reading assignment for the summer solstice

[Wolfman]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110008528

[Risa]

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said that "America is addicted to oil." But it would be more accurate to say that America is addicted to opportunity, and oil and its products help us seize it.

American oil consumption is indeed rising, from more than 15 million barrels a day in the early 1980s to more than 20 million today. It is likely to continue to increase--another 33% over the next 25 years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy--because crude oil is a useful substance. Some 40% of our oil consumption is for cars and light trucks; 32% for buses, railroads, ships, trucks and agricultural machinery; and another 17% goes into petrochemicals to produce products from plastic to paint. These uses represent opportunities, not addictions.

Bush was only trying to make people happy by spouting buzz phrases: like 'bring 'em on' and 'jobs Americans won't do'; so it is with 'oil dependence'. Bush has no ability whatsoever speaking off the cuff; so he resorts to shorthand to make up for not telling people the truth.

I like how this op/ed journalist began his article (I haven't read the rest of it, yet). Could Bush have gotten away with saying these things, though, even if had 'the gift'? Invading Iraq was supposed to make oil cheaper. What happened?

[Risa]

searching (caution, long blogs and a govt site c&p no one's gonna read anyway):

http://blog.zmag.org/ee_links/never_min ... vaded_iraq

The second curious thing that Bush says now is that the “wrong intelligence” he received on Iraq wasn’t actually why he invaded that nation anyway. In an interview with FOX News Wednesday, “Bush said he ‘absolutely’ would have invaded Iraq [even] he had known then that Mr. Hussein did not have banned weapons” (Richard W. Stevenson, “Bush Says U.S. Needs Patience on Iraq War; Admits Errors,” New York Times, 15 December 2005, p. A18).

That is a fascinating thing for the president to say to anyone who is familiar with what he said in early 2003. During his Saturday morning radio address of March 8th that year, to give one exmaple, Bush justified a war he had already decided on by insisting that “Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses,” Bush elaborated, “weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.”

“The attacks of September the 11, 2001,” Bush continued, “showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction…. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.”

Now how are we supposed to interpret these and numerous other similar and related statements by Bush and his officials during late 2002 and early 2003? Did Bush invade Iraq because of “bad intelligence” or didn’t he? Did the White House select or otherwise “cook” the “intelligence” to favor its supposed real project of spreading “freedom” to Iraq? Did the White House find it necessary to invent a new pretext (the export of “freedom”) when the (supposedly surprising) absence of WMD became apparent? Did it, as most of the world thinks, invade Iraq for reasons that had little to do with either WMD or spreading its notion of liberty and more to do with Iraqis’ enormous strategic stockpile of, well, oil?

The most depressing thing is the calm way that dominant (“mainstream”) media relays Bush’s latest rhetorical spin on why he “went into Iraq.” Bush’s bold statement that he would have ordered the occupation of Mesopotamia even without evidence of Iraqi WMD is reported in remarkably un-astonished terms at the end of an article on the 19th page of a recent edition of the “liberal” New York Times. The respectful title of this item is “Bush Says U.S. Needs Patience on Iraq War; Admits Errors.”

searching

http://reindeer.radioleft.com/blog/_arc ... 43294.html

"'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.'

He said, 'If I have a chance to invade - if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.
I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

http://www.commondreams.org/head...s04/1028- 01.htm

Personally, I am in agreement with Pete of Diss Digg, who asserts that it's all about the oil. Cheap oil. Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserve.
The PNAC have been pushing for the U.S. to take it since 1997.

I believe that the OIL is why Bush had no plan for an exit strategy. Why bother planning when you don't intend on exiting? Some Republicans have suggested that U.S. troops will be there for more than 30 years. At a cost to the American poor and middle, to the tune of 215 billion dollars in only three years, that means that the total price tag will be ten times that, or 2.15 TRILLION dollars, and of course, the interest on that debt that has been given to the Chinese is going to be much higher than that.
Currently, the U.S. is paying 1.2 billion dollars a DAY on that debt. Think about that for a minute.

The Ministry for OIL was the only building protected when the invasion happened, and looting was allowed.

The UNOCAL pipeline in Afghanistan is now complete, as of two weeks ago, piping from the Caspian Sea (one of the other large oil reserves left.) The major oil field in Saudi, the Gar, is reported to be on the decline, as is the North Sea oil.

Republicans have pushed reluctant oil companies to drill for the paltry amount of oil under the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. (Does the word "refuge" ring hollow for anyone else here?)This all points to one thing. The OIL is running out, and becoming more expensive exponentially as it does. This isn't fantasy, it's well reported fact.
Bush is violently pushing for control of the remaining oil. He will do anything to get it and keep it.

searching -- a differing opinion


http://usembassy.state.gov/nigeria/wwwhp021403e.html

Send all comments to: The Information Officer 2, Broad Street, Lagos, Nigeria.
Phone: 234-1-263-4868 or 263-4865 Fax: 234-1-263-539


February 14, 2003
BYLINER
A War For Oil? Not This Time
By Max Boot
Senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations

MUNICH - When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited "Old Europe" last week, the placards and protesters lining his path were a visceral reminder of what the Bush administration already knew: Solid majorities in key European countries think that greed is our motive for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein. In fact, in a recent Pew Research Center poll 75 percent of respondents in France, 54 percent in Germany and 76 percent in Russia said that America wants to invade Iraq because "the U.S. wants to control Iraqi oil."

Although Americans are divided on the wisdom of an invasion, only 22 percent of us subscribe to the cynical view that it's just about oil. Even Jimmy Carter, hardly a hawk, rebutted the accusation at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony: "I know my country, I know my people, and I can assure you that's not the policy of my government."

What accounts for this trans-Atlantic disconnect? To answer that question, start by considering the accusation on the merits: Is America going into Iraq in search of "black gold"?

The charge has a surface plausibility because Iraq does have the second-largest known reserves in the world. But we certainly don't need to send 250,000 soldiers to get at it. Saddam Hussein would gladly sell us all the oil we wanted. The only thing preventing unlimited sales are the United States-enforced sanctions, which Baghdad (and the big oil companies) would love to see lifted. Washington has refused to go along because Saddam Hussein flouts United Nations resolutions. This suggests that our primary focus is the threat he poses, not the oil he possesses.

It's true that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would lead to the lifting of sanctions and a possible increase in oil exports. But it would take a lot of time and money to rebuild Iraq's dilapidated oil industry, even if the regime didn't torch everything on the way out. A study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University estimated that it would take three years and $5 billion to restore Iraqi production just to its pre-1990 level of 3.5 million barrels a day. That would increase total world production by only 1.3 percent, and might not reduce prices at all if other countries cut output or banded together to keep prices stable.

...For that matter, would our government really want a steep drop in prices? The domestic oil patch - including President Bush's home state, Texas - was devastated in the 1980's when prices fell as low as $10 a barrel. Washington is generally happy with a range of $18 to $25 a barrel, about where oil was before the strikes in Venezuela and jitters about Iraq helped push prices over $34 a barrel. If we were really concerned about cheap oil above all, we'd be sending troops to Caracas, not Baghdad.

The other possible economic advantage in Iraq would be for American companies to win contracts to put out fires, repair refineries and help operate the oil industry, as they did in Kuwait. What's the total value of such work? It's impossible to say, but last year Iraq signed a deal with Russian companies (since canceled by Saddam Hussein) to rebuild oil and other industries, valued at $40 billion over five years.

Yet the White House estimates the military operation alone would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. (Others suggest the figure would be far higher.) And rebuilding of the country's cities, roads and public facilities would cost $20 billion to $100 billion more, with much of that money in the initial years coming from the "international community" (read: Uncle Sam).

Thus, if a capitalist cabal were running the war, it would have to conclude it wasn't a paying proposition.

[Risa]

can't find it. swear to god, that was one of the talking head points of the invasion: a successful invasion would mean cheaper oil down the road for the US, should the US control that oil instead of Saddam. that's not true at all, in any form?

[The Doktor]

can't find it. swear to god, that was one of the talking head points of the invasion: a successful invasion would mean cheaper oil down the road for the US, should the US control that oil instead of Saddam. that's not true at all, in any form?

you've proven to be a complete dolt, AS USUAL.

[bbqjones]

ditto the doktor

[XXXL]

Rack Summer Solstice 2006'

Tip of the day- Raging party in Santa Barbara Friday nite! Place to be this time of year for a party of all parties.......

Babes aplenty.......