Halliburton, bitches.

Who needs oil? Not us. Some group holding the majority of the world's oil supplies wouldn't impact us at all would it?

I believe something like that might just impact the cost of living.

Who cares anyway about the soldiers dying over there anyway?
They are just dumb grunts. Ask John Kerry.

I'm glad you finally see how Brilliant and Profound Our Dear Leader is, Kevin!

Vote for the Baby Lovers!

"If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up..."

Oh yeah -- that's visionary all right. It's a vision of 1973, but a retroactive visionary is still a visionary.

Or something...

More silence on Kerry, the Only Issue that Matters!

For Shame, Kevin!

Vote against Grave Robbing Democrats!

Shorter Kevin Drum: If we have hippie power, we can pretend that national interest doesn't exist!

It's a good thing that Bush and the Republicans introduced that broad, visionary plan to make us energy independent, using way less oil than we would have if we hadn't started on this back in 2000.

Just think of the far-reaching effects of a 10-year plan for energy independence! Why, we're at year six, going on seven.

Oh wait, I'm terribly confused...

Shorter Kevin Drum: If we have hippie power, we can pretend that national interest doesn't exist!

LOL. If Kevin Drum had his way, he would be giving away ANWR to Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah for free.

Of course that is a concern. However, one wonders whether or not Bush understands the difference between something that is "possible" and reality.

Considering that it only took, what, about three or four months to mobilize and conquer Iraq, why would you do it prematurely? Wouldn't the sounder, heaven forbid the MORE CONSERVATIVE tactic, be to wait and see if the parade of horribles actually occurred?

If a bunch of fanatics actually tried to hold the oil supply completely hostage and threatened to, oh, whatever unless I suppose the United States overthrew the Israeli govenment, jeez, you might actually get a real coalition to fight that war.

I can't believe the President of the United States would still do an interview with that gasbag Rush Limbaugh. Bush is the divider, and he endorses division.

Wait, I thought Iraq was about freedom, not oil.

And who has been the Enabler-in-Chief towards ramping up this threat a hundred-fold by creating a chaotic failed state in the Middle East that holds mucho oil? Hmmmm.

More fear, which is par for the course from Bush.

That's right, Ally, everyone who disagrees with you is a Terrorist! Bad Kevin, Bad!

And it isn't as though we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year towards new energy technologies! Giving it to Halliburton is definitely the best for our National Interest! Otherwise, you baby killers would just spend it on your burkas!

Glad to know the president feels okay appearing with a guy who mocks the disabled, spreads hatred, and lies his face off.

The trolls are already having a field day with this one--obvsiously, control of oil *does* matter. It would be naive to think otherwise. What's comical to me about this interview is GW pretending that people really are so struck by his visionary view that they have to ask for clarification: "What do you mean by that?"
And then they walk away, stunned by this man's original insights. Again, why does this man talk to us like we are all in 3rd grade?

Again, why does this man talk to us like we are all in 3rd grade?

Because unlike most Republicans, Bush can only knock down a strawman when it's really really small.

What a strange little man George W. Bush is.

Here he makes a comment about the threat of extremists pulling oil off the market to keep oil prices up...at the same time his Saudi pals have recently pulled oil off the market to keep oil prices up.

But remember, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

And George W. Bush, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, helped the Saudis fly their nationals out of the United States, even as a "no-fly" restriction was in place for American citizens.

And if Rush had an ounce of integrity or intellect he would have asked George W. Bush about the recent Saudi production decrease, and asked Bush if these were the radical extremists to whom Bush was referring.

Because, if so, then the Bush plan is to topple all the leaders of OPEC nations in an attempt to install pro-West friendly regimes in their place...leading to never-ending war and strife...at least until all the oil is gone.

From "Do not blow-up the oil fields" in the state of the union address before the war began to this comment, I think we can now be certain that yes, it is all about oil.

It's amazing how many Americans still pretend to themselves that this was about anything other than oil. Too bad the media didn't have the decency to show the first Iraqi victims of shock and awe in 2003 on TV. Maybe americans would've felt bad about trashing another country a little earlier then. If justice ever prevails, this country will go down in history second only to Nazi Germany for the devastation it has unwittingly unleashed on the world in the last few decades.

So the millions of protesters holding up signs saying "No Blood for Oil" were right in their assumptions? You don't say!

Bush, yesterday:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-11.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 31, 2006
Remarks by the President at Georgia Victory 2006 Rally
Georgia National Fairgrounds and Agricenter
Perry, Georgia
5:09 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
THE PRESIDENT: So when the Democrats ask for your vote on November the 7th, what's your answer?
AUDIENCE: No! (Applause.)

Bush's statement wouldn't be so instantly offensive if conservatives didn't act shocked - SHOCKED! - any time anyone to left of Dick Cheney suggests that oil had something to do with their desire to go to war.

Bush's comment is actually rather sensible, if somewhat too obvious to be worth making. The real question is whether he has a f**king clue what to do about it, and the answer has been blindingly obvious for some time.

This is as close as Bush has come to telling the truth about American interests in the Middle East. Why did he choose this moment to get truthi with the angry working-class men? No doubt he is letting them in on his sophomoric command of geopolitics and providing another justification for his obduracy.

Is the control of Oil a vital American Interest paramount o our national security? Undeniably, it is, however the problem the admin runs into if they're going to push this line (aside from the fact that it admits that the "Blood for Oil" accusation is true) is that it makes the corruption and excessive profiteering in the Oil Industry (see: KBR/Halliburton and Bechtel in Iraq) tantamount to treason ( basically they would be jeporadizing National security for increased profits). Something I doubt the Bush admin. wants to pursue. I mean it's far easier to ignore greed than it is treason.

If a bunch of fanatics actually tried to hold the oil supply completely hostage and threatened to, oh, whatever unless I suppose the United States overthrew the Israeli govenment, jeez, you might actually get a real coalition to fight that war.
Posted by: hank on November 1, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - but then the US would have to SHARE the oil.
(personally, I'm waiting for the terrorist attacks on China for funding the US occupation of Iraq).

Here he makes a comment about the threat of extremists pulling oil off the market to keep oil prices up...at the same time his Saudi pals have recently pulled oil off the market to keep oil prices up.

I've been TRYING to point out the REAL enemy of the US for decades. And dumbshit Republicans elected Bandar Bush in 2000 anyway.

So, now pulling the troops out of Iraq becomes leaving the Middle East?

DK, he talks to Al and the Hawk like they were 3rd graders so they don't miss the visionary part. Oh god, I'm feeding trolls! Bad zak822, bad!

Ranger Jay is on the mark. Maybe one of the vaunted DC news corps will ask Bush about this wonderous energy plan that vanished without a trace. Not even Halliburton can find it.

And let's not forget, the oil is already in the hands of fundamentalist Muslim governments. The Saudi regime is already an extremist element, using the oil money to spread its version of Islam. Perhaps President Bush has forgotten who crewed the jets on 9/11.

Kevin needs to check his dictionary for the meaningss of the words "all" and "some". The war is not all about oil, but oil is one factor.

Bush's comment sensibly points out that oil is one aspect of the war, because if al Qaeda controls the oil revenue of Iraq, they will have the money to buy many more weapons.

P.S. Up until today, liberals were chanting that the war was "all about WMDs." In fact, Bush's speeches invariably listed several reasons to overthrow Saddam. Why do liberals seem capable of holding only one reason in their heads at a time?

Gee he admitted we're fighting for oil and isreal. no one could have guessed that.

Bush is admitting that his invasion of Iraq has created an opportunity for inhabitants of the middle east to deny us access to the oil and to set up a quandry where we might have to choose between Israel or oil.

Bush's statements are neither shocking nor visionary. It's obvious to anyone who knows what has happened with oil prices and supplies in the last 33 years. Take away the oil and people would care about the Middle East even less than they care about Darfur or the Congo.

Here's a better point: why did not-so-curious George start a war there over phantom WMD's? Even if it's really about oil (which indirectly it is), why did he choose to make the situation worse?

ALL PRAISE TO FSM that Bush wasn't president in 1973, the last time OPEC decided to cut back production.

Al, AH, ex-liberal, you guys really should just STFU. You were noticeably absent from the Sadr City Cordon thread. But you're back to lecture "liberals" about trivial matters. PA threads are great for debate. But you guys seem determined to make them about mental masturbation.

Complete disconnect from reality. Phenomenal.

Oil prices are a function of supply and demand. Supply is disrupted in any number of ways - one principle way being to destroy the infrastructure of an oil producing nation. This shouldn't be so much a presidential fear as a current reality. I would be much more afraid of cartelization, which has obsessed policy-makers since the 70s. In other words, not at all visionary - except the crazy-pants part about extremists doing it. (It's crazy-pants because cartelization is a rational course of action; most likely the result of wise stewardship on the part of Bush's friends in the Saudi royal family.)

The demand part was not all that visionary in 1978 when Carter did it; more of a no-brainer that the electorate rejected.

The premise of this understanding is that oil is an internationally traded commodity. Extremists/Texas oil men/Russian state owned enterprises/Saudis can game the system however they like, but ultimately the price of oil - and consumption of oil - is driven by market forces. In other words, if I take a plant offline I'm succeeding in driving up the prices for consumers and the profits for other suppliers. Not much in it for me. The US could take no action and the offline producer would suffer the lack of review of their own accord.

What the president instead is alluding to is the idea of struggle over resources, in which what would otherwise be a mutually beneficial exchange is recast as one in which there are winners and losers. For over a century, enlightened thinkers have recognized that the cost of securing resources by force can easily surpass the cost of simply buying them outright. I wouldn't call this "extremely visionary" It's an idea that ought to have been abandoned in the 19th century. We're paying a hefty price for it.

How pathetic is it that the president of the United States goes on a radio program hosted by a college drop-out who was recently indicted for abusing Hillbilly Heroin and people of all political stripes are not horrified?

Look how far this country has sunk under these Republican losers....

We can do better than this, America.

I guess Bush must support blowhards who get their rocks off mocking disabled folks. Must be more of those "family values".

Y'know, I'm starting to think that Dems and/or lefties ought to forget about the fine details of policy, and just point out to people the utter swinishness, the gutter origins, of the right-wing machine. A fat gasbag like Limbaugh is a terrific reason to oppose everything "conservatives" stand for.

Bush and the rest of the GOP have been out in force interviewing with the right wing punditocracy, including Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. This is very significant: it means the GOP has given up on the moderate voter. They've lost the moderates. All they have left is the base. So they are preaching to the choir. The choir then sings the tune dictated by the GOP talking points. And some of the choir ventures out to sing a bit in public, including some of the koolaid drinkers who show up at this site to demonstrate their postmodernist skills at stringing together words to form fact free and irrelevant sentences.

If Kevin Drum had his way, Al would drop dead.

Eesh.

If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up, and they will do so unless we abandon Israel, for example, or unless we abandon allies.

The really 'visionary' idea would be to utilize energy sources other than oil...That way the US would not have to involve itself heavily in the Middle East...Yet more 'stay the course' from Dubya, this time applied to US energy policy.

At least this is some form of recognition (finally) of the real motivation behind the US invasion and occupation of Iraq...Securing the global oil supply for ExxonMobil...

More Dubya from the Limbaugh site (kudos to me for going there so y'all don't have to):

Osama Bin Laden himself has said that it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its will and retreats.

And Bin Laden was right, as in the case of Dubya, who has said that he "is truly..not that concerned about him.." and that he doesn't "spend that much time on him". Nice show of resolve, Dubya.

I guess "amazed" is the proper word at how courageous our troops are, and I am amazed at the fact that they are so capable, and that they volunteer in the midst of this war to defend us..

'Amazed' because he could never see himself doing the same.

Dubya's back in full campaign mode again - and why not? It's the only thing that he has done in his adult life besides fishing where he's achieved some level of success...

...We have freakin' Fredo Corleone as president...

shorter George W Bush:
"Jimmy Carter was right after all ..."

"Kevin needs to check his dictionary for the meaningss of the words "all" and "some". The war is not all about oil, but oil is one factor."

So all this Death and Destruction of Iraqis and Americans is OK because of a natural resource that will soon be running out. War for oil is fucking disgusting. What a disgrace this country has become. Now we are finally seeing that oil was part of the reason, I guess those crazy lefties were right all along.

"Bush's comment sensibly points out that oil is one aspect of the war, because if al Qaeda controls the oil revenue of Iraq, they will have the money to buy many more weapons."

First off, Bush NEVER has any sensible comments. He is stupid and retarded. We are fighting and getting killed, mostly, by Iraqis in Iraq and not al Qaeda, so to say if al Qaeda controls the oil revenue it just isn't possible nor correct. Also, if they do, we can thanks King Bush and America for creating this situation.

"Up until today, liberals were chanting that the war was "all about WMDs." In fact, Bush's speeches invariably listed several reasons to overthrow Saddam. Why do liberals seem capable of holding only one reason in their heads at a time?"

Actually, another falsity... as I can remember, myself included, I always knew it was partly about oil, partly about a made up threat, partly about revenge, and partly about stupidity from our leader. Bush's reasons have all turned out to be untrue so who cares what his reasons were. They were all wrong is what matters. We are not incapable of holding more than one reason at a time, we just want the REAL / TRUE reason. Come clean Mr. President, stop deflecting, stop spinning, stop changing the reasons we went in, just tell the truth. Admit your an idiot. Expose yourself for the disgrace that you truely are.

And it's so much easier I guess to send people into war than mandate gas and oil saving measures which will diminsh or render useless the threat of this Black Gold Blackmail scenario Bush so fears.

What a visionary to see through their Black plans, is our boy George!

I have a "why are we fighting in Iraq" poll up on my site, and one of the people who voted other gave the real estate developers answer: "The sun! The sand! The beaches!"

Sometimes when you are the only one who has hit in an idea, it wasn't inspired by brilliance.

Good point, T.R. Elliott. Somebody above ran a quote from the latest Bush silliness, this chant and "Just say no!" response horseshit. Do you know where the Idiot Prince has been performing this skit? Places like Sugarland, Texas -- which not so long ago was the "safe" district of the Rt. Hon. Tom DeLay. If the Republicans weren't so totally fucked, Bush wouldn't even have to make an appearance there. As it stands, it's one of the few places where he can count on an enthusiastic audience -- assuming the necessary screening has been done.

Dems and liberals need to stop cowering and get over the Rove mystique. There's nothing left there. Instead, we need to start giving these neo-fascist scumbags the beating they deserve. In particular, we'd better stop talking about impeachment and incarceration as some kind of "extreme" step. They are absolutely necessary measures.

So those who said it was all about oil were right. Somebody tell Thomas L. Friedman.

...because if al Qaeda controls the oil revenue of Iraq, they will have the money to buy many more weapons.

One of the lamest statements yet to appear on this website.

ex-liberal honestly thinks "al-Qaeda" is going to have any say whatsoever in Iraq's oil revenues?

If the extremists,whoever they are,in the Middle East pulled oil off the market they would a)make a whole lot less money;b)make Hugo Chavez,the Nigerians and Angola a lot more important; and c) make Canada (the source of much of US oil) have a decent currency for once.
I say let them pull oil off the market,they'll put it back on soon enough or they won't have us to worry about,it'll be the Chinese that will come after them.Islamofascistnazimothers ain't seen grief like the Chinese would deliver to them.

How sweet of Kissinger volunteering to stop by the White House and read little Georgie bedtime stories.

"And then the Pet Goat's family was stuck in this great big line at the service station, because that Big Bad OPEC had cut our gas supply and the Pet Goat was getting sooooooo hungry........and the Pet Goat thought, 'Gee, why don't we drop the 82nd on them?"

I wish you people would stop making these jokes. Being blackmailed by an oil wrestler is no laughing matter.

One of the lamest statements yet to appear on this website.

It's basically the argument the President makes everyday. "The Terrorists", "The Enemy", and "Al-Qaeda" are whoever the Republicans say they are at any given moment. These terms are completely interchangeble. Until they aren't.

P.S. Up until today, liberals were chanting that the war was "all about WMDs." In fact, Bush's speeches invariably listed several reasons to overthrow Saddam. Why do liberals seem capable of holding only one reason in their heads at a time?
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 1, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's called "moving the goalposts" asshat.

In particular, we'd better stop talking about impeachment and incarceration as some kind of "extreme" step. They are absolutely necessary measures.
Posted by: sglover on November 1, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

If the congress that gets elected in 2006 does not move to Impeach - they will not be re-elected in 2008. Americans "trusted" Bush and the Republicans in 2004, and were expecting RESULTS. When they got no results, well, if you look at the polls, you can see the the Americans are counting on someone to come in and change.

When your bus-driver drives over a cliff, there's really only one thing to do before the bus hits the ground and everybody dies. Grab the fucker by the throat, beat him senseless, and toss him out the door.

I have written my representatives that I expect their first order of business to be JUSTICE. Period.

I think it's nice to have Bush saying something that, while not visionary, is at least more realistic than usual.

It doesn't appear that anyone has mentioned what Scott Ritter recently said (on C-Span this past weekend). If the US bombs Iran to take out facilities suspected to be involved in nuclear development, the result to Iran will just be a lot of rubble to clean up because they are not any further along than bench-top development. The result to the US will be that Iran shuts off Western access to their oil, followed by the UAE and other sympathetic oil-producing countries shutting off Western access to their oil, and then closing up the Strait of Hormuz. $3 per gallon gas will be nothing compared to what it will cost us after that. But this administration is never going to tell us that.

Republican denials that Bush's Excellent adventure in Iraq were about oil are now no longer operative.

Sadly, "Orwell"'s mendacity remains fully functional.

Which one is the mule Limberman or the Bushwacker ?

Bush's comment sensibly points out that oil is one aspect of the war, because if al Qaeda controls the oil revenue of Iraq, they will have the money to buy many more weapons.

First of all, why would al Qaeda control Iraq's oil wealth? It will be controlled by the pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists.

Second, they hardly need to buy more weapons since the hardworking American taxpayer, thanks to the not so hardworking Bush regime, is giving their arms to them for free:

U.S. Is Said to Fail in Tracking Arms Shipped to Iraqis
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: October 30, 2006

The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded.

The report was undertaken at the request of Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and who recently expressed an assessment far darker than the Bush administration’s on the situation in Iraq....

The answers came Sunday from the inspector general’s office, which found major discrepancies in American military records on where thousands of 9-millimeter pistols and hundreds of assault rifles and other weapons have ended up. The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands.

Exactly where untracked weapons could end up — and whether some have been used against American soldiers — were not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/world/middleeast/30reconstruct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It's certainly a bracing call to arms for our troops overseas, isn't it?

Use a portion of our defense budget to increase domestic fuel supplies.

But you already knew I'd write that.

George Bush has indeed read the Cliffs Notes to the Middle East provided to him by his minders. His ambition, as told to him by Mr. Cheney, is to pacify the entire Middle East to make it safe for oil, Israel and investment opportunities.

Now this is an ambitious project that will require money and lives but the end result will be peace and prosperity for everyone. This is his vision and this will be his legacy. He will stand with giants.

Victory is assured because everywhere Americans go they are irresistible (as Moshe Dayan observed in Vietnam). This is why we don’t need contingency plans. The only possible outcome is victory. No matter what strategy is used the outcome will be the same.

When the failure comes, and it has arrived, it will not be the responsibility of the visionaries. This is megalomania. This is the victory disease and they have infected the American military with it.

"If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up, and they will do so unless we abandon Israel, for example, or unless we abandon allies.

OH MY GOSH, YOU MEAN THEY'LL JOIN OPEC?

Quick, someone call the Saudi Arabia and ask them to reject any wannabe new members of OPEC.

Oh by the way, Wes Clark has a really GREAT ad on TV over at Talking Points Memo. I'm suprised the networks haven't rejected the ad as interfering with their Exxon/Mobil ad revues.

Why didn't Dems try ads like this back in 2004? IT seems as if Dems are finally beginning to give the Bushies a long over due, "in your face, you damn liar" style of fighting back against the Karl Rove Bullshit machine? If Bush tries to lie, just throw it back in his stupid face, nothing hard about that, except for Dems, at least until recently I guess.

Thanks Clark for acting more like Howard Dean, at last. There is nothing wrong with calling Bush what he is, a liar, so WTF took Dems long to do just that much?

You'd think the least Exxon/Mobil would do is pay the troops a bonus with some of that last quarter profit.

Bush talks as though talking to third graders because that's how his handlers explain stuff to him.

A rare moment of honesty for Mr. Bush...

I do wonder though after much of the region descends into sectarian civil war, and talk of partition becomes general, how the elites will sell the seizure of oil fields to the American people.

Sadly, one suspects any number of Americans are probably willing to sacrifice their children to save suburbia.

Visionary? Delusional, more like.

He's concerned that the United States might leave the Middle East? When he walks outside, does he worry that he might not stick to the ground and just float into space? What other bizarre fears does he live with? Close to a century of American foreign policy has involved American interests in the oil fields. What is this scenario where we just leave and battling extremists take over? Like that would ever happen. What the hell is he talking about?

Thank God we have a man with the resolution and vision of President Bush, and thank God we have journalists like Rush Limbaugh who allow the President's message to be heard.

If the liberals had their way we would never have responded to Pearl Harbor, let alone 9/11. And we would have let the commies overrun Korea and every other country until they were at our borders. Now we need the same resolve against Islamofascism. And once again, liberals are looking for a way to slink away from a fight.

Holy shit! Did GWB really just admit that the war is all about oil and Israel?

That's going to play well with his Qaeda, er, base.

TJM has had the most sensible comment in the entire thread, which is that the Middle East needs to sell their oil to us MORE than we need to buy it from them. If "extremists" shut off a big chunk of Middle Eastern oil, we would indeed be in a rough spot, but it would hardly be a disaster, since we can buy oil from Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, Russia, etc. But they would be cutting off their entire cash flow. Even if Al Qaeda did take over an entire country, that's not going to happen. They're evil and psychotic, but they're not stupid.

And why aren't Democrats across the country running clips of George Bush sitting and talking to Rush Limbaugh?

If the liberals had their way we would never have responded to Pearl Harbor

BWA HA HA HA HA!

That fake Al is awesome.

If "extremists" shut off a big chunk of Middle Eastern oil, we would indeed be in a rough spot, but it would hardly be a disaster

$200/barrel oil wouldn't be an economic disaster?

I've always wondered about dependence on oil and "national interest"... If enough producers refused to sell us oil that our economy would be significantly affected, what would the appropriate response be? Would it justify military action? I don't think so, given that the suppliers are sovereign entities (yeah, naive, isn't it?) and have no obligation to sell us anything. Would we consider that an act of war? Is it any different than import tariffs other than scale? There are countries that don't buy our exports, isnt' that just the other side of the coin? Sure we should use diplomacy and negotiation to remedy the situation, but really, what is our national interest in access to any given amount of oil?

As Jonathan Y and others have pointed out, it is very telling of this administration that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush feel very comfortable running to do interviews with someone the likes of Limbaugh. It's really quite outrageous. Limbaugh should at the minimum be fired and unemployable if not in prison yet the Leader of the Free World grants him an interview? The mind boggles.

BUSH ACKNOWLEDGES HE INVADED IRAQ
TO SECURE CONTROL OF OIL RESERVES

That should be the headline on every single newspaper in America tomorrow.

What imbeciles.

Perhaps they'll re-re-name Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) back to Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) just like they originally coined this abysmal fiasco from the start . . .

.

All of the other countries in the world obtain petroleum by paying the producers prices the market will bear. The US is exempt from this practice because it uses its military might to use oil as a tool to blackmail its own people.

Bush acknowledges his actual strategy in the Middle East by ascribing it to our propaganda created enemies. Ditto heads are ready to send others children to enforce it.

...because if al Qaeda controls the oil revenue of Iraq

I say again, who was the "genius" that made this even the tiniest, remotest bit possible? George W. Bush. A little late for him to be pitching this fear now isn't it? Anyway, Iran will be controlling the oil revenue of Iraq.

I've always wondered about dependence on oil and "national interest"... If enough producers refused to sell us oil that our economy would be significantly affected, what would the appropriate response be? Would it justify military action? I don't think so, given that the suppliers are sovereign entities (yeah, naive, isn't it?) and have no obligation to sell us anything. Would we consider that an act of war? Is it any different than import tariffs other than scale? There are countries that don't buy our exports, isnt' that just the other side of the coin? Sure we should use diplomacy and negotiation to remedy the situation, but really, what is our national interest in access to any given amount of oil?

Imperial Japan's response was to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Al writes "If the liberals had their way we would never have responded to Pearl Harbor, let alone 9/11."

Al, please, Liberals WERE in charge after Pearl Harbor, & responded quite effectively, which allows you to freely post your mindless Right Wing Lemmingdompubbiehood spew ad nauseum.

Actually, had the Right Wing Lemmings had their way, their response to Pearl Harbor would have been to invade & occupy Mexico, then sign the border control security rights over to Japan.

.

Al, if liberals had their way, you would be in Iraq defending our freedoms and fighting terra. Sadly, liberals don't have their way so you are free to bang away on the keyboard while drinking Mountain Dew with your sweats down at your ankles.

Al's getting slapped silly in here . . . .

If the true cost of this war is added to the price of oil, I wonder how much we are now paying per barrel?

"Up until today, liberals were chanting that the war was "all about WMDs." In fact, Bush's speeches invariably listed several reasons to overthrow Saddam. Why do liberals seem capable of holding only one reason in their heads at a time?"
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 1, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Because the threat Saddam may have posed to America, by selling nukes to somebody who'd use them against us, was the only semi-legitimate legal excuse we had for attacking Iraq. Without that George is just another idiot war criminal; just another little boy whining and crying when he's caught with his hand in the oil well, er cookie jar.

Does anyone really think we'd go to war in Iraq to protect Israel or to promote Democracy? Ha!

"liberals responding to Pearl Harbor"

Had the Japenese taken out the fuel facilities in the hills above Pearl Harbor, it would have taken us one hell of a long time responding.

We are not going to leave the hardened bases in Iraq. This is the second time in a week that Shrub has mentioned oil being threatened by terra-ists in Iraq. Kissinger has attained great influence with Cheney and Shrub - Kissinger has been adamant about the US not having any oil supply curtailed in the Middle East. He has wanted the US to have military forces stationed there since the embargo of 73-74. This is not about us "owning" the oil. It is about us controlling the spigots and the steady flow to our shores.

And then there are the oil fields and natural gas areas of Iran. Who will get there first? China with the money or we, with the muscle. Stay tuned.

?? 400,000 disability claims ??
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113502&ran=193193

The Virginian-Pilot
© October 31, 2006
Military service in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to be far more perilous to the nation's pocketbook, for decades to come, than the Bush Administration cares to acknowledge.
A Virginia Army National Guard spokesman said recently that about one-third of members screened after returning home report combat-related medical problems.
That startling figure comes atop a report, forced out of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, that 1 in 4 soldiers who've left the military since Sept. 2001 filed a disability claim after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
In all, as many as 105,000 such veterans already are drawing benefits for long-term physical or physiological problems related to the fighting. As of May, 34,000 additional claims were pending.
Those numbers, and the accompanying medical costs, are sure to soar as the number of veterans grows. At current rates, taxpayers could eventually see as many as 400,000 disability claims and billions in medical bills just from the 1.5 million active-duty and reserve service members who have done time in Afghanistan and Iraq or are still there.

Or else explain how this story is wrong and these numbers are wrong.

Grand Oil Party

"Where are those wmd again... no they're not under my desK." (heh heh).

Was there ever any doubt about why we're in Iraq?

You'd have to be dumber than Rush Limpbag to think we went into the desert to bring democracy to the
poor Iraqis.

THE OILY BIRD GETS THE WORM. (compliments of Curly Howard circa 1942ish)

Is the control of Oil a vital American Interest paramount o our national security? Undeniably, it is

It is if you are planning on starting wars. Otherwise, it is not.

Sweden, Japan, Poland, France, Italy, Bangladesh, Chile, Paraguay, Canada, S. Africa, Chad, Albania, etc. needs oil, but are not willing to go to war to secure it. Only the US is willing to kill for oil to sustain its war machine for seizing more oil.

"$200/barrel oil wouldn't be an economic disaster?"

How do you know it would be $200 a barrel? Bush said he was worried about extremists taking over and shutting off the oil. Are they going to take over Saudi Arabia AND Iraq AND all the Persian Gulf States? What percentage of our oil comes from each of those countries?

And as TJM pointed out, even if Osama himself were in charge of the entire Middle East, those guys don't have any say over where the tankers go once they're loaded. In other words, no country can say, "We'll sell our oil to China, but not the U.S." They either reduce production or they don't.

If a bunch of fanatics actually tried to hold the oil supply completely hostage and threatened to, oh, whatever unless I suppose the United States overthrew the Israeli govenment, jeez, you might actually get a real coalition to fight that war.
Posted by: hank

Which "oil supply" would these unnamed "fanatics" be holding hostage? Iraq's? Who cares. The production there is so spotty right now that its contribution to the world supply is negligible.

Iran's supply? Over the dead body of some 1 billion Chinese who need it just as desparately as we do to keep going?

The Saudi and Kuwaiti supplies? Not likely. Since Gulf War I they can both handle themselves.

Are these wild eyed fanatics also going to cut off the supplies from Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, the North Sea and Burnei?

If Bush, as a supposedly former "oil man," really thinks this is the way the international oil supply works, then he's even dumber than we all thought.

Then again, he was telling this to Rush.

" If Kevin Drum had his way, he would be giving away ANWR to Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah for free.
Posted by: Al on November 1, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK"

Link please.

Just in case it was not clear, JeffII is entirely correct.

Bush certainly set forth some sort of "all about Oil" theory, but the problem is that we have an idiot in charge. You probably could make some case, based upon some set of facts, where military intervention might be warranted.

This Iraq adventure was not it.

I know this is the fake Al, but:

If the liberals had their way we would never have responded to Pearl Harbor, let alone 9/11.

FDR was a Democrat. It was the Republicans who were the isolationists before WW2.

Why isn't this on every newspaper's front page?

Short answer? Corporate media.

[Slaps forehead] Oil--of course! The WMD & democracy stuff was just a ruse--brilliant!

(gdmf)

ex writes:

P.S. Up until today, liberals were chanting that the war was "all about WMDs."

If it wasn't for Bush's WMD argument, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Most of the US thought the war was "all about WMDs."

It was the Republicans who were the isolationists before WW2

and, before 9/11.

remember, W ran on a platform of "No Nation Building"

John Kerry, "I apologize to no one..."
John Kerry, "I apologize to all the service men and their families."

There couldn't be a better example of a liberal Democrat than this.

I think John Kerry said there were weapons of mass destruction before the start of the Iraq war. And he voted for the $87 billion before....

I am so sad this man isn't president. And now the Dems have canceled all his public speaking. November surprise!

He's the stinkin poster boy for liberal doublespeak.
He is one of my best characters.

There were still 115 Isolationist Republicans sitting in Congress in November, 1942, ll months after WW11 for the US started. FDR tried to defeat them, but 110 survived. In addition, the Democratic Party lost 55 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate - During a time of war.

The Isos didn't mind fighting Japan because we had been attacked. They, however, did not want us to fight on two fronts and their German "Brethren" who were fighting the evil Commies.

Orwell wrote: "There couldn't be a better example of a liberal Democrat than this."

There couldn't be a better example of an asshole than you.

If the true cost of this war is added to the price of oil, I wonder how much we are now paying per barrel?
Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on November 1, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Should be easy to rough out.

Lemme see. Global production's what, like 90 million bbl/day, cost of the Iraq war is (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm)
$177 Million/day, so that's roughly $1.96 per barrel (let's call it $2 - given my figures are old anyway).

But then again, look at the COST of oil per barrel that has risen since 2003. . . roughly $28/bbl. then in reaction to Bush's war, Iraq production losses, and nervous speculators: $60+/bbl today:(http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm)

So the cost of a barrel of oil has gone up WAY more than taxpayers are paying to secure the resource. And of course, it's the speculators who pocket the difference. All part of the "free market" my friends. The invisible hand, jerking them off under the table.

No, Hostile, people all around the world, including the U.S., pay tyrants for access to oil reserves, thus participating in, and giving tacit approval to, the tyrranization of many, many, dozens of millions of muslims in the Persian Gulf. Contrary to the beliefs of many fantasists in this forum, and perhaps Kevin himself, there is no law that can be passed by the Congress of the United States which will wave a magic technology wand and greatly mitigate this economic dynamic in anything but a slow process extending out over many decades. The one thing that would be most effective in accelerating this mitigation, passing a large tax on petroleum consumption (which I would balance with an offsetting tax cut on payroll taxes on the first $20,000 in wages), is not something that anybody can propose and expect to be elected.

Those that criticize Bush's foreign policy (and yes, there is much to criticize) would gain a wisp of credibility, credibility that is sorely lacking among nearly all of them, if they would plainly acknowledge these central questions: What political paradigm is to be employed to effect oil extraction in the Persian Gulf, oil extraction that billions of people all around the planet vociferously demand, given it is an utter fantasy to pretend that any technological quick fixes exist? If the the model of the past 80 odd years is to be adhered to, that of paying tyrants to tyrranize millions and millions of muslims while the oil is extracted, what are the implications of that decision likely to be over the next several decades? If a different model is to be employed, how is it to be achieved, while acknowledging that tyrants with control of large oil reserves are generally immune to outside political or economic pressure?

This really has been a chief foreign policy challenge, if not THE chief foreign policy challenge, since the fall of the Soviet Empire, and yet even today it is spoken of, when it is spoken of at all, in the most oblique and often disingenuous terms. To be fair, it is such a damnably difficult problem that it is quite natural for people to turn away from it, and pretend it either doesn't exist, or that some fairy dust can be sprinkled to make it all go away.

Nope, Bush's comments to Limbaugh don't make a lot of sense, but at least he is willing to acknowledge that the natural resource most important to the economic well-being of every person on the planet, from some poor bastard in a mud hut, to some tycoon in a mansion, lies at the heart of this. If you think Halliburton stockholders and executives have the most to gain or lose, you are so deluded that conversation is pointless.

John Kerry sucks! John Kerry sucks! John Kerry sucks! The liberal Democrat Party! Bill Clinton sucks, too! (Or, rather, you know...) Hippies! Evolutionism! Death tax! Did I mention John Kerry sucking?

Now I feel better.

Drill off the Coast of Florida there is years and years of oil there.Or is Jeb Bush appeasing the Terrists?

Dems should simply make a commercial with the very oil phrase from Dubya with the foot note - over 2800 killed; 40,000 maimed, etc. etc. It will play very well.

Orwell, this isn't about Kerry, but since you are incomprehensibly trying to slam a Dem for the sake of ismply doing so, let's play your mindless game.

Speaking of poster boys, is there a better example of doublespeak than Rush ?

You ever seen the actual video where Nancy Pelosi says she is measuring for drapes? Did Rush run it? NO?? Hmmm . . . .

How about Rush running a tape of Al Gore claiming he invented the internet . . . what!? Empty again?

But we all know how Rush advocated severe penalties for drug abuse, all the while abusing drugs. On top of that, he runs to a Liberal defense attorney whose only defense is to protect his civil liberties. Classic doublespeak.

And he got out of honorably serving his country by dishonorably whining about a boil on his butt. What a man.

No better example of a "stinkin' poster boy" for Right Wing Lemming doublespeak than el-Rush-bo.

Liberals couldn't invent a more apporpriate character.

Try to stay on topic next time.

.

Just to show that Americans understand the problem and are working to fix it: Truck and SUV sales rebounded in October with the new lower gas prices. Heck, Hummer sales are even on the rise.

Low gas prices remind me of signs in the desert years ago proclaiming "Last Chance for Gas for 200 Miles"

On Tuesday, there should be, if truth prevailed, signs saying, "Last Chance for Low Prices for Two More Years".

And it was probably still cheaper than jumping through the legal hoops of giving directly to the Pubs.

Just ran across this !! How appropriate.

"Rush - a fat, draft-dodging, drug addict, jacking his maid up, having her buy dope for him - that fat sunuvabitch - I mean, enough bad stuff can't happen to him." quote from Don Imus, an old GOP drug-addict who would know a thing or two about drug abuse.

Even the Right Wingers recognize he's "stinkin' poster boy" for Right Wing Lemming doublespeak!

Jeepers, slapping the Right Wing is just too easy.

.

Will Allen wrote: "Bush's comments to Limbaugh don't make a lot of sense, but at least he is willing to acknowledge ..."

Bush was not "willing to acknowledge" any such thing in 2002 and 2003 when he and other principals of his administration lied -- repeatedly, elaborately, sickeningly and criminally lied -- to the American people, the United States Congress, the United Nations Security Council and the entire world about what they knew to be a nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" and nonexistent "links between Iraq and Al Qaeda" in order to justify a war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq for the purpose of seizing control of Iraq's vast oil reserves, while shrilly denouncing anyone who dared to suggest that the war had anything to do with oil as a "conspiracy nut".

And solving the problem of oil dependency may not be as difficult as you imagine.

And, as I have written before, and as the Stern report released in the UK this week emphasizes, it is absolutely essential to phase out the burning of oil and of fossil fuels generally within the next decade or so if we want to avert a global environmental catastrophe that threatens the survival not only of human civilization but of most life on Earth.

The principal obstacle is not a technical one. Rather, it is the absolute dominance of our government and corporate establishment by a tiny ultra-rich elite who profit enormously -- and in the coming era of "peak oil" (actually leveling-off-and-declining-oil-production) stand to profit even more enormously -- from our dependence on oil.

Hostile: All of the other countries in the world obtain petroleum by paying the producers prices the market will bear. The US is exempt from this practice because it uses its military might to use oil as a tool to blackmail its own people.

the US still pays the market price for oil. Even producers in the US won't sell below the market price. (except for taking into account the costs of transportation.)

the natural resource most important to the economic well-being of every person on the planet, from some poor bastard in a mud hut, to some tycoon in a mansion, lies at the heart of this.

Yet only Americans are smart enough to understand this precious natural resource is worth killing for. Is worth killing tens of thousands for. Is worth keeping many millions in tyranny for.

What political paradigm is to be employed to effect oil extraction in the Persian Gulf, oil extraction that billions of people all around the planet vociferously demand, given it is an utter fantasy to pretend that any technological quick fixes exist?

Commodity market economies. Many Americans prefer the paradigm of the strongest military steals the oil so that Exxon can have record profits. Americans only prefer this paradigm because they have the most potent military. Even though Americans like to have their military kill for oil, many advocates of this policy are too cowardly to actually participate in the killing.

If the the model of the past 80 odd years is to be adhered to, that of paying tyrants to tyrranize millions and millions of Muslims while the oil is extracted, what are the implications of that decision likely to be over the next several decades?

Justifiable hate of America. American politicians and corporations created and paid those tyrants to do their bidding, which was to extract the oil and keep their people's demands of using their natural resources for their own betterment suppressed with whatever force necessary, including mass murder.

If a different model is to be employed, how is it to be achieved, while acknowledging that tyrants with control of large oil reserves are generally immune to outside political or economic pressure?

Commodity market economies. Tyrants are not immune to outside political or economic pressure unless they have the US military to back them up.

The chief petroleum policy of the US is to establish tyrannies, let large corporations extract the oil, let large corporations earn monopoly profits, and use some of those profits to bribe the puppet dictators. That has been the chief foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII, when it was understood that nations cannot fight wars without clear lines of communication to deliver oil to the war machine.

it is very telling of this administration that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush feel very comfortable running to do interviews with someone the likes of Limbaugh.

There are lots of people who have the radio on while they work, garage mechanics, for example. Waiting for my car to be fixed is the only time I listen, but I have heard Limbaugh near construction sites and chemistry laboratories and other businesses. Talking with Limbaugh is essentially like talking directly with those listeners.

Animist, the site you linked to could have been written thirty years ago. Yes, I know, it is the EEEEEVILLLLLLL oil companies which have created the physical properties of petroleum, making petroleum such an attractive fuel. I have no opinion on human caused climate change, but if it is true that failure to stop burning fossil fuels within the next decade will result in the end of civilization or the end of most life on earth, then neither you or I need to think of the future at all, because neither you, I, or any group of people are going to so fundamentally change the economic behavior, or patterns of consumption, of eight billion people in such rapid fashion, short of a global war which produces the very result that was to be avoided. If what you say is true, the gig was probably up the moment the Persian Gulf oil reserves were discovered, and most certainly was by 1960 or so. Turn out the lights, because the party's over.....

Also, every single President has lied prior to the U.S. entering a war. Every. Last. One. Does it make it right? Nope, but railing against the lies of politicians is about the most childish thing imaginable, because an electorate comprised of 200 million people or so would no more elect an honest man president than Pete Carroll would start Kevin Drum at quraterback for USC. Ain't gonna happen. If you want to argue about whether some lies are better than others, fine, but let's not pretend that honesty is a trait to be found in someone elected President of the United States.

Also, every single President has lied prior to the U.S. entering a war. Every. Last. One.
Posted by: Will Allen on November 1, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Except Clinton. (Bosnia).

And you know what? I find it hilarious that NOW, the defenders of Bush start with the pragmatic approach of "we need a president who will lie" - as opposed to how they railed against "slick Willie" in the 1990's. What a riot.

Hostile, the naivete it is breathtaking. To think that tyrants who control the Persian Gulf oil reserves can only tyrranize their populations via the assistance of the U.S. military, is simply too silly for words. You don't think there aren't plenty of other international actors who will trade the technological means necessary to tyrranize those populations, in return for oil extraction?

The fact is every last person on this little ol' earth, who drives a car, or aspires to, rides a bus, or gets good from a truck, or who otherwise needs to burn oil to maintain there standard of living, which means, yes, just about everybody everywhere, is neck deep in the process of tyrannizing the populations of the Persian Gulf. Sheesh.

You mean, Osama, that the claim that U.S. troops would not be in the Balkans for a very long time was honest? By the way, I supported the actions in the Balkans, and I never railed against Clinton for lying about other matters. I railed against him for lying stupidly.

Let's take those ragheads oil. That's what I say.

In any case, my real point is that George W. Bush is a lame duck, so if you folks want to stamp your feet and shake your fists because it helps you gain control of at least a part of Congress, or because it simply makes you feel better, fine. Republicans did the same thing. I was simply pointing out that the central foreign policy issue that has been facing this country for about fifteen years is still being mostly ignored. Whatever. Rant away.

And bush should know since that's why almost 3000 American troops are dead and if the lancet report is right 655,000 innocent civillian Iraqi's
may the retardicans responsible burn in hell...soon!

Cheryl, if we pursue the oil extraction via tryanny model for several more decades, as it appears that most who scream about Bush seem to be advocating, it is likely that 655,000 deaths will be looked upon as the good ol' days.

It’s so late in the thread not many people will read this but…

Every day the energy companies scour the U. S. Patent Office looking for new patents regarding energy inventions.

There is one called the “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator”, MEG for short.

This has received a U. S. patent and is quite promising but under funded.

Can you imagine an automobile that operates on pennies per month and doesn’t use gas?

How about a few dollars per month to power your entire house?

That’s the promise of this patent, but the oil companies want to buy the patent and put in the dust bin.

Look it up yourself, it’s fascinating reading, some of it technical, but will open your eyes and mind.

I bet Global Citizen has heard of it.

Nope, there wouldn't be anyone in the world willing to break patents in order to have transportation which operated on a few pennies a month, and did not require gas. Nope. Not at all.

Bring on the fairy dust.

You haven't done any homework Will Allen.

No cookies for you.

Heard of it? Here is Tom Beardens website.

You know nothing about economics, or how economic or political bodies, via enactment of intellectual property law, have never successfully prevented the spread of highly desirable technology. Do some reading about 19th century Britain's attempts to keep their early industrial technology from spreading to these shores, even upon punishment of death, and then maybe you can have a cookie, assuming nobody has bought up the cookie patent.

You got me Will,

But I wasn't talking about economics,
I was talking about electromagnetics.

Thanks, Global

We geeks gotta stick together. Keeps us from getting beat up after class.

My thoughts exactly.

No tech head, you know so little about economics that you don't even know when you are talking about it, like when you write.....

"That’s the promise of this patent, but the oil companies want to buy the patent and put in the dust bin."

Sheesh. Look, there are plenty of mega-wealthy people (George Soros, etc.) who share the general views of people in this forum, and if Mr. Beardens' invention is what you purport it to be, I'm sure that at least several hundred million dollars in start-up capital could be raised. Go ahead and do it. The future beckons, by crackie!

Here is the link to the paper. The equations are so elegant and utterly workable that I look for opportunities to convert the non-believers...Who always get that glazed look on their faces within three seconds - either that or they rush right out and become big-L Libertarians.

For others that might be interested, check Global's link above and visit a few links on Bearden's site.

Caution, it's not quick reading.

Oh, by the way, the Russians were intrigued with the MEG concept in the 1960’s, so it’s been around for a while.

Citizen, why bother with converting people, other than those who have the capital with which you will have us travel to The Promised Land? Just go raise the money (I'm sure Mr. Beardens will gladly accept the assistance), and change the world! Heck, I'll be happily proven unduly cynical, and be first in line as a customer. Why are you wasting time in this blog, given your insights?

OK, then put George down as "YES Blood for Oil."

Now we've got that cleared up.

Yeah, the Indians and Chinese, who really have no reason to rid themselves of dependence on petroleum, are just kinda' slow out of the chute, or have the utmost respect for U.S. patent law.

Oh hell, back to oil again.

OK, what’s my bid on this half used can of 3-in-1

Hey, Miller, unless you've adopted the lifestyle of the typical 18th century citizen, you're just fine with blood for oil, too.

I'm working my ass off in grad school to do something along those lines, Will Allen.

Never give up Global.

There are a thousand hurdles but one finish line.

Citizen, stop wasting your time here, then. Mr. Beardens needs capital, and there is nothing about sending bytes into this tiny forum for politcal fanatics that is going to raise it for him. I'm serious; if I thought an underfunded inventor held the keys to a technological revolution seldom seen in human history, I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting time conversing with the likes of me.

You know Global, I think it’s the vacuum that’s holding this concept back.

I know a certain someone that has lots of vacuum. Maybe they can help.

As for me, I’m going to entertain some chemical lubrication and enter the world of economics and pay my monthly bills.

I'm a tech-head, not a venture capitalist and not a salesman.

G'night T H, take care. See you next time. I have homework myself that I need to get to in the next hour or so.

G'night T H, take care. See you next time. I have homework myself that I need to get to in the next hour or so.

Citizen, if I had the opportunity to change the world in the way you envison, I'd be whatever I needed to be. Trust me, if you are as technically proficient as you appear, there is nothing about rasing capital for an idea as obviously sound (so you say) as this that would be tremendously difficult for you. Henry Ford wasn't a very charming fellow, but he did offer something attractive at an attractive price. You are proposing to have personal transportation for few pennies a month, and you say the concept is obviously sound. You don't need to be a salesman, you just need to be an order-taker.

$200/barrel oil wouldn't be an economic disaster?

Market forces would save the day. My Honda Civic would suddenly be worth quite a lot to some guy with an SUV and a 30-mile commute. I'd sell it to the highest bidder, and ride my bike to work 5 days a week, instead of just 2, and/or spend much more time working from home. People would use much more mass transit (this is Boston, it often even works). If I needed something that would go faster than 20mph, maybe I'd buy a scooter, or a StokeMonkey.

We've been heating our house with a little wood stove while preparing to replace our slightly-leaking oil tank. We'd use it more. Those windows we've been meaning to replace, would get replaced. Not sure if would make sense to build solar collectors in this northern latitude, but we've done it before (my dad built several in Florida during the 70s).

It seems to me that there could just as easily be quite a bit of economic activity oriented towards increasing our energy efficiency.

"If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up"

You mean like when they flooded the market before the 2004 elections to lower gas prices so as to help you Mr. Bush.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0419-01.htm

性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频

How did Will Allen get to be such a stinky asshole?

Eew.

"History has shown that he who has the oil, will sell it at some price. And Japan will buy it, at that price." -- "Japanese Bureaucrat on why the Japanese were so slow and reluctant to contribute money and arms to the First Gulf War.

Either those who control the oil will sell it, or they wont.

The U.S. has as much coal as the Saudi's have oil. In fact it has more. And at a $1 a gallon we can have liquifide coal. Yes we would have to build processing plants and that would cost about $1.5 per plant but gee wiz, we could have built 350 of the suckers for what we have spent on protecting the oil supply in the middle east and all the money would stay in the U.S.

When you think of it, there is no good reason for us being involved in the middle east, least of all, if the issue is the Middle East. Control of the oil is only a problem for the oil companies.

orwell: John Kerry, "I apologize to no one..."
John Kerry, "I apologize to all the service men and their families."

There couldn't be a better example of a liberal Democrat than this.

"We will stay the course." - GWB Salt Lake City, Utah 8/30/06

"We’ve never been stay the course." - GWB on ABC 10/22/06

"We've been heating our house with a little wood stove."

Hey, I'm a good environmentalist, but when all us hippies in our little Colorado town back in the 70s started installing wood stoves, the pollution got so bad that the town council banned them, unless you were burning pellets. Pellets make more sense anyhow, but the wholesome image of chopping wood to heat your home only works if there's one home per 5 or 10 acres.

And then there are the oil fields and natural gas areas of Iran. Who will get there first? China with the money or we, with the muscle. Stay tuned.
Posted by: thethirdPaul

Smart money takes China by 6 1/2.

The Thief-o-crats of 48 African nations are being wined, dined and bribed in Beijing even as we type...

At this point there's very little that isn't all about oil:

ELECTION, ECONOMY, AND THE PRICE OF GAS

Rober Weiner and Richard Bangs

Enjoy the price of gasoline now, because when the Saudis lower production, we could go right back to the $3 nightmare of three months ago. Washington state is especially affected -- regularly in the top 10 highest, 20 cents a gallon more than the national average ($2.42/gallon vs. national average $2.22 last week).

The gas prices crushing consumers dropped 80 cents a gallon since August. President Bush said, "That's good news for the American consumer." But there is more to the price changes than meets the eye.

Something Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward said two years ago while prices were going higher sends chills: "They could go down very quickly. That's the Saudis' pledge." According to Woodward, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, "told President Bush that the Saudis would cut oil prices to ensure a strong economy for Election Day." This prediction has come to fruition.

Why do companies that generate record profits from U.S. consumers receive $7.2 billion in government subsidies? Why was U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, then Republican House leader, allowed to hold open a five-minute floor vote in the House for 48 minutes until some $2.6 billion in tax breaks for the major oil companies were approved by a two-vote margin? Just this week we learned of the administration's refusal to pursue hundreds of millions in fees for offshore drilling. Why?

NBC News Anchor Brian Williams pointed out, "There are skeptics and cynics out there who say there's nothing to make voters happier than paying less for gasoline, and they're going to wonder: Did somebody just open a big spigot?"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/290734_gasprices02.html

You are proposing to have personal transportation for few pennies a month, and you say the concept is obviously sound. You don't need to be a salesman, you just need to be an order-taker. Posted by: Will Allen

Only people living in a fantasy world at this point in human history are waiting for a quick and easy fix to our energy, enviromental, and transportation problems. We've fucked around with this now for almost thirty-four years, doing next to nothing since the first "oil shock" in 1973. As some believe, no matter what we do we are doomed as a species, and we will be taking a lot of Earth's flora and fauna with us. I'm not quite that pessimistic.

At this point, people who really want change should be resigned to spending large amounts of money to address the problems we have created. There is much we can do, but only if we roll back tax cuts for the rich, put an end to corporate welfare, and reduce personal consumption. The U.S. has the means to make the necessary changes. What's lacking is not the technology or financial resources. What is lacking, of course, is the political will. And while it is easy to blame politicians, it still boils down to personal responsibility.

Classic conservative, expanding government in support of merchant interests. Stalinism, monarchism call it what you will.

The principle has been the same since the founding: Flatten taxes and expand government to handle private sector expenses.

The American conservative policies always result in the same thing, government growth out of control, a war, then a liberal revolt.

You have to be a fourth grader if you do not understand by now that Reagan style conservativism is socialism, plain and simple. Socialism for the dumnshit American traders who cannot compete with smarter Chinese.

Then I read the conservative opinions on this post, and what do I see? They propose alternative big government socialist projects.

Will Allen makes the classic conservative mistake:

"What political paradigm is to be employed to effect oil extraction in the Persian Gulf... "

Answer: Reasonable ability ship oil. This, and nothing more, is the preferred liberal position.

Look Will, if resonable nations support free access to oceans for shipping, then our job is done.

What is the test thaty Iraq was a bad idea? The test is that taxes were lowered for the mercantile class so they would support the Iraqi adventure.

Think, Will, if this was such a good idea to use government to effect the oil trade, then why did we have to flatten taxes to do this? Do you really beleive that we would be in Iraq now if the wealthy were paying a 60% tax rate?

助听器
助听器
助听器
助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
中国助听器大全
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器信息网
中国助听器折扣网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
中国名牌助听器直销网
国际品牌助听器(北京)直销中心
安徽助听器资讯网
助听器（广州）验配中心
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗
浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
进口轴承
噪音
消音
冬虫夏草
海参
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
北京网站设计
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网站制作
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站优化
yahoo竞价
google推广
google排名
google优化
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网站设计 北京
网站推广
网站推广 北京
网站制作 北京
网页设计 北京
网站建设 北京
进口轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
轴承
进口轴承
skf轴承
fag轴承
轴承\
轴承
进口轴承
进口轴承
直线轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承