Maybe Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to be the bad cop to President Bush’s good one. Or maybe he’s not been watching the same news as the rest of us.
How else can you explain Cheney’s combative tone Wednesday, when he cited “enormous successes” in Iraq and vowed that congressional opposition “won’t stop us” from sending more troops to Iraq?
Cheney, perhaps testy after a clash between his wife, Lynne, and CNN interviewer Wolf Blitzer last fall, also dismissed Blitzer’s reference to U.S. mistakes in Iraq as “hogwash.”
Quite a contrast from the somewhat chastened tone Bush has struck in recent weeks.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
164 Comments
Nice photo.
You can really come to trust a man that looks like that.
Or maybe Blitzer really IS full of hogwash.
Just because the liberals have the majority of the American Sheeple turning their back on our own soldiers doesn’t mean they have suddenly cornered the market on International Ethics.
It’s popular right now to trash the war and the troops, but should our leaders capitulate to the popular crowd? Is this High School all over again? Is Hillary the new cheerleader?
Politicians are politicians and the sooner the public learns that – the sooner they will realize that their emotions are being manipulated and propagandized on a massive scale.
The real question is – do we want a scenario whereby we pull out of Iraq and the insurgents (terrorists) lay claim to billions of dollars from the oil fields? Does anyone else see a potential problem with that?
Any problem at all?
Dude just dropped the “S-bomb”.Activate ignore and scroll-over mode.
The repugs are goana try to make this story about Blitzer.It’s NOT.It’s about the VP being DELUSIONAL.
…Cheney has the Oil bomb….
Dick Cheney
Charges: The dark master of the White House, Cheney strikes fear into the blackest of hearts.Only surfaces occasionally to nod and grunt at a reporter from Fox News, the only station he ever sees, before returning to the White House boiler room to continue planning the apocalypse.Almost certainly ignores everything Bush says.Vindictive and secretive to the point of absurdity, Cheney has his heart set on total global hegemony, and doesn’t really care if you know it.
Exhibit A: How evil does a guy have to be for his buddy to apologize for getting shot in the face by him?
Sentence: A 30-year vacation at Gitmo.
Rockefeller:Cheney applied ‘constant’ pressure to stall investigation on flawed Iraq intelligence
By Jonathan S. LandayMcClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney exerted “constant” pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration’s use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, the panel’s Democratic chairman charged Thursday.In an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia also accused President Bush of running an illegal program by ordering eavesdropping on Americans’ international e-mails and telephone communications without court-issued warrants.In the 45-minute interview, Rockefeller said that it was “not hearsay” that Cheney, a leading proponent of invading Iraq,pushed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to drag out the probe of the administration’s use of prewar intelligence.(remember any of this Pat?)”It was just constant,” Rockefeller said of Cheney’s alleged interference. He added that he knew that the vice president attended regular policy meetings in which he conveyed White House directions to Republican staffers.Republicans “just had to go along with the administration,” he said.In an e-mail response to Rockefeller’s comments, Cheney’s spokeswoman,Lea McBride, said:”The vice president believes Senator Roberts was a good chairman of the Intelligence Committee.”Roberts’ chief of staff, Jackie Cottrell, blamed the Democrats for the investigation remaining incomplete more than two years after it began.”Senator Rockefeller’s allegations are patently untrue,” she said in an e-mail statement. “The delays came from the Democrats’ insistence that they expand the scope of the inquiry to make it a more political document going into the 2006 elections. Chairman Roberts did everything he could to accommodate their requests for further information without allowing them to distort the facts.”(in other words, he wanted to give them GOP version of ‘facts’)”I’m not aware of any effort by the vice president, his staff or anyone in the administration to influence the speed at which the committee did its work,” said Bill Duhnke, who was Roberts’ staff director.Rockefeller’s comments were among the most forceful he’s made about why the committee failed to complete the inquiry under Roberts.Roberts chaired the intelligence committee from January 2003 until the Democrats took over Congress this month.The panel released a report in July 2004 that lambasted the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for erroneously concluding that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was concealing biological, chemical and nuclear warfare programs.It then began examining how senior Bush administration officials used faulty intelligence to justify the March 2003 invasion.
Robert promised to quickly complete what became known as the Phase II investigation.
After more than two years, however, the panel published only two of five Phase II reports amid serious rifts between Republican and Democratic members and their staffs.
Rockefeller recalled that in November 2005, the then-minority Democrats employed a rarely used parliamentary procedure to force the Senate into a closed session to pressure Roberts to complete Phase II.
“That was the reason we closed the session. To force him” to complete the investigation, he said.
The most potentially controversial of the three Phase II reports being worked on will compare what Bush and his top lieutenants said publicly about Iraq’s weapons programs and ties to terrorists with what was contained in top-secret intelligence reports.In the two reports released in September, the panel said that the administration’s claims of ties between Saddam and al-Qaida were false and found that administration officials distributed exaggerated and bogus claims provided by an Iraqi exile group with close ties to some senior administration officials.Rockefeller said it was important to complete the Phase II inquiry.”The looking backward creates tension, but it’s necessary tension because the administration needs to be held accountable and the country . . . needs to know,” he said.Rockefeller said that he and the senior Republican member of the committee, Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., have put the frictions behind them and agree that the committee should press the administration for documents it’s withholding on its domestic eavesdropping program and detainee programs.Under the eavesdropping program, the National Security Agency monitored Americans’ international telephone calls and e-mails without court warrants if one party was a suspected member or supporter of al-Qaida or another terrorist group.Rockefeller charged that Bush had violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain permission to eavesdrop on Americans from a secret national security court.”For five years he’s (Bush) has been operating an illegal program,” he said, adding that the committee wants the administration to provide the classified documents that set out its legal argument that Bush has the power to wiretap Americans without warrants.Rockefeller is among a handful of lawmakers who were kept briefed on the program after it started following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But he told Cheney in a handwritten note in July 2003 that he was deeply concerned about its legality.In the interview, Rockefeller said the committee needs more details about how the program worked before it considers amending the eavesdropping act to give the administration the flexibility it says it requires to be able to track terrorists.”How do we draw something up if we have no idea about what the president sent out in the way of orders to the NSA? What about the interpretation of the Department of Justice?”he asked.”Americans . . . should want us to discern what the facts are,what the truth is.”
Trust your gut – if after 6 years your gut tells you that Cheney is the evil puppetmaster and Bush is an incompetent buffoon – trust your gut.I believe Cheney’s comments to Wolf will create more of a problem for him than he ever could imagine. He must have forgotten he is now the minority in Washington. Investigate! Investigate!I think congressmen should begin jumping from behind doors or yelling “Boo!” at him from behind, anything to get that pacemaker to malfunction. Cheney has ice cold blood.
I’m not sure about the BOO thing.This guy is trigger happy.
One thing I am sure about…The great war on terror will outlive dick the Cheney.
I didn’t see the entire conversation with Wolf Blitzer but I did see the portion where Wolf cited a statement from the Focus on the Family group that was condemning Cheney’s lesbian daughter, Mary, for being pregnant. When Wolf asked Cheney what he thought about that, Cheney stared with his ice cold eyes and told Wolf he felt that question was out of line.
I agree with Cheney that the question was out of line (because personally I do not care about his family life), but why did Cheney NOT say that the Focus on the Family’s statement was out of line? Wolf Blitzer gave Cheney the chance to say whatever he wanted to about the Focus on the Family statement concerning his daughter and Cheney refused.
So what I got from that testy conversation was Cheney will blame the messenger rather than the source of the message? so what is new about this tactic?
It’s the same thing when questioned about Iraq. Cheney will go after whoever questions him about the Iraq War. Cheney relies on his bull dog personna to intimidate and bully people.
What else would we expect Cheney to say about Iraq – that it is a total failure and he helped cause it? Of course he isn’t going to ever say that.
Actually, to Cheney the Iraq war is not a failure – it has made Halliburton billions of dollars in profits.
I’d say Dick’s freakin’ out and all, what with Scooter refusing to be thrown under the bus in order to save Dick’s and Karl’s bacon. I believe the phrase ‘wildly unhinged’ is not inappropriate.
And how about that testimony yesterday, when former Cheney spokeswoman Cathie Martin testified that she informed both Cheney and Libby that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, days before Scooter has claimed she did.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/libby.php
And then there’s this: Cathie Martin has fingered Cheney as the one who orchestrated the smear campaign against Joe Wilson, and who sought to lead the charge to discredit Wilson’s rebuttal of the Niger/Saddam/Uranium story.
” Vice President Cheney personally orchestrated his office’s 2003 efforts to rebut claims that the administration used flawed intelligence to justify the war in Iraq and discredit a critic who he believed was making him look foolish, according to testimony and evidence Thursday in the criminal trial of his former chief of staff.
Cheney dictated talking points for a White House briefing in the midst of the controversy that summer, his former press aide, Cathie Martin, testified, stressing that the CIA never told him that a CIA-sponsored mission had found no real evidence that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.
Aboard Air Force 2, on a trip back from the launch of a battleship in Norfolk, Va., Cheney instructed his chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, about responding to a Time magazine reporter who questioned how the faulty intelligence on Iraq had become one of the Bush administration’s central arguments for going to war.
In the dramatic replay of events that summer that unfolded Thursday in Libby’s federal court trial, Cheney was portrayed as a general on a political battlefield — enmeshed in tactics, but also deputizing his chief of staff to handle the dirty job of persuading journalists that his war critic was all wrong.
Previously described in court filings and by the media, Cheney’s role was brought to life Thursday by Martin’s account. She is the first witness in the case who worked closely with Cheney and Libby as they tried to refute former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent to Niger by the CIA to determine whether Iraq had sought uranium for a weapons program.
Her testimony was buttressed by previously unreleased documents provided as evidence Thursday, including handwritten notes and margin scribblings Cheney’s staff hastily jotted at their boss’ instruction.
Lea Anne McBride, Cheney’s current spokesperson, said Thursday evening that the vice president’s office could not comment on the case or evidence introduced in the trial.”
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=18f65bce-5be5-4532-b2fe-9f140527329c
Yeah, if I’m Dick, right about now I’m thinking ‘nuclear option,’ what with the testimony under oath not going my way and all. The interview with Blitzer shows him starting to crack.
So, what’s the over/under for Condi to VP (shudder!) and Negroponte to Secretary of State?
Oh, goodie. Just as one irrational Bush shill takes a leave of absence–JM, another pops up to take his place–GSheriden.
Consider this: “Politicians are politicians and the sooner the public learns that – the sooner they will realize that their emotions are being manipulated and propagandized on a massive scale.”
Uh, too true, GS.
For instance when BushCheneyRummyPowellCondi warned us of the “TONS AND TONS OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION” which could be delivered to an American city in as little as 45 minutes by “DRONE AIRCRAFT” resulting in a “MUSHROOM CLOUD,” one could hardly find a better example of egregious lies used to manipulate Americans into an illegal, unjustified, and immoral war.
And of course Cheney’s quite content–he’s making millions while his company that he still has stock options with and from whom he still draws a paycheck is making BILLIONS.
Because of the chaos the American invasion created, Iraq can’t sell its oil, thus driving up prices. Good news if you are in bed with big oil interests like Bush-Cheney-Rice et al.
And Cheney personally profits as long as Halliburton continues to snag billion dollar no-bid contracts to do absolutely nothing.
It’s a win-win for Cheney. If he can drag this out for a few more years, his net worth will be bigger than some South American countries’.
Whatever he is smoking … I WANT SOME!
It’s called seeing reality, no-name troll.
Try it sometime . . .
I was referring to Cheney.
Ah . . . those tricky pronouns . . . Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.
In that case, I want some TOO!
then again … maybe it was a lobotomy
Maybe we will see Cheney resign due to health reasons so that the Republicans can appoint their anointed candidate to Vice President. This way, their anointed one will have all the power of the Vice Presidency at their disposal for another Republican victory at the White House? I wonder which golden haired boy or girl the GOP will pick?
Let’s see here – who was the first President to claim Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, the ability to use them against us – and the desire to do so?
Who was the first President to declare that we should depose Saddam and institute a democratic form of government?
Does anyone know?Does CapnCrunch know?
You might also want to ask who gave him the weapons in the first place? Reagan and Daddy Bush?
Wrong.
Next?
Thanks for bringing up the irrelevant canard, GS.
Daddy Bush wanted Saddam overthrown, Clinton wanted Saddam overthrown.
Every sentient being wanted Saddam overthrown.
But only an idiot would go in with our troops and our treasure to do it.
So, we’ve established that numerous President’s wanted the late madman deposed.
But only one had the balls to do it.
And since you like guessing games so much, GS, see if you can guess who said this in 1991:
“For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”
Think real hard . . .
Chuck Hagel’s comments:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/25/se-chuck-hagel-bush-wanted-war-in-the-entire-middle-east/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmen.style.com%2Fgq%2Ffeatures%2Ffull%3Fid%3Dcontent_5326%26pageNum%3D3&frame=true
Hey capn – bet I can answer your question. Daddy?
If the goal was “deposing Saddam,” why didn’t we just drop a bomb on him?
Truth is, the goal was not deposing Saddam. When Bush returned from his meeting with Blair in the Canary Islands (or where ever), a reporter asked him if we would invade even if Saddam fled the country.
Bush said, yes, he would.
In other words, it didn’t have anything to do with Saddam, or WMD’s, or democracy, or protecting America.
It had to do with imperialistic control of the oil in the Middle East.
Actually, Ben, the quote is from Cheney himself as Sec’ry of War (”defense” hahaha).
But Bush I and Swartzkopf and Colin Powell said essentially the same thing.
Capn, Cheney?
9-11 changed everything.
Did it not?
CapnCrunch says, “It had to do with imperialistic control of the oil in the Middle East.”
So – I’ll ask again – does anyone see a problem with the insurgents (terrorists) getting their hands on the oil fields worth billions of dollars?
Anyone?
9/11 was about Bin Laden – GS – so why invade Iraq?
No, it did not.
The only thing it changed was an opportunity for the fearful like you to get played by the fearmongers like Cheney.
Funny how we never hear about “ORANGE ALERTS!!!” right before the elections any more.
If all you’re worried about is the oil, then why are we not just bombing the oilfields to keep them incapacitated? Or is it becase this war was really about the oil after all?
red – what do you think the liberals would do if gas at the pump hit $10 a gallon?
Bombing the oil fields virtually guarantees that.
GS–You switched the argument just like Bush does.
If the goal was to remove Saddam as a threat, why didn’t we just bomb him?
The fact that W. didn’t shows that Saddam was just a pretext for invasion–a lie.
The fact that everything is totally FUBAR now, in no way justifies the original lie.
It shows how stupid it was to invade.
We would not be dependent on foreign if it wasn’t for Reagan and Daddy Bush’s policies. Carter told us back in late ’70s to get off the oil. If the country had listened to him then, we would not have to care how high gas costs – now would we?
Geesh…think for yourself and not some Rush talking point.
If this country had elected Carter to a second term – we might all be flying a hammer and sickle now instead of the stars and stripes.
Heh, red, I was taking this guy seriously for awhile.
The USSR that couldn’t invade Afghanistan successfully? That can’t quell the mighty Chechyns? That has a routine shortage of toilet paper?
Just think of all the money we wasted “fighting” the huge nothingness of the old Soviet Union, just like we’re fighting the hobgoblin under the bed — terrorism — now.
BTW, you might ask yourself what Iraqis think of our decision to invaded and stay . . .
DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 25 (Reuters) – The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an “idiot decision” and Iraqi troops now need to secure Baghdad to ensure the country’s future, Vice-President Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Thursday.
“Iraq was put under occupation, which was an idiot decision,” Mahdi said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq BuildupTrade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael DobbsWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, December 30, 2002
High on the Bush administration’s list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an “almost daily” basis in defiance of international conventions.
The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait — which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq’s acquisition of chemical and biological precursors — is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Throughout the 1980s, Hussein’s Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan — a Middle East version of the “domino theory” in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as “the good guys,” in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as “the bad guys.”
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the “human wave” attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
GSheridan :
Yeah, and if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their ass!
And you might make sense!
Is GS woody in disguise?He used the “S” word first thing.And now this?……..
And did I say anything about Carter winning or losing the election? I only stated that Carter was the president that tried to get us off the foreign oil but it was Republicans that wanted their big oil buddies and themselves to get richer.
Your response showed exactly what your motivation is in this topic discussion. Rather than defend your issues, you change the subject.
Maybe I would believe George W. Bush if he would make good on his promise of capturing Bin Laden for 9/11. But then again, I’ll be waiting a long time because GWB does not even think about Bin Laden anymore. Those were his words, not mine. How can our president not think about the man responsible for so many American lives lost?
Tracy- That was my first thought also.
Crunch – Carter’s ideals have little to do with the effectiveness of the former USSR.
Communism is doomed to fail.
That doesn’t stop morons like Carter from trying to implement it, however.
Sorry – not woody. I’ve been here longer than most of you guys – just took a little break is all.
But, I’m back.
Is GSheridan really JM?
red – you would still hate Bush – even if he captured bin Laden, admit it.
And any discussion of Carter needs to include the man’s dogma to be accurate. Quit sweeping it under the rug.
No Linda. Think back further. Think back to the original news boards.
GLYN??
The libs have hated Bush ever since the 2000 election. He could’ve caught bin Laden, secured ongoing peace in the middle east, eliminated our dependence on foreign oil, reversed global warming, cured cancer, made Hillary pretty and turned trash into gold…
And they’d still hate him.
If this is who I think — hang on, guys. You’ve encountered a worthy opponent. Ding, ding, let the first round begin and pass the popcorn.
I can’t speak for “libs” but if Bush did those things I would love him.
I’m not liberal, and I sure wouldn’t waste my time “hating” someone so pathetic, or anyone else in politics !
Hating?
That sounds like projecting to me.
Why do you assume I hate Bush? Have I ever made any hateful statements about Bush? I question Bush and Cheney – and often. That does not make me a Bush hater.
Let’s twist this like you like to do – okay? Why do you not question Bush and Cheney? Why do you not think it is your patriotic duty as an American citizen to question your leaders?
Do you just blindly follow any leader? So if a Democrat was president and he invaded Iraq, would you not be asking any questions?
I’m just asking because I am truly interested in your reponse. As for me waiting for Bush to make good on his promise to capture Bin Laden, Bush himself has portrayed himself as an honest man and I’m just waiting for him to make good on his promise. What’s wrong with that?
BINGO Linda
red – you might fool someone else, but I know you from elsewhere.
Why do Bush supporters always assume others hate George W.? Remember the old saying about never to assume because it makes an ass out of you and me?
It is curious that the Prez and the Veep are going in different directions with their respective meltdowns, as their terms wind down to an inglorious end.
Cheney looks like he is about to bite the first person that looks at him wrong, while Bush is acting like the schoolyard bully that just had his ass kicked.
Bush was quoted today on MSNBC saying that the surge would go forward regardless because “he was the decision-maker” like he was trying to reassure himself that he was still president.
Cheney, on the other hand, is still claiming his absolute right to do anything he wants.
Both the Prez and the Veep are losing touch with reality. They are just going in opposite directions.
I was so pleased to meet you linda. You write very well.
Worthy opponent? GSheridan exibits no such characteristics. It don’t take great skill to shill talking points garnered from “little green footballs”!
Cheney? He’s typical of your average CEO type. Think Mr. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life”
“George I know most people hate me but then I hate them too.” Something like that.
I’d say Cheney’s latest lack of regard for his legacy would imply he gives not a damn about having a positive one. All that Halliburton loot is a lot more cozy that warm thoughts. Likely Cheney will resign within the next year to allow the next GOP contender of choice for President to assume the position.
I don’t play bingo.
I don’t really see any opposition in direction. They are staying the same course they began years ago.
I’m sure it IS more stressful now that they have a Democrat Congress to deal with – but I don’t see any signs of deflection.
…Follow the oil…Cheney Smart – Iran dumb…Saudi likes power…Iran dumb…Saudi squeeze….Cheney Shart…
More’s the pity, red. Do you play 123 O’Leary?
…
wonderful.
Now, put your hands in the air – slowly back away from the keyboard, and we’ll have someone there in a minute to fit you with a spiffy white jacket and take you for a ride.
I was pleased to meet you and your son, J R. I have always respected and agree with most everything you’ve written. I have every confidence you and other well-informed, reality-based posters will be equal to all and everything GSheridan posts. I just think it will be fun to “read.” GSheridan thinks well, albeit comes up with the wrong conclusions. You’ll enjoy the challenge too! And it’s always wise for us to attempt insight into the thinking (?) of those with differing opinions.
Re Cheney’s “enormous successes” in Iraq:
I don’t recall seeing this list. I would think that given the incredible amount of death, suffering and monies spent, he & “they” would be waving this list everywhere!
What happened to the list??
Is it classified?
“I don’t really see any opposition in direction. They are staying the same course they began years ago.”
Very true GS. A course they said would lead to success in “months not years”.
How is that working out?
I’m constantly amazed that there is not a major push to repair, safeguard and utilize the oil revenues available in Iraq. It seems a win-win for all concerned, so there’s probably 23 reasons to the contrary!
??
GSheridan,
“do we want a scenario whereby we pull out of Iraq and the insurgents (terrorists) lay claim to billions of dollars from the oil fields?”
1) Don’t “pull out of Iraq” — redeploy U.S. troops to secure the borders, provide more training to Iraqis.
2) NEWS FLASH: The insurgents are already getting big $’s “from the oil fields”. Oil smuggling is reportedly their top source of funding.
3) ‘Who’s Helping the Terrorists?’http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/012507.html“Intelligence analysts estimate that al-Qaeda’s forces account for only five percent or less of the armed opposition fighting U.S. and allied forces – and many of those young jihadists are not considered committed fighters.
As Zawahiri said in one captured letter, a rapid American military withdrawal could cause al-Qaeda’s new foreign jihadists, who have gone to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home….Bogged Down
According to the internal communications, al-Qaeda’s real wish is for the United States to stay bogged down in Iraq, so the terrorist group can continue recruiting and training young jihadists while buying time to overcome the hostility of Iraqis toward outsiders.”——-
Anyone see any problems with “staying the course”, or escalation?
“”I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan before it’s even had a chance to work,” the president said. “They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work.”"
So, GS, tell me – is Bush’s plan a new one or is it a continuation of the old one.
GSheridan,
“If this country had elected Carter to a second term…”
the first Gulf War, and the 2003 invasion would not have been necessary.
Written in 1990, 16 years ago,’Make Fuel Efficiency Our Gulf Strategy’http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf“Are we putting our kids in tanks because we didn’t put them in efficient cars? Yes: we wouldn’t have needed any oil from the Persian Gulf after 1985 if we’d simply kept on saving oil at the rate we did from 1977 through 1985….In 1989, the Pentagon used about 38 percent as much oil as the U.S. imported from Saudi Arabia, and estimated that its consumption could readily double or triple in a war. An M-1 tank gets 0.56 miles per gallon. An oil-fired aircraft carrier gets 17 feet per gallon. And no good outcome — in dollars, oil, or blood — is in sight.”—–
…oil iran…refineries iran none…cost factor third party…saudi refineries…saudi control process price…iran withers…iran oil replacement parts Japan-Canada-Us…Cheney meets Saudi Prince…Saudi Squeezes replacement parts…Sunnis dance…Iran withers…
Hey Ben,
There are several new strategies to Bush’s ‘new plan’. I’m afraid you may be confused by the democrat’s same old ‘cut and run’ response.
Hank
His picture is scary. Good choice on the pic Dave.
I fail to trust this man because he is too violent and arrogant for the position he is in. Oh and also that he shot his lawyer and got away with it.
“The Senate should step back for a moment and give you [Gen. Petraeus] a chance…
Perhaps a last chance, to succeeed in Iraq. If God forbid, you are unable to succeed, then there will be plenty of time for the resolutions of disapproval or the other alternatives that have been contemplated.”
Joe Lieberman
The essence of so-called war prosperity;it enriches some by what it takes from others.It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income.~Ludwig von Mises
Plenty of time, Joe? Tell that to the parents, spouses or children of the soldiers that will die so that George can have ONE more chance.
And this is why the left calls Joe Lieberman “Kissy Face.”
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.When the loyal opposition dies,I think the soul of America dies with it.~Edward R. Murrow
Hank – I haven’t seen much there that wasn’t tried last year – including “clear/hold/rebuild” that was tried last summer. I was noting that GS had stated “I don’t really see any opposition in direction. They are staying the same course they began years ago.”
I don’t know that I would likely be confused by the Dem response because I learned about Bush’s plan from Bush – watched his speech.
I agree with VietNam Vet Hagel – we need a new approach.
It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth,whether about the president or anyone else.~Theodore Roosevelt
Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.~General Douglas MacArthur
Dear Hank,
Please explain how/why Bush’s ‘new plan’ will produce better results than the MISERABLE FAILURE last year, June 14 – Oct 24, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Forward_Together
And also explain why you label the ISG’s recommendations ‘cut and run’.
The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed.A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated.~William Ellery Channing
…platitude…meaningless…cookies…better…
A thoughtful piece by Anthony Lake, prompted by a meeting with one of his former students recently returned for Iraq, and who will be returning to Iraq for another tour.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/26/the_costs_to_those_who_soldier_on/
Is this an example of a low tech Haiku?
VT – thanks
Dear Ben,
There were several things in Bush’s SOTU speach that were new. He has become tougher with his approach to Iran. Also, he is tougher with the PM of Iraq. Eleven separate things that he expects the Iraqis to do in response to the ’surge’.
The democrats, if they wanted to win, would hold Bush to the new requirements that he is puting on the Iraqis and support the new strategy. Instead they merely use it as another political advantage to keep their sorry butts in power.
Hank
Oh he’s “tougher” with his approach to Iran alright.
He asked for a larger army!
I think there is little doubt that bush will initiate some sort of military action on Iran in less than a year. This may be anything from simple bombing to a full scale invasion. He will time it so that it cannot be over on his watch and will thus force who ever is the next President to continue military adventure in the mideast.
Sorry, Hank, the problem that the left has with Bush is that he has given us the same old story for nearly four years now. The administration claims these enourmous accomplishments in Iraq, but it is obvious that nothing has been accomplished other than hanging a toothless paper tiger dictator and a few of his henchmen. Even that can’t be considered a real accomplishment, since the executions were done so poorly.
It has been nearly forty five months since Bush told us that major combat operations were over – mission accomplished.
He was wrong then. He has been wrong all along. Why should we believe him now?
If this war had been conducted by Bill Clinton, the Republicans would be absolutely screaming. So, why are the rules different because it is a Republican CIC?
Hank – I think they will do both. We have supposedly ‘gotten tough’ with al-Maliki before (Forward Together) to no avail. As for “getting tough” with Iran that, IMO, will backfire.
It is not only democrats who think that Bush’s plan is a recipe for failure but also many Republicans. Remember, the entire operation would be over on “months not years”
WSC – remember “wag the dog” when Clinton acted in Kosovo and elsewhere?
Hank – I think they will do both. We have supposedly ‘gotten tough’ with al-Maliki before (Forward Together) to no avail. As for “getting tough” with Iran that, IMO, will backfire.
It is not only democrats who think that Bush’s plan is a recipe for failure but also many Republicans. Remember, the entire operation would be over on “months not years”
WSC – remember “wag the dog” when Clinton acted in Kosovo and elsewhere?
Meanwhile, with the Libby trial …
“In Ex-Aide’s Testimony, A Spin Through VP’s PR
By Dana MilbankWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, January 26, 2007; A01
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This delicious morsel about the “Meet the Press” host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. Option 1: “MTP-VP,” she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under “pro,” she wrote: “control message.”
“I suggested we put the vice president on ‘Meet the Press,’ which was a tactic we often used,” Martin testified. “It’s our best format.”
It is unclear whether the first week of the trial will help or hurt Libby or the administration. But the trial has already pulled back the curtain on the White House’s PR techniques and confirmed some of the darkest suspicions of the reporters upon whom they are used. Relatively junior White House aides run roughshod over members of the president’s Cabinet. Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.”
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/26/in-ex-aides-testimony-a-spin-through-vps-pr/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2007%2F01%2F25%2FAR2007012501951_pf.html&frame=true
Didn’t some on the right here say this would never go to trial?
The new Bush surge plan is the same stay the course but with 21,500 more soldiers lives at stake. As far as Bush getting tougher on Malaki, what has taken Bush so long? I seem to recall there were already benchmarks put into place for Malaki. Were these just forgotten because Malaki failed or would not achieve them? What makes the 4 year of this war any different than the 3 previous years?
Bush has been like the mother that counts to 10 for her children to behave. That child knows the mother has no consequences when she does hit 10; so why bother listening to her. Malaki is like an ill-behaved child that knows the mother’s warning is all talk and no show.
red,
I like the analogy. It could be true. We will see.
Cheney’s always been the driving force behind this war, Bush is just the dummy in the front seat.
VT, excellent link! Thank you for posting.
“Yeah, and if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their ass!”
The first time I ever heard this was from a Georgia “boy”, in Savannah, only he added “when they hop” at the end. I nearly died laughing, which he thought was funny, because it was a run-of-the-mill saying in Georgia. A year or so later in the fall, he and a couple of other guys from the Georgia ANG came up and hunted in the pasture on our farm, along with some of the KSANG guys.
Thanks for the memory, gster!
So – Iran has just announced it will conduct nuclear weapons tests – N Korea will assist. Iran has just declared that Israel and the United States will be destroyed.
Iranian operatives are flooding into Iraq – this is what the libbies are missing. The Iraqi’s are not the ones fighting us there, for the most part – outsiders, intent on laying claim to the oil fields are.
Who has made the Middle Eastern oil the black gold that it is today? The environ-wackos in the US that insisted we not drill in Alaska, that we implement such restrictive measures on refining that by the time the product gets to the consumer it’s priced so high that many can’t afford it. We have numerous refineries that just fell by the way – and the wackos are fighting the new, environmentally-friendly ones.
Yes – who has put the world in the position of fighting over ME oil and allowing the nuts in the ME to build up their wealth – and their quest for weapons to destroy the West?
The self-loathing liberals.
The destruction of America from within has begun.
Keep it up liberals. Good job.
Yea right GS – blame BushDaBum’s failures on the “left”. Typical America-hating BushBot.
Any link for your claim that Iran is starting nuclear testing? I don’t see it in the news anywhere.
Iran is NOT the destabalizing influence in the ME. They have never attacked a neighbor. They AVE, however, BEEN attacked; by US ally Iraq with US backup.
As for ‘black gold’ it is YOUR side who opposes improved fuel efficiency and demands your gas-hogs. Even YOUR president admits that we are addicted to the stuff.
Yes, the destruction of America has begun – carried out by Bush and the BushBots. Only an America-hater like you could possibly support that.
WOW
5:06 AM is pretty early to have such a full steam dittohead bluster like that GSheridan.
GSheridan,
“Who has made the Middle Eastern oil the black gold that it is today? The environ-wackos in the US that insisted we not drill in Alaska, ”
Are you totally clueless? M-E oil is the cheapest in the world, costing only a few $’s a barrel to produce.
Arctic Refuge oil is much HIGHER cost, and high risk — it MIGHT, with luck and HIGH world oil prices, REPLACE other declining domestic sources.
You WANT to do what OPEC wants us to do — continue paying high prices for their cheap oil, and deplete our remaining oil, making us even more dependent on OPEC.
We could easily and cheaply “produce” multiple “Arctic Refuges” with higher mpg. We could “produce” more oil by simply keeping vehicle tires properly inflated.
Refineries shut down their own facilities. They prefer running at/near 100% capacity to maximize profits. Plus they get profit spikes when demand exceeds supply.
RealPatriot – here is the link you asked for:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml
JR – this comment of yours is one of the most ludicrous, ridiculous attempts at foretelling the future that I’ve ever read:
“He will time it so that it cannot be over on his watch and will thus force who ever is the next President to continue military adventure in the mideast.”
Pass that doobie, girl.
Cosmo – you really don’t have a clue – do you?
Do you honestly think oil plays no part in the ME crisis?
Why did we assist Kuwait when Saddam invaded if ME oil was just a drop in the bucket?
You’re dead wrong about the loss of our refineries. Severely restricting American producers – both drillers and refiners – was the reason they shut down. It was no longer profitable when they had to meet the requirements.
Between the United States and Central America – we could supply most of the world with oil. Why aren’t we?
GSheridan
“Do you honestly think oil plays no part in the ME crisis?”
Do you have a severe reading comprehension problem?
I posted at 02:10 PM that higher mpg and alternative fuels are our only options now. U.S. oil peaked in the 1970’s.
Even the “oil-friendly” EIA says that “technically” (ignores cost) recoverable Refuge oil would only replace other declining Alaskan sources. They admit that OPEC controls world oil prices.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html
“Why did we assist Kuwait when Saddam invaded if ME oil was just a drop in the bucket?”
I NEVER said ME oil was insignificant — they’ve got HUGE, and CHEAP oil reserves. The U.S. is addicted to cheap oil. We’ve already pumped, and burned our cheap oil.
The real reason for shortage of refining capacity,http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs
“Between the United States and Central America – we could supply most of the world with oil. ”
HIGH COST shale oil? WHY do YOU want M-E nations to generate huge revenues from their LOW COST reserves?
Cutting world oil demand (and prices) with efficiency & alternatives makes much more sense.
“Pass that doobie girl”
Well that’s two shots against your own perception GS. I am male and haven’t smoked a “doobie” for a very long time.
I think even calling it “doobie” dates you as a fogey. But that’s not important.
cosmos? I am starting to think you should be called “the Whammer” or something similar. Since you so frequently wield the mighty iron frying pan of truth against thick unyielding skulls and all. Well said!
GS? The oil in the mideast is not ours. That is unless you are thinking we should be more brutal and imperialistic. If so? China and a few other countries are going to have something to say about that…..
But if you are NOT imperialistic? If you are thinking we should just do what it takes to keep mideast oil cheap for us? Well then I have to wonder just how patriotic you are. Why do you want America to be dependent?
Why do you hate America GS?
“It’s popular right now to trash the war and the troops…”
Please be so kind as to show where and how people are trashing the TROOPS. No way, no how.
The plan was/is to sell the Alaskan Refuge oil to China. None of it was planned to be used for the U.S. and would not affect our purchasing of foreign oil one bit.
Cosmos,
Refuge oil isn’t going to replace anything anytime soon. Do you seriously think that Shale Oil are the only reserves in the US? Are you in KS? Do you know we sit on sand and limestone oil?
You propose that the only way out of the ME crunch is to raise MPG and to seek alternative sources.
That’s just incorrect. Yes, ME oil is cheaper – but they don’t have the restrictions on refining that we do. ARAMCO blackens the skies and no one says diddly squat – but we don’t give our refineries a fair break. Some of the wells in Iraq come in in the tens of thousands of barrels per day.
Western Oklahoma has high pressured oil also – it’s the labor and refining that put it out of reach.
All about supply and demand. I don’t believe for a minute that we are stuck with MPG and alts. We could easily produce enough oil here for all United States needs and eliminate our dependence upon foreign imports.
That Shale Oil that you think is so cost-prohibitive is thick and moisture free for the most part. It doesn’t need the excessive refining that the sulfur oil from the ME needs making it quicker to reach the pumps.
And what of the Oil Shale? China made close to a 7 billion dollar bid for UNICAL a few years back.
I thnk you’re way off base with your assessment. It isn’t based in fact, that’s for sure.
“GS? The oil in the mideast is not ours.”
Tell that to the American Companies over there drilling and purchasing it.
Maybe you should support bringing production back to the US if you feel that way. Production that was run off by the environ-wackos.
This is where liberals get stuck in the proverbial Catch-22. You don’t want us to produce the oil – but you don’t want us to buy it either.
Typical liberal claptrap.
I STILL say you are bogarting that doobie.
Thanks for the link America-hater. Sounds about as credible as Curveball and the WMDs. remember tham?
J R – don’t worry about America-hater GS. He is so stoned by that combination of cocaine and oxycontin he doesn’t know what he is saying. The coke is what gives him the drive to post so early – for him it was late last night!
WHO are these people?
I don’t know p-mom. Looks like the “if you disagree with me you hate America crowd.” They cannot seem to comprehend that people just might disagree on what is the best course of action for our country. I think they do tht so ht they don’t have to actually defend the policy.
Realpatriot – pretty defensive, aren’t you?
Something you wanna share with the rest of us?
Hmmmm……?
PM – you know who I am. You just reminded me of this place yesterday.
It’s still a little dull – and a little liberal – but there are a couple of decent folks here – KSGolf is one.
GS
There is little I can do beyond refuting your posts and feeling a sense of pity that you are so sadly mis-informed.
Someone will post a link. If I remember correctly the US sits on about 3 % of world oil reserves. That is a pittance against our bloated demand.
Let’s try to reach you through what such as you understands best. Market forces.
Think about mideast oil. It is almost effortless to recover. But then? It has to be put into a ship and sent a good way around the planet. That boat ride aint free or cheap.
If you were correct? If it was just the fault of environmentalists keeping US compnaies from drilling? (Rediculous by the way when one considers the oil lobby not to metion an oil administration) Why all the regs and restrictions in the world would still make US oil cheaper.
The limestone sand you correctly say we sit on? YEAH it has oil in it. Sorta like the oil that would be left if you squeezed an oil soaked sponge. The recovery of that oil requires high pressure liquid injection into the strata. Not cheap at all.
I challenge you to widen your research GS. Rush and Hannity are not oracles! They’re talking heads.
Not defensive at all America-hater. I work for a living. I love my country. I hate seeing my country dragged into a pit by your beloved leader.
Anything else you want to know?
Your leader, too, dear. And duly elected, I might add.
I didn’t even vote for him.
I just don’t cotton to ignorant liberal liars who spew feces instead of truth.
I’m glad you work for a living – but is that something all of us don’t do? Is your job more special than ours?
No more special than anyone else’s job. And I just don’t cotton to ignorant conservative liars who spew feces instead of trust.
Anything else “dear”?
JR – I know a little more about fossil fuels than you suspect. Quit picking small tidbits from articles you don’t understand and posting them.
RP – why did you need to throw your job out then – if it isn’t any better than ours?
And why do you call yourself REAL Patriot when it is clear the last thing you support is the welfare of the US?
Did you mean RealMuslimPatriot?
Just a typo on your part?
Golf is decent? Are you out of your mind?
Are you an old man who needs a rectal exam?
If so, I know exactly who you are.
No typo. For one thing I am not Muslim; never have been. But I AM a real patriot, unlike you. I see my country on a bad path; I will try to get her on the right path. I support the welfare of the US. I want my country to succeed. The path we are one has been shown to be a failure. Only a REAL America-hater would want to see America continue on a failed path.
Do you consider people like Senator Hagel to be America-haters because they point out the bad things about Bush’s path?
PM – what do yo MEAN you dont’ know who I am?
Of course you do.
I’m your neighbor.
Duh….
I don’t have any neighbors named Sheridan.
Email me then and tell me who you are.
If you want to.
Oh wait, I know who you are.
LOL bring it woman!
You love me and you know it!
;)
GS
You clearly aren’t terribly bright. I posted no article or portion of article.
One day while you are listening to Rush? You go take a ride on I 70 out west of Salina. All those dead derelict stripper wells were not shut down by environmentalists. No they couldn’t compete without subsidies with that “cheap” mideast oil.
How can you accuse others of not being bright when you put a question mark right in the middle of a befuddled sentence?
Do you know what a Stripper well is?
You sided with Testicles, that makes you unloveable! Blasphemy- even between you and me.
You haven’t read my group postings lately have you?
You didn’t say “Sheewhoisevil” so I didn’t know who you were.
Oh yes, libs, we will love to hate GS for sure!
So GS, what is it YOU want to share?
LOL – I’m gonna remember that one…Sheewhoisevil…I have been running out of good ones lately.
GS, you and your ilk would be amusing if it weren’t for the damage you are causing our country.
I’d like to know that too RP.
political mom who are these clowns that keep showing up?
If attacking composition or spelling or grammar is her forte she will be busy….but ignored.
GS is a LONG time political rival of mine, and yes, a neighbor, not directly but we’re from the same town.
Never fear, we never back down from each other though.
Remember JR – YOU attacked first. Don’t get your panties all in a bunch now.
I’ve was on this site long before you were. I’ve just been absent for a spell.
Sounds to me like she has some very deep-seated emotional problems. Note how she has to attack people – their patriotism, accusing them of drug use, even calling Andrew a liar while he is in Iraq. And then she calls people “dear” …
RP – as I see it – you and those like you are what is causing our country to suffer.
There was time we valued strength and prowess. There was a time when our citizens would not trash our leaders during war time as they do today.
You may call that progress – but I call it sad, indeed.
Yep, the discourse is about to sink to an all new level.
She plays dirty.
Well I’ve been on this forum since day one G.
I don’t remember you. SO you are either in a new nic or not very memorable.
GS, our country never pulled the kind of crap it is doing now either.
We overwhelmingly support our country when we’re doing the right thing.
There are things we should know- the good guys always win eventually. Bad guys lose.We’re not wearing the white hats this time.
RP – you are a silly one. I didn’t call Andrew a liar- I said I doubted him but that were I wrong – I apologized. He didn’t take it as an insult and provided the proof. He’s obviously a bigger person than some here.
You’ve been flinging insults from the get-go.
I’m just here to let you know – I can play the same game.
I prefer valid discussions.
Can you keep it on that level?
PM – what kind of ‘crap’ are you referring to?
The war? That’s totally legal.
The wiretapping? Carter did it first.
You support Hillary and she is likely to launch nukes when she runs low on estrogen.
GS, it is you and your ilk who are hurting our country. Brave patriots like Senator hagel are coming out and saying it too. As for flinging insults lets go back to early this morning: “The self-loathing liberals.
The destruction of America from within has begun.
Keep it up liberals. Good job.”
Insults GS, plain and simple. And if you call that “valid discussion” you are even more delusional that I thought!
Yes, there was a time … when our country also valued judgement and wisdom. And YOU might call it progress when we trash THOSE values; I do not.
“You support Hillary and she is likely to launch nukes when she runs low on estrogen.”
More “valid discussion”?
The crap of invading countries for less than stellar reasons.
Even you think the reason was oil, and you support that we should invade for our energy interests!
So saying Carter did it first, well gee, that sounds so…1st grader.
“You support Hillary and she is likely to launch nukes when she runs low on estrogen”
I know you hate women (check your pants for a penis), but that was a below the belt sexist statement.
Oh goody a brawler!
Hey if you like “valid discussions”? You will have to do better than Limbaugh talking points.
This blog is gonna chew you up and spit you out little girl.
political mom? email me an info you got on this upstart. I will be merciful and quick.
Maybe.
RP – you live to troll, don’t you?
You say we are destroying the country when all we seek to do is maintain the strength we once have.
It’s folks like you that think we can all join hands and sing Kum-by-ah and the boogie man will go away that will destroy our nation.
Wait and see.
Oh goody a brawler!
Hey if you like “valid discussions”? You will have to do better than Limbaugh talking points.
This blog is gonna chew you up and spit you out little girl.
political mom? email me an info you got on this upstart. I will be merciful and quick.
Maybe.
Start chewing, JR – I promise you I’m a mouthful.
LOL
PM – I checked – no penis. Sorry to disappoint.
But I find it ironic that you support Hillary when she has made some pretty big pro-war statements, herself.
Iran was one of her targets, remember?
Yeah before we screwed up with Iraq.
She knows it’s time to get out.
I’m not anti-war, I’m anti-screwed up, lied about, immoral wars for f’d up reasons.
PM – I figured out pretty quickly that this “JR” isn’t the one we all know and love from the ‘other place.’
GS, didn’t you ask one of our brave fighting men why he “dispised America”? there he is, putting his life on the line, and you attack him in such a despicable manner.
No, I do not sing Kum-By-ah; in fact I supported the NEEDED war on terror – Afghanistan. I did NOT support giving Saddam arms to attack his neighbors with.
Not sure who ya are RP but you called it on this one.
She uses words like prowess and strength….
And then the estrogen comment?
Hoo boy she won’t last a week.
Sheri?
You didn’t answer when asked earlier. Just how long do we play at war? I know you are not for “WITHDRAWL”. Are you for some sort of major…relase?
PM – I gotta scoot. Duty calls, but I’ll drop in early AM tomorrow to straighten these libbies out.
If you’ll be at work – we can debate.
Nope, not the same JR. This one is a guy.
And I don’t work tonight, but I might be on in the morning.
GSheridan,
“I thnk you’re way off base with your assessment. It isn’t based in fact, that’s for sure.”
Okay, try to prove I’m wrong.Find me some “elephant” oil in the U.S., that costs under $20 a barrel to produce, and will cut U.S. oil imports to almost ZERO by 2035.
See graph, page 229 (PDF pg 253 of 332) http://www.oilendgame.com Their analysis is based on real-world data, and conservative, i.e. we could cut oil demand even FASTER.
* U.S. oil production PEAKED in the 1970’s. Bush Sr.’s group tapped into most of the cheap oil. Later oil companies, like GW Bush’s, went “Ar-bust-O!”WHY do you think the U.S. has so many stripper wells?
* Revenue = barrels x $’s/barrel. M-E oil PRODUCTION costs only a few $’s/barrel. U.S. costs/barrel are much higher.
* Tell us why YOUR strategy does NOT benefit OPEC:1) Oil prices will remain high, allowing them to generate high revenues.2) After the U.S. frantically depletes what remains of our puny 2 or 3% of the world’s oil reserves, we become MORE dependent on them.
* The increase in U.S. oil production caused by recent high oil prices (stripper wells, etc) isn’t very significant.
* U.S. oil demand increased by about 1.5 MILLION barrels/day, from 1999 to about 2004. That’s MORE than the projected Arctic Refuge’s (”costs ignored”) peak production 20 or 30 years after opening to drilling.
* Bush’s 2000 campaign claimed that Arctic Refuge oil was the solution — and was proven wrong in only a few years.
“The destruction of America from within has begun.”
And just who has held Congress for how many years? And you blame the libs for this? The destruction of America has been in the works for a long, long time, and it wasn’t the Democratic party who began in. How ironic that it was a Republican president who warned us of what the future (currently the present) would be like, if we didn’t pay attention.
We didn’t.
“You say we are destroying the country when all we seek to do is maintain the strength we once have.”
How do you maintain a strength by going to war/invading with a smaller force than is needed to do the job? How do you maintain a strength by not taking the next logical step after the invasion?
cosmos – I agree that production here is higher. I disagree that we have limited amounts of oil reserves. We have massive reserves.
If we discontinued the use of foreign oil today, American companies would come back and drill here. Yes, it woulc be more ecpensive, but how expensive is the war?
RD – I’m not sure what your ‘next logical step’ is, but what is weakening our country is the self-loathing that has been propagated by the liberals since Jane Fonda and John Kerry started their agenda of pointing to Big Bad America, and holding up our enemy.
I agree we needed more troops from day one – but the small number was used in a stupid attempt to pacify the liberals who were already singing Saddam’s praises.
Democratic Underground went ballistic when the man was hanged. What does that tell you?
GSheridan,
“If we discontinued the use of foreign oil today, American companies would come back and drill here.”
Vague talk is cheap. List the SPECIFIC domestic oil sources that would provide an ADDITIONAL 13+ MILLION barrels/day “TODAY”. Strippers wells?
Even the touted “best hope”, the Arctic Refuge, is optimistic at 1 million barrels/day, DECADES from now — only replacing Prudhoe Bay’s decline.
American oil companies need to make a profit, for stockholders, and to do more exploration. You cannot force them to go after unprofitable domestic oil.
Cheap-to-produce oil in the M-E is WHY the U.S. has been “involved” in that region for decades.
Proof is the oil Profit Sharing Agreements the U.S. has pushed on Iraq — which give western oil companies more control of Iraq’s oil, and more profits.
By year 2035, higher efficiency and alt fuels could eliminate the need for about 20 million barrels/day. More domestic oil production CANNOT do anything like that.