I think it’s about oil, Bush, Cheney & Rice are all oil people:
" After serving in the first Bush administration from 1989 to 1992, Rice was placed on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation and served as its principal expert on Kazakhstan, where Chevron holds the largest concession of any of the international oil companies. "
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1149
Yup, handy, it’s all about oil. The WTC never existed for most people anyway, and, really, how many Gulf War vets do you know personally?
The whole thing was staged in Area 51.
Where is the proof that this is about oil? Besides the fact that many of the main players once worked for oil companies, is there any proof?
I’m actually interested to see if there is anything.
Didn’t Condy Rice have an oil tanker named after her?
I support any action to remove Saddam and/or Kim Jong Il, but I’m getting so frustrated with George W. Bush right now because he seems to have a one track mind. All war, nothing else. I wish he would at least address the economy, just to aknowledge that it exists. It will turn around, war or no war. I don’t think there is a need for a stimulus, except for tax cuts. Overtaxed Americans deserve some money back, though it was stupid to base all that on budget projections instead of reality. The only domestic things he has gotten into now are Michigan University’s admitions practices and the Miguel Estrada mess. Oh ho, that’s really mixin’ it up.
I’m conservative and I tend to have idealogical views in line with the President’s, but sometimes I just want to smack my head in frustration because of him. I’m disappointed with him now because he can’t seem to focus on more than one issue at a time.
And as long as I’m dreaming I’d like a pony.
Face it, people vote their pocketbooks. If they feel rich the incumbent stays in. If they don’t, he’s out.
Plus, it’s been three years since the March 2000 bubble popped. Nothing Bush has tried has jump started things yet.
Was Enron part of the Internet Stock Bubble?
Having covered the energy industry for a while I’d say yes and no. Part of Enron’s rapid growth in the energy industry was their sales pitch for new, internet-driven means by which power and fuel could be traded and delivered.
Bush:
Gas at 2+ dollars a Gallon
Alert state all the time.
Diminished Economy in spite of tax cuts and 4 economic plans in 12 months!
If you vote for those Oil bitches another 4 years…umm you deserve it…
as Mr bush himself says: Do not MISUNDERESTIMATE the enemy…
As a Minnesotan, I ask, no, I beg of you. Please, please, don’t even joke about it. 
“Where is the proof that this is about oil?”
Cause & Effect? Look at the price of gas lately & you can see who is making the dough. Cheapest stuff now down the street here is a $2.01 per gal. (might be more today)…
Christ. I still don’t know what to do with this thread. Although I suspect it’s heading towards the Pit . . .
I think Bush is pushing hard for war not because he’s a warmonger but because he saw our defensive capabilities slip under the previous administration and he feels if anything’s going to get done it’s going to have to be during his watch. That might give him two more years so he’s acting swiftly and decisively. Look, Saddam’s a bad guy and bad things will happen if we continually give him time to move his mobile weapons around until the UN and world sentiment tires of screwing with him. Unfortunately, it make Bush look like he has some other agenda. Will this hurt him in the polls? All depends on how the conflict goes with respect to the loss of civilian lives… Iraqi in the conflict and American in any ensuing reprisals.
Is it about the oil? Shit no, that’s ridiculous.
I dunno…it’s so chatty and good-natured! No yelling, nobody screaming “Shrub!,” no veins standing out on the necks as charges and counter-charges are hurled…
[sub]Our birthday gift to you…confusion![/sub]
If Bush is crazy enough to fire Alan Greenspan next year (and most people feel he is), he’s in real serious trouble. He’s having a hard enough time trying to seem economics-credible with his resurrection of the Laffer curve - if Greenspan gets let go for disagreeing with him on tax cuts, I think it’s all over.
Well, perhaps the threat of war is starting to hit a stumbling block . Doubtful, but you never know.
Also, the rise in gasoline prices lately has more to do with the Venezuelan strikes (cutting 1.5 million barrels daily) than with the threat of war in Iraq. Ironically, in response we’ve doubled our imports of oil from Iraq to 1 million barrels a day.
Now, if the US does go to war, the real reason for it is called Pax Americana. Oil may not be the only factor, but it is the primary one. The first priority in Iraq will be to secure the oil fields.
Consider this:
“Iraq possesses the world’s second largest proven oil reserves, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels…”
and “Iraq’s oil is of high quality and it is very inexpensive to produce, making it one of the world’s most profitable oil sources.”
This administration is run by oil people (btw, Cheney, as CEO of Haliburton, did $23.8 million worth of business with Iraq. 60 Minutes 2 is quick to report on RJ Reynolds “trading with the enemy”, but conveniently overlooks Halliburton. Liberal media indeed.)
You do the math.
Securing the oil means securing a large part of the United States’ economic necessities for global domination (uh, excuse me, “keeping world peace”.)
“Global domination? That’s just an off-the-wall crackpot theory!”
No, actually it’s not. These plans were started in 1997 by the Project for the New American Century. They considered Clinton’s policies to be detrimental to American goals “for the future”. Consider some of the authors of this plan, and what roles they have in the current administration:
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, second to Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for arms control and international security.
Eliot Cohen, member of Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board.
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, VP Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff.
Dov Zakheim, undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon.
Stephen Cambone, heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.
Read for yourselves:
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strategy/Discussion/2002-10-26PaxAmericana.html
and here
By the way, the PNAC report discusses just exactly how to “sell” this issue of a Pax Americana to the public. It suggests that a “new Pearl Harbor” will be needed. Hmmmm. 9/11, anyone?