will sit with them directly, negotiate with them, and help them exit our country without loosing face and will facilitate their exit. Prior to this recognition, there are no negotiations with the occupying enemy."

"Al-Baath will meet with whoever it decides to meet, except with the Zionist entity (Israel) and the government of collaborators in the Green Zone … We will be happy when the enemy is convinced of its defeat, accepts our strategy, sits with us to negotiate a program for its implementation," he added.

Addouri detailed his strategy, indicating that "any negotiations with the invaders without it represents a desertion and treason, and is refused by all national, Pan-Arab and Islamic factions of the resistance."

(1) An official pronounced recognition of the armed and unarmed national resistance, including all its factions and (political) parties, as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Iraq.

(2) An official declaration of unconditional withdrawal from Iraq by the U.S. leadership.

(3) Declaring null and void all the political and legislative institutions, as well as all the laws and legislations issued by them, since the occupation, with the deBaathization law in the forefront, and compensating all who were adversely affected by them.

(4) A stop to raids, prosecutions, arrests, killings and displacement.

(5) Release of all prisoners of war (POWs), prisoners and detainees without exception and compensating all for their physical and psychological damage.

(6) Reinstating the army and the national security forces in service in accordance with their pre-occupation laws and regulations, and compensating all who were adversely affected by dissolving them.

(7) A pledge to compensate Iraq for all the material and moral losses it incurred because of the occupation.

* Iraqi tactics of guerrilla war

Addouri detailed his concept of "the people's war of liberation and the guerilla war," advised the resistance fighters to "adhere to the principles and rules" of this kind of war and listed fifteen "most effective" tactics to hurt the enemy. First, he said, "appear quickly behind, in front and on the sides of the enemy as dictated by the nature of the place, time, climate of the operation, and the type and nature of the target, then hit quickly and disappear quickly before the enemy could have time to react."

Second, "In planning, implementing and selecting of the target take care to hit a kill in the enemy," he added. Third, "your weapon is your life, so take care to keep it always ready and away from the eyes of the enemy and its spies." Four, "protect the security of information … as a red line or a holy matter" and trust nobody "because trust is endless in society."

Five, "the enemy is blind without spies, so exert all efforts to disclose and liquidate them." Six, "don't be taken away by your successive victories" or attracted by "showing off" or loose your self-control by praise of your heroic acts, to be a big mouth boasting of your success, "noting that the enemy is hunting you at all times, so keep discreet, disguised and vigilant."

Seven, "inflict the biggest losses in the ranks of the enemy and decrease to the minimum your own losses." Eight "make your hands heavy at the enemy during their rest hours" and make "no place safe" for them and give them no time to recover."

Nine, "the supply lines are the enemy's lifeline," so "concentrate on and cut" these lines. Ten, "concentrate on the enemy's bases, camps and headquarters day and night" to "break its morale." Eleven, "take your time to deal with high extreme accuracy with the traitors and spies to avoid hurting innocents."

Twelve, "expand the circle of monitoring, following up and hunting the enemy … so it doesn't surprise us." Thirteen, "sustain your traditional ties with your relatives, neighbors, neighborhood and friends and make these ties deeper and more intimate, but don't make any of them feel you have a mission they don't understand" and "help them to overcome the details of daily life hardships, which are so many nowadays" so they will protect you when in trouble and don't hand you over to the enemy; they are "your safe armor and honest cover."

Fourteen, "let belief in God … be our strong starting point." Fifteen, "fight for the sake of God the enemies of God … until the tyrant … invaders are defeated, until the clear-cut victory, the liberation of the homeland, and raising the flag of 'There Is No God but The God' and bringing back the 'Flag of God Is the Greatest' to fly in Iraq skies," Addouri confirmed.

* Other excerpts:

Manaf: It is noted that the Iraqi resistance started immediately after the desecration of the Iraq land by the U.S. forces. How could it (the resistance) have started and grown so quickly?

Addouri: "Al-Baath Arab Socialist Party is the party of Iraq and the Arab nation … It did not lay arms or stop fighting even for an hour during day and night… It wasn't surprised by what happened, but increased … its determination not to be exhausted to relentlessly fight the invaders, their stooges and spies whatever the sacrifices are and regardless of how long it would take until full victory and the liberation of Iraq."

* Role of army rank and file

Manaf: What role the officers and ranks of the Iraqi armed forces play in resistance?

Addouri: Today they play "a heroic and decisive role in the march of the resistance. In addition to their fighting role through their own formations … under the flag of the General Command of the Armed Forces, they are, in accordance with the guidance of the party' (Al-Baath) leadership and the General Command of the Armed Forces, dispersed into other resistance factions where they act as field commanders, planners, technicians, makers and developers of most of the various weapons of the resistance. They represent the soul of the resistance and the secret of its innovations, accurate performance and victories."

* New 'unprecedented' methods

Manaf: What distinguishes the Iraqi resistance? How was it able to fight the occupier in open areas?

Addouri: "The resistance depended on the rules and principles of people's wars and the guerrilla war, after developing its fighting methods and tactics, and was innovative in its logistic and special operations. More important, it has adapted the Iraqi environment to serve the people's war. Through practice, it has developed" those rules very much "to move quickly" so to make "all the land is ours and all the time is ours," and to be up to date to what is new by the enemy in order to "confront it with innovative new of our own."

"We have made and innovated new ways and methods unprecedented in the people's wars of liberation, or even in the intelligence sciences … I cannot go into more details for security reasons; this is what kept the resistance" and its leadership a " mysterious secret, humiliating the enemy, its collaborators and spies."

* Al-Baath live and … recruiting

Manaf: Do your resistance formations disperse equally to cover the area of Iraq now or they are concentrated in certain areas and governorates?

Addouri: "The party (Al-Baath) is more than half a century old in Iraq … the organization of Al-Baath today … is stronger many times than it was before the occupation … (I will not elaborate) for reasons Al-Baath will speak out on time." Today the party disperses in all the cities, villages, plains, mountains and deserts of Iraq; outside Iraq it also disperses among Iraqis wherever they are in every Arab or foreign country."

After the occupation, despite "the strict conditions" for joining the party and the deBaathization campaign, "thousands joined the party, mostly young people aged between 16 and 25. Tens of thousands of other Iraqis joined the resistance factions led by Al-Baath."

"In the end the National, Pan-Arab and Islamic Front emerged; Al-Baath is one of its basic pillars."

* No outside Support

Manaf: The Iraqi resistance is unique in the fact that it has no Arab, regional or international incubator or support; how could Al-Baath have provided for sustaining the resistance strong and escalating?

Addouri: "Our resistance … not only has no incubator outside the borders of its country, but what is worse and more bitter is that 99 percent of the influential world powers are either directly involved with the enemy against it or sympathize with the enemy; the one percent, which sympathizes with the resistance, turned its back to it fearing its enemies, but God provided for it and made it in no need for them. The people of Iraq have provided their money and offspring; it is an inexhaustible source."

Manaf: Some say the role of Al-Baath in the resistance is limited. What is the size of the Al-Baath-led resistance?

Addouri: "The occupying enemy and its regional and local partners have launched a genocide against the Baathists, their families, supporters and sympathizers. The collaborators' constitution, which was prepared by the CIA, includes a Nazi racist article stipulating the liquidation of Al-Baath as an organization, thought and persons."

"They targeted by physical liquidation, destruction and displacement the society of the party to the sixth neighbor."

"One of the most important and dangerous deBaathization methods, after assassinations and physical liquidation of Baathists, is the attempt to completely censor the role of Al-Baath on the field as a resisting party and an armed resistance, and to smear it image and role."

"Had Al-Baath not been the initiator of resistance since the first day of the invasion and occupation, and had it not acted as if the battle is its own and the cause is its own cause, the world could not have seen the emergence of the strongest national resistance immediately following the invasion."

"The other resistance factions emerged after the resistance was deeply rooted in confronting the occupier and undermining its strategy; some of them were formed and started to act three years after the occupation.

* Operations documented on CDs

"The backbone" of the "wide and strong base of Jihad today is the resistance of Al-Baath and the national, Pan-Arab and Islamic forces, with those members of the Higher Command of Jihad and Liberation in the forefront, who cover the whole area of Iraq," from Um-Qaser in the south to Zakho in the north and from al-Qaem in the west to Khanqeen and Mandali in the east.

This resistance is targeted by imposing a media, economic and political siege on it to black out its military operations, political activities and its destructive physical and psychological influence on the soldiers of the occupying power and its forces in Iraq.

"Don't you see how the invaders, collaborators, traitors, spies, renegades … despite their differences on many other things, have agreed to censor its role and action and instead inflated … the claim that it (the resistance) is terrorism?"

"I have documented over the past five years on CDs thousands of operations against the enemy … while the enemy is highlighting the role of other groups, some of which was directly formed or via intermediaries by the occupation itself, and some other were formed by foreign powers hostile to Iraq … who kill the people on ID" (Addouri explicitly was referring to sectarian militias formed by Iran, but did not mention Iran by name).

* Pluralistic future system

Manaf: How do you perceive the ongoing political process in Iraq? What is you comment on reported reconciliation conferences under the auspices of the League of Arab States?

Addouri: "No truce with those … and (we'll) resist whatever entity is established under occupation and in its service, first among them the traitors' government in the Green Zone."

Manaf: Do you have a strategy to administer the ruling of Iraq after the liberation?

Addouri: Since the first day of the occupation Al-Baath called for "the unity of the resistance as a historical necessity." With endeavor and persistence the party succeeded in forming the "National, Pan-Arab and Islamic Front in 2005" then the "Jihad and Liberation Front for armed factions (33 armed resistance factions according to him) on the field in September 2007. Both fronts are open to all anti-occupation armed and political forces" to achieve more unity during the liberation and post-liberation.

Al-Baath has never adopted a one-party stance; it doesn't "believe in and refuses the one party theory." However in the past, and "for objective circumstances," it offered "the theory of the leading party."

"Al-Baath deeply and principally believes in the creation of a pluralistic national democratic system in which power is democratically rotated on the basis of ballot boxes through free, transparent and fair elections."

Every deviation from this in the past "falls within the context of the mistakes" of the Al-Baath march.

* Committed to Kurdish autonomy

Manaf: What is your program to deal with the Kurdish question after liberation?

Addouri: "We are confident that our Kurdish people will not get their national and cultural rights … except within the unity of … a free, liberated, independent and prosperous Iraq … Al-Baath Party will remain committed to the historical March 1970 statement and the 1974 Law of Autonomy as the basis for dealing with the national, cultural and political rights of our Kurdish people in Iraq."

Manaf: Recently the anti-U.S. occupation "Freedom and Justice Party of Kurdistan" was publicly founded; what role do you expect this party to play in Kurdistan?

Addouri: Two Kurdish parties were founded in the name of freedom and justice party of Kurdistan, one chaired by Johar al-Hirki, the son of a prominent Iraqi Kurdish family, which is loyal to the people of Iraq, and the other chaired by the "brother fighter" Arshad Zibari. Both have made a lot of sacrifices from their families and tribes against the occupation and in defense of Iraq freedom and independence.

"The birth of both parties will contribute to strengthening and expanding the Kurdish national movement against the occupation and its stooges."

-- Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian trrritories.

[Freak Out]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/41514.html

General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes

Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 18, 2008 08:34:09 PM

WASHINGTON — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.

The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.

A White House spokeswoman, Kate Starr, had no comment.

Taguba didn't respond to a request for further comment relayed via a spokesman.

The group Physicians for Human Rights, which compiled the new report, described it as the most in-depth medical and psychological examination of former detainees to date.

Doctors and mental health experts examined 11 detainees held for long periods in the prison system that President Bush established after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. All of them eventually were released without charges.

The doctors and experts determined that the men had been subject to cruelties that ranged from isolation, sleep deprivation and hooding to electric shocks, beating and, in one case, being forced to drink urine.

Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.

"All credible allegations of abuse are thoroughly investigated and, if substantiated, those responsible are held accountable," said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman. The Defense Department responds to concerns raised by the International Committee for the Red Cross, he said, which has access to detainees under military control.

"It adds little to the public discourse to draw sweeping conclusions based upon dubious allegations regarding remote medical assessments of former detainees, now far removed from detention," Gordon said.

The physicians' group said that its experts, who had experience studying torture's effects, spent two days with each former captive and conducted intensive exams and interviews. They administered tests to detect exaggeration. In two of the 11 cases, the group was able to review medical records.

The report, "Broken Laws, Broken Lives," concurs with a five-part McClatchy investigation of Guantanamo published this week. Among its findings were that abuses occurred — primarily at prisons in Afghanistan where detainees were held en route to Guantanamo — and that many of the prisoners were wrongly detained.

Also this week, a probe by the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed how senior Pentagon officials pushed for harsher interrogation methods over the objections of top military lawyers. Those methods later surfaced in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld didn't specifically approve of the worst abuses, but neither he nor the White House enforced strict limits on how detainees would be treated.

There was no "bright line of abuse which could not be transgressed," former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora told the Senate committee.

Leonard Rubenstein, the president of Physicians for Human Rights, said there was a direct connection between the Pentagon decisions and the abuses his group uncovered. "The result was a horrific stew of pain, degradation and ... suffering," he said.

Detainee abuse has been documented previously, in photos from Abu Ghraib, accounts by former detainees and their lawyers and a confidential report by the International Committee for the Red Cross that was leaked to the U.S. news media.

Of the 11 men evaluated in the Physicians for Human Rights report, four were detained in Afghanistan between late 2001 and early 2003, and later sent to Guantanamo. The remaining seven were detained in Iraq in 2003.

One of the Iraqis, identified by the pseudonym Laith, was arrested with his family at his Baghdad home in the early morning of Oct. 19, 2003. He was taken to a location where he was beaten, stripped to his underwear and threatened with execution, the report says.

"Laith" told the examiners he was then taken to a second site, where he was photographed in humiliating positions and given electric shocks to his genitals.

Finally, he was taken to Abu Ghraib, where he spent the first 35 to 40 days in isolation in a small cage, enduring being suspended in the cage and other "stress positions."

He was released on June 24, 2004, without charge.

[oregonpackfan]

"Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.

The United States doesn't, but he, cheney and rummy did. It is a subtle difference. The sentence was parsed by Yoo.

[Freak Out]

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
By ANDREW E. KRAMER

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.

For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the world’s dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity.

While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the world’s oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts.

The Iraqi government’s stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of bureaucratic inefficiency.

For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament.

It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology.

A Shell spokeswoman hinted at the kind of work the companies might be engaged in. “We can confirm that we have submitted a conceptual proposal to the Iraqi authorities to minimize current and future gas flaring in the south through gas gathering and utilization,” said the spokeswoman, Marnie Funk. “The contents of the proposal are confidential.”

While small, the deals hold great promise for the companies.

“The bigger prize everybody is waiting for is development of the giant new fields,” Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said in a telephone interview from the firm’s Paris office. The current contracts, she said, are a “foothold” in Iraq for companies striving for these longer-term deals.

Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security, exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure.

And work in the deserts and swamps that contain much of Iraq’s oil reserves would be virtually impossible unless carried out solely by Iraqi subcontractors, who would likely be threatened by insurgents for cooperating with Western companies.

Yet at today’s oil prices, there is no shortage of companies coveting a contract in Iraq. It is not only one of the few countries where oil reserves are up for grabs, but also one of the few that is viewed within the industry as having considerable potential to rapidly increase production.

David Fyfe, a Middle East analyst at the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based group that monitors oil production for the developed countries, said he believed that Iraq’s output could increase to about 3 million barrels a day from its current 2.5 million, though it would probably take longer than the six months the Oil Ministry estimated.

Mr. Fyfe’s organization estimated that repair work on existing fields could bring Iraq’s output up to roughly four million barrels per day within several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a plateau of about six million barrels per day, Mr. Fyfe said, which could suppress current world oil prices.

The contracts, the two oil company officials said, are a continuation of work the companies had been conducting here to assist the Oil Ministry under two-year-old memorandums of understanding. The companies provided free advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry, said company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were not opened to competitive bidding.

A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts.

The no-bid deals are structured as service contracts. The companies will be paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits. As such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for competitive bidding. The legislation has been stalled by disputes among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue sharing and other conditions.

The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil industry.

They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today’s prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash.

“These are not actually service contracts,” Ms. Benali said. “They were designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate” and bring Western companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the passage of the oil law.

A clause in the draft contracts would allow the companies to match bids from competing companies to retain the work once it is opened to bidding, according to the Iraq country manager for a major oil company who did not consent to be cited publicly discussing the terms.

Assem Jihad, the Oil Ministry spokesman, said the ministry chose companies it was comfortable working with under the charitable memorandum of understanding agreements, and for their technical prowess. “Because of that, they got the priority,” he said.

In all cases but one, the same company that had provided free advice to the ministry for work on a specific field was offered the technical support contract for that field, one of the companies’ officials said.

The exception is the West Qurna field in southern Iraq, outside Basra. There, the Russian company Lukoil, which claims a Hussein-era contract for the field, had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but a consortium of Chevron and Total, a French company, was offered the contract. A spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment.

Charles Ries, the chief economic official in the American Embassy in Baghdad, described the no-bid contracts as a bridging mechanism to bring modern technology into the fields before the oil law was passed, and as an extension of the earlier work without charge.

To be sure, these are not the first foreign oil contracts in Iraq, and all have proved contentious.

The Kurdistan regional government, which in many respects functions as an independent entity in northern Iraq, has concluded a number of deals. Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, for example, signed a production-sharing agreement with the regional government last fall, though its legality is questioned by the central Iraqi government. The technical support agreements, however, are the first commercial work by the major oil companies in Iraq.

The impact, experts say, could be remarkable increases in Iraqi oil output.

While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies’ previous work in Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world’s largest companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are now back.

But a spokesman for Exxon said the company’s approach to Iraq was no different from its work elsewhere.

“Consistent with our longstanding, global business strategy, ExxonMobil would pursue business opportunities as they arise in Iraq, just as we would in other countries in which we are permitted to operate,” the spokesman, Len D’Eramo, said in an e-mailed statement.

But the company is clearly aware of the history. In an interview with Newsweek last fall, the former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond, praised Iraq’s potential as an oil-producing country and added that Exxon was in a position to know. “There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,” Mr. Raymond said. “We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.”

James Glanz and Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York.