MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! The Term Was Coined By President Dwight David Eisenhower In His Farewell Address On January 17, 1961. Eisenhower’s Warning Has Been Proven To Be Prescient & Its Effect All Encompassing! Millions Of Foreigners & Thousands Of Americans Have Been Murdered In The Name Of “National Interests”, Which Is Code For “DISASTER CAPITALIST PROFITS”. The Actual “National Interest” Is, Of Course, WAR PROFITS For Exxon, Black Water/Xe & US Presidents – First Post In Tabacco’s ‘Industrial Complex’ Capitalism Series – Part I – UPDATED & COMPLETED 12/01/12






The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC; lay /ˈoʊpɛk/OH-pek) is an intergovernmental organization of twelve oil-producing countries made up of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. OPEC has had its headquarters in Vienna since 1965,[2] and hosts regular meetings among the oil ministers of its Member Countries. Indonesia withdrew in 2008 after it became a net importer of oil, but stated it would likely return if it became a net exporter again.[3]


Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela


Since 1991 the United States of America has been involved in ‘Wars’, ‘Invasions’, ‘Military Actions’, THREATENED MILITARY ACTIONS, and/or ‘Peace Keeping’ Operations in Middle East MUSLIM, Oil Producing countries (all OPEC but Afghanistan):












What a COINCIDENCE that all these BAD, EVIL COUNTRIES are


1 – in the same general area (Middle East and vicinity),


2 – all are MUSLIM,


3 – all are neighbors of ISRAEL,


4 – and all (except Afghanistan) are members of OPEC!


How fluky! How unexpected! How strange! How inadvertent! How fortuitous! How predictable!


More importantly,










“If one person kills another person, that is murder; but if a government kills 100,000 persons, that is patriotism!” – Howard Zinn, ‘You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train’


Transcribed by Tabacco:

“If one person kills another person, that is murder; but if a government kills 100,000 persons, that is patriotism! And they say we’re disturbing the peace; but there is no peace! What really bothers them is that we’re disturbing the War!


I don’t believe it’s possible to be neutral. The world is already moving in certain directions. And to be neutral – to be passive – in a situation like that is to collaborate with whatever is going on.”



TABACCO: When the George W. Bush Regime was pushing for its Iraq War, the only justification Bush offered for why Terrorists attacked America was, “They hate our freedoms!”


You had to know then that explanation of “WHY?” Foreign Islamic Terrorists were concentrating their “asymmetrical war” on the USA was ridiculous, simplistic and deliberately misleading! Why so? Because Disaster Capitalists NEVER Want To Discuss Their Own Complicity In The Retaliation Of Other Peoples Against America! Americans were willing DUPES! We probably figured the PRICE OF OIL WOULD DROP if we INVADED IRAQ! I guess the Republican Party showed us a thing or two about War & Economics! If that War paid for itself, it sure did NOT pay ‘We The People’!


In 2003, I paid between $0.999 and $1.739 per gallon for Number 2 Fuel Oil to heat my home. Tabacco has NEVER owned or driven a Car (except the Bump Cars at Coney Island.)


On October 13, 2012, I paid $3.759 per gallon. That amounted to $993.68 including Tax!


On March 28, 2008, I paid $4.099 per gallon!











[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]


Good evening, my fellow Americans.


First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.


Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.


Like every other — Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.


Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling — on my part — of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.


We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.


Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.


Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.


Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.


But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.


But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.


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 of 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 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 alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations.


Now 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 Statehouse, 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 military-industrial 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 scientific-technological 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.


Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.


During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations — past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament — of the battlefield.


Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization, which has been so slowly, and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.


Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.


So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that — in that — in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.


You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations’ great goals.


To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources — scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.


Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.


Thank you, and good night.

Military–industrial complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex,[1] is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure.[citation needed]


The term is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, the Congress and executive branch. This sector is intrinsically prone to principal–agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity. A parallel system is that of the Military–industrial–media complex, along with the more distant Politico-media complex and Prison-industrial complex.


A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government support to heavy industry. It can be defined as, “an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs.”[2]



The Boy Who Cried Wolf

A liar will not be believed, even when telling the truth.


The Boy Who Cried Wolf


There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, “Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!”


The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.


“Don’t cry ‘wolf’, shepherd boy,” said the villagers, “when there’s no wolf!” They went grumbling back down the hill.


Later, the boy sang out again, “Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!” To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.


When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, “Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don’t cry ‘wolf’ when there is NO wolf!”


But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.


Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, “Wolf! Wolf!”


But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn’t come.


At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn’t returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.


“There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, “Wolf!” Why didn’t you come?”


An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.


“We’ll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning,” he said, putting his arm around the youth, “Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!”


The English idiom “to cry wolf”, derived from the fable, refers to the act of persistently raising the alarm about a non-existent threat, with the implication that the person who cried wolf would not be taken seriously should a real emergency take place.


Let me begin by saying that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were among the very worst governments Earth has ever produced. This, however, does not mean that those, who fought against the Nazis, were the opposite of Evil or Good!


Americans often incorrectly suppose that if Republican Politicians are Bad, which they are, then their opponents, Democratic Politicians, must necessarily be Good because, as we all know, the opposite of Evil is Good. But sometimes the opposite of one Evil is another Evil, either worse or less Evil than the alternative.


Not every story has heroes and heroines. Sometimes stories have villains and more villains. Who is to say that the Hatfields were better ethically and morally than the McCoys! Who is to say that the McCoys were superior ethically and morally to the Hatfields! To assume that ONLY GOOD may confront EVIL is both Ignorant and Naïve!


TABACCO’S GOOD & EVIL AXIOM: Good may oppose Good; and certainly Evil may oppose Evil!






TABACCO: When The COLD WAR ended, America lost its “Boogeyman” extraordinaire (“Russian Communists” to the uninitiated) and its excuse to play the WORLD’S POLICEMAN! Dominoes got us in and out of Korea and Vietnam with no Victories to show for it in either War (err, excuse me, Military Action)! But the War Profiteers & the Politicians made out just fine, thank you!


(Of course my regular Readers know by now that Communism was NEVER really the Boogeyman – it was SOCIALISM! Today, Chinese Communists are our Bankers and our Manufacturers! While Cuban Communists are still persona non grata! Why? Because The Cubans are still SOCIALISTS, while the Chinese are now – all together, folks,




So Politicians looked around and decided that Middle East Muslims, with all that OPEC OIL just lying around, would do just fine! So now America has a NEW BOOGEYMAN: Middle East Muslims!


War Profiteering may continue as before!






If we leave Iraq now, there will be civil war!” That’s what the Bushites told us to keep us there. But they didn’t invent the phrase. In 1920, the Brits were occupying Iraq, and British PM, Lloyd George, said, “If we leave Iraq now, there will be civil war!” Eighty-five years later, the Bush Neocons dug up the phrase and repeated it ad nauseam to propagandize the American Public just as George had propagandized the British Public almost a century before. If it worked once, it may work again – and it did!

(I strongly recommend your clicking on Robert Fisk’s URL above and reading that entire Interview!)


Israeli PM, Benjamin “Netanyahoo”, uses the same tact when vilifying Iran. He recently said about 1,000 times, “If we don’t stop Iran, they will have Nuclear Weapons in 6-months!” But “Netanyahoo” was not parroting someone else; he was parroting himself! He said basically the same thing in 1992, only his time frame 20 years ago was, “If we don’t stop Iran, they will have Nuclear Weapons in 5-years!” That means Iran should have had Nukes since 1997, doesn’t it! If it worked once, it may work again – and it did!


It seems that repetition of unproven or simply wrong platitudes is essential when driving one’s own country to unnecessary and self-indulgent Wars! And deploying ORIGINAL RHETORIC is NOT a necessary Tactic! Old Axioms work just as well!








Prologue – The Generics:


War profiteering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war. The term has strong negative connotations. General profiteering may also occur in peace time.




International arms dealers

Others make their money by cooperating with the authorities. Basil Zaharoff‘s Vickers Company sold weapons to all the parties involved in the Chaco War. Companies like Opel and IBM have been labeled war profiteers for their involvement with the Third Reich.


Commodity dealers

War usually leads to a shortage in the supply of commodities, which results in higher prices and higher revenues.



Political figures taking bribes and favors from corporations involved with war production have been called war profiteers. Abraham Lincoln‘s first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, was forced to resign in early 1862 after charges of corruption relating to war contracts. In 1947, Kentucky congressman Andrew J. May, Chairman of the powerful Committee on Military Affairs, was convicted for taking bribes in exchange for war contracts.


Civilian contractors

More recently, companies involved with supplying the coalition forces in the Iraq War, such as Bechtel, KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, have come under fire for allegedly overcharging for their services.[1] The modern private military company is also offered as an example of sanctioned war profiteering.[2] [3] On the opposing side, companies like Huawei Technologies, which upgraded Saddam’s air-defense system between the two Gulf Wars, face such accusations.[4] [5]


Military contractors

Groups that potentially profit from war, or the threat of war, are military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics, to name a few. Old military material has to be discarded due to age or is lost due to fighting and new and different military material is needed by the military to maintain strategic advantages over the military technologies of foreign nations which are hostile or may become hostile.


Black marketeers

A distinction can be made between war profiteers who gain by sapping military strength and those who gain by contributing to the war. For instance, during and after World War II, enormous profits were available by selling rationed goods like cigarettes, chocolate, coffee and butter on the black market. Dishonest military personnel given oversight over valuable property sometimes diverted rationed goods to the black market. The charge could also be laid against medical and legal professionals who accept money in exchange for helping young men evade a draft.


Anti-profiteering measures

Making unreasonable profits from war is widely considered unethical and is deeply unpopular, so attempts to prohibit excessive war profiteering, such as the imposition of an excess profits tax, receive much political support in wartime. Defining ‘excessive’ accurately is difficult, however, and such legislation frequently allows some instances of profiteering to go unchecked while reducing the income of others’ war-related business to loss-making levels.


In the United States

Criticism of companies such as Halliburton in the context of the Iraq War draw heavily on the stereotype of the businessman profiteer. Slogans relating to ‘blood for oil’ have a similar implication.


Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation think tank, has accused former CIA Director James Woolsey of both profiting from and promoting the Iraq War.[6]


The Center for Public Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his company, Perini[disambiguation needed].[7] Feinstein voted for the resolution giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.


Indicted defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes was reported to be ecstatic when hearing that the United States was going to go to war with Iraq. “He and some of his top executives were really gung-ho about the war,” said a former employee. “Brent said this would create new opportunities for the company. He was really excited about doing business in the Middle East.”[8]


The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 intended to create criminal penalties for war profiteers and others who exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.[9] War profiteering cases are often brought under the Civil False Claims Act, which was enacted in 1863 to combat war profiteering during the Civil War.[10]


Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, criticized war profiteering of U.S companies during World War I in War Is a Racket. He wrote about how some companies and corporations increase their earnings and profits by up to 1700% and how many companies willingly sold equipment and supplies to the U.S that had no relevant use in the war effort. In the book, Butler stated that “It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war period. This expenditure Yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits.”[11]


In popular culture

The term ‘war profiteer’ evokes two stereotypes in popular culture: the rich businessman who sells weapons to governments, and the semi-criminal black marketeer who sells goods to ordinary citizens. In English-speaking countries this is particularly associated with Britain during World War II. The image of the ‘businessman profiteer’ carries the implication of influence and power used to actively cause wars for personal gain, rather than merely passively profit from them. In the aftermath of World War I, such profiteers were widely asserted to have existed by both the Left, and the Right.


Fictional character Lieutenant Milo Minderbinder in the novel Catch-22 has been called “perhaps the best known of all fictional profiteers” in American literature.[12]


The surname of the character ‘Daddy Warbucks’ in Little Orphan Annie carries an obvious implication. This character is interesting for being an example of the stereotype of a war profiteer applied to a ‘good guy’.


The Tintin adventure The Broken Ear features an arms dealer called Basil Bazarov who sells arms to both sides in a war. He is a recognisable example of this ‘type’, and specifically based on Basil Zaharoff.


The character of Joe Walker in the sitcom Dad’s Army is an example of the second stereotype of a war profiteer while the character Rick Pym in the novel A Perfect Spy is a more psychologically complex example.


Bertolt Brecht wrote the play Mother Courage and Her Children as a didactic indictment of war profiteering.


In the 1985 film Clue, Colonel Mustard was a war profiteer who sold stolen radio components on the black market.


The film The Third Man features a war profiteer named Harry Lime, who steals penicillin from military hospitals and sells it on the black market.


The film Lord of War is a fictional story based on the war profiteer named Viktor Bout, who illegally sold post-Soviet arms to Liberia and other nations in conflict.


The Suicide Machines released their 2005 album, entitled War Profiteering Is Killing Us All.


In the 2011 film Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Professor Moriarty acquires shares in many military supply companies and plots to instigate a world war and make a fortune.


The song “Masters of War” by Bob Dylan is about war profiteering and the Military-industrial complex.



Now The Specifics!


A) Let’s do the OBVIOUS first! Politicians must FUND WARS! If you are a Corporate Entity, which profits from Wars, you must first GREASE POLITICIANS’ PALMS!


The George W. Bush Administration deployed an unnamed Iraqi witness, who declared that a) Iraq had Nuclear Weapons and b) Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11/2001.


We now know who that unnamed Iraqi “Source” was – Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed ‘CURVEBALL’! Not only do REPUBLICANS LIE TO US FOR WAR PROFITEERING, BUT THEY ADD INSULT TO INJURY – “CURVEBALL”, INDEED! The Republicans knew “Curveball” was LYING! You can always find a FALSE WITNESS to impugn anyone on Earth – all you have to do is look for one!

(Click on URL and hear Bush’s FALSE WITNESS tell you he lied in his own words!)


The Question is,


“Since we now know it was ALL A LIE, WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?”


Just let President Obama attempt to STOP THE WARS, and watch how your REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES goes into its CONSTIPATION DANCE!


In the U.S. Senate, anything can be filibustered – you know how Republicans love to threaten FILIBUSTER – except one category: MILITARY EXPENDITURES! WAR IS OFF THE TABLE!


New York Congressman, Steve Israel, is obviously a Jew. He also obviously supports Israel! Chuck Schumer, New York Senator, is a Jew. He is as Hawkish as Steve Israel and commands even more Military-Industrial Lobbying Dollar$! But not all Pro-Israelis are Jews – not by a long shot! If you are Anti-War or Anti-Israel (which is basically the same thing), getting elected in America to National Office is almost impossible.


There are two Muslims in Congress (and none in the Oval Office for those of Tea Party persuasion):


1 – Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, from Minnesota, and


2 – Muslim Congressman, Andre Carson, from Indiana: both Democrats.


Other than those two, it’s hard to think of any War “Dove” – particularly a Congress Person – who is White! Formerly we had Cynthia McKinney (Black from Georgia, deposed by Republicans, who crossed over in Democratic Primary) and Dennis Kucinich (White) from Ohio, who did not run because of Republican GERRYMANDERING!


Without that heavy Minority support in Black Districts for Black Democrats, you simply cannot oppose the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and get elected to National Office! And you must pay homage to the


Zionist State of Israel!



The following Post is broken up among the B, C, D & E Categories in order of Treachery:


Filed in archive Business-General, Companies, War by Ryan on July 22, 2008 |

The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers



B) The 2nd Group of War Profiteers is the ENERGY INDUSTRY!





C) The 3rd War Profiteering Group is the MILITARY CONTRACTORS!



1. Halliburton


The first name that comes to everyone’s mind here is Halliburton. According to MSN Money, Halliburton’s KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone. This is estimated to comprise a whopping one-fifth of KBR’s total revenue for the 2006 fiscal year. The massive payoff is said to have financed the construction and maintenance of military bases, oil field repairs, and various infrastructure-rebuilding projects across the war-torn nation. This is just the latest in a long string of military/KBR wartime partnerships, thanks in no small part to Dick Cheney’s former role with the parent company.

(At least 13 US Soldiers in Iraq have been ELECTROCUTED while taking showers in unsafe facilities constructed by Halliburton, not under Enemy attack)


10. URS Corporation


Another widely disparaged, Blum-controlled company that has profited from Iraq is URS Corporation. Long known as one of the nation’s major defense contractors, San Francisco-based URS has collected $792 million in environmental cleanup fees in Iraq war zones. As with Perini, both Blum and Feinstein have come under intense scrutiny to answer questions about the apparent conflict of interest inherent in Feinstein helping to secure such an exorbitant government contract for her investment banker husband. Both Blum and Feinstein have refused to produce copies of the ethics committee’s rulings on Perini and URS, leading to considerable suspicion.

(Remember that name – Dianne Feinstein of California!)


11. Parsons

Few Iraq contractors have come under fire as much as Parsons, who reportedly mismanaged the construction a police academy so poorly that human waste dripped from its ceilings. Far from being an isolated incident, reports from federal government auditors revealed lackluster work on 13 of the 14 Iraq projects entrusted to Parsons. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the Pasadena-based firm from making off with $540 million in U.S. government funds for the poorly executed reconstruction projects at Iraq’s healthcare centers and fire stations. For obvious reasons, Parsons’ work in Iraq has generally been considered an embarrassment.


“This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America,” lamented Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said. “Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance. And human waste oozing out of ceilings as a result.”



22. Bechtel

Bechtel is yet another Iraq contractor who seems to have benefited from close ties to the Bush Administration. How else would a company recommended by the man who oversaw the Big Dig disaster possibly be awarded a $2.4 billion, no-bid reconstruction contract for Iraq’s infrastructure? Journalists and competitors are scratching their heads at why the Bush Administration trusted the choice of USAID chief Andrew Natsios after his woefully ineffective tenure at the head of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. While in that capacity, the Big Dig’s operating costs ballooned from an initial $2.6 billion to $14.6 billion, and the job still took years to complete!

In line with Natsios’ track record of recommendations, this one turned out to be a flop. Bechtel proceeded to lose its contract for the Basra Children’s Hospital Project after falling a year and a half behind schedule and $70-$90 million over budget.



D) The 4th Group of War Profiteers are those Corporations, which sell their Services mainly to the U.S. Military: MILITARY SERVICERS!



2. Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp


At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange. However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary. The primary service DynCorp has provided to the war efforts is the training of new Iraqi police forces. Often described as a ‘state within a state‘, the sizable company is headed by Dwight M. Williams, former Chief Security Officer of the upstart U.S. Department of Homeland Security. With this and other close ties to defense agencies, Veritas Capital Fund and DynCorp are well-positioned to capitalize on Iraq even more.


3. Washington Group International

The Washington Group International has parlayed its expertise the repair, restore, and maintenance of high-output oil fields into $931 million in Iraq-related revenue from 2003-2006. The publicly traded 25,000-employee company’s other specialties include the building and maintenance of schools, military bases, and municipal utilities, such as watering systems. Some have complained that Washington Group’s hefty government payoffs have served primarily to raise its trading price on the New York Stock Exchange. One thing is for sure – with oil prices continuing to rise, there will be no shortage of demand for the oil protection services Washington Group International brings to bear.


4. Environmental Chemical

All war zones eventually becomes cluttered with spent ammunition and broken/abandoned weapons, creating a lucrative niche for any company willing to clean it all up. In Iraq, this duty has fallen into the hands of Environmental Chemical. The privately held Burlingame, California Company has stockpiled $878 million by the end of fiscal 2006 for munitions disposal, calling upon its “decade of experience planning and conducting UXO removal, investigation, and certification activities.” The company has close ties to several defense agencies and is staffed by graduates of the U.S. Navy’s Explosive Ordinance Schools, as well as the U.S. Army’s Chemical Schools at Anniston.


5. Aegis

Aegis has done the United Kingdom proud after reeling in a contract to coordinate all of Iraq’s private security operations. The Pentagon contract is good for $430 million (incredibly lucrative by any standard) but it has landed Aegis in some hot public relations water. The company’s decision to contribute to Iraq war efforts has lead to a rejected membership application from the International Peace Operations Association. According to The Independent, the influential trade organization does not consider Aegis worthy of inclusion in the “peace and stability industry.” It remains to be seen whether Aegis will continue to be ostracized for participating in the training of Iraqi security forces.




6. International American Products

Even with all of the blinding innovation and trailblazing advances in military technology, none of it would be very useful without electricity. Running electrical wiring in hostile war zones is dicey business, but International American Products has stuck their neck out and collected a cool $759 million in just 3 years for its efforts. While avoiding enemy fire, their work has become increasingly dangerous – and yet, critically necessary – as Coalition forces struggle rebuild cities, put down warring forces, and stabilize the chaotic nation. Schools, oils wells, and other public infrastructure have relied on IAP for the electricity needed to operate. With Iraq slowly beginning to stabilize, International American Products is holding out hope that its job will eventually become less treacherous.


7. Erinys

London-based Erinys has so far scored $136 million for its effort in securing Iraq’s precious oil reserves. Riding the coattails of its considerable mining, petroleum, and construction expertise, the company has already made considerable headway toward this critically important goal. In the space of just 16 months, Erinys successfully trained, equipped, and mobilized an all-Iraqi guard force of nearly 20,000 to protect the nation’s oil pipeline from terrorist attack or sabotage. With crude oil prices skyrocketing and no end in sight, Erinys looks to have its hands full for years to come.


8. Fluor

Fluor scored a monster $1.1 billion contract in 2004 to build, service, and manage water/sewage systems in Iraq. The deal is actually a joint venture between Fluor (a 44,800 employee company based on Aliso Viejo) and London’s AMEC, PLC and actually encompasses two separate contracts. The first – worth $600 million – obligates Fluor to build a water distribution infrastructure and cleaning system for Iraq’s major cities. A second $500 million deal will have the lucrative joint venture performing similar tasks in other, less hostile regions of the country.


9. Perini

Perini (controlled by financier Richard Blum) is one of the more controversial companies to have scored big-time Iraq war money. That’s because Blum’s wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein, appears to have used her seat on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee to steer the $650 million environmental cleanup deal in his favor. This has lead to outrage and cries for conflict of interest investigations among those in the media, as well as Feinstein’s peers in Congress. Feinstein has also neglected to comment on this potential conflict of interest. This has lead to what calls an “omission [that] has called her ethical standards into question.”

(What do you expect from these Politicians! Other than Joe Lieberman, Feinstein is Tabacco’s MOST HATED NON-GOPER in Congress)


12. First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting


First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting is another example of the apparent cronyism that has gone into the process of awarding Iraq war contracts. It now seems that the company has succeeded on the strength of its ties to Bush Administration officials than its business merits. Rival companies have been extremely vocal in their displeasure at First Kuwaiti being awarded $500 million to build a United States Embassy in Baghdad.


“First Kuwaiti was not the lowest bidder”, complained Framco senior vice-president Gilles Kacha.


14. L3 Communications


L3 Communications has carved out a neat $359 million slice of Iraq’s security screening needs as of fiscal 2006. The New York-based company has been charged with overseeing the screening and training of law enforcement personnel for the growing all-Iraqi security force, as well as replacing equipment in the field. Linguistics is another one of L3′s specialties, one that is heavily relied upon to interface with native speaking Sunni and Shia forces.


L3 Communications has also purchased Titan, a corporate intelligence company with a $1 billion Iraq contract. Prior to being acquired by L3, Titan plead guilty to international bribery charges (a felony) and paid a record-breaking $28.5 million under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.


16. HSBC Bank


Already the third largest financial institution on the planet, HSBC has seen its fortunes brighten beyond its wildest dreams since the start of combat. It has purchased a controlling stake (70%) of the newly created Iraqi national bank, Dar es Salaam Investment Bank, which, though small, has already amassed assets of $91 million. HSBC’s chief executive of Middle East operations, David Hodgkinson, was quoted as saying HSBC intends to “develop the bank’s services by investing in computerized payment systems and cash machines.’


HSBC’s stake in the fledgling Iraqi bank could turn out to be a significant strategic foothold in the developing country. According to a BBC report, the bank already has 14 operating branches across Iraq and a modest but growing staff of 450. It is also the first private bank in Iraq since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, as the late dictator did not allow them during his rule.


18. MerchantBridge


MerchantBridge got its “in” to the growing money pot of Iraq’s fledgling financial sector by casting a wide net. The investment banking group has ambitiously targeted market share in Iraq’s developing construction, telecommunications, financial services, real estate, hotels, and information technology industries, all of which have been made easier by being the “lead advisor” to Iraq’s Ministry of Industry. The inside partnership has paved the way for MerchantBridge’s factory lease program, the opening of Mansour Bank, and an overall capitalization of $61 million.


Furthermore, 90% of MerchantBridge’s initial operating capital in Iraq has been supplied by Iraqi investors.



19. GlobalRisk Strategies


Risk management is a lucrative business the world over, and the stakes are nowhere higher than the high-pressure war zones of a foreign nation. GlobalRisk Strategies has capitalized on the bewildering uncertainty to the tune of $24.5 million, which it has primarily earned by advising U.S. and Coalition forces on the risks of various counter-terrorism strategies. Some of the more notable risks the company’s 2,000 employees have managed include distributing fresh currency to the locals and guarding the heavily fortified Baghdad airport during 2004.


Alternatively, GlobalRisk has also assisted with reconstruction and delivering humanitarian aid in the banking, aviation, oil and infrastructure sectors throughout Iraq.



20. ControlRisks


ControlRisks is another risk management company that has successfully hopped on the Iraq bandwagon. The UK-based firm has extracted roughly $37 million in war-related profits by providing discreet armed security and logistics support to troops on the ground and in the air. With a presence of 250 employees in Iraq, ControlRisks has provided security for the disastrous Parsons Usaid buildings (prior to the revelation of the embarrassing shoddy work scandal) and has also been tasked with protecting Iraq’s active duty UK forces. While Iraq has recently begun to cool down in terms of insurgent violence and infighting, the region should provide opportunities for companies like ControlRisks to profit for years or even decades to come.



21. CACI

CACI was called upon by the U.S. government to provide 36 interrogators to Iraq, 10 of which were assigned to Abu Ghraib. While all the details have not yet come to light, it looks like CACI profited from Iraq in the worst possible way. One website notes that a leaked Army investigation implicated CACI employee Stephen Stefanowicz in the abuse of prisoners.” Furthermore, the allegations have led the Center for Constitutional Rights to agitate for trying CACI and its affiliates in U.S. courts.


Susan Burke, an attorney working on the case on CCR’s behalf, was quoted as saying “We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to torture and abuse detainees, and did so to make more money.”




24. Nour USA


Of all the companies on this list, Nour USA might be the only one who actually did not exist until the Iraq war got underway. Since its opportunistic opening, the company has received $400 million in Iraq-related contracts, including a gigantic $80 million deal to secure the nation’s oil pipelines. Some critics allege the contract was pushed through by Ahmed Chalabi (whom one website calls “Iraq’s No. 1 Opportunist.”) While Chalabi has denied this allegation, several other bidders on the pipeline contract point out how awfully strange it is for a company with no prior experience to be awarded such a large contract.


Of course, it probably didn’t hurt Nour to have William Cohen (former Defense Secretary under Bill Clinton) on board as a company consultant, but that’s another story.



E) The 5th Group of War Profiteers, but certainly not the least, are those Corporations, which sell their wares mainly to the U.S. Military: MILITARY VENDORS! War Profiteers don’t care WHERE the War is, so long as there is War! “National Security” and the “Faults” of Prospective Prey are merely excuses – NOT REASONS FOR WAR! The Real Reason is PROFITS of course!


11. Parsons

Few Iraq contractors have come under fire as much as Parsons, who reportedly mismanaged the construction of a police academy so poorly that human waste dripped from its ceilings. Far from being an isolated incident, reports from federal government auditors revealed lackluster work on 13 of the 14 Iraq projects entrusted to Parsons. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the Pasadena-based firm from making off with $540 million in U.S. government funds for the poorly executed reconstruction projects at Iraq’s healthcare centers and fire stations. For obvious reasons, Parsons’ work in Iraq has generally been considered an embarrassment.


“This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America,” lamented Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said. “Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance. And human waste oozing out of ceilings as a result.”



12. First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting


First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting is another example of the apparent cronyism that has gone into the process of awarding Iraq war contracts. It now seems that the company has succeeded on the strength of its ties to Bush Administration officials than its business merits. Rival companies have been extremely vocal in their displeasure at First Kuwaiti being awarded $500 million to build a United States Embassy in Baghdad.


“First Kuwaiti was not the lowest bidder”, complained Framco senior vice-president Gilles Kacha.


13. Armor Holdings


Armor Holdings (now a subsidiary of publicly traded BAE Systems) is one company whose opinion of the Iraq war can’t be all that negative. Since combat commenced in 2001, the company’s revenue has skyrocketed by a mind-blowing 2,247%, up to $634 million. Armor Holdings’ specialty is providing state-of-the-art armor for military vehicles and important personnel as they traverse dangerous Iraqi war zones. The civil war between opposing Sunni and Shia and general unrest throughout the country have greatly increased the demand for the company’s products.


15. AM General


AM General (a subsidiary of Renco) is another company that has seen its revenue sail toward the heavens since the beginning of combat in Iraq. The renowned maker of extra-wide all terrain vehicles (shown below) has seen its Pentagon revenues soar by 92%, a phenomenal leap for any business. This placed Renco sixth in a 2005 analysis of the fastest growing contractors by dollar amount, and sixth in an analysis of fastest growing contractors by percentage. Growing hostilities prior to the Bush Administration’s “surge” strategy in 2007 helped fuel the sudden demand for AM’s heavy-duty combat vehicles.


17. Cummins


Cummins has staked its claim to $45 million in Iraq war-related revenue with its robust line of diesel engines and power stations. According to a press release, United Kingdom-based Cummins signed a distribution agreement with HMBS in Iraq for all Cummins brand products and equipment.” Antonio Leitao, Cummins’ General Manager of the commercial power generation business in Europe, spoke approvingly of the deal.


“Cummins Power Generation is proud to be the first generator set manufacturer to establish a distributorship in Iraq that covers the whole country.”


Cummins and power-generating companies like them will be instrumental over the coming years, as the world learns whether Iraq truly has a future as a rebuilt, independent nation.


23. Custer Battles

Custer Battles has the dubious distinction of being the first Iraq war contractor to be found guilty of fraud. In March 2006, a jury ordered Custer to pay damages in excess of $10 million for 37 counts of fraud, including what the judge called “false and fraudulently inflated invoices.” While Custer wriggled out of serious penalties on a technicality (the Coalition Provisional Authority is not part of the U.S. Government and therefore crimes against it cannot be tried under U.S. law), the whole ordeal has muddied the company’s reputation greatly, possibly beyond repair. It also seems to have opened the floodgates for similar cases of contractor fraud. As of fall 2006, a backlog of 70 fraud cases were pending against Iraq contractors doing all manner of work.


During the trial, a retired Army general testified that the inflated invoice scandal stood out to him as “probably the worst I’ve ever seen in my 30 years in the Army.”


The company’s founders are Scott Custer, a former US Army officer and defense consultant, and former CIA officer Michael Battles, who ran for Congress in Rhode Island in 2002 and was defeated in the Republican primary. Battles is a Fox News Channel commentator. [1] Both Custer and Battles are often described in the media as “former US Army Rangers.” In fact, they are both mere graduates of the US Army Ranger course[2], a nine-week US Army leadership school, and not former members of the US Army Ranger Regiment[3]. The distinction may seem obscure, but it is an important one for US Army veterans, particularly veterans of the Ranger Regiment, which is one of the US Army’s most elite formations.


TABACCO: If it surprises you that so many of these War Profiteers are DIRECTLY TIED TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, BLAME THE MEDIA for forgetting to mention it! Still think




This is PROOF that Money changes hands between Corporate America and Politicians. And that UNMENTIONED MONEY ends up in the pockets of the POLITICIANS! That’s why we have OPEC WARS in the first place – NATIONAL SECURITY IS AN




Not a Reason!



25. General Dynamics

According to a Washington Post report in July of 2006, General Dynamics is one of the big-name defense contractors that has gotten the biggest monetary boost from the Iraq war. The key to General’s war profiteering strategy has been a broad focus on virtually everything the government needs to wage war, including tank shells, bullets for small arms, and even Stryker vehicles, which were first put to use during the initial 2003 invasion to remove Saddam.


All of this has lifted the company to tripled profitability since 9/11, and critics are speculating that ties to top Defense Agencies helped grease the wheels. According to the Project on Government Oversight, General Dynamics formally announced that it was hiring a former top aide to the Army Chief of Staff in November 1999 – conveniently, just a month after the aid announced a grand new vision to introduce wheeled, light-armored vehicles like the Stryker into regular use.




One of Tabacco’s Categories (5) did not make the Top 25:


B) The 2nd Group of War Profiteers is the ENERGY INDUSTRY!


So further Research is required. I hate to have to impugn my own Sources, but if you gotta do it, you gotta do it!


Under 2. Veritas Funding, the Author himself admits:


At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange. However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary.


Having admitted it, the Author then proceeds without mentioning the OIL INDUSTRY ever again! Strange!?!


Actually there were two (2) Categories unmentioned in the Top “25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers”. But I knew that would happen, so I covered Political Malfeasance (A) at the Top. My Source does mention it repeatedly in the Top 25 (He could hardly avoid it). But he gives Politicians no SPECIAL CATEGORY as Tabacco does! I think you will agree that Politicians DESERVE THEIR OWN CATEGORY! If Politicians & Oil Industry don’t rank (1,2) when it comes to “Vicious”, then nobody does! Without Politicians & the Petroleum Industry,


there would be NO IRAQ WAR!


You must know I’m not going to allow anybody, particularly myself, to get away with omitting the OIL INDUSTRY in a Post on today’s Military-Industrial Complex! If the Oil Industry is NOT the Center of the Military-Industrial Complex Solar System, it is certainly the closest planet to that Sun (Mercury)!


So, using alternative Sources, here are the omitted Category B Players:


B) The 2nd Group of War Profiteers is the ENERGY INDUSTRY!


The first 7 are the same as in the 25 Most Vicious, but 8, 9, and 10 finally focus on OIL – FINALLY!




No. 8, No. 9 and No. 10: Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Petro-imperialists


Three years into the occupation, after an evolving series of deft legal maneuvers and manipulative political appointments, the oil giants’ takeover of Iraq’s oil is nearly complete.


A key milestone in the process occurred in September 2004, when U.S.-appointed Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi preempted Iraq’s January 2005 elections (and the subsequent drafting of the Constitution) by writing guidelines intended to form the basis of a new petroleum law. Allawi’s policy would effectively exclude the government from any future involvement in oil production, while promising to privatize the Iraqi National Oil Co. Although Allawi is no longer in power, his plans heavily influenced future thinking on oil policy.


Helping the process move along are the economic hit men at BearingPoint, the consultants whose latest contract calls for “private-sector involvement in strategic sectors, including privatization, asset sales, concessions, leases and management contracts, especially those in the oil and supporting industries.”


For their part, the oil industry giants have kept a relatively low profile throughout the process, lending just a few senior statesmen to the CPA, including Philip Carroll (Shell U.S., Fluor), Rob McKee (ConocoPhillips and Halliburton) and Norm Szydlowski (ChevronTexaco), the CPA’s liaison to the fledgling Iraqi Oil Ministry. Greg Muttitt of U.K. nonprofit Platform says Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips are among the most ambitious of all the major oil companies in Iraq. Shell and Chevron have already signed agreements with the Iraqi government and begun to train Iraqi staff and conduct studies — arrangements that give the companies vital access to Oil Ministry officials and geological data.


Although Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said in August that the final competition for developing Iraq’s oil fields will be wide open, the preliminary arrangements will give the oil giants a distinct advantage when it comes time to bid. The relative level of interest by the big oil companies depends on their appetite for risk, and their need for reserves. Shell, for example, has performed worse than most of its peers in finding new reserves in recent years — a fact underscored by a 2004 scandal in which the company was caught lying to its investors. At this point the key challenge to multinationals is whether they can convince the Iraqi parliament to pass a new petroleum law by the end of this year.


A key provision in the new law is a commitment to using production sharing agreements (PSAs), which will lock the government into a long-term commitment (up to 50 years) to sharing oil revenues, and restrict its right to introduce any new laws that might affect the companies’ profitability. Greg Muttitt of Platform says the PSAs are designed to favor private companies at the expense of exporting governments, which is why none of the top oil producing countries in the Middle East use them. Under the new petroleum law, all new fields and some existing fields would be opened up to private companies through the use of PSAs. Since less than 20 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields have already been developed, if Iraq’s government commits to signing the PSAs, it could cost the country up to nearly $200 billion in lost revenues according to Muttitt, lead researcher for “Crude Designs: the Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth.”


Meanwhile, in a kind of pincer movement, the parliament has begun to feel pressured from the IMF to adopt the new oil law by the end of the year as part of “conditionalities” imposed under a new debt relief agreement. Of course pressuring a country as volatile as Iraq to agree to any kind of arrangement without first allowing for legitimate parliamentary debate is fraught with peril. It is a risky way to nurture democracy in a country that already appears to be entering into a civil war.


“If misjudged — either by denying a fair share to the regions in which oil is located, or by giving regions too much autonomy at the expense of national cohesion — these oil decisions could fracture, and ultimately break apart, the country,” Muttitt suggests.







First, the United States and Europe created Israel out of Palestine right in the midst of all that oil and all those Muslims! The Grand Purpose was to be able to DESTABILIZE THE MIDDLE EAST whenever required to maintain our access to and control of MUSLIM OIL!


What were we thinking? Guilt for the way the world had treated the Jews? Fulfilling Biblical prophecy? Or were we thinking, “There’s a lot of OIL there! Perhaps we’d better have a friend – an ally – there, who is NEITHER MUSLIM NOR OPEC MEMBER! Guilt and Prophecy are merely EXCUSES, not REASONS!


79% of the world’s crude oil reserves is an awful lot of BLACK GOLD to leave to the whims and caprices of Muslims!”


As of November 2010, OPEC members collectively hold 79% of world crude oil reserves and 44% of the world’s crude oil production capacity, affording them some control over the global market.[6


It’s amazing how myopic, disinterested and stupid we Americans can be when we don’t want to face the TRUTH!


Pogo Cartoon: “We have met the enemy and he is us”



One Final Note: Israel, the WILD DOG, does a lot of barking and has a fierce Nuclear Bite! But the US is in control, not Israel, because the US holds the purse strings! Without USA FOREIGN AID, Israel’s financial position would be compromised drastically. Israel is NOT a member of OPEC!






My “INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SERIES” has been on the back burners most of 2012. I had not published even 1 of the “current” 8 subjects. I was frustrated with myself and determined to publish No. 1 whatever it took. This Post (originally published November 12th) was incomplete and unworthy, to say the least! When I reread my own original publication, I myself was embarrassed!


I am reissuing it today with added materials, which hopefully cover my own subject in a more thorough manner, with my sincerest apologies. My Regular Readers are unused to such superficial Posts on this Blog. I shall try my hardest not to do that cursory thing again! – Tabacco


When dealing with Capitalists, you must always, always keep one thing foremost in your mind:



Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.


Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!


In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.

T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People

Subdomain re Exploited Minority Long Island community



T1607\3538\102 originally published 11/12/12 incomplete.. Reissued 12/01/12

This entry was posted in Bush, class war, compromise, deregulation, disaster capitalism, GOP, hypocrisy, illicit drugs, knowledge is power, Obama, outsourcing, political ping pong, Politics, socialism4richcapitalism4poor, sophistry, takebackamerica, warpeace and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! The Term Was Coined By President Dwight David Eisenhower In His Farewell Address On January 17, 1961. Eisenhower’s Warning Has Been Proven To Be Prescient & Its Effect All Encompassing! Millions Of Foreigners & Thousands Of Americans Have Been Murdered In The Name Of “National Interests”, Which Is Code For “DISASTER CAPITALIST PROFITS”. The Actual “National Interest” Is, Of Course, WAR PROFITS For Exxon, Black Water/Xe & US Presidents – First Post In Tabacco’s ‘Industrial Complex’ Capitalism Series – Part I – UPDATED & COMPLETED 12/01/12

  1. admin says:


    I shall say very little about David Petraeus (Betrayus), whom I despise! I truly don’t care if he has extra-marital affairs or not – but if you’ve seen his wife, you will certainly understand why he did!


  2. admin says:

    President Dwight David Eisenhower:

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial 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.”

    Repub by Tabacco

    PS America has changed drastically since Eisenhower’s Warning in 1961. Hell, the Republican Party has changed drastically since Ronald Reagan ascended to the Presidency in 1968.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>