2005-12-29
An Impeachable Offense: Bush Admits to Federal Crimes
Jonathan Turley, professor at the George Washington University School of Law, is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. “Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism,” he says. “I’m surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle.”
2005-12-21
LA Times: Patriot Act By The Numbers
BY THE NUMBERS
July 10, 2005
Civil libertarians argue that the Patriot Act curtails American freedoms. Fans of the act say those fears are overblown.
By the numbers, since inception of the Patriot Act through 2004:
Civil rights complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general: 7,136
Number of those deemed related to the Patriot Act: 1
"Sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject: 155
Roving wiretaps: 49
Personal records seizures under Section 215 of the act: 35
Source: Justice Department inspector general
Number not mentioned: Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: 0
July 10, 2005
Civil libertarians argue that the Patriot Act curtails American freedoms. Fans of the act say those fears are overblown.
By the numbers, since inception of the Patriot Act through 2004:
Civil rights complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general: 7,136
Number of those deemed related to the Patriot Act: 1
"Sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject: 155
Roving wiretaps: 49
Personal records seizures under Section 215 of the act: 35
Source: Justice Department inspector general
Number not mentioned: Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: 0
2005-12-20
Iraqis voting from fear? But voting against US-backed candidates?
Nadir: If the Iraqis are voting because they fear the US troops, then why are US-supported candidates losing? If the voting is a big sham rigged by the US, why are the "wrong" candates winning?
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI
One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.
A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.
"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."
The cockpit voice recorders, which should have the last 30 minutes of cockpit coversations on them, would be evidence that either supports the official story, or refutes it. Why do you suppose they are being hidden?
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
It took a study to figure this out? More taxpayer money wasted on telling us something we already knew.
Germany Releases Convicted Terrorist
This is sickening:
Hizballah terrorist Mohammed Ali Hamadi, convicted in Germany of murdering US Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem aboard a hijacked airplane, has been freed.
BEIRUT - Hezbollah member Mohammed Ali Hamadi has returned to Lebanon after being secretly released in Germany, where he was serving a life sentence for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jetliner and killing of a US navy diver, Hezbollah and Lebanese security sources said Tuesday.
Hamadi returned a few days ago, a Hezbollah source told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa in Beirut. A Lebanese security source confirmed that Hamadi entered Beirut four days ago aboard a commercial flight from Germany.
The sources did not indicate whether Hamadi stayed in Beirut after his return. He had been arrested on 13 January 1987 at Frankfurt airport after customs officials found liquid explosives in his luggage.
He was sentenced in 1989 for possession of explosives, hijacking a U.S. commercial passenger airliner in Athens to Beirut - TWA flight 847 - on 14 June 1985, beating and holding passengers aboard that flight, and murdering Robert Dean Stethem, a US Navy diver, on the same flight.
Looks like business as usual in Germany under Angela Merkel. Chalk one up for those in favor of the death penalty. What's the point of a issuing life sentence if you don't mean it? 19 years of a life sentence served. What a sick joke.
Hizballah terrorist Mohammed Ali Hamadi, convicted in Germany of murdering US Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem aboard a hijacked airplane, has been freed.
BEIRUT - Hezbollah member Mohammed Ali Hamadi has returned to Lebanon after being secretly released in Germany, where he was serving a life sentence for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jetliner and killing of a US navy diver, Hezbollah and Lebanese security sources said Tuesday.
Hamadi returned a few days ago, a Hezbollah source told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa in Beirut. A Lebanese security source confirmed that Hamadi entered Beirut four days ago aboard a commercial flight from Germany.
The sources did not indicate whether Hamadi stayed in Beirut after his return. He had been arrested on 13 January 1987 at Frankfurt airport after customs officials found liquid explosives in his luggage.
He was sentenced in 1989 for possession of explosives, hijacking a U.S. commercial passenger airliner in Athens to Beirut - TWA flight 847 - on 14 June 1985, beating and holding passengers aboard that flight, and murdering Robert Dean Stethem, a US Navy diver, on the same flight.
Looks like business as usual in Germany under Angela Merkel. Chalk one up for those in favor of the death penalty. What's the point of a issuing life sentence if you don't mean it? 19 years of a life sentence served. What a sick joke.
Ohio Patriot Act Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place
The Ohio Patriot Act has made it to Governor Bob Taft's desk, and with the stroke of a pen, it would most likely become the toughest terrorism bill in the country. The lengthy piece of legislation would let police arrest people in public places who will not give their names, address and birth dates, even if they are not doing anything wrong.
Venezuela gives Exxon ultimatum
Venezuela has given the world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, until the end of this year to enter a joint venture with the state.
"Much of the oil revenue in Venezuela goes into social projects in shanty towns and poor rural areas."
I supposed Paul and Slinger are outraged that a rich country would actually go out of its way to help its poor people. They should just let them starve and die like the U.S.
"Much of the oil revenue in Venezuela goes into social projects in shanty towns and poor rural areas."
I supposed Paul and Slinger are outraged that a rich country would actually go out of its way to help its poor people. They should just let them starve and die like the U.S.
Sunni bloc rejects Baghdad vote
The three main Sunni Arab parties that make up the Iraqi Accord Front said the election in Baghdad had been rigged and demanded that Iraq's electoral commission order a new vote.
Imagine that... accusations of voter fraud in a U.S. run election?
Imagine that... accusations of voter fraud in a U.S. run election?
2005-12-19
Mark Steyn: Iraq vote leaves Dems looking like the losers
Yep, Steyn nails it again. One of his best yet:
"Bush lied, people dyed. Their fingers. That's what this is about: Millions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis beaming as they emerge from polling stations and hold up their purple fingers after the freest, fairest election ever held in the Arab world. "Liberal" in the American sense is a dirty word because it's come to stand for a shriveled parochial obsolescent irrelevance, of which ''Good Night, and Good Luck,'' Clooney's dreary little retread of the McCarthy years, is merely the latest example. (Clooney says he wants more journalists to "speak truth to power," which is why I'm insulting his movie.)
The Anglo-American political tradition is the most successful in the world in part because of the concept of "loyal opposition." Yes, the party out of office opposes the party in office and hopes to supplant it, but not at the expense of the broader political culture. A party that winds up cheerleading for a deranged loser death cult is the very definition of pointless self-defeating sour oppositionism. So, as Zarqawi flails, Dean and Murtha and Kerry flail ever more pathetically, too. Just wait till the WMD turn up."
"Bush lied, people dyed. Their fingers. That's what this is about: Millions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis beaming as they emerge from polling stations and hold up their purple fingers after the freest, fairest election ever held in the Arab world. "Liberal" in the American sense is a dirty word because it's come to stand for a shriveled parochial obsolescent irrelevance, of which ''Good Night, and Good Luck,'' Clooney's dreary little retread of the McCarthy years, is merely the latest example. (Clooney says he wants more journalists to "speak truth to power," which is why I'm insulting his movie.)
The Anglo-American political tradition is the most successful in the world in part because of the concept of "loyal opposition." Yes, the party out of office opposes the party in office and hopes to supplant it, but not at the expense of the broader political culture. A party that winds up cheerleading for a deranged loser death cult is the very definition of pointless self-defeating sour oppositionism. So, as Zarqawi flails, Dean and Murtha and Kerry flail ever more pathetically, too. Just wait till the WMD turn up."
2005-12-16
Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act
There you go Nadir, you can relax now. Just don't start screaming though about the failure of the intelligence community should we get hit with another terrorist attack.
Freedom From Fear Lifts Sunnis in Iraqi Election
This NYT article doesn't seem to jibe too well with Nadir's assessment of why there was such an enormous turnout (Sunni's included) for yesterday's Parliamentary election in Iraq.
Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria?
I'm sure this will be discounted by many seeing as it comes from an evil Zionist Jew.
Also, just wondering; If stockpiles of WMD do end up turning up in Syria, or Iraq, or wherever, will there be apologies offered forth by the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, Levin, Kerry, Boxer, Reid, Moore, Carter, etc.? I highly doubt it, so I won't hold my breath should it happen.
Also, just wondering; If stockpiles of WMD do end up turning up in Syria, or Iraq, or wherever, will there be apologies offered forth by the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, Levin, Kerry, Boxer, Reid, Moore, Carter, etc.? I highly doubt it, so I won't hold my breath should it happen.
Freeman Criticizes Black History Month
Anybody heard about this? Probably not. All I can say is wow. I think it's safe to say this isn't something the NAACP and Hollywierd want getting around. This is extremely powerful coming from this gentleman, who is not only one of the finest film actors in the world, but also one of the most respected.
Wait! This Has GOT to be Fascism, Right??
President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the US without search warrants after 9/11, the New York Times has reported.
But the folks from World Can't Wait are EXTREMISTS when they insist that Bush is a Fascist!
We've got to get these psychos out of office!!
But the folks from World Can't Wait are EXTREMISTS when they insist that Bush is a Fascist!
We've got to get these psychos out of office!!
Is The King Kong Tale Racist?
I heard last night on the radio a discussion of the racist overtones of the tale of King Kong (Kong brought back in chains from an island inhabited by dark-skinned natives, etc.), equating it with colonial-era slavery.
Now, maybe it's because of my naive, white, middle-class upbringing that this notion never occurred to me before, but I must admit, after it was brought to my attention the parallel's are interesting.
Any opinions on this?
Now, maybe it's because of my naive, white, middle-class upbringing that this notion never occurred to me before, but I must admit, after it was brought to my attention the parallel's are interesting.
Any opinions on this?
2005-12-15
Conservative Hero McCain Strikes a Victory (Sort of) Against Bush Regime Human Rights Abuses
Okay. So they changed the definition of torture in the Army field manual and added a nice little classified addendum. Well, a lot can be said for improving your PR, I guess. Though I doubt much will change in practice.
McCain is almost a sane voice in the Republican party. I disagree with him on a lot, but I give him kudos on this.
Hopefully John McCain doesn't have an unfortunate hunting accident over the holidays...
McCain is almost a sane voice in the Republican party. I disagree with him on a lot, but I give him kudos on this.
Hopefully John McCain doesn't have an unfortunate hunting accident over the holidays...
A Nation Under God
Let others worry about the rapture: For the increasingly powerful Christian Reconstruction movement, the task is to establish the Kingdom of God right now—from the courthouse to the White House.
And THIS Isn't Fascism??
The Patriot Act, approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, made it easier for the FBI to conduct secret searches, monitor telephone calls and e-mails, and obtain bank records and other personal documents in connection with terrorism investigations.
George Will: ANWR: Our Fake Drilling Debate
Collectively Hiding Behind ANWR.
"For some people, environmentalism is collectivism in drag. Such people use environmental causes and rhetoric not to change the political climate for the purpose of environmental improvement. Rather, for them, changing the society's politics is the end, and environmental policies are mere means to that end."
"For some people, environmentalism is collectivism in drag. Such people use environmental causes and rhetoric not to change the political climate for the purpose of environmental improvement. Rather, for them, changing the society's politics is the end, and environmental policies are mere means to that end."
By Any Means Necessary
This perfectly illustrates my point about how all too often the Left exhibits no desire in participating in honest debate. On the contrary they would prefer using the tactic of disruption and shouting down those with whom they disagree rather than debating in a civil way the issue at hand.
"The meeting was disrupted by an opposition group, By Any Means Necessary, which recruited students from Cody, Cass Tech, Crockett and Mumford high schools in Detroit and Oak Park High School to swarm the meeting and keep the board from voting."
"At one point, many of the protesters rushed toward the board members, overturning a testimony table. Lansing police officers were called to restore order."
"Mitchell, an African-American, earlier had said he was prepared to vote to certify, and tried to explain that to the angry crowd above shouts such as "be a black man about it."
Ashley Boykin, a protesting 15-year-old student from Oak Park High School, said it was "a great day. It made me feel good. It gives us a chance for a future."
That's nice Ashley.
"The meeting was disrupted by an opposition group, By Any Means Necessary, which recruited students from Cody, Cass Tech, Crockett and Mumford high schools in Detroit and Oak Park High School to swarm the meeting and keep the board from voting."
"At one point, many of the protesters rushed toward the board members, overturning a testimony table. Lansing police officers were called to restore order."
"Mitchell, an African-American, earlier had said he was prepared to vote to certify, and tried to explain that to the angry crowd above shouts such as "be a black man about it."
Ashley Boykin, a protesting 15-year-old student from Oak Park High School, said it was "a great day. It made me feel good. It gives us a chance for a future."
That's nice Ashley.
Katrina Racist... Against Whites?
So, a higher fraction of honkies died due to Katrina than blacks. Since liberals blame all racial discrepancies on racism, applying their logic here compels them to conclude that all the factors contributing to the Katrina catastrophe (poor city planning, poor reponse, etc.) constituted anti-honkey racism. When the disaster struck, if you wanted to increase your chances of survival, it was better to be black than white!
2005-12-14
Bashing the Movement to Oust the Bush Regime
Sixstringslinger sent an email with this link (the one above) to an article on Frontpage Magazine's website. David Horowitz, the "reformed leftist" who publishes the magazine, is a right-wing extremist in his own right. His bashing of the World Can't Wait(WCW) organization lends no credibility to the debate whatsoever.
Yes, it is true that the Revolutionary Communist Party is one of the founding organizations in WCW. There are also other highly respected non-socialists who have signed the call for Bush to resign and take his entire regime with him. This is a non-partisan movement that is picking up steam.
Once again the right-wing tactic is to attack the messenger instead of responding to the points of the debate. If you think Bush is so great, why can't you effectively argue that he should remain in office?
Here is World Can't Wait's response to criticism from Horowitz and Faux News commentator Bill O'Reilly. http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=538&Itemid=184
Yes, it is true that the Revolutionary Communist Party is one of the founding organizations in WCW. There are also other highly respected non-socialists who have signed the call for Bush to resign and take his entire regime with him. This is a non-partisan movement that is picking up steam.
Once again the right-wing tactic is to attack the messenger instead of responding to the points of the debate. If you think Bush is so great, why can't you effectively argue that he should remain in office?
Here is World Can't Wait's response to criticism from Horowitz and Faux News commentator Bill O'Reilly. http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=538&Itemid=184
Anywhere but Here...
Speaking to thousands of people in south-eastern city of Zahedan, Mr Ahmadinejad brushed aside criticism of his views, saying it was orchestrated by supporters of Israel.
"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him. However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.
"If you [Europeans] committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?
2005-12-10
Cafe Hayek economists support illegal immigrants
I have been a tepid supporter of Pat Buchannan's immigration position. But my free market heros (George Mason U professors, including the chairman) at Cafe Hayek are changing my mind. They make a nasty assessment of the Minute Men that Tom and Nadir will like, thought I don't think that it will sway them from their support for Pat Buchannan's Iraq policy!
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_is_it_abou.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_about_the_.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/minutemen_vs_mi.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_is_it_abou.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_about_the_.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/minutemen_vs_mi.html
2005-12-09
Clinton Says Bush Is 'Flat Wrong' on Kyoto
What the hell is he talking about?!!! He refused to sign the damn thing too! Still honing that "legacy" of his I guess.
What a hypocritical jackass.
What a hypocritical jackass.
Iranian leader condemned for Holocaust remarks
"Germany, Russia and Switzerland joined the European Union on Friday in a chorus of condemnation of the Iranian president for suggesting the Holocaust might not have taken place and that Israel should be moved to Europe."
Sorry Paul. You must be disappointed.
Sorry Paul. You must be disappointed.
Charles Krauthammer: Man for a Glass Booth
"This has become a platform for Saddam to show himself as a caged lion when really he was a mouse in a hole," said Vice President Ghazi Yawar. "I don't know who is the genius who is producing this farce. It's a political process. It's a comedy show."
Another Twisted Headline From The Mainstream Media
Passengers: Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb'
This is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts. The headline should read: We didn't hear Alpizar say 'Bomb'.
I am so sick and tired of the MSM and their perverse desire to create controversy where there is none, or to add to it where it already exists as is the case with this tragedy. I'm sure there will be a thorough investigation into this tragic event, as well there should be, but until then the MSM should cease and desist in creating controversy based on comments of one eyewitness.
This kind of shit infuriates me.
What if?
"Counterfactual" is the ungainly term for such speculation. But political leaders have no choice but to guess what might happen, and it doesn't require excessive imagination to dispel the idea that the world would be a happier place if U.S. troops hadn't removed Saddam and weren't now trying to make something better arise in his place."
Why I'm Willing to Defend Hussein by Ramsey Clark
Former U.S. Attorney General explains why he has chosen to serve as one of Saddam Hussein's lawyers, and his belief that the tribunal setup to try Saddam defies international and U.S. law.
Does Saddam have the right to a fair trial?
Does Saddam have the right to a fair trial?
2005-12-08
Move Isreal to Europe
I agree with this proposal, by Iran's retarded president. Or pick some island. Surely some Isreali-sized land somewhere contains either zero people, or a people who would vote to have a few million jews move there and proclaim it the Jewish State, with special recognition for Jews. And without millions of ignorant murderers clammoring to kill the Jews and end the country (instead of focusing developing a civilization themselves), the "Islrealis" will be more secure and productive. Then with Isreal gone from Palistine, we can all watch what the muslims will do, with no more excuses. Maybe they'll even build a sensible, productive (ie, capitalist democracy) nation. I am not being facious here; I genuinely endorse this proposal. Some small region somewhere surely must comprise a population of people whose majority sees the establishment of Isreal in their land as an enormous economic and political benefit.
Naturally, the million or so Arab Muslims who currently live in Isreal so prosperously and freely (much more so than in any other nation in the region!) will want to make the trip, and must be entitled to do so. Surely the retarded muslims who want to eradicate Isreal would agree to a 5-10 year cease fire that would enable Isreal to move its infrastructure to the new location. The money spent now to defend against the retards would substantially pay for development in the new location, and transportation there of Isrealis and their belongings.
Naturally, the million or so Arab Muslims who currently live in Isreal so prosperously and freely (much more so than in any other nation in the region!) will want to make the trip, and must be entitled to do so. Surely the retarded muslims who want to eradicate Isreal would agree to a 5-10 year cease fire that would enable Isreal to move its infrastructure to the new location. The money spent now to defend against the retards would substantially pay for development in the new location, and transportation there of Isrealis and their belongings.
Cop Tasers Granny; NAACP doesn't care 'cause she's a honkey
When I spotted this article, I knew that the old bag was a honkey, because nobody was making a big deal about it.
Intollerant Leftists Halt Ann Coulter Speach
"They criticized her for spreading a message of hate and incolerance"... so they shouted her down so much that she couldn't talk. "We encourage diverse opinion, but this is blatant hate speach." Thank god that we have sensitive liberals to define "hate" for us.
I sure do miss those days of being a liberal. Not that the conservatives are much better. They don't shout down people, but they are just as likely to try to block somebody from speaking (in which case they would helpfully label Louis Farrakan as a hate speaker, and then protect us all from his comments), get a person fired, or extract an apology. And wanting to imprison people for burning their own flag is disgusting. But we must unify against all of this behavior, from both sides. Right?
PS: Will the anti-speach people ever learn that these actions just give their opponents more publicity? Would Ann Coulter have made the papers if her "hate" speach had merely gone forward?
I sure do miss those days of being a liberal. Not that the conservatives are much better. They don't shout down people, but they are just as likely to try to block somebody from speaking (in which case they would helpfully label Louis Farrakan as a hate speaker, and then protect us all from his comments), get a person fired, or extract an apology. And wanting to imprison people for burning their own flag is disgusting. But we must unify against all of this behavior, from both sides. Right?
PS: Will the anti-speach people ever learn that these actions just give their opponents more publicity? Would Ann Coulter have made the papers if her "hate" speach had merely gone forward?
2005-12-07
Killing Kyoto
The world climate is changing.
"It's no secret that the United Nations has struggled with corruption lately. And its critics maintain, not without evidence, that it is at best a fair-weather friend of freedom. But perhaps its sincere concerns about combating the threats raised by global warming will prompt it to push harder to expand freedom and promote good governance and transparency around the world."
"It's no secret that the United Nations has struggled with corruption lately. And its critics maintain, not without evidence, that it is at best a fair-weather friend of freedom. But perhaps its sincere concerns about combating the threats raised by global warming will prompt it to push harder to expand freedom and promote good governance and transparency around the world."
Carrying the 'White Man's Burden' in Iraq
One of the many rarely spoken reasons why conservatives in Washington won't let us leave Iraq is the old notion of civilizing a primitive nation.
2005-12-06
Bush's energy-policy bubble
Or, Bush and the Oil Barons, Part 250
Guess the source on this one, boyz. Hint: it ain't the nation.
Guess the source on this one, boyz. Hint: it ain't the nation.
The possibility of Senate action [on climate change] is another blow to President George W. Bush, who is becoming increasingly isolated on his own ice floe. On June 14, a nervous Administration fired a shot across the Senate's bow, warning in a statement that it "will oppose any climate change amendments that are inconsistent with the President's climate change strategy" -- in other words, anything with mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. Bush can count on the House GOP to block any significant climate change package for now. But the White House has already been embarrassed by recent revelations that a political appointee watered down global warming reports by government scientists. (The appointee, Philip A. Cooney, chief of staff at the Council on Environmental Quality, has resigned and is taking a job with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM )). And Bush justifiably faces heat not only from scientists and foreign allies but also from business and members of his own party.
The War on the War on Language
Tom, let's hereby declare a war on the following non-sense or illogical phrases (with more to come):
- "Agree to disagree."
- "The fact of the matter is..."
- Using the term "the fact" to refer to a claim that you are disputing, such as: "OJ Simpson cites the fact that he didn't kill his wife as the reason that he got found 'not guilty', when we all know that the jury simply made a mistake."
- Using the non-existant legal term, "innocent," instead of "not guilty."
- "To be perfectly honest..."; "To be honest with you..."; "Honestly,..."; "To tell you the truth...".
- "It is what it is." Very popular now, and desperately in need of outcry.
- Saying, "I don't neccessary like it when you call my mom a whore" when what you really mean is, "I detest your calling my mom a whore."
- Saying, "I could care less" when what you mean to say is, "I could **NOT** care less."
Any objections? What else must we eradicate?
- "Agree to disagree."
- "The fact of the matter is..."
- Using the term "the fact" to refer to a claim that you are disputing, such as: "OJ Simpson cites the fact that he didn't kill his wife as the reason that he got found 'not guilty', when we all know that the jury simply made a mistake."
- Using the non-existant legal term, "innocent," instead of "not guilty."
- "To be perfectly honest..."; "To be honest with you..."; "Honestly,..."; "To tell you the truth...".
- "It is what it is." Very popular now, and desperately in need of outcry.
- Saying, "I don't neccessary like it when you call my mom a whore" when what you really mean is, "I detest your calling my mom a whore."
- Saying, "I could care less" when what you mean to say is, "I could **NOT** care less."
Any objections? What else must we eradicate?
No wetlands, no New Orleans
"Katrina destroyed the Big Easy—and future Katrinas will do the same—not because of engineering failures but because one million acres of coastal islands and marshland have vanished in Louisiana in the last century due to human interference. These land forms served as natural 'speed bumps,' reducing the lethal surge tide of past hurricanes and making New Orleans habitable in the first place.
But while encouraging city residents to return home and declaring for the media audience that 'we will do whatever it takes' to save the city, the President earlier this month formally refused the one thing New Orleans simply cannot live without: A restored network of barrier islands and coastal wetlands.
....
Just since World War II an area of land the size of Rhode Island has turned to water between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, most of it former marshland. And every 2.7 miles of marshland reduces a hurricane surge tide by a foot, dispersing the storm's power. Simply put, had Katrina struck in 1945 instead of 2005, the surge that reached New Orleans would have been as much as 5-10 feet less than it was."
But while encouraging city residents to return home and declaring for the media audience that 'we will do whatever it takes' to save the city, the President earlier this month formally refused the one thing New Orleans simply cannot live without: A restored network of barrier islands and coastal wetlands.
....
Just since World War II an area of land the size of Rhode Island has turned to water between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, most of it former marshland. And every 2.7 miles of marshland reduces a hurricane surge tide by a foot, dispersing the storm's power. Simply put, had Katrina struck in 1945 instead of 2005, the surge that reached New Orleans would have been as much as 5-10 feet less than it was."
2005-12-05
Oil Conspiracy can't prevent price drop.
Oil conspiracy to increase prices, eh? Here oil exec's meet and lament prospect of drastic price drops.
2005-12-03
Reponse to my critcs, 2
For some reason I couldn't post this under the original "Response to my critics" post. So I'll put it here.
Paulie, the U.S. has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia for decades, as a sort of quid pro for its support of Israel. Especially post Gulf War, Saudi Arabia has by far the strongest army in the region, save of course for Israel. Syria would be third (behind SA and Israel). Has Bush ever seriously said different? I don't think so. Iraq has been the historical leader? Iraq didn't exist until Great Britain created it after WW1. Turkey ran the area before the Brits got hold of it. When Arabs speak of the region, they speak of "Greater Syria"--not "Greater Iraq." (Which isn't to say that Mesopotamia doesn't have vast historical significance; but it's generally ancient, not modern.)
So the neocons got to looking at the map of the middle east, mulling a ripe target for invasion and occupation, solely for the purpose of attacking "Islamo-fascism" (which sounds like a Limbaughism)? And they chose Iraq, with no consideration of its oil reserves?
First, if they believed their rhetoric about democracy, they would have earnestly pitched this (rather mad) plan to the public. Instead, they trumped up a bunch of garbage about WMD.
Second, Cheney should, then, have nothing to hide. I suppose the vice president, presumably when he gets done haranging John McCain to let the CIA torture people, will come clean about his Energy Task Force. What? Is energy policy somehow to take place outside of the political process? Will Alito and Roberts find that idea tucked into the Constitution, the idea that energy policy is to be left to industry players? Now, I'm not one to throw around the phrase "fascist," which arose from a specific set of historical conditions and is drained of meaning when it gets bandied about by shock-jock radio hosts, but there are fascist overtones to mobilizing a nation to war under false pretenses, while the real decisions get made behind locked doors among captains of industry.
Maybe you're right; maybe the administration brought us into war based on your assumptions (many of which have never been publicly uttered by any official). I would say, after the brilliantly planned "Shock and Awe" invasion, followed by the inept and unhappy occupation, the burden is on Cheney to show that oil interests weren't the controlling factor. The country is shattered; the security situation is a wreck. The oil contracts are safe though. Let's see the minutes to those meetings.
As for those nations that opposed the war and their profit considerations, sure, they would have made out better if there had been no war. But was it their only reason for opposing the war? When war became imminent--when it became clear that "Shock and Awe" was coming no matter what Hans Blix and the UN said--why didn't they cut a deal with the US that would have ensured them post-war contracts? US diplomats indeed offered France and Germany just such a last-minute deal; they declined. Why? I don't know enough about their internal politics to say. After the 20th century calamities of Europe, might their citizens get nervous when empires begin acting like empires. Hell, the war was even more unpopular in Germany and France than it was in the US. Maybe the governments of those countries were actually listening to their publics? Surrender monkeys, indeed. Democracy is for cheese-eating, wine-sipping Frenchies who don't know when it's time to lower the hammer.
(The Hoover hack I referred to was the fellow who penned the dumb sentence I skewered a while back.)
Paulie, the U.S. has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia for decades, as a sort of quid pro for its support of Israel. Especially post Gulf War, Saudi Arabia has by far the strongest army in the region, save of course for Israel. Syria would be third (behind SA and Israel). Has Bush ever seriously said different? I don't think so. Iraq has been the historical leader? Iraq didn't exist until Great Britain created it after WW1. Turkey ran the area before the Brits got hold of it. When Arabs speak of the region, they speak of "Greater Syria"--not "Greater Iraq." (Which isn't to say that Mesopotamia doesn't have vast historical significance; but it's generally ancient, not modern.)
So the neocons got to looking at the map of the middle east, mulling a ripe target for invasion and occupation, solely for the purpose of attacking "Islamo-fascism" (which sounds like a Limbaughism)? And they chose Iraq, with no consideration of its oil reserves?
First, if they believed their rhetoric about democracy, they would have earnestly pitched this (rather mad) plan to the public. Instead, they trumped up a bunch of garbage about WMD.
Second, Cheney should, then, have nothing to hide. I suppose the vice president, presumably when he gets done haranging John McCain to let the CIA torture people, will come clean about his Energy Task Force. What? Is energy policy somehow to take place outside of the political process? Will Alito and Roberts find that idea tucked into the Constitution, the idea that energy policy is to be left to industry players? Now, I'm not one to throw around the phrase "fascist," which arose from a specific set of historical conditions and is drained of meaning when it gets bandied about by shock-jock radio hosts, but there are fascist overtones to mobilizing a nation to war under false pretenses, while the real decisions get made behind locked doors among captains of industry.
Maybe you're right; maybe the administration brought us into war based on your assumptions (many of which have never been publicly uttered by any official). I would say, after the brilliantly planned "Shock and Awe" invasion, followed by the inept and unhappy occupation, the burden is on Cheney to show that oil interests weren't the controlling factor. The country is shattered; the security situation is a wreck. The oil contracts are safe though. Let's see the minutes to those meetings.
As for those nations that opposed the war and their profit considerations, sure, they would have made out better if there had been no war. But was it their only reason for opposing the war? When war became imminent--when it became clear that "Shock and Awe" was coming no matter what Hans Blix and the UN said--why didn't they cut a deal with the US that would have ensured them post-war contracts? US diplomats indeed offered France and Germany just such a last-minute deal; they declined. Why? I don't know enough about their internal politics to say. After the 20th century calamities of Europe, might their citizens get nervous when empires begin acting like empires. Hell, the war was even more unpopular in Germany and France than it was in the US. Maybe the governments of those countries were actually listening to their publics? Surrender monkeys, indeed. Democracy is for cheese-eating, wine-sipping Frenchies who don't know when it's time to lower the hammer.
(The Hoover hack I referred to was the fellow who penned the dumb sentence I skewered a while back.)
That Nation article from "Oil, not so slick"
I didn't realize the Nation piece was available only to subscribers. Here it is.
Waist deep in big oil
By Mark Levine
The mid-November revelation in the Washington Post that as early as February 2001 senior executives of at least four of the country's biggest oil companies met with aides to Vice President Cheney has reopened the debate over Big Oil's influence on the Bush Administration's energy policy. The immediate controversy concerns whether executives of ExxonMobil, Conoco, Shell and BP America misled the Senate Energy and Commerce committees when they denied knowledge of the meetings in testimony on November 9. The leaked documents confirm that these meetings in fact took place, but because Republican chair Ted Stevens declined to oblige the executives to testify under oath--which committee Democrats strongly protested at the time--they cannot be charged with perjury. (They could, however, be charged with making false or fraudulent statements to Congress.)
The executives' evasive answers have renewed questions about the functioning of the secretive White House Energy Task Force, especially its unwillingness to draft policies that transcend the interests of Big Oil. The focus on industry profits and prevarication, although it's important, misses a much more important reason for the Bush Administration's desperate attempts to keep documents related to the task force secret. In a word: Iraq.
While Iraq was absent from the oil executives' November 9 testimony, it is clear that the country and its immense petroleum reserves were on the minds of the Administration and its industry friends from the moment Bush assumed office, and for good reason: With Americans consuming one-quarter of the world's daily petroleum production of 84 million barrels, scientists and industry leaders were by 2001 increasingly considering the possibility that the "age of peak oil production" was approaching much sooner than had previously been acknowledged.
Once peak oil is reached, it will no longer be possible to extract enough oil from the earth to replace what we consume, thereby setting off a potentially explosive competition for the world's remaining supplies. In such a scenario, insuring American access to, and where possible leverage or even control over, the world's major oil deposits would be a natural concern for an Administration umbilically tied to Big Oil, particularly in the context of escalating competition with an aggressive, energy-hungry China.
The belief in peak oil, while not universally shared, has had increasing scientific support in recent years. And it is reflected in the November 9 testimony of Chevron chair David O'Reilly, who explained that in the context of "growing demand for energy, particularly in Asia...oil production in mature basins, particularly in Europe and North America, has been declining.... Meanwhile, OPEC production has increased, but is now approaching its current capacity to deliver." Yet Iraq has, in addition to its proven reserves--second only to Saudi Arabia's--vast untapped fields that remain, in the words of one industry analyst, "virgin territory."
In this context, the few documents that have been made public from the Energy Task Force (thanks to the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch) reveal not only that industry executives met with Cheney's staff but that a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from thirty countries--but not the United States--were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.
It's not hard to surmise how the participants in these meetings felt about this situation. As Deutsche Bank explained in a 2002 report titled "Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq," with upward of $38 billion in projects already agreed to by the Iraqi government, the major US companies would lose if Saddam made a deal with the UN, whereas the Europeans, Russians and Chinese would come out ahead. In a post-Saddam Iraq, however, the US oil majors--specifically, according to the report, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco--could manage the country's resources. No wonder the executives of those companies denied meeting with Cheney's staff only weeks after George W. Bush's inauguration--and fully half a year before September 11 and the subsequent concrete planning of the Iraq War.
The centrality of Iraq to the task force meetings requires us to reconsider the calculus used by senior Bush Administration planners in judging the risks and benefits of invading and occupying Iraq, and its resulting definitions of success. The thinking they reveal suggests that neither democracy nor a reduction of violence in the country, however desirable in theory, is necessary to achieve core US objectives.
Instead, insuring a long-term US military presence in Iraq and a significant (if behind-the-scenes) role in managing and developing its petroleum sector together constitute a prize of immense economic and geostrategic value for the Administration and its corporate sponsors. In fact, at the very moment the first Energy Task Force meetings with industry officials were held, in February 2001, the National Security Council issued a directive for staff to cooperate with the task force in the "melding" of new "operational policies towards rogue states" with "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." No place on earth was more amenable to such melding than Iraq.
From this perspective, it is possible to argue that despite great human and financial costs, the United States--or rather the oil, arms and related industries, if not US citizens--may still "win" a war for which planning could well have commenced as early as the first weeks of the Bush Administration. While increasing numbers of politicians and pundits are calling for troop withdrawals, the subject of a total US withdrawal remains largely unbroachable within the political establishment. Senator Joseph Biden put it succinctly when--after the furor over John Murtha's courageous demands for a pullout--he warned that if the United States brings the troops home, nothing will protect "our core interests," which, tellingly, he did not define. For their part, Iraqis have been so overwhelmed by the daily grind of violence and failed reconstruction efforts, they were unable to challenge Washington by including in the recently approved Constitution provisions prohibiting foreign military bases or foreign management of the oil industry--two crucial markers of genuine sovereignty.
"Maybe after the next election," one senior Iraqi government adviser explained to me. Perhaps; but if the United States can manage the chaos and violence in Iraq in a manner that avoids a significant escalation of US casualties while making it too dangerous for Iraq's elected government to "ask us to leave" anytime soon, the sponsors of Operation Iraqi Freedom can look forward to a happy retirement indeed.
Mark LeVine, associate professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of California, Irvine, is the author of Why They Don’t Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil (Oneworld).
Waist deep in big oil
By Mark Levine
The mid-November revelation in the Washington Post that as early as February 2001 senior executives of at least four of the country's biggest oil companies met with aides to Vice President Cheney has reopened the debate over Big Oil's influence on the Bush Administration's energy policy. The immediate controversy concerns whether executives of ExxonMobil, Conoco, Shell and BP America misled the Senate Energy and Commerce committees when they denied knowledge of the meetings in testimony on November 9. The leaked documents confirm that these meetings in fact took place, but because Republican chair Ted Stevens declined to oblige the executives to testify under oath--which committee Democrats strongly protested at the time--they cannot be charged with perjury. (They could, however, be charged with making false or fraudulent statements to Congress.)
The executives' evasive answers have renewed questions about the functioning of the secretive White House Energy Task Force, especially its unwillingness to draft policies that transcend the interests of Big Oil. The focus on industry profits and prevarication, although it's important, misses a much more important reason for the Bush Administration's desperate attempts to keep documents related to the task force secret. In a word: Iraq.
While Iraq was absent from the oil executives' November 9 testimony, it is clear that the country and its immense petroleum reserves were on the minds of the Administration and its industry friends from the moment Bush assumed office, and for good reason: With Americans consuming one-quarter of the world's daily petroleum production of 84 million barrels, scientists and industry leaders were by 2001 increasingly considering the possibility that the "age of peak oil production" was approaching much sooner than had previously been acknowledged.
Once peak oil is reached, it will no longer be possible to extract enough oil from the earth to replace what we consume, thereby setting off a potentially explosive competition for the world's remaining supplies. In such a scenario, insuring American access to, and where possible leverage or even control over, the world's major oil deposits would be a natural concern for an Administration umbilically tied to Big Oil, particularly in the context of escalating competition with an aggressive, energy-hungry China.
The belief in peak oil, while not universally shared, has had increasing scientific support in recent years. And it is reflected in the November 9 testimony of Chevron chair David O'Reilly, who explained that in the context of "growing demand for energy, particularly in Asia...oil production in mature basins, particularly in Europe and North America, has been declining.... Meanwhile, OPEC production has increased, but is now approaching its current capacity to deliver." Yet Iraq has, in addition to its proven reserves--second only to Saudi Arabia's--vast untapped fields that remain, in the words of one industry analyst, "virgin territory."
In this context, the few documents that have been made public from the Energy Task Force (thanks to the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch) reveal not only that industry executives met with Cheney's staff but that a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from thirty countries--but not the United States--were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.
It's not hard to surmise how the participants in these meetings felt about this situation. As Deutsche Bank explained in a 2002 report titled "Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq," with upward of $38 billion in projects already agreed to by the Iraqi government, the major US companies would lose if Saddam made a deal with the UN, whereas the Europeans, Russians and Chinese would come out ahead. In a post-Saddam Iraq, however, the US oil majors--specifically, according to the report, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco--could manage the country's resources. No wonder the executives of those companies denied meeting with Cheney's staff only weeks after George W. Bush's inauguration--and fully half a year before September 11 and the subsequent concrete planning of the Iraq War.
The centrality of Iraq to the task force meetings requires us to reconsider the calculus used by senior Bush Administration planners in judging the risks and benefits of invading and occupying Iraq, and its resulting definitions of success. The thinking they reveal suggests that neither democracy nor a reduction of violence in the country, however desirable in theory, is necessary to achieve core US objectives.
Instead, insuring a long-term US military presence in Iraq and a significant (if behind-the-scenes) role in managing and developing its petroleum sector together constitute a prize of immense economic and geostrategic value for the Administration and its corporate sponsors. In fact, at the very moment the first Energy Task Force meetings with industry officials were held, in February 2001, the National Security Council issued a directive for staff to cooperate with the task force in the "melding" of new "operational policies towards rogue states" with "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." No place on earth was more amenable to such melding than Iraq.
From this perspective, it is possible to argue that despite great human and financial costs, the United States--or rather the oil, arms and related industries, if not US citizens--may still "win" a war for which planning could well have commenced as early as the first weeks of the Bush Administration. While increasing numbers of politicians and pundits are calling for troop withdrawals, the subject of a total US withdrawal remains largely unbroachable within the political establishment. Senator Joseph Biden put it succinctly when--after the furor over John Murtha's courageous demands for a pullout--he warned that if the United States brings the troops home, nothing will protect "our core interests," which, tellingly, he did not define. For their part, Iraqis have been so overwhelmed by the daily grind of violence and failed reconstruction efforts, they were unable to challenge Washington by including in the recently approved Constitution provisions prohibiting foreign military bases or foreign management of the oil industry--two crucial markers of genuine sovereignty.
"Maybe after the next election," one senior Iraqi government adviser explained to me. Perhaps; but if the United States can manage the chaos and violence in Iraq in a manner that avoids a significant escalation of US casualties while making it too dangerous for Iraq's elected government to "ask us to leave" anytime soon, the sponsors of Operation Iraqi Freedom can look forward to a happy retirement indeed.
Mark LeVine, associate professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of California, Irvine, is the author of Why They Don’t Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil (Oneworld).
Response to my critics, re: Oil not so slick
You guys are consuming and regurgitating official nonsense as uncritically as babies gulp down pabulum. I exhort you to think about what happened in iraq, not as conjured up by court philistines over at the Hoover Institution.
The article I linked to points to a study by Deutsche Bank about the pre-war oil situation in Iraq. Now, Deutsche Bank may conjure up Rumsfeldian fantasies of of a spineless "Old Europe" institution unwilling to rise to challenges, etc., etc. But I can assure you that it is now essentially a U.S. investment bank in the business of making money for its mainly U.S., and quite well-heeled, clients. When I say Deutsche Bank, I urge you to read, "Wall Street."
Now, here is how our author characterizes the Deutsche Bank report:
"As Deutsche Bank explained in a 2002 report titled 'Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq,' with upward of $38 billion in projects already agreed to by the Iraqi government, the major US companies would lose if Saddam made a deal with the UN, whereas the Europeans, Russians and Chinese would come out ahead. In a post-Saddam Iraq, however, the US oil majors--specifically, according to the report, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco--could manage the country's resources."
Leading up to big events such as U.S. presidential elections, Wall Street analysts routinely issue reports that handicap the various possible outcomes for clients. Here, a Wall Street analyst, speaking not to the broader public but rather to well-heeled clients (including institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds), bluntly stated that the end of sanctions would have delivered a blow to U.S. oil interests. From this perspective, the way forward was invasion and occupation.
Now let's look at the infamous Cheney Energy Task Force, charged with cobbling together energy policy for the United States. Who did the great man speak with? He has staked a huge amount of political capital keeping this top secret. I don't want to lecture you boys on how democracy thrives on open government, and chokes and withers on officially sanctioned secrecy. But I do find this fellow a rather dubious crusader for democracy abroad, given his clear disdain for same on the home front.
At any rate, we now know that he met with execs from the U.S. oil majors, that they recently lied to Congress about their participation in the task force (although a friendly senator had the foresight to remove them from the burden of testifying under oath), and that at said meetings (here I quote from the Nation article again):
So, well before September 11, here we have a bunch of oilmen--one of them the vice-president of the United States--rubbing their paws together at the prospect of oil riches in Iraq--and quite possibly squirming a bit at the prospect that China would, if the status quo remained, get control of a large portion of that precious black stuff.
Now one of you guys, or maybe it was one of your prized kept intellectuals over at Hoover, said something about how the price of crude has skyrocketed since the invasion, and that somehow means it wasn't about controlling oil.
First, how does record profits for U.S. oil companies argue against the idea that the invasion's chief motivation was control of oil? Second, no one who's intelligent argues that the war's motivation had to do with short-term swings in the price of oil, which are set by traders in London and New York. It was about contracts and control.
Saudi Arabia: Despotic regime whose citizens carried out the bulk of planning and execution of the Sept. 11 atrocities: Good. Why? Because its regime has been very, very good to U.S. oil companies.
Iraq: Despotic regime whose citizens took no part in Sept. 11 atrocities: Bad. Why? Because its regime broke with U.S. oil interests in 1991. And why attack the regime? Oh, it's not about oil not at all! It's all about Sept. 11. Don't believe me? I know a real smart guy over at the Hoover Institute who can explain it to you.
The article I linked to points to a study by Deutsche Bank about the pre-war oil situation in Iraq. Now, Deutsche Bank may conjure up Rumsfeldian fantasies of of a spineless "Old Europe" institution unwilling to rise to challenges, etc., etc. But I can assure you that it is now essentially a U.S. investment bank in the business of making money for its mainly U.S., and quite well-heeled, clients. When I say Deutsche Bank, I urge you to read, "Wall Street."
Now, here is how our author characterizes the Deutsche Bank report:
"As Deutsche Bank explained in a 2002 report titled 'Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq,' with upward of $38 billion in projects already agreed to by the Iraqi government, the major US companies would lose if Saddam made a deal with the UN, whereas the Europeans, Russians and Chinese would come out ahead. In a post-Saddam Iraq, however, the US oil majors--specifically, according to the report, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco--could manage the country's resources."
Leading up to big events such as U.S. presidential elections, Wall Street analysts routinely issue reports that handicap the various possible outcomes for clients. Here, a Wall Street analyst, speaking not to the broader public but rather to well-heeled clients (including institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds), bluntly stated that the end of sanctions would have delivered a blow to U.S. oil interests. From this perspective, the way forward was invasion and occupation.
Now let's look at the infamous Cheney Energy Task Force, charged with cobbling together energy policy for the United States. Who did the great man speak with? He has staked a huge amount of political capital keeping this top secret. I don't want to lecture you boys on how democracy thrives on open government, and chokes and withers on officially sanctioned secrecy. But I do find this fellow a rather dubious crusader for democracy abroad, given his clear disdain for same on the home front.
At any rate, we now know that he met with execs from the U.S. oil majors, that they recently lied to Congress about their participation in the task force (although a friendly senator had the foresight to remove them from the burden of testifying under oath), and that at said meetings (here I quote from the Nation article again):
[T]he few documents that have been made public from the Energy Task Force (thanks to the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch) reveal not only that industry executives met with Cheney's staff but that a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from thirty countries--but not the United States--were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.
So, well before September 11, here we have a bunch of oilmen--one of them the vice-president of the United States--rubbing their paws together at the prospect of oil riches in Iraq--and quite possibly squirming a bit at the prospect that China would, if the status quo remained, get control of a large portion of that precious black stuff.
Now one of you guys, or maybe it was one of your prized kept intellectuals over at Hoover, said something about how the price of crude has skyrocketed since the invasion, and that somehow means it wasn't about controlling oil.
First, how does record profits for U.S. oil companies argue against the idea that the invasion's chief motivation was control of oil? Second, no one who's intelligent argues that the war's motivation had to do with short-term swings in the price of oil, which are set by traders in London and New York. It was about contracts and control.
Saudi Arabia: Despotic regime whose citizens carried out the bulk of planning and execution of the Sept. 11 atrocities: Good. Why? Because its regime has been very, very good to U.S. oil companies.
Iraq: Despotic regime whose citizens took no part in Sept. 11 atrocities: Bad. Why? Because its regime broke with U.S. oil interests in 1991. And why attack the regime? Oh, it's not about oil not at all! It's all about Sept. 11. Don't believe me? I know a real smart guy over at the Hoover Institute who can explain it to you.
2005-12-02
Oil, not so slick
"The centrality of Iraq to the [Cheney energy] task force meetings requires us to reconsider the calculus used by senior Bush Administration planners in judging the risks and benefits of invading and occupying Iraq, and its resulting definitions of success. The thinking they reveal suggests that neither democracy nor a reduction of violence in the country, however desirable in theory, is necessary to achieve core US objectives.
Instead, insuring a long-term US military presence in Iraq and a significant (if behind-the-scenes) role in managing and developing its petroleum sector together constitute a prize of immense economic and geostrategic value for the Administration and its corporate sponsors. In fact, at the very moment the first Energy Task Force meetings with industry officials were held, in February 2001, the National Security Council issued a directive for staff to cooperate with the task force in the "melding" of new "operational policies towards rogue states" with "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." No place on earth was more amenable to such melding than Iraq.
From this perspective, it is possible to argue that despite great human and financial costs, the United States--or rather the oil, arms and related industries, if not US citizens--may still 'win' a war for which planning could well have commenced as early as the first weeks of the Bush Administration."
If this analysis is crap, then I'm sure Cheney will clear everything up by releasing documents/data/information on his Energy Task Force meetings. Right?
Instead, insuring a long-term US military presence in Iraq and a significant (if behind-the-scenes) role in managing and developing its petroleum sector together constitute a prize of immense economic and geostrategic value for the Administration and its corporate sponsors. In fact, at the very moment the first Energy Task Force meetings with industry officials were held, in February 2001, the National Security Council issued a directive for staff to cooperate with the task force in the "melding" of new "operational policies towards rogue states" with "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." No place on earth was more amenable to such melding than Iraq.
From this perspective, it is possible to argue that despite great human and financial costs, the United States--or rather the oil, arms and related industries, if not US citizens--may still 'win' a war for which planning could well have commenced as early as the first weeks of the Bush Administration."
If this analysis is crap, then I'm sure Cheney will clear everything up by releasing documents/data/information on his Energy Task Force meetings. Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)