Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > July > 01 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOil and the invasion of Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
From the beginning, oil played a critical role in drawing us to invade Iraq. As former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoirs, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Iraq boasts the world’s second or third biggest oil reserves, depending on who you believe. Without that oil, Iraq would have been Sudan or Rwanda or Zimbabwe or Myanmar, another sad place where brutality and repression rule and the United States has no strategic interest.
However, I think it’s an exaggeration to claim that we invaded to simply seize Iraq’s oil and make it our own, although the U.S. military as far back as the ’70s has had plans to seize Arab oil fields and turn them over to some sort of international management. Our goal was a little less blatant, and a little more grand.
We went into Iraq in part to ensure that its oil kept flowing and to boost that flow if possible, and also to ensure the continued flow of oil from neighboring Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. We went into Iraq to establish permanent bases in that country, bases we could use to intimidate Iran into obedience and to turn the Gulf region into an American protectorate that looks to the U.S. for its security.
In such a situation, we would not own the oil in question nor claim the profits from its sale, but we would have a lot of strategic influence over how and to whom that oil was sold. And anybody who thinks that wasn’t the case is more than a little naive — maybe willfully naive — about how the world works.
Comments
By Bosch
July 1, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Jay,
I’ve always been against the war, but until recently thought it was more of a blunder perpetrated by a blubbering Commander in Chief. Now, with the information coming out about the no-bid contracts, I’m beginning to think that the Bush/Cheney machine is alot smarter than we give them credit for.
I didn’t want to believe this war was about oil, but now I’m convinced it actually was.
What a shame.
By James
July 1, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Good points Mr. Bookman and I would only add that is also called “protecting the security interests of the United States.” It’s certainly what I hope any President would do.
P.S. And as an aside, you are really helping all of the countries of the free world.
By TW
July 1, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
I like the term ‘willfully naive’. Because the alternative, apparently, is being a lib, whatever that means.
We are where we are simply because we are loaded with the willfully naive, eager to clog about the back of the snake oil wagon - even when said oil has cost them a job, house, etc. Funny how these ‘willfully naive’ so often claim to be people of faith, when in fact they are amongst the most insecure, fearful human beings walking the plant. The last eight have redefined insecurity as being anybody making less than $150k/yr who votes GOP.
Really, Jay, it has been a masterfully executed get rich scheme pulled off by this admin. You have to give them credit. Even as they disappear on their yachts, those who thought they were part of plan remain loyal on the shore as all that they were promosised disappears over the horizon - without them.
SUCKER is also a good term for it.
By gttim
July 1, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
I hope everybody remembers how rubber plantations in south east Asia was what dragged us into WW2 via the Japanese. Or more correctly, protecting rubber plantations and supplies for American businesses. Now it is oil we are protecting for large corporations. It never ends, young American lives for corporate profits!
By Bosch
July 1, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
James,
Do you think the 4000+ families of the soldiers who died to protect those national security interests would agree with you?
By Observer
July 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Bosch - As a family member of one of those 4,000 soldiers (in this case a Marine), yes, I agree with James. Thanks for asking.
By Bosch
July 1, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Observer,
I’m certainly sorry for your loss.
By Paddy
July 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
James,
I sincerely hope you have a great sense of irony in your statement and that you don’t actually believe the rubbish you are spouting.
Let’s look at this, Saudi Arabia has a massive vested interest in the US and as we all know, own quite a lot of it. How would you feel if a bunch of Arabs invaded your home town killing your family and making you live under constant curfews, restricting your movement, etc all because they are protecting their “interests”?
Yeah, I thought as much.
When will be people of your country finally wake up to the carnage wreaked in your name, the 10’s of millions of lives destroyed as a result of protecting American interests(I use that term lightly as you may be aware America is in fact a continent and Americans refer to anyone from said continent, therefore you are Gringos, Yankees or North Americans)
Ask some of your neighbours in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua or Panama what the protection of “American interests” means to them.
By Saul
July 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Three Days of the Condor. “Ask Americans when we run out of oil, what we should do. You know what? They wont ask, they’ll expect us to act, to just take it.”
Boy, Jay, have YOU found a home.
Jay, you must now find the authority. How deep and wide is the oil-conspiracy. Does it involve foreign powers, or is it Rove, Wolfawitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? (others too, but Why guess).
Where is the authority? Who decided it was okay? a good idea? Who replied, “sure, we can sell that”?
I shouted out who killed the kennedy’s when after all it was you and me.
Dont you see, Jay Bookman, that when you say, “it’s about oil”, then that implies a vast right wing conspiracy so large and so intertwined with the defence industry, foreign corporations, and yes, even the wicked witch of the west. (You cant invade a country without her vast air support.)
By Bosch
July 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Saul,
I think Jay answered your question - it’s how the world works these days - it’s not pretty, but the minions of the world can’t see the big picture and think the only reason we are there is to fight the terrorists.
By lees
July 1, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Three days of the Condor
By ron
July 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this
The world is a nasty place and the people in it are even nastier.Countries have invaded other countries over the centuries for a variety of reasons.All of them good at the time.All of them defensible at home.In Iraq we got three for the price of one.We got terrorists,we got oil and we had a little mini holy war to appease the Christians.How can you beat a bargain like that?
By Abomi Nation
July 1, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
So the Iraq war was about oil the whole time, no surprise there.
A trillion dollars. High national debt. A falling dollar.
It’s time to pay for the war. Seems to me the oil companies owe us big time for all the damage we have done to the economy in their name. It’s time to enact a windfall profits tax. Only now we double the tax, and call it by a name that better suits it.
The Oil War/Pirate Relief Act, or, The Really Fair Tax, or, It’s Your Turn to Bend Over Tax, or, The Emissions Accomplished Tax, or, The We Got Lubed Tax.
By James
July 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
To Paddy, Bosch, et al:
“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivlized who can.” Author Unknown
Like it or not we ARE the world’s policeman against evil. Anything that helps the strategic security interest of the United States therefore is critically important to the rest of the world. If we fail, you wouldn’t want to be around for what’s left. If you would like a taste of it - go live as a Taliban for a few years.
P.S. Can you just imagine what the world would look like today if people like you had your way in WWII and the U.S. had either refused to fight or was defeated.
By Saul
July 1, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
YOu can buy 10 billion barrels of oil with the 1.5 trillion Iraq will eventually cost us.
10 Billion barrels of oil wouldn’t last the world six hours. I use more than that just firing up my grill. (dont ask)
No, I think maybe Bush/Cheney done good here. We get even with arabs for 911, and a maybe Islam keeps their mouth shut next time and maybe they dont feel so good if they sing, hope the mullah is well, dont worry, you’ll get a taste of the action, trickle down, you know.
By Henry
July 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
U.S. military as far back as the ’70s has had plans to seize Arab oil fields and turn them over to some sort of international management.
Mr. Bookman, can you cite some authority for this statement? First I’ve ever heard such a claim, I’d like to know more about it.
By Bosch
July 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
James,
We are only the world’s policemen to the countries with tangible commodities that we need.
I imagine the author of that ridiculous statement chose to remain anonymous because he didn’t want anyone to know how stupid he was.
By Goldie
July 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
{{We get even with arabs for 911}}
Saul — you forgot to include the words “with the wrong Arabs for 911”… but such a small detail, huh???
You must really sleep well at night, just knowing that your incompetent president invaded the WRONG COUNTRY after 9/11…
By lovelyliz
July 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
There’s a big difference between American oil corporations having a say because our governmnet is paving the way for them AND the average American having any influence over the price of said oil fields.
By Bud Wiser
July 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
I would be in favor also of the windfall profits tax, except for the fact that even someone like Abomi should realize that the oil companies will simply pass the cost on to the consumer in order to maintain their profit margin.
Since in the eyes of the Democratic Party it is the evil SUV owners, and other depraved consumers, that have created such a demand for oil/gas, perhaps we should institute a special tax on all people that own vehicles that do not achieve a minimum of 25 mpg overall. Let us have the government issue all owners of these vehicles a specialized identification card (with the help of the IRS of course to verify income and current financial status) that must be used to refuel these vehicles. When pumping is complete, the value added tax will appear on the bill, say 35% EXTRA.
Of course the government can also issue tax credits, or rebates, to bicycle owners, or those who walk to work. If you take public transportation, instead of putting money into the till when you get on the bus, pull a slot machine type lever, and it will pay you! Of course all of this will be paid for by windfall profits taxes.
Idiots.
By James
July 1, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
To Bosch:
And what “commodities” did we need in Korea? Vietnam? Bosnia? Grenada? Somalia? ………. just to name a few?
Any “commodities” in Afghanistan?
Evil is evil. You fight it wherever and whenever you can.
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Henry:
Yes, I can. A brief history of the concept can be found a the website of the conservative Cato Institute — http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa044.html.
Among other things, that piece references a piece in Harpers Magazine back in 1975, written under a pseudonym, advocating seizure of Saudi oil fields if they did end the OPEC embargo. According to the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, the mysterious but well-placed author was Henry Kissinger, then secretary of State.
In 2002, the Washington Post broke a front-page story reporting that “A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States.”
In 2005, Col. Larry Wilkerson, who had served as chief of staff to Colin Powell when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later secretary of state, acknowledged that “we had a discussion in policy planning about actually mounting an operation to take the oil fields in the Middle East, internationalize them, put them under some sort of U.N. trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly. That’s how serious we thought about it.”
I have also been told personally by a senior Army officer and top military planner that plans for such operations do exist.
By thogwummpy
July 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Interesting FACT. Neither Greenspan nor Jay Bookman had clearance to sit in on the national security threat analysis meetings where the DIA advised issueing an ultimatum to Saddam for his post 9/11 provocations. Saddam shot down an American aircraft that day, and then published boastings about it. Bookman I dare say, has never read either of the “open letters” Saddam published the week of 9/11; in which he makes common cause with that of the hijackers. Threat analysts read those, Mr. Bookie! We HAD to issue an ultimatum to disarm and comply with the Cease Fire…otherwise communicates impunity to Saddam (who was also demanding the end to all sanctions—-which we couldn’t remove until confirming disarmament anyway). Saddam never met the terms, so it is HE who chose war. Bookman’s ilk guesses at a conspiracy theory, while conveniently ignoring ENTIRELY Saddam’s behavior. The anti-war position will die on historians desks, because it lies thru omission of the details. Bookman wants you to presume that he is a mind-reader with access to national security meetings…he isn’t. He’s just another frothing Lefty buffoon.
By gttim
July 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
“And what “commodities” did we need in Korea? Vietnam?”
Rubber. All of south east Asia has been about rubber plantations.
By Neo
July 1, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
James
It is funny how everyone feels we have to police the world because if we dont things will be done to us. When I hear so called terrorist talk they speak of killing americans and more or less destroying our government. I never hear them say lets invade america and take over. They look at CNN and see how out of control our country is I doubt they want to invade and take over, I would think they find us a savages or infidels. I think the world needs to policed from corporate america and its interest.
By The good side
July 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
To all whom state America is the WORLD police. What a very stupid comment!
Their are many dictators do you really think we are going to go in those countries and remove the government.
Here an idea drill in your own country! YOU were in control on the SENATE,HOUSE and the WHITE HOUSE.
Why because we don’t know if we actually have oil here!
They know they have oil in Iraq that is why we are their.
Americans need to grow-up an conserve. Oil will not last forever! We desperately need other resources for power.
We cannot go nuclear we need water to cool the reactors and we have plenty of states already with water shortages.
By RealityKing
July 1, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Of course Jay’s liberal argument leaves out the most important reason for going into Iraq. The catalos that set the ball in motion by thumbing his nose at the UN.., 17 times! Someone so unstablizing that the president, congress and 69% of the American people believed him to be an undeniable threat to our long term economic and national security. “A grave and growing threat..”
And anybody who thinks that wasn’t the case is more than a little naive — in fact, I’d say they were most definitely, willfully naive.
By Copyleft
July 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
Thog: So Saddam decided we had to invade, in defiance of the UN resolutions we claimed to be enforcing?
Funny, I coulda sworn that commander-in-chief powers are up to one of OUR guys, not Saddam.
Saying “We had no choice” is silly. Of course we had a choice. And we chose wrong.
By CJ
July 1, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
“I would be in favor also of the windfall profits tax, except for the fact that …oil companies will simply pass the cost on to the consumer in order to maintain their profit margin.”
Since a windfall profits tax comes out of…well, profits…it would not affect the price of oil or gasoline (if they could make more profit, they would, with or without the tax). Rather, it would negligibly reduce the return to oil company stockholders.
However, we (the American people) own the oil in the ground and the Bush administration is not enforcing the law when it comes to payment of royalties to the federal government (i.e. you and me). Therefore, I support a windfall profits tax to make up for the discrepancy.
As an added bonus, to the extent that the revenues from a windfall profits tax would be used to invest in competing sources of energy and, therefore, reduce the demand for oil, such a tax could actually reduce the price (or reduce the growth of price increases) of oil in the long-run.
By Saul
July 1, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Goldie, the wrong arabs? Is there any such thing in Cheney’s eyes? No.
I debated whether to include “the wrong arabs” in my satire, but I decided that the impact was greater if we simply admit our racism about arabs.
Only then can we heal. If not, we’re finished.
Now I dont mind you missing the tone of my comment, but I do mind if you’re a stinking arab. Capiche?
My main point is that born-again christian presidents who get god’s approval for nation building are identical to allah-based terrorists who seek revenge for theo-politically inspired manifest destiny advocates from the west.
You have to understand the centuries of abuse the west has perpetrated on arabs and Islam and the land they’ve held for 10K years.
When Christianity looks at Islam, it is looking in a mirror. Trust me on that one.
When Christ carried the cross throug the streets of Jerusalem, arab goat herders passed by him without looking up. Another crucifixion? Those people are lunatics!
We are no different than Islam. The great challenge before us now is share equally and justly with Islam the entire planet, and allow their opinion and even prejudice against our theo-socio-political traditions. We have to be bigger people that we are. We have to grow up. or our country will eventually become the cheneys and the bush’s and the blackwater mercenary armies who will park themselves in front of elite subdivisions next to your home firing arbitrarily at the poor and the non-elite with the flimsy excuse “we thought they were armed and trying to kill the rich guys”, or “it’s not our fault, it was an accident”, or “shaddap or we’ll kill you 2”.
Obama 08: Share.
By DumbAmericans
July 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
The only reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was because Sadam sold oil in euros rather than dollars and he wouldn’t let western oil companies drill.
The moment sadam decided to sell in euros he was a dead duck. the same thing is going on with iran right now. Iran wants to sell oil in euros.
All the other info about WMD was simply to fool the blind U.S. public.
Saudi Arabia has an agreement to buy U.S. treasury with the money they make from oil to prop up the U.S. dollar.
The last oil crisis in the 70’s was a scam buy Henry Kissinger. He gave his orders and the arabs followed.
When GW said mission accomplished he was referring to switching the sale of iraqi oil from euros to dollars.
The U.S. economy is in peril and on the verge of collapse.
Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela by selling oil in euros would cause every country to start diversifying their currency reserves which would reduce the demand for dollars.
The dollar is going to crash and burn. This is inevitable.
By RealityKing
July 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
Besides, Qatar’s big new US military bases are for protecting the Strait of Hormuz, and the oil going in or out of it. Iraq’s bases will be used mainly for protecting Iraqi’s from terrorists. And yes…, that includes Iran.
By Goldie
July 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Saul @ 12:07 — sorry, I didn’t “get the tone” of your comments earlier… And I totally understand you now!
Obama\Clark ‘08!
By GodHatesTrash
July 1, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
DumbAmericans is spot on.
The Bush dollar should be called the New ‘Murican Peso, they’ll be par with Mexico’s soon…
By GodHatesTrash
July 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
Where the smart money is…
By rc
July 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
cheney pushed the war for oil issues, george went along and wanted to prove something to his daddy too!
By BS Aplenty
July 1, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Jay,
Most in Congress were correct in supporting the Iraq invasion given the CIA estimates of WMD’s in Iraq. Everyone, that is, except Barrack Obama. Obama campaigned from supposed superior moral high ground since he clearly voted NO to the invasion.
Now comes the Wall Street Journal predicting that Barry Obama will “pivot” (journalist-speak for flip-flop) on the Iraq war later this summer. The WSJ indicates that after Obama’s visit to Iraq, the candidate will CHANGE his position & essentially agree with McCain/Bush that the Surge is working and no timetables should be established for removing troops. Now that’s the kind of CHANGE Americans can believe in.
McCain ‘08 - just for the FREEDOM of it.
For an intelligent essay on why the price of commodities like corn and oil have dramatically increased (and what we can do about bringing them down), read the Martin Feldstein article in the WSJ.
By Road scholar
July 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Imagine if we had spent one trillion dollars on alternate enrgy O&D and installation of solar power!!! Let the gas companies put that in their tailpipe!
By Blind Homer
July 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Saul and Goldie - Seems like you’re implying we shouldn’t have attacked any Arabs although they’ve attacked us several times. Or perhaps you have a great plan for sorting our the terrorists from the citizenry that you would like to share with everyone? Or is it that you think the Saudis were the right Arabs but we didn’t attack them because the Bush and Saudi royal families have been in bed together for years? I think one of the good things about Iraq is that the occupation has attracted a lot of the right Arabs to the area so we’ve been able to kill quite a few of them.
By Thom
July 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
DumbAmericans you hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD!!! People dont realize this was the biggest danger to the USA and Saddam DID. This has been seen with Osamah’s plan from Pakistan or where ever he is. They (Muslims) will try to defeat the Americans by breaking the BANK, by selling oil in Euro’s. GET OFF THE OIL
By CJ
July 1, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
BS Apenty is quite the right-wing parrot. She’s repeating a criticism of politicians that they oppose for so-called flip-flops that they predict will occur. I believe that’s a new tactic among the right. Now that’s the kind of CHANGE typical Republicans can believe in.
For the record, I’d recommend avoiding any columns on or near the WSJ editorial page. They’re usually (not always) supported with false data or data manipulated to support a pre-determined conclusion (e.g. opening up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to drilling will reduce the price of gasoline today). I canceled my subscription for this very reason.
By Blind Homer
July 1, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Thom and Dumb - The problem really began when the traitor Ronald Raygun converted Carter’s Department of Energy into a weapons research department for his infamous “Star Wars” project.
By The good side
July 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
To BS aplenty,
The question is not that a surge is working JUNIOR. The question is we voted to send thousands of our soldiers to death. Also we have thousands who are scarred for life.
We spent almost one trillion dollars in this war and 1 billion on renewable energy.
Gas is over 4 dollars a gallon and the only comment you can make is Mr. Obama is going to say the surge worked.
I am glad to know you care more about Mr. Obama disagreement with the surge then high gas prices, thousands of our soldiers who have been killed or have died.
By the way the Joint chiefs did not think we had enough troops to go to war in 2003!
Put that in you pipe and smoke it!
By BS Aplenty
July 1, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
CJ & The good side
Thanks for the ankle-biting, pups.
I personally hope that Barry doesn’t “pivot” on his Iraq withdrawal promise because this will be his un-doing in November - and he knows it. The polls tell him that swing states like Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. do not want a cut-n-run strategy in Iraq. Here’s the piece in the Wall Street Journal. Barry will CHANGE his mind and we can all believe it.
McCain ‘08 - just for the FREEDOM of it.
By RealityKing
July 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Renewable energy sources currently make up for only 7% of our energy needs. That includes solar, water, geo, bio and wind. And have no doubt; trillions are being spent worldwide researching it, with some minor progress made..
So.., unless we’re all going to join Sonny on the mansion steps for a prayer miracle tonight or stop using lights. We might want to focus a little more on increasing those other energy supplies while we’re waiting for the renewable technology to catch up. There are no magic bullets here, only the ones we keep shooting into our feet..
By James
July 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
To Neo:
Criminals normally don’t attack the police station either. They just prey on the civilians out there. Same with our country.
To Gttim:
Rubber!? You’re halarious ! Jay - did you read that one. We fought in V.N. for rubber !!
To Saul:
You need to change your name to Paul and get some counseling.
By Abomi Nation
July 1, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Last I heard Obama hadn’t changed his position on Iraq and yet leads in those battleground states according to the same Quinnipiac poll. Actually pretty good sized leads.
Colorado 49-44
Michigan 48-42
Minnesota 54-37
Wisconsin 52-39
Why the Hell would Obama change his position based on the same poll showing him with a good sized lead.
Wishful thinking. Typical out of touch Republicans grasping at anything. BS aplenty indeed.
By Paula Hefron
July 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
Abomi Nation, let me know where you got that polling data - good stuff. Or just post the link. Thanks.
By Blind Homer
July 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
Real Clear Politics has lots of good poll information.
By BS Aplenty
July 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Let’s see what Obama’s saying after the convention.
By Abomi Nation
July 1, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Paula Hefron, the poll is from a combined study conducted by The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Quinnipiac University.
The results can be found at The Wall Street Journal or here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/battleground-polls/
By The good side
July 1, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Mr. Obama is not going to change his mind for what!
We are currently paying the Sunni’s and the SHia’s militia to stop shooting at our troops and each other.
So now the surge is working when at anytime the payments stop a civil war will break-out.
A plenty c’mon now! You should no better we cannot control a country that already have rival factions.
Shia and Sunni are at war with each other and we are getting our boys right in the middle of it!
Can anyone tell me if Iran went nuclear what we can do since we are bogged down with 2 current wars?
Please answer any conservative,replubican or anyone not voting for Mr. Obama.
By CJ
July 1, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
From BS Aplenty’s WSJ link: “Just in the last week [Obama] dropped his opposition to telecom immunity, his support for handgun bans, his pledge to take public financing and renegotiate NAFTA—all core issues for Obama, or they were supposed to be.”
To be clear, Obama dropped his pledge to take public financing. Good. It would have been malpractice not to since he otherwise wouldn’t be able to answer the attacks from swift-boat type 527s. McCain, the Republican Party and right-wing 527s are raising far more than Obama and the Democratic Party combined (MoveOn.org dropped their 527). Obama did the right thing.
With regard to telecom immunity, handgun bans and NAFTA, contrary to the assertions of talk-show parrots like BS Aplenty, Obama has not changed his position on these issues (the “most liberal senator ” was another lie).
From the Lewis Carroll poem, The Hunting of the Snark: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.” This line reflects the philosophy of the likes of BS Aplenty.
By Blind Homer
July 1, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
We’re counting on the Israelis to take out and Iranian nuclear capability, they have to for self-preservation. However, it seems like that might depend on the same great intelligence that brought us wmd’s!
By hillbilly ragger
July 1, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Real Clear Politics is a right-wing hack site.
You want a comprehensive look at current polling data, accept no substitutes: 538 dot com, baybee!
By Charles
July 1, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
Please share with us any “facts” that support your opinion.
By BS Aplenty
July 1, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
For a more COMPREHENSIVE review of the state-by-state electoral projections, you may want to view the CNN site.
It’s clear to all but the most spastic of leftists why Obama would want to change his mind on SEVERAL important campaign positions, including his Iraq withdrawal pledge. It boils down to he probably won’t get elected if he only adheres to the cult-of-personality statements that wow ‘em in California & New York.
Change You Can (hardly) Believe In.
By Filbert
July 1, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
What is we actually invaded Iraq because:
he was an internatinoally despised leader whose removal would not draw complaints from the international community and might even reeived some support; and even more insightful
because he was an international outcast, we could invade iraq, quickly destroy his military, etc. all dones as an example to your supposed Arab allies who failed to provide the expected/desired support to our Afghanistan campaign. remember, these countries have to live with al Queda among them so they rarely condemn their teachings.
Makes you wann say hmmmmmm…..
By TW
July 1, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
The Good Side - well said. We also have constructed a latticework of high concrete walls to separate the would-be warring factions in Baghdad. A simple look at the basically still non-existent political process over there reveals our ‘surge’ to have been little more than a costly exercising at showing how four marines are better than two - something most of us already knew.
And yes, when we leave, be it tomorrow or in McSame’s vision of a hundred years from now, the war will be on. We will continue to pay out the a$$ until then. How convenient that those who got us into this mess will be long gone on those yachts they’ve refurbished while in office. Gonna have to elect us an adult this time, for sure.
Gonna be alot of wide-eyed republicans when St. Peter points at the slide…
By Filbert
July 1, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
You know, I really need to learn how to type…
By CJ
July 1, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
Official McCain Flip-Flop List containing 48 items as of 6/19/08.
By TW's Accountant
July 1, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
TW you keep up a constant stream of bleating rhetoric about the current adminsistration sailing away “on those yachts…” Your comments are always stated without factual support and really point to a deeper, far more personal, problem.
Your real outrage is that YOU or your Democratic cronies aren’t sailing away on a yacht. Now, get a job and make it happen.
By Swiftboat McCain Now
July 1, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
Does anyone think that it’s a COINCIDENCE that oil prices have skyrocketed while an administration stocked with dozens of oilmen are leading our nation?
If you think there’s no connection, then you, my friend, are a Republican apologist.
By Abomi Nation
July 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
It’s ridiculous to claim that Obama needs to start changing his views to be elected. Again you’re the one in denial BS.
If anything it’s McCain that has to do the running. As in as far away from Bush as possible.
Since you are into the polls today, take a look at one released from Gallup today.. It asked voters if they were concerned that McCain would “pursue policies as president that are too similar to what George W. Bush has pursued.”
49% said they were VERY concerned and 19% said the were somewhat concerned.
Almost 70% are concerned that McCain would be another Bush.
WAKE UP!
By Huac
July 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Swiftboat McCain Now, yes it is a coincidence! The profit margins of oil companines are no higher than when gas was $2.00 a gallon. Gas is going up because millions of Indians and Chinese want to live like Americans. It’s the developing world turning into the developed world. By the way, many sectors of the economy have much higher margins than the oil companies, and theirs have been going up. Nobody whines about that. One other point about rich republicans and their yachts….they are already rich. Once you get to 40 or 50 million, it just becomes ‘keeping score’. Somebody with 40 million lives just as well as Bill Gates with 40 Billion. So ease up on the class envy, and maybe take and Economics 101.
By Rob
July 1, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
CJ - Your “windfall profits” reasoning is idiotic. Surely you don’t believe what you state? For your sake, I hope not.
Jay - Last time I checked, Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe or Myanmar were not proponents of state sponsored terrorism as Iraq was under Sadam’s regime. Also, Jay, you fail to mention the ‘no bid’ contracts were given to those four (two American and one Canadian and one French) companies who, on their own dime, sent know-how and manpower to Iraq after the fall of Sadam to help nurse their oil production back into existence. Thus the reason for the no bid contracts going to those four. Please report the whole story, and not just the part that helps your liberal cause.
By Swiftboat McCain Now
July 1, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
Huac
You conveniently ignore the fact that the price of a barrel of crude oil rose significantly upon our invasion of Iraq, and uncertainty in the geopolitical status of the middle east continues to drive those prices up.
Your rhetoric about class envy is further evidence of your Republican apologist nature. Had Bush been a Democrat, and his Secretary of State had an oil freighter named after her, and gas prices had tripled under his regime, you would have argued the opposite point.
By ron
July 1, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
As I recall,the causes for the Viet Nam war were numerous.I don’t remember rubber being one of them.The Brits had some rubber and tin concerns, in I believe ,Malasia.We started there in 54 assisting the French,who were trying to hold their Colonial power.That was under Truman.Under Eisenhower,we sent in some advisors to South VietNam,a practice that Kennedy accelerated.Johnson escalated the war and Nixon surrendered.Some where in that timetable, the French withdrew and oversaw the rearmament of West Germany.The war was actually fought for a nole reason,to stop the spread of communism.It was feared that the countries around Viet Nam would fall in a sort of domino effect.No rubber.
By Huac
July 1, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this
Swiftboat McCain Now, that sure is a convenient name that obviouly you don’t want ignored. So who’s the apologist for who? Make some real money and maybe you’ll understand class envy better. Because what you call rhetoric is, as a hero of yours might say, an inconvienient truth. Less partisan please…try some informed reason instead.
By Swiftboat McCain Now
July 1, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
Huac
Just like a Republican apologist to assume 1) that your adversary is a Democrat; 2) that your adversary is not of means; and 3) that Sean Hannity’s talking points are as factual as testimony in a courtroom.
When will dupes like you understand that one needn’t be liberal to despise the Republican Party; one needn’t be a Democrat to distrust George W. Bush and his administration; and one needn’t be conservative to earn a little coin?
Just doesn’t fit the neat little cookie-cutter world that Rush and Sean and Fox News have carved out for you, does it?
By Dusty
July 1, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this
OH what a conundrum. A whole topic based on a totally false premise. Call it naive or whatever to make your case. But…”what a tangled web you weave when first you practice to deceive!”. This “oil orgy” is pure political propaganda.
We could have “invaded” Mexico or Venezuela with much less trouble if all we wanted was OIL.
We could have drilled in Anwar and off shore if all we wanted was OIL.
What is really “oily” is the lack of support given to America’s fight against terrorism by anti-war, cut’n’run, let’s talk citizens. These citizens don’t even want to fight for their country, much less oil.
Such falderal. Such ignorance. Such retreat.
By huac
July 1, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this
Swiftboat, I don’t consider you an adversary, just woefully mis-informed, and, as of now, a waste of time.
By CJ
July 1, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this
For Rob’s benefit —
Econ 101: Prices (long-term) are based on supply and demand (not “embedded taxes” as Neil Boortz and others would have you believe).
By Swiftboat McCain Now
July 1, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this
Dusty
I have no problem fighting back against those bent on destroying our nation.
Too bad Bush and his hapless administration, in all their collective incompetence, have squandered the support of their nation, our selfless troops, and the world community in the wake of 9/11, by distorting the truth, undermanning our invasion, and failing to have a workable plan in place upon Saddam’s capture. What you proclaim to be a victory has been a farce. In the right hands, post-9/11 could have been America’s days of redemption. Instead, our children and our grandchildren will shoulder the burden laid on them by your bumbling President’s ineptitude.
By Rob
July 1, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this
CJ - So, as you state, prices are based on supply and demand. Supposing demand remained constant, increasing supplies will drive prices down. Supposing supplies remained constant, increased demand drives prices up. Tell me how then will taxing oil companies increase supply? How will taxing oil companies bring prices down? I don’t get it. Please educate me…
By Swiftboat McCain Now
July 1, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this
Huac
I know it’s hard for you to have to think. You’re dismissed.
By donald
July 1, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this
With the Bush gangsters it was ALWAYS about oil and how to snatch it from a hapless country. They lied to the World community who sucked it up like a sponge. Now, the genie has come out of the bottle and it can’t be put back in. Like I’ve said before, I don’t want to see these scumbag gangsters impeached or to go to jail. They need to make Iraq their PERMANENT place of residence. I want them to live amongst the Iraqi people, the people they claimed they liberated. Two things could occur, these people will either accept them with open arms or they’ll be cut to pieces. Frankly I hoping for the latter!!
By CJ
July 1, 2008 6:35 PM | Link to this
Rob —
First of all, since the demand for oil is rising in China and India faster than the demand will ever fall in the US (it’s falling here now), the price of oil is unlikely to fall under most circumstances (unless we get a handle on speculators and shore up the dollar). In addition, if we drill for more oil and put more barrels on the world market, OPEC is likely offset such increases by reducing their supply. And, since we only have about 3 percent of the world’s oil supply and use about 25 percent, the best case scenario is that we could only be energy independent for a few years (est. 4 years — give or take) before running out only to become 100 percent dependent on foreign oil. In short, we need alternative sources of energy.
A windfall profits tax on oil companies would have no effect on supply or demand in the short run. As I said, however, such a tax would reduce returns to investors since already enormous profits would be slightly less enormous.
However, in the long-run, such a tax could reduce our demand for oil (not China’s and India’s) if the revenues are redirected toward investments in competing sources of energy and/or more fuel efficient sources of energy—either in the form of spending or offsetting tax cuts. For example, if we receive a larger tax cut targeted toward fuel-efficient vehicles, financed by a windfall profits tax, so that it’s more cost efficient in the long-run to purchase a fuel-efficient car than it is to keep the gas guzzler, then many will reduce their personal demand for gasoline by purchasing the fuel-efficient vehicle. Or, if we invest in solar energy (my personal favorite since the know-how and technology already exists), then we’ll reduce our demand for fossil fuels altogether.
By Rob
July 1, 2008 7:51 PM | Link to this
CJ - You and I agree on a lot of areas. I think your numbers are a bit off on how much oil and natural gas we have available to us when you look at all sources. We could be energy independent for much longer than four years if we tapped into all we know of, not to mention areas that are likely to contain oil that are off limits to exploration.
I agree 100% on the need to find alternative sources. I personally feel nuclear is the best option we have so far. It’s clean, compact, highly efficient and we’ve been doing it for almost four decades incident free. Safety and technology has only gotten better in that time. This, in conjunction with a more efficient and economical electric car could be our answer. Unfortunately, battery technology isn’t quite where we need it to be, so for the short run, we’re stuck with oil. Our economy and way of life is built around oil, and that’s not going to change in the short term. Oil doubling in price in the past year or so will have far reaching effects we have only begun to feel. We need a solution NOW, and unfortunately for us, that solution is oil.
I don’t mind solar as a solution, however we’re not there yet either. Without government handouts (subsidies) to this industry, it wouldn’t exist.
A windfall profits tax is a bad idea on so many levels and for so many reasons, I’ll mention two that come to mind. 1) It’s socialism, and that’s not who we are as Americans. 2) When was the last time our government invented anything? Anything they do comes with lots of corruption on top of a 40% administration cost. That’s not a good use of anyone’s money, the least of which the shareholder. The last thing I can think of that was invented by the government was the nuclear bomb, and that was 1) in conjunction with a lot of private enterprise, and 2) so expensive that if we had to do that again today, it would completely break our economy.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
July 1, 2008 9:19 PM | Link to this
I thought Japan attacked us because we cut off the steel. I wonder what we would do in a WWII type war now since we’ve destroyed our manufacturing base. How we would turn out all those tanks and planes?
By CJ
July 1, 2008 11:08 PM | Link to this
Rob —
It’s late and you’re unlikely to read this, but I felt like responding anyway. As you said, even a conservative and lib can find common ground from time to time.
In fact, I’m against nuclear power for the same reason that you’re against solar power—excessive government subsidies for both generation and storage (For security reasons, the Department of Energy is responsible for the transportation and storage of nuclear waste). Nuclear power has other potential downfalls…nobody wants the waste stored in their backyard (e.g. “Yucca Mountain”), and it’s difficult to persuade the likes of Ahmadinejad not to enrich uranium when we’re doing it ourselves (our enemies regard it as a double standard). I’ll keep an eye out for statistics, but solar power plants would be significantly less expensive than nuclear. (Of course, with nuclear power, we have to mine for and/or import uranium creating new geopolitical problems. The world’s supply of uranium is limited too.)
A windfall profits tax is socialism to the extent that national parks are socialism. Federal land belongs to us, and as long as oil companies are drilling on federal land, then we are due our royalties (just as you would insist on royalties if oil was being pumped from your private property). To the extent that the oil companies are cheating us on the royalties that they agreed to in their leases (they are), a windfall profits tax could make up the difference. To me, that’s good business.
With regard to the government inventing/investing, if you like nuclear power plants, then thank the government. If you like the interstate highway system, thank the government. If you like the space program, thank Uncle Sam. Most of the medicine we take? National Institutes of Health funded most of the research (not the pharmaceuticals). If you like the job our military is doing, … You get the message.
Enjoyed talking with you.
By Millard Filmore
July 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
To you solar advocates, it’s not feasible. Too expensive. Wind power is far more practical. But what you’re totally missing is that neither solar nor wind alternatives do anything to lessen our dependence on oil. We use almost zero oil to produce electricity and haven’t in many years. It’s 99.9 percent coal and nuclear. So solar and wind could help the environment, but not the oil situation. Unless you can develop a solar or wind car.
By CJ
July 2, 2008 6:27 PM | Link to this
Millard Filmore.
You’re wrong about using almost zero oil to produce electricity (home heating oil is used quite extensively in many parts of the country).
You’re also wrong about solar not being feasible (take it up with President Bush who powers his house in Crawford with solar energy). It will reduce our dependency on fossil fuels in general (reducing carbon emissions and the environmental destruction associated with drilling and mining). If you factor in “externalities” (look it up) associated with coal and nuclear (especially storage of waste), solar is significantly less expensive in the long-run.
I tend to agree with you on wind. With regard to vehicles, electric cars, eliminating sugar tarriffs and raising CAFE standards should help the cause considerably.
By Rob
July 3, 2008 2:53 AM | Link to this
WOW, this blog is still going on.
CJ, nice talking to you as well.
If you get this, I’d like to hear your response….
As I said before, I’m not against solar or wind power generation. I do have a couple questions however.
1) for solar power, what do you do at night? I’m guessing in conjunction with solar, you’d have large battery banks to store power to get through the night. What about if it’s cloudy for several days in a row?
2) for wind power, what if you have several days in a row with no/not enough wind, and the backup batteries die?
What if you have a major city depending on power from either/both of these sources, and there’s no wind/sun to produce?
I think the storage issue with nuclear waste is mostly political. Shoot, if I had a big enough back yard, they could bring it to my house to store.
Aspects of nuclear I like are - it’s not dependent on outside forces to work, one plant produces enough power to meet the needs of a city of one million people. There are no greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a tried and true method of electricity production.
By CJ
July 3, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this
Actually Rob, I misunderstood M.F.’s comment about wind. I agree with you that the benefits of wind are limited (primarily to certain geographic areas).
With regard to solar, here is a good place to start, and it does answer your first question above (note that the idea isn’t to replace fossil fuels entirely, but to reduce our dependability on them significantly). The article is written for kids, but please don’t let that deter you—it’s short and informative. You’ll know more than most in less than five minutes.