What should Bush say tomorrow

[Brat]

Caroline, spot on!

I am one of those 'cloth coat' Republicans. A progressive. I haven't had the stomach to vote for a Republican presidential candidate for many many years. The party in the State of WA has been taken over by the Christian Right, so I haven't seen any other candidates who are suitable (could be why the state votes for Democrats).

In Oregon (my natal state) Republicans tend to be progressive and have demonstrated the ability to lead (vs push).

I think it was on CNN today where a commentator observed that Bush's venture has decreased our security because we have no forces left to project militarily.

I think it will be a LONG time before the voters trust Republicans again.

[Elderdude]

Hmm, Brewer,
I think you have identified my problem. My game, my rules so I've decided to reverse the two and drink myself silly during his speech. Maybe he'll make sense that way.

Naww,
No way will he ever make sense. But maybe his screwed up face and verbal diarhea won't be so annoying.

Nope,
Don't guess a full twelve pack can fix that, either. What's the chance the newspaper will bother to print the entire address tomorrow? OK that's too silly, anyone know how to unblock a cable channel, say like Fox? I'm sure Limbaugh will hit the "high spots" on the radio too. Ok I better not, it took me too long to lock and load Air America.

Maybe I'll just check this group tomorrow for highlights from the "I want to kill..." group to give thier glorious praise for our brave freedom fighter and almost completed Texas air reservist.

[laurence]

Hah! Meanwhile I spent all day working with someone who has a framed picture of Dick Cheney in his cube. It's kind of fun to hear opposing opinions simultaneously! :P

[samclem]

The "Iraq is all about oil" argument appeals to some folks, but it really doesn't hold up to examnination. If the US were really seeking to control oil be seizing nations that have it, there are many lower risk/higher payoff opportunities than Iraq. Is Mexico quaking in their boots? Kuwait?

Perhaps next we'll next hear that the US operations in Afghanistan are because the evil US wants to corner the market on . . . ummh . . . gritty dirt?

[teejayevans]

Originally Posted by Laurence

Hah! Meanwhile I spent all day working with someone who has a framed picture of Dick Cheney in his cube. It's kind of fun to hear opposing opinions simultaneously! :P

Cheney is good for only 1 thing, he shoots lawyers.
Tom

[Caroline]

well, of what I WANTED to hear I got "thank you and good night."

Sigh.

God help our troops and their families.

[genghis]

Maybe he should ask Saddam to take back over and fix everything he has screwed up....oops, too late

[ladelfina]

samclem.. Mexico and Kuwait have graciously allowed people like Exxon and Shell to pump it for them.

Under Saddam Hussein the oil production was state-run (but he was being courted by France and Russia; see below).

If the US were really seeking to control oil be seizing nations that have it, there are many lower risk/higher payoff opportunities than Iraq. Is Mexico quaking in their boots? Kuwait?

Now if you'd said "Venezuela", I'd say, "let's wait and see". They HATE that (democratically-elected) Chavez guy not (primarily) because of his name-calling, but because he wants to take the oil back out of the private sphere.

An April 2001 report by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute for Public Policy -- commissioned by Cheney to help shape the new energy policy -- also devoted serious attention to Iraq.

The report, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," complained about Hussein's oil leverage:

"Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government. ... Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.

"Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets."

Significantly, the report concluded that the United States should immediately review its Iraq policy, including its military options.

http://tinyurl.com/397du

Why do you think there was such a desire to know vs. secrecy over Cheney's Energy Task Force and oil co. meetings?

In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the task force. Those documents include maps of Iraqi and other mideast oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

In January 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Halliburton, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron-Texaco Corp. and Conoco-Phillips, among others, had met with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry. However, both Cheney and the companies deny the meeting took place.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/energytf.html

Cheney was carving up Iraq's oil fields before any of us ever heard of 9/11 or mobile bioweapons labs. The contracts are going to be ratified soon, giving the oil multinationals 75% of profits until costs are re-couped and 20% of profits thereafter. Oil is estimated at 95% of Iraq's GDP. Do the math.. 19% of the country's GDP will go to directly to Chevron, BP, etc. off the top.

Back to the first story:

...during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil.

The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."

As early as April 17, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. petroleum giants realized that "Iraq is the biggie" in terms of future oil production, that the U.S. oil companies were "worried about being left out" of Iraq's oil dealings due to the antagonism between Washington and Baghdad, and that they feared that "the companies that win the rights to develop Iraqi fields could be on the road to becoming the most powerful multinationals of the next century."

U.N. sanctions against Iraq, maintained at the insistence of the United States and Britain, prevented these deals from being consummated.

Saddam Hussein's removal in 2003 has left the deals in a state of limbo, but the Bush administration's insistence that only countries supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom are eligible for postwar reconstruction does not bode well for French and Russian concerns.

Next stop, Iran!

[samclem]

- I'm not sure how the CFR's report is relevant. The CFR is not a US government entity, just one of hundreds of think tanks.

- Some people continue to cite the low Iraqi oil production as evidence of US failure in Iraq. I'm glad somebody was planning before the war to get oil production up and running or the oil production situation wold certainly be worse.

I don't see the smoking gun.

I recall the amazing argument that the US got involved in Vietnam only to protect the interests of US rubber producers there, and I didn't "get" that argument either.

[Craig]

samclem, thanks for your thoughtful, and brave post, considering the overall forum bias.

Caroline, I thought your post was on the mark as well, and while I might not agree with the oil conspiracy / tin foil hat approach of some (not directed at you), I do agree our energy policy is a factor.

I don't see samclem's and Caroline's approaches as necessarily mutually exclusive.

Frankly, our society's relative freedom, our economic model, our open door for immigrants, and a successful focus on developing renewable energy could be America's major success factors for the early 21st century.


I remain fascinated by those who don't see the fascistic tendencies of radical Islam ... soon to be nuclear. But, of course ... we must wait for that shoe to drop before we believe, eh? ...


Most of all ... nice to see intelligent discourse sprinkled between the sophomoric Bush bashing, while brewer maintains his high standards ...

[Goonie]

Originally Posted by Brat

Good by, so long, . . . . . .

Originally Posted by DOG52

I resign?

Originally Posted by Surreal

I quit.

Originally Posted by brewer12345

"I just shot Cheney, and the cyanide will be effective any minute now..."

Originally Posted by Goonie

Or maybe "Barbara just read me the biography of that Jim Jones fella down there in Jonestown, Guano....you know in South Merica. And I found it to be perty insprational.....I just shot Cheney, and the cyanide will be effective any minute now......

I was REALLY hoping for one of the above statements, so I was a bit disappointed!!!

[jefipius]

Originally Posted by sooner

Samclem is right. The only reason we lost Vietnam was the half measures made.

The Vietnamese Communists fought for around 50 years against various occupiers, invaders and threats. (the French, US, Chinese and Cambodians ) and beat them all. They lost ~5M people which is comparable to Germany's losses in WWII but with 1/4 the population. The US dropped approximately 5x the tonnage of bombs than dropped on Germany in WWII. The country of Vietnam was by any measure completely devastated, but the North never capitulated.

The US in turn lost some 58K soldiers, with no civilian casualties but at huge monetary (~500B 1992 dollars) and political costs - still felt today.

Do you really think a few more divisions or sorties would have made a difference?

You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win. - Ho Chi Minh (He was only off by a factor of 10)

[jeff2006]

Uncle Sam seems to have a real talent for sticking his nose into someone else's business, and getting it punched. Then we have to go to war. "Come on down, all you brave young men / seems Uncle Sam has got himself in trouble again / way off yonder in Vietnam." I have seen this country at war, virtually continuously, for almost all of my life -- I'm goddam sick and tired of it!

[lets-retire]

jefipus--I think one of the big problems with Vietnam was the ineffective manner the militray was employed. I know that is an oversimplification but you get the idea. Granted we won every battle, but that's tactical (small picture), but did not take the neccessary actions to actually win the strategic war.

jeff--If the US has been at war 'virtually continuously' for your entire life, then you are very young. It's nice to see someone so young interested in retirement.

[laurence]

It mistifies me as to the thought we could have won Vietnam through a different use of the military. I know there are a lot of "war hawks" out there who say things like, "But we WON the Tet Offensive!" and think we could have kicked butt if only x y and z were different. The British Empire was the greatest power on Earth, yet a scrappy bunch of farmers kicked their butt out of the new world. If the people don't want you there, you are either going to lose or commit genocide to win. I'm glad we chose to lose.

[jeff2006]

Too bad that the people who really know how to run wars are busy cutting hair, driving cabs, and posting on the Internet rather than filling the General Officer and Governmental Executive positions.

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by jeff2006

the General Officer and Governmental Executive positions.

Um, last I checked, none of the people filling those roles seem to be able to win guerilla wars either.

[jeff2006]

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Um, last I checked, none of the people filling those roles seem to be able to win guerilla wars either.

Agreed -- so maybe the answer is not to get into so damn many wars. It's one thing to defend yourself, and another thing to go into every bar in Chicago looking for a fight.

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by jeff2006

Agreed -- so maybe the answer is not to get into so damn many wars. It's one thing to defend yourself, and another thing to go into every bar in Chicago looking for a fight.

Sounds good to me. Let's whack the crap out of military spending while we are at it to keep Presidents from giving in to "itchy trigger finger" syndrome.