Congressman: "We're In Libya Because Of Oil" → Washingtons Blog
Congressman: "We're In Libya Because Of Oil" - Washingtons Blog

Monday, March 21, 2011

Congressman: "We're In Libya Because Of Oil"

Congressman Ed Markey said today:

Well, we're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward.

Could that possibly explain why we're not letting the Arab League states take care of Libya?

Remember that Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, a high-level National Security Council officer and others say that the Iraq war was really about oil.

And according to French intelligence officers, the U.S. wanted to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Central Asian oil more easily and cheaply. And so the U.S. told the Taliban shortly before 9/11 that they would either get "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs", the former if they greenlighted the pipeline, the second if they didn't. See this, this and this.


  1. It's certainly more true that we're there for the oil than for the beautiful and brave Libyan people. I fear though that there are bigger reasons having to do with global domination... which will depend on as many endless wars as possible, thus not only destabilizing Arab nations but super-bankrupting western ones.

  2. No doubt about that history.

    The cause that generates history needs to be the focus.


    Love your blog!


    After years of supporting brutal dictators Western Powers have no place in the organic evolution (or is it) of freedom unfolding. Am I naive to desire the triumph of better lives, manifest through peaceful civil uprising? Brutally, the desire, however pure in inception, confronts a gauntlet of established powers unwilling to relent.

    The visage of western life styled freedoms may be, but a mirage; diminishing in concept, practice and sustainability. And it's pursuit is juxtaposed to a world of diminishing resources and a rush by early adapters to secure them. It's an exclusive club where the unclean masses are not welcome.

    Respect for human life and the spread of democratic freedom is in direct conflict with political and economic hegemony. Ironically, our unsustainable trajectory of conspicuous consumption puts this crusade on the ultimate suicide mission.

    So here we are; for reasons of an abject failure of honest leadership, we don't understand the challenges or the questions.

    Why Darfur; 300,000 to 400,000 dead and not the Congo 3 - 5 million dead?

    The answer is: bringing attention to the Congo would mean reporting on the plunder of it's resources, which primarily benefits multinational corporations. The Congo is rich in minerals which Rebel groups sell at cut-rate prices, using profits to maintain power as big companies and their governments look the other way.

    What of a CIA backed shift in military leadership in Egypt?

    Their hard fought freedom is devolving into something like Mubarak - light with added US Navel presence to control the Suez canal.

    Why do we supply the weapons used to gun down the protesters in Bahrain and assist freedom fighters in Libya?

    The post below sums up the situation while making my point.

    "Interesting that the news channels has chosen to ignore the "humanitarian hypocrisy" undertaken by the US and EU allies.

    On one hand world leaders have rushed to attack Libyan troops to protect innocent civilian lives

    On the other hand civilian protesters are being killed by Bahraini and Yemeni forces but Bahrain is home to the US 5th Fleet so its ok and Yemen a key ally in the fight against terrorism so that's ok too.

    As George Orwell said " all pigs are equal but some are more equal than others."

    Who is questioning the intent and extent of the No Fly Zone? How does that equate to blasting tanks on the ground?

    "The historical record clearly establishes that an external regime change - even when accompanied with claims of humanitarianism - usually privileges the strategic and economic interests of interveners and results in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground."

    Asking a couple questions brigs us back to the reality of an elite power structure with a clear agenda of control.

    A few years back while China was making progress securing energy and other assets on the continent and the U.S was making plans to establish an African command I called it the opening salvo in a battle to control the continents resources, stating; regardless of the outcome, the one sure loser would be the Africans.

    Today the battle to control resources continues while the revolution sweeping foreign lands is a world wide phenomena that's just getting started. As Alexis de Tocqueville said "In a revolution, as in a novel, the most difficult part to invent is the end." JFK was more terse in stating "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." -

  4. Good to see Ol' Markey still has it. That guy will whine you til you know mewling and surrender to purpose(somebody else's)is still alive and well in congress. You show them, Markey. Pout and stamp your feet. Then back to mewling.

    The oaths taken to defend the Constitution were supposed to mean something. There is nothing in that oath about mewling. It is NOT one of Markey's constitutionally granted powers. Nor any official's. Anybody extorting a politician has earned the door to an extended stay in a penitentiary. No mewling allowed.

  5. For the record, iirc, the pipeline the construction of which was the pivotal point in the decision to lay waste to Afghanistan, and was the anaphoric subject of the Bushian threat to carpet the country with flowers or bombs, depending, was not an oil pipeline, but a GAS pipeline.

  6. Re: 'See this, this, and this,' your third 'this' requires a login. And there may be a few more 'thises' on this score

  7. Markey is partially correct. The main reason we are in Libya and the ME is at the instruction of Israel. Listen/read the speech given by Benjamin Freedman(former Zionist) in 1961 about Israel's plans for the US in ME. A must read(or listen)

  8. Well at least some body is finally speaking the truth (Congressman Ed Markey). Couldn't help but roll my eyes last night when the evening news cited humanitarian reasons for being there.

    Let's face it, the US has an interest in the Middle-East, and the stability of that region, only because of the oil we rely so heavily upon that comes from there. One missed step...and boom goes the world economy and balance of power.


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.