# Nancy Pelosi, you ignorant slut... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 27, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505 "2006-04-27T20:20:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/21 "2006-04-27T23:46:53Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Her words weren’t intended for you though John. They were intended for the fanatic converted who actually think Bush IS helping ‘big oil’ raise the price at the pump so they can all get rich and stick it to the little guy (and that its a toss up as to which thing gives them more pleasure). You know as well as I do that there ARE plenty of folks who think this…hell, not all of them are from the loony left either. True, but if you look at the polls (and I’m sure all those folks in Washington do), Americans overwhelmingly blame the oil companies for increased prices, not Bush. Why not pick some fruit where it’s actually growing if you want to score political points? I see that the Pubs are proposing $100 rebate for Americans to help deal with the immediate problem of rising prices. I haven’t seen the details, but I sure hope this is going to be aimed only at low income folks. Most Americans need to have the shit scared out of them with higher gas prices so they’ll stop buying ridiculously fuel inneficient cars. The market is screeming at us: CONSERVE! If we mitigate that message to consumers as a whole, we’re just making matters worse in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/22 "2006-04-27T23:56:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You know, I very rarely open Pit threads about politicians. They all say stupid things all the time. It’s just that I happened to hear a clip on NPR this morning with Pelosi giving that quote, above. Had she something like you posted, **Marley** , I wouldn’t have batted an eye. But this insistance that Bush and Cheney, as “oilmen”, are the direct (and we would presume sole) cause of the recent spike in gas prices is just so goddam ignorant, I couldn’t help myself. Yeah, I know. It’s an entirely Pittable way of conducting one’s political business, I’m just pointing out that her statement isn’t 100% wrong. She’s used a false premise to arrive at an accurate or somewhat-accurate conclusion, and like I used to do in math class, she happened to get the answer right. I felt the same way about Hillary Clinton’s “plantation” comment. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/23 "2006-04-28T00:00:43Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > True, but if you look at the polls (and I’m sure all those folks in Washington do), Americans overwhelmingly blame the oil companies for increased prices, not Bush. Why not pick some fruit where it’s actually growing if you want to score political points? Easy. If she can manage to link the two she kills multiple birds with one cow pie. She gets the rage directed at Big Oil™, fans it, and then gets it associated with Bush et al…and more importantly, with the Republican party. Its a huge win/win for her if she can pull it off. > [@John Mace](#): > > I see that the Pubs are proposing $100 rebate for Americans to help deal with the immediate problem of rising prices. I haven’t seen the details, but I sure hope this is going to be aimed only at low income folks. Most Americans need to have the shit scared out of them with higher gas prices so they’ll stop buying ridiculously fuel inneficient cars. The market is screeming at us: CONSERVE! If we mitigate that message to consumers as a whole, we’re just making matters worse in the long run. I’m sure you’ll be shocked but I agree completely. 😉 I don’t like it when the idiot Republicans fuck with the market any better than when the moronic Democrats do. I wish to hell that they would BOTH stop dicking with the market as if they knew what the hell they were doing…and for no other reason that a short term political gain. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/24 "2006-04-28T00:09:13Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Nah, without Iraq the moderates would have won elections in Iran and we’d have been in the process of normalizing relations, rather than facing a nuclear crisis which drives up the cost of oil. I don’t know if you can really predict this. After all, if the US wasn’t committed in Iraq we’d probably be more heavily committed in Afghanistan…so the end result may be that Iran would calculate it could still push things. And all this assumes that they are making a calculation based on our over commitment in Iraq (I seriously doubt they feel threatened by the US, bogged down in Iraq as we currently are). Perhaps its other considerations that are driving the current push for nukes in Iran… Also, IIRC the ‘moderates’ actually are MORE adament about nuclear power (_wink wink, nudge nudge_) than the, er, not so ‘moderates’. So, even assuming you are correct (assuming I am correct in my recollection…always a bad bet 😛 ), then we might still be in the same boat (or worse) than we currently are in. Or maybe you are right. How much of the crisis in Iran is driving up speculation on the price of oil do you think? Roughly? -XT ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/25 "2006-04-28T00:15:30Z")
Trying to gather my thoughts here (no wisecracks please). So Bush, Cheney, and (probably) the Republican controlled House and Senate are completely blameless for all this and probably for everything else too. Cite? So much for “accountability”. Pelosi is EVIL for going for the soundbite, for making up a half truth, for assigning blame to someone else (as a Congress critter, she is parrtially to blame too ya know), and for engaging in attck politics and playing to her base. It sounds a lot like It’s OK if a Republican does it (but not if a Democrat does). It also contradicts the old and boring idea that Democrats are wussies who are afraid of a fight, and so deserve to lose. Now one wants a fight and she’s a bad person for it. If the “rove machine” fights hard or fights dirty or plays games with the truth, it’s cool (something about not standing the heat in the kitchen). If soneone else uses the same tactics, it’s bad. Well shit. At least, if pressed, I will admit to being partisan and biased. Anyeone else care to do the same? Other than that, this is a big YAWN. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/26 "2006-04-28T00:23:06Z")
I don’t think it’s unfair to blame Bush for instability in the Middle East, certainly one factor in the rise in oil. I don’t think it’s unfair to portray Bush as the stooge for the oil interest. It would be unfair to blame Bush for the rise in demand caused by the economic emergence of China on the industrial stage. True to form, the Republicans are offering to gut the treasury to the tune of $100 per taxpayer if we’ll agree to [drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12509275/) As surely as the sun comes up, the Republicans will find a way to turn every crisis into an excuse to raid the treasury and/or gut environmental protection. I think the danger in calling Pelosi an ignorant slut is that it doesn’t leave enough room below her on the scale to rate Bush. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/27 "2006-04-28T00:39:29Z")
**John Mace** is too stupid to [put two and two together.](http://www.electric-escape.net/node/940)😃 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/28 "2006-04-28T00:54:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t know if you can really predict this. Iran was [deeply ambiguous](http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/focus/terrorism/archives/1101/e06iran.html) about the over throw of the Taliban: > [@](#): > > Iran has tried to juggle various aims since Sept. 11. It has snubbed the U.S.-led coalition against terrorism and opposed military action, even as it shares the common goal of bringing down the Taliban. > Iran, which believes the Taliban has warped Islam, has helped arm the anti-Taliban opposition in hopes the U.S. airstrikes will clear the way for toppling the Taliban. Iran came close to waging its own war after Taliban forces killed eight Iranian diplomats in 1998. > Now Iran demands a key voice in forming a viable political leadership from the fractious mix of Afghan clans and ethnic groups. They’d gotten a lot of grief from [Afghani drug smugglers](http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/13drug) after all. But then we had to go and do a ‘preventative conquest’ of Iraq; tipped em off that we were seriously crazy, and they _needed_ to look after their own defence. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/29 "2006-04-28T01:42:34Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So Bush, Cheney, and (probably) the Republican controlled House and Senate are completely blameless for all this and probably for everything else too. Cite? So much for “accountability”. Didn’t say that. Pelosi said “cause and effect” as in the only reason. > [@](#): > > Pelosi is EVIL for going for the soundbite… Didn’t say that. I said she was an ignorant slut. > [@](#): > > Well shit. At least, if pressed, I will admit to being partisan and biased. Anyeone else care to do the same? Other than that, this is a big YAWN. Of course this is a yawn for you. You agree wtih her. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/30 "2006-04-28T01:45:15Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Nah, without Iraq the moderates would have won elections in Iran and we’d have been in the process of normalizing relations, rather than facing a nuclear crisis which drives up the cost of oil. The “moderates” were in control before, and we didn’t attempt to normalize relations. I’m afraid you don’t know what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/31 "2006-04-28T01:49:29Z")
I neglected to address these beauties: > [@SteveG1](#): > > It sounds a lot like It’s OK if a Republican does it (but not if a Democrat does). Sounds like you just made that up. The only time I mentioned Republicans in this thread was to say I doubted they were doing the right thing either. > [@](#): > > It also contradicts the old and boring idea that Democrats are wussies who are afraid of a fight, and so deserve to lose. Now one wants a fight and she’s a bad person for it. If the “rove machine” fights hard or fights dirty or plays games with the truth, it’s cool (something about not standing the heat in the kitchen). If soneone else uses the same tactics, it’s bad. Man, you are the king of the strawman, aren’t you. Will you stop staking out positions that I’m not making? I specifically mentioned in the OP several fights I thought the Dems should make. If anyone is taking a position that “it’s OK if it’s an X” in this thread it’s you, and X= Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/32 "2006-04-28T01:54:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The “moderates” were in control before, and we didn’t attempt to normalize relations. I blame Clinton for that. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid you don’t know what I’m talking about. You want to rip Pelosi a new one, go for it. I was replying to **xtisme** ’s assertion that the Iraq invasion didn’t affect the stability, politics or policies of Iran. That’s not exactly a ‘no one could have imagined’ sort of consequence, unless you’re the president of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/33 "2006-04-28T02:04:25Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I blame Clinton for that. So, you think Kerry would have normalized relations with Iran? On what basis do you make that claim? Is he calling for normalized relations now? Did he call for them when Clinton was in power? It’s an interesting idea, but there isn’t any evidence to back it up. Look, it doesn’'t matter who’s the president of Iran. That’s a figurehead position. The Council of Guardians, and the Grand Ayatollah have the power in Iran. Those are unelected positions. That little pipsqueak who’s making noise over there now isn’t going to change things one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/34 "2006-04-28T02:30:03Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > **John Mace** is too stupid to [put two and two together.](http://www.electric-escape.net/node/940)😃 Well, if it was in a cartoon it must be true! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/35 "2006-04-28T02:34:29Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Iran was deeply ambiguous about the over throw of the Taliban Um…ok. I wasn’t disputing that. Is it your contention that Iran is getting froggy because they are deeply offended by our invasion of Iraq…or because our stupid adventure has put us in a position where we pretty much have very limited options wrt Iran? Myself, I think its because they CAN get away with it, as the US is pretty much tied down. And had we gone into Afghanistan whole hog (which seems a reasonable course of action had we not had to run off to Iraq) then, well, Iran could have potentially still felt that the cat was away and so the little Mullah mice could play. > [@Squink](#): > > But then we had to go and do a ‘preventative conquest’ of Iraq; tipped em off that we were seriously crazy, and they needed to look after their own defence. So, its your contention that Iran really did/does fear an invasion from the US, and that this is the primary reason they are frantically embarking on a multi-year (I’ve heard anywhere from 5-10 years from now) program to aquire nuclear weapons? :dubious: You are, of course, welcome to your views, but doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If I think someone is about to pound on me the LAST thing I’m going to do is to kick them in the balls or taunt them from the bushes…not if its going to take me several years to forge a weapon knowing full well THEY already have one (several really). The whole ‘we are afraid for our security’, to my mind, is propaganda for home consumption. If they were REALLY afraid they would be building the thing in deep secrecy, and only unveil it when they have it made…presenting the US and the world with a fait accompli. They way they have gone about it, pretty much shouting from the rooftops and doing the two hands to the side of the head in moose antlers while sticking out their tongue at the world (not just the US) doesn’t seem the mark of someone terrified about the prospect of imminent invasion or attack. To paraphrase from GW’s father, doesn’t seem prudent to me. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/36 "2006-04-28T03:09:41Z")
Well I think Iran has taken away from the Iraq invasion the message that the US would like to engage in some regime change in Iran, but that it is militarily incapable of doing so. That, I feel, is the worst of both worlds. I have also read that the entire Iranians across the political spectrum favor the nuclear program; it’s a “National Greatness” issue. I’m not too sure what any of this has to do with the price of oil, and a gallon of gas, though. Gas is $3 a gallon. Don’t get used to it, it will go higher, and stay there. The rate at which China and India are putting cars on the road is the cause. Nancy Pelosi should really shut the fuck up. We have a chance to kick the living shit out of Bush without lying to do it, which will not only bring sense to the federal government, but will discredit the practice of lying to take control of the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/37 "2006-04-28T03:18:15Z")
[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial\_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/06/blatant\_bush\_tilt\_toward\_big\_oil/](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/06/blatant_bush_tilt_toward_big_oil/) > [@Boston dot com News](#): > > … On this basis, President Bush’s oil-soaked administration easily qualifies as the most flagrant bunch of petroleum business shills since the first appearance of deadly serious energy problems in 1973, when the Arab core of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries first flexed its anti-American muscles with too much US acquiescence. > > In a period of tight supply and spiking prices, Bush is running a policy that directly supports the sharply higher prices and stands intentionally impotent in the face of OPEC’s determination to cut back production. The administration is on “their” side. > For the long-term, the joke of a policy originally cobbled together in secret three years ago by energy producers and Vice President Dick Cheney has eroded to a bunch of producer tax breaks that even a business-dominated Congress seems too embarrassed to take up. > **[U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies (Published 2006)](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/us-has-royalty-plan-to-give-windfall-to-oil-companies.html)** > > The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years. New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate... > [@NY Times](#): > > "By contrast, the White House bluntly promised to veto the Senate’s $60 billion tax cut bill because it contained a one-year tax of $5 billion on profits of major oil companies. " > > " the government said it would lose a total of nearly $35 billion in royalties to taxpayers by 2011 — about the same amount that Mr. Bush is proposing to cut from Medicare, Medicaid and child support enforcement programs over the same period. [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/levine](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/levine) > [@The Nation](#): > > 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. 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. > **[Briefing Room | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/)** > [@Bush state of the union address](#): > > Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. > > So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative – a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research – at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.) > > We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.) > > Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.) Refresh my memory for a moment. **Wasn’t it almost immediately after this speech, that top White House functionaries announced something to the effect of “he really didn’t mean it that way” ???** Afterwards, Harry Reid (and CNN) said this: [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sotu.energy/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sotu.energy/index.html) > [@CNN](#): > > On Monday, the Democratic leader in the Senate, Nevada’s Harry Reid, said the country’s oil addiction has “climbed steadily over the last four years and doubled the price of heat for our homes and gas for our cars because the vice president let big oil companies write our energy policy.” > > Reid said Bush has “lavished billions on big oil instead of investing in American technology and know-how that make us more energy independent.” > > Critics said energy legislation that Bush signed last summer did little to reduce energy prices or to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The bill provided billions in tax breaks for the energy industry. > > Bush’s speech came one day after Exxon Mobil Corp., the nation’s largest oil company, reported U.S.-record profits for the quarter ($10.7 billion) and the year ($36.1 billion). (Full story) [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965119/site/newsweek/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965119/site/newsweek/) > [@MSNBC](#): > > Only three years ago, before the United States led the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration dreamed of liberating the country on the cheap. Billions in untapped oil reserves were going to pay for reconstruction and nation-building. But hundreds of billions of American tax dollars later, Iraq’s oil still isn’t flowing at prewar levels. And in a country where 90 percent of the government’s $35 billon in revenues comes from petroleum, the old promise has come to seem a curse. “Some people wish we didn’t have all this oil,” says National Assembly Speaker Hajim al-Hassani, “because it has brought us all these problems.” > > What happened? There’s certainly no question that the Bush administration, heavily peopled with veterans of the oil industry, focused on the importance of petroleum to Iraq’s economy. Even as the rest of Baghdad was opened up to looters in April 2003, the Ministry of Oil was secured by U.S. troops. But no force was put in place to protect the pumps and pipes. In August 2003, the Americans awarded $40 million to a private security firm for the training of 5,500 Iraqis. But the program was quickly terminated as too expensive, say U.S. officials. Then the American military took responsibility for the Oil Protection Force, but guards were never deployed to cover 4,350 miles of pipeline. Finally, last summer, a new 4,000-man unit called the Strategic Infrastructure Battalions started training. But the SIBs quickly fell into bureaucratic cracks. … Washington has allocated $1.7 billion to finance oil projects across the country, but only $77 million worth of reconstruction has been completed. Oil Minister Ibrahim Mohammed Bahar al-Aloum says U.S confusion and incompetence has kept the work tangled in red tape. “Most of these projects were supposed to be done last year,” Bahar al-Aloum told NEWSWEEK. “If U.S. money had been made available, Iraqis could have done the job faster.” Yet the United States has signaled it no longer wants to be the principal donor. > [@CBS/AP](#): > > (CBS/AP) The chiefs of five major oil companies defended the industry’s huge profits Wednesday at a Senate hearing where lawmakers said they should explain prices and assure people they’re not being gouged. > > “We do not conduct, condone or tolerate price gouging,” said James Mulva, chairman of ConocoPhillips. > > They also warned a tax on their windfall profits could hurt the oil supply, and rejected an idea of voluntarily giving money to help poor people heat their homes this winter, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss (audio). … > Democrats had wanted the executives to testify under oath, but Republicans rejected the idea. “If I were a witness I would demand to be put under oath,” said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. > > They got other help from committee chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who told Democrats not to display charts showing the CEO’s multi-million dollar bonuses, reports Fuss. > > The soaring prices have sent shivers through a Congress worried about political fallout. That’s about all I can stomach right now. Finally, about those strawmen… > [@Yahoo News Saturday March 18](#): > > Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches > > The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position. > > He typically then says he “strongly disagrees” — conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making. > > Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed “critics,” is just as problematic. > > Because the “some” often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, “‘some’ suggests a number much larger than is actually out there,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. > > Straw men have made more frequent appearances in recent months, often on national security — once Bush’s strong suit with the public but at the center of some of his difficulties today. Under fire for a domestic eavesdropping program, a ports-management deal and the rising violence in Iraq, Bush now sees his approval ratings hovering around the lowest of his presidency. … The president has relied on straw men, too, on the topics of taxes and trade, issues he hopes will work against Democrats in this fall’s congressional elections. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/38 "2006-04-28T03:25:47Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Well I think Iran has taken away from the Iraq invasion the message that the US would like to engage in some regime change in Iran, but that it is militarily incapable of doing so. That, I feel, is the worst of both worlds. I have also read that the entire Iranians across the political spectrum favor the nuclear program; it’s a “National Greatness” issue. > I’m not too sure what any of this has to do with the price of oil, and a gallon of gas, though. Gas is $3 a gallon. Don’t get used to it, it will go higher, and stay there. The rate at which China and India are putting cars on the road is the cause. Nancy Pelosi should really shut the fuck up. We have a chance to kick the living shit out of Bush without lying to do it, which will not only bring sense to the federal government, but will discredit the practice of lying to take control of the federal government. It wasn’t too long ago, Iran actually invited American engineers and scientists to help them build their reactors (they claim for peaceful purposes, energy). So why would they invite the US in back then, if they were intending to nuke us til we glow??? I think once again, the US blew it when a diplomatic solution was handed to us on a silver platter. It wasn’t that long ago either, that Iran issued official statements reiterating the original decision by then ruler Ayatollah Khomeini, condemning nucelar weapons on both ethical and religious grounds. Nukes or not, war with Iran now would be a total disaster. They are larger and stronger than Iran. The few countries that don’t already despise us would drop us like a bad habit. Gas WILL go higher. So will heating oil. That will drive everything else up in a domino fashion. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/39 "2006-04-28T03:30:32Z")
You know, for a board that purports to fight ignorance, this is pathetic. Can’t you all see that Bush is actually the Saudi King? And Cheney is the heir-apparent? And Halliburton is nothing more than a front for a massive parking garage for Halliburton employees in Iran?!? Jesus, you people disappoint me. That’s why all this money is going to those countries. The countries charging these prices are getting the money. ergo, Bush is the leader of Saudi Arabia. The American oil companies are getting crude at approximately $1.70/gallon before they even see it. Then the refining costs are factored in. And the pay to the people refining it. And the people that deliver it. And the people that sell the end product. And the people that maintain all the holding facilities. And the taxes. I just don’t understand why gas isn’t under $2/gallon. And if Bush/Cheney were in total control, I’m disappointed in the potential of villianry to only post profits that high. I would think the increased consumption in India and China would offer unlimited revenues. Wait till W figures that angle out! HYe’s gonna be rich! Wait, he isn’t in a profit-sharing deal with OPEC? He isn’t in charge of how much a barrel of oil goes for based on world-wide demand? Well in that case, he should try to help America out by looking for our own oil. Oh, wait. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505/40 "2006-04-28T03:38:54Z")
If there is one thing I have learned from watching Karl Rove, it’s that the red states willl believe the big lie sooner than the small one. I find it hilarious that so many right wingers decry Pelosi’s tactics. The only reason you find this objectionable is not because it is not true, but that it just might work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nancy-pelosi-you-ignorant-slut/354505.md?page=3)