Libya’s Blood for Oil

Who are we kidding? The United States, Britain and NATO don’t care about bombing civilians to contain rebellion. Their militaries bomb civilians every day without mercy. They have destroyed most of the community infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan before turning their sights on Libya. So what’s really going on here?

According to the CIA, the following never happened…

Last October, US oil giants— Chevron and Occidental Petroleum— made a surprising decision to pull out of Libya, while China, Germany and Italy stayed on, signing major contracts with Gaddafi’s government. As the U.S. Asset who started negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial with Libyan diplomats, I had close ties to Libya’s U.N. Mission from 1995 to 2003. Given my long involvement in the Lockerbie saga, I have continued to enjoy special access to high level intelligence gossip on Libya.

Last summer that gossip got juicy!

About July, I started hearing that Gaddafi was exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and British oil companies to cough up special fees and kick backs to cover the costs of Libya’s reimbursement to the families of Pan Am 103. Payment of damages for the Lockerbie bombing had been one of the chief conditions for ending U.N. sanctions on Libya that ran from 1992 until 2003. And of course the United Nations forced Gaddafi to hand over two Libyan men for a special trial at The Hague, though everybody credible was fully conscious of Libya’s innocence in the Lockerbie affair. (Only ignorant politicians trying to score publicity points say otherwise.)

Knowing Gaddafi as well as I do, I was convinced that he’d done it. He’d bided his time until he could extort compensation from U.S. oil companies. He’s a crafty bastard, extremely intelligent and canny. That’s exactly how he operates. And now he was taking his revenge. As expected, the U.S. was hopping mad about it. Gaddafi wasn’t playing the game the way the Oil Bloodsuckers wanted. The Vampire of our age—the Oil Industry—roams the earth, sucking the life out of every nation to feed its thirst for profits. Only when they got to Libya, Gaddafi took on the role of a modern-day Robin Hood, who insisted on replenishing his people for the costs they’d suffered under U.N. sanctions.

Backing up a year earlier, in August 2009 the lone Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, Abdelbasset Megrahi, won a compassionate release from Scottish prison. Ostensibly, the British government and Scottish Courts granted Megrahi’s request to die at home with dignity from advance stage cancer—in exchange for dropping a legal appeal packed with embarrassments for the European Courts. The decision to free Megrahi followed shocking revelations of corruption at the special Court of The Hague that handled the Lockerbie Trial. Prosecution witnesses confessed to receiving payments of $4 million each from the United States, in exchange for testimony against Megrahi, a mind-blowing allegation of judicial corruption.

The Lockerbie conviction was full of holes to begin with. Anybody who knows anything about terrorism in the 1980s knows the CIA got mixed up in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the hostage crisis in Lebanon. The Lockerbie conspiracy had been a false flag operation to kill off a joint CIA and Defense Intelligence investigation into kick backs from Islamic Jihad, in exchange for protecting the heroin transit network.

According to my own CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who’d been stationed in Lebanon and Syria at the time, the CIA had established a protected drug route from Lebanon to Europe and on to the United States. His statements support other sources that “Operation Corea” allowed Syrian drug dealers led by Monzer al-Kassar (also linked to Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal) to ship heroin to the U.S. ON Pan Am flights, in exchange for intelligence on the hostages’ whereabouts in Lebanon. The CIA allegedly made sure that suitcases carrying heroin were not searched at customs. Nicknamed the “Godfather of Terror,” Al Kassar is now serving a prison sentence for conspiring with Colombian drug cartels to assassinate U.S. nationals.

Building up to Lockerbie, the Defense Intelligence team in Beirut, led by Maj. Charles Dennis McKee and Matthew Gannon, suspected that CIA infiltration of the heroin network might be prolonging the hostage crisis. If so, the consequence was severe. AP Reporter Terry Anderson got chained in a basement for 7 years, while 96 other high profile western hostages suffered beatings, mock executions and overall trauma. McKee’s team raised the alarms in Washington that a CIA double agent profiting from the narco-dollars might be warning the hostage takers whenever their dragnet closed in. Washington sent a fact-finding team to Lebanon to gather evidence.

On the day it was blown out of the sky, Pan Am 103 was carrying that team of CIA and FBI investigators, the CIA’s Deputy Chief assigned to Beirut, and three Defense Intelligence officers, including McKee and Gannon, on their way to Washington to deliver a report on the CIA’s role in heroin trafficking, and the impact on terrorist financing and the hostage crisis. In short, everyone with direct knowledge of CIA kickbacks from heroin trafficking died on Pan Am 103. A suitcase packed with $500,000 worth of heroin was found in the wreckage. It belonged to investigators, as proof of the corruption.

The punch line was that the U.S. State Department issued an internal travel advisory, warning that government officials should get off that specific flight on that specific day, because Pan Am 103 was expected to get bombed. That’s right, folks! The U.S. had prior knowledge of the attack.

Unforgivably, nobody told Charles McKee or Matthew Gannon. But other military officials and diplomats got pulled off the flight—making room for a group of students from Syracuse University traveling stand by for the Christmas holidays.

It was a monstrous act! But condemning Megrahi to cover up the CIA’s role in heroin trafficking has struck many Lockerbie aficionados as grossly unjust. Add the corruption of purchased testimony — $4 million a pop — and Megrahi’s life sentence struck a nerve of obscenity.

It struck Gaddafi as grievously offensive, as well—The United Nations had forced Libya to fork over $2.7 billion in damages to the Lockerbie families, a rate of $10 million for every death. Once it became clear the U.S. paid two key witnesses $4 million each to commit perjury, spook gossip throughout the summer was rife that Gaddafi had taken bold action to demand compensation from U.S. (and probably British) oil corporations operating in Libya. More than likely, Libya’s demands for kick backs and compensation extended to other European oil conglomerates as well—particularly France and Italy—who are now spearheading attacks on Libya.

I knew last summer there would be trouble. Payback would be a b—tch on both sides. You don’t lock an innocent man in prison for 10 years on bogus charges of terrorism, and expect forgiveness. The United States and Britain had behaved with remarkable selfishness. You’ve got to admit that Gaddafi’s attempt to balance the scales of justice demonstrated a flair of righteous nationalism.

Alas, Gaddafi was playing with fire, no matter how justified his complaint. You don’t strike a tyrant without expecting a tyrant to strike back.

And that’s exactly what’s happening today.

Don’t kid yourself. This is an oil war, and it smacks of imperialist double standards. ((Two articles by Prof. Chossudovsky at the Global Research Centre are must reading: “Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa” and “Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d’Etat in Libya?“))

There is simply no justification for U.S. or NATO action against Libya. The U.N. charter acknowledges the rights of sovereign nations to put down rebellions against their own governments. Moreover, many observers have commented that plans for military intervention appear to have been much more advanced than U.S. and European leaders want to admit.

For myself, I know in my gut that war planning started months before the democratization movement kicked off throughout the Arab world—a lucky cover for U.S. and European oil policy. Perhaps too lucky.

Professor Chossudovsky writes, “Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya’s eastern breakaway province” on February 23 and 24— seven (7) days after the start of Gaddafi’s domestic rebellion. “The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk.” ((DEBKAfile, US military advisers in Cyrenaica, Feb. 25, 2011.)) Special forces on the ground in Eastern Libya provided covert support to the rebels.” Eight British Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region, while acting as military advisers to opposition forces, according to the Times of London.

We’re supposed to believe the United States, Britain and Europe planned, coordinated and executed a full military intervention in 7 short days— from the start of the Libyan rebellion in mid-February until military advisers appeared on the ground in Libya on February 23-24!

That’s strategically impossible.

Nothing can persuade me that Gaddafi’s fate wasn’t decided months ago, when Chevron and Occidental Petroleum took their whining to Capitol Hill, complaining that Gaddafi’s nationalism interfered with their oil profiteering. From that moment, military intervention was on the drawing board as surely as the Patriot Act got stuck in a drawer waiting for 9/11.

The message is simple: Challenge the oil corporations and your government and your people will pay the ultimate price: Give us your oil as cheaply as possible. Or die.

Don’t kid yourself. Nobody gives a damn about suffering in Libya or Iraq. You don’t bomb a village to save it. The U.S., Britain and NATO are the bullies of the neighborhood. The enforcers for Big Oil.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan have something in common. They have vast and extraordinary oil and mineral riches. As such, they are all victims of what I call the Vampire Wars. The Arab Princes get paid off, while the bloodsuckers pull the life blood out of the people. They’re scarcely able to survive in their own wealthy societies. The people and the domestic economy are kept alive to uphold the social order, but they are depleted of the nourishment of their own national wealth.

The democratization movements are sending a warning that I don’t think Big Oil, or their protectors in the U.S. and British governments understand or have figured out how to control. The Arab people are finished with this cycle of victimization. They’ve got their stakes out, and they’re starting to figure out how to strike into the heart of these Vampires, sucking the life blood out of their nations.

And woe to the wicked when they do!

Susan Lindauer covered the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years before the invasion. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. Read other articles by Susan.

10 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. MichaelKenny said on March 29th, 2011 at 9:54am #

    Wow, the Lobby is getting desperate! This re-hashes practically the whole bag of propaganda lines: war for oil, planned in advance, hundrreds of soldiers on the ground whom nobody has seen etc. What a disaster this is for Israel! The US get manoeuvred into a war by France for electoral purposes. The fear of a flood of illegal immigrants brings a few other European countries on board. There is no US interest at stake. “Worse”, there is no Israeli interest at stake and it’s all happening on Israel’s doorstep to boot! Obama clearly wants no part of it, he dithers, then jumps in and now manifestly wants out again ASAP. France wants to command. No, the US has to command! No, NATO has to command but under a Canadian officer, Quebecois judging by his name. But NATO is only commanding part of the operation. No, wait a minute, it’s commanding all of it. And Ms Lindauer would have us believe that this shambles was planned! But of could, it had to be planned. America rules the world and nothing can happen without orders from Washington. That has to be true because if it were not, Israel wouldn’t win. And Israel always has to win!

  2. SLindauer said on March 29th, 2011 at 10:05am #

    I don’t recall that Israel appears in this story. Nope, it doesn’t. This is a historical backgrounder that reveals new information about Gadhaffi’s recent actions related to Lockerbie & the oil industry, and how that probably provoked the United States, Britain & European. I stand by that. And by the way, I have sources of my own that confirm the presence of intelligence ops & advance military operatives in Libya a week after the rebellion started. And some of these people got captured. That’s been reported in the European & Arab press.

  3. Deadbeat said on March 29th, 2011 at 2:10pm #

    I have to agree with Mr. Kenny. Something about this article doesn’t make sense.
    The author writes …

    Last October, US oil giants— Chevron and Occidental Petroleum— made a surprising decision to pull out of Libya, while China, Germany and Italy stayed on, signing major contracts with Gaddafi’s government

    Then the question remain why would China and Russia not use their veto power in the UNSC in order to prevent a NATO invasion at least just to protect thier interests in the region? Clearly they knew an abstention would open the door for a NATO attack on Libya.

    Then I found this interesting piece of information …

    Oil Companies That Gave ‘Bonuses’ To Libya Also Lobbied Against Disclosure Rules

    In 2008, Occidental Petroleum, based in California, paid a $1 billion “signing bonus” to the Libyan government as part of 30-year agreement. A company spokesman said it was not uncommon for firms to pay large bonuses for long-term contracts.The year before, Petro-Canada, a large Canadian oil company, made a similar $1 billion payment after Libyan officials granted it a 30-year oil exploration license, according to diplomatic cables and company officials.

    Apparently this was common practices in Libya as these fees were not just directed to U.S. and U.K. firms. Canadaian firms apparently had to pay such fees as well. I would extrapolate that all foreign firms paid such fees.

    Also further in the article we find this interesting piece of information …

    The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill includes a disclosure rule that would require such payments to be disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Occidental Petroleum was one of several companies that lobbied against that rule. Oil companies have argued that the disclosure law will hurt their competitiveness and perhaps violate laws in the countries they are dealing with.

    So Occidential Petroleum withdrew from Libya right about the time the Dood-Frank-Zio-inspired disclosure rules were being implemented against the oil companies in order to pressure U.S. oil firms OUT of Libya. This then confirms exactly what Dr. James Petras says about the power of the Zionist Power Configuration hold over the use of the U.S. government power over the “corporations” especially the oil industry trying to do business in the Middle East.

    Thus I have to conclude that this article is designed exactly as Michael Kenny suspects, to promote the “War for Oil(tm)” canard and divert attention away from Zionist dominance of U.S. Middle East policy.

  4. jayn0t said on March 29th, 2011 at 5:35pm #

    Lazy leftists test their theories by looking for confirmation. They notice that the USA invaded Iraq on ‘humanitarian’ grounds, but ignored Rwanda. Iraq has oil, Rwanda not, so they say ‘see – war for oil!’. But you test a theory by looking for counter-examples. The US is on good terms with Saudi Arabia, on bad terms with Iran, and has raped Iraq. It was happy with Saddam Hussein, then not. Gaddafi too. There is no correlation between quantity of oil and quantity of US government support.

    Deadbeat is much closer to an explanation, but we should also try to test the ‘Zionist Power Configuration’ theory. Why is the USA currently attacking Libya, and not Syria, which is also having protests, and is in the Zionist crosshairs more than Libya?

  5. Deadbeat said on March 29th, 2011 at 7:17pm #

    jaynot asks …

    Why is the USA currently attacking Libya, and not Syria, which is also having protests, and is in the Zionist crosshairs more than Libya?

    And your point is? What is your question suppose to test? The fact fact that the ZPC went after Libya over Syria means what to you? I really don’t see what “theory” you are trying to prove.

    What I have disproven is that the War on Libya is NOT for oil since the oil companies response was due to changes in the disclosure laws. Those disclosure laws was passed by a Congress with a HOST of evidence that show the Congress is heavily cowed and dominated by Zionist POWER.

    Are you suggesting that the Congress is NOT dominated by Zionist power because that is the inference of your remarks unless you can demonstrate something else jay.

  6. Deadbeat said on March 29th, 2011 at 7:19pm #

    That should have read …

    What I have disproven is that the War on Libya was for oil based on the premise of the article.

  7. hayate said on March 29th, 2011 at 8:10pm #

    Actually, the zionists/israelis are intending to go after Syria. I’ve seen some of the preliminary propaganda for this in the jewish run, zionist corporate media.

    It’s a matter of timing.

    The Tunisa/Egypt ops set the stage for the ones in Libya and likely Syria, if things go as planned. So far, nothing has really changed in Tunisia and Egypt, despite all the hoopla. That was the plan. Both of those “new” guvs are supporting israeloamerican/eu ops against Libya. The current “protests” in Syria are more of the same ziofascism, inc. duplicity as what is going on in Libya, though not as far advanced. Syria stands in the way of “greater israel”, and was one of the original targets laid out in the ziofascist “manifesto”.

  8. hayate said on March 29th, 2011 at 10:02pm #

    In regard of the ziofascism, inc. desire for Syria, see this report on how the Jewish owned and run zionist corporate media is falsifying news from Syria in order to garner support for war against this country:

    Media Disinformation: The Protest Movement in Syria Western Media Coverage of the Events in Daraa

    by Michel Chossudovsky

    March 28, 2011


    “Presented below are four reports of the same protest movement in the Southern Syrian city of Daraa, Associated Press, The Guardian, Israeli National News, Ya Libnan (Lebanese News).

    Spot the difference.”


    The genocidal things are no different from nazis, they are war criminals of the worst, most destructive sort and should be be treated as nazis were – in Eastern Europe right after WW2.

  9. 3bancan said on March 30th, 2011 at 5:59am #

    jayn0t said on March 29th, 2011 at 5:35pm #

    The not-lazy not-leftist born-into-a-successful-culture jaynot obviously loves the type of “arguments” one of his soul brothers presented here one day: That Cuba is the proof (or “test/confirmation”) of the weakness of the US empire.
    Btw, the following “difference” is telling (though it is not of the “scientifically unfalsifiable” kind):
    Why Bahrain is Different

  10. jayn0t said on March 30th, 2011 at 6:36am #

    Another argument used by lazy leftists is that the West’s interference is ‘hypocritical’ because it intervened in Libya but not Bahrain, both oil states. Deadbeat: yes I think the ZPC is the most economical explanation of the facts – I’ve been arguing it for years. I just said we have to test it by looking for counter-examples. Don’t be so touchy, me old mate.

    “The Tunisa/Egypt ops set the stage for the ones in Libya and likely Syria, if things go as planned” is a classic example of an untestable conspiracy theory. Suppose these countries were intervened in in a different order, or at a different time – then ‘hayate’ could just rearrange his sentence. Another thing wrong with this kind of lazy pseudo-science is that it’s demoralising – we are always the victims of so-called ‘plans’ and ‘ops’.