Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al-Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be ... the bottom line. It is about oil.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Bani

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Links

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

duh...

Result: ka-BOOM in oil prices and ka-ZOOM in oil profits. For 2007, Exxon recorded the highest annual profit, $40.6 billion, of any enterprise since the building of the pyramids. And that was BEFORE the war surge and price surge to over $100 a barrel.

It's been a good war for Exxon and friends. Since George Bush began to beat the war-drum for an invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon's reserves has risen are you ready for this? by $2 trillion.


www4.gregpalast.com

www4.gregpalast.com

"All about oil...."

Oil played it's part. Sometimes the Right says you're a monster for stating that, sometimes they smirk in agreement.

Internal reasons for the war were more important, though. Why is everyone still worried Bush and Cheney will still have a shooting war with Iran? Because we all suspect they are warped and strange people, and may not be able to help themselves.

I'm one of those that has trouble accepting the war in Iraq was waged so poorly as a matter of accident. People need to broaden their definition of crazy. A dog that bites it's master as often as the enemy may be rabid.

Bani I have been saying this since I arived here at the Retort some 4 Years ago(God 4 Years I need a life)Everyone thought I was either one dumb mother fucker crazy Unpatriotic traitoruos. Just to name a few. If anyone had any common sense they too could have figured it out. I am sure some had their suspicions but didn't have the guts to face them. Like I have said in most recent times I TOLD YOU SO


Larry Mohr

The unbelievable cost of US wars

When Lawrence Lindsey, who worked as a White House economic adviser, calculated a more realistic figure of $200 billion, he incurred the wrath of President George W. Bush who quickly got rid of him and his unpleasant message. Bush preferred to hang on to the illusion that the war would be easy and cheap.

gulfnews.com


for Exxon's extra trillions in reserves?

Petrofraud and the New Depression

Petrofraud is a word I coined to describe the the great con job that is the Bush administration's policy - that policy is the only policy they have or have ever had, with respect to energy, foreign affairs, war and our economy. All of it has been about oil. And the present speculative bubble is the crowning achievement of the scheme.
They are laughing all the way to their banks in Dubai, Switzerland, and, no doubt, Paraguay. A superb assessment of the pathology of this sociopathic bunch can be found in Charley Reese's chilling column, America is the Rogue Nation, which details the lengths to which they are going - in our name - to achieve their nefarious goals. We are being robbed into bankruptcy to enrich a relatively small oligarchy, within which an even smaller group are retaining unimaginable wealth.

321energy.com

"Think ENRON with oil instead of electricity."

Monday, June 16, 2008

Company Demos Car Fueled by Water
A Japanese company claims to have created a car that can run solely on water. Genepax's system employs a "membrane electrode assembly" that achieves hydrolysis using a chemical reaction. 80 KM on a liter of water? Yes it sounds too good to be true, but just think -- if it is true, it will transform a hillbilly pit stop into a fill up. Yeeehawww! Video.


Posted by OzarkAggie at 04:44 PM | 71 COMMENTS


www.drudge.com


water versus oil...you decide:>)

" achieves hydrolysis using a chemical reaction "

Where does the energy come from?
Or did both of you fail 5th grade chemistry?


Forget about impeachment, these two oilmen need to be handed over to the International Courts to face war crimes charges.

Yup

Forget about impeachment, these two oilmen need to be handed over to the International Courts to face war crimes charges.

Posted by Corky

Even that is better than they deserve.

It was never about people, that one is easy and oil isn't itself the goal. The big thing that everyone wants and few have is of course money.

If the skins of tattooed men were worth huge amounts of money, look out for skin art. The item is not important. Men and women will do anything to make huge amounts of money. For many, that may mean power or land or whatever. They will do anything to get it. If that means a lot of people that aren't even involved killed. So what.

This is becoming more and more what is happening in South America and Africa. And soon to a venue near you. The real battle is the almighty monetary God.(I would say dollar but thats changing).

The big thing that everyone wants and few have is of course money.

Posted by keith204

That's why I've always said the war was for the PRICE of oil.

Mission Accomplishitfucked...

Who was it who used to say that here?

Asshat I believe plus Scarey_E I believe said that too.

Larry

Asshat! Scarey_E...

Ahh, the good old days...

Are they still around?

I think I saw Asshat the other day and I have a feeling Scarey_e isn't with us in the physical sense. He had stage 4 Congestive Heart Failure. and that was early 2006 if memory serves Me correctly.

Larry

User Info
Scarey_e
Seniority: 169
Private E-mail
No Home Page
Joined 2005/08/12
Visited 2007/04/02
Status:

User Info
ASSHAT
Seniority: 96
Private E-mail
No Home Page
Joined 2005/06/15
Visited 2008/06/30
user

He had stage 4 Congestive Heart Failure
Posted by LarryMohr

That sucks...

Here's to Scarey_E.

sad thing about blog world...

you never get to say goodbye.

That's another thing...

Did somewhere along the way everyone have to re-register here?

I took a couple of years off from posting after the 2004 debacle and now I come back to see posters I remember with Joined dates after the fact. What gives?

I think it was when RCADE made registrating mandatory. I fergot I was tinking late 2004 but Could be wrong on that. Not sure however.

Larry

I think it was when RCADE made registrating mandatory.

oh, ok. I remember people posting as visitor.

too bad. makes me look like a relative newbie.

"too bad. makes me look like a relative newbie.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine"

It would be nice if we could legitimately change our blog names without losing seniority. I would probably get rid of the Texas affiliation ASAP.

I just wish I could get back angrynyliberal, with my original seniority for when (LOL) rcade starts selling retort tee's.

Front: Drudge Retort: Red Meat For Yellow Dogs

Back: Hagbard_Celine F.K.A Angrynyliberal/ Member Since 8/XX/2004

That would be cool. Drudge Retort TShirts with the date of our arival here. on the front and on the back a picture of RCADE the Grand pooh bah of the Retort.

Larry Mohr

SanAntonioRogue W.P.T.B.K.A. (would prefer to be known as) RogueInOhio. Particularly after the headline and debate of the last couple of days on a certain thread.

AHhhhhhh so we could blame it on RIO then ehhhhh

Larry

Good one Larry!

His name is RIO and he dances on the sand....

"and on the back a picture of RCADE the Grand pooh bah of the Retort."
Posted by LarryMohr

I'm sure he wants to be even more associated with us wackos than he already is. lol.

"and on the back a picture of RCADE the Grand pooh bah of the Retort."

Only if he'd agree to replicate the Burt Reynolds pose from Cosmo.


San An can always dream.....

San An can always dream.....
Posted by Corky

but he's not the only one.


Hagbard Lennon, lol.

Hagbard Lennon, lol.

Posted by Corky

That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all week. Thanks. lol.

It would be nice if we could legitimately change our blog names without losing seniority. I would probably get rid of the Texas affiliation ASAP.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Proud of our great state eh San An? If you haven't already left, why don't you close the door from the outside and do the rest of us a favor.

I left 2 1/2 years ago. Felt like a giant weight lifted from my shoulders as I crossed the border into civilization.

One cool thing about Middle East oil, is that President Obama will have us buying ever more of it.

Haliburton was right. If you've got a President and a Congress that refuses to develop energy resources in the United States--and demonizes those who try--may as well move to where the action's going to be.

Felt like a giant weight lifted from my shoulders as I crossed the border into civilization.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

Um, you didn't. If you really left, you crossed the border into either Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, or New Mexico. So, please--which of those is more civilized than TX?

"If you really left, you crossed the border into either Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, or New Mexico."

Or Mexico. Not that it matters.

"Um, you didn't."

I wouldn't be so sure.

But I was actually speaking metaphorically, RiR.

Fair enough. And I'm sure Texas is devastated to have lost you.

Still, in one respect I'm sure they were happy to see you go. They need all the help they can get to send back all the U-Haul and Ryder trucks that come TO Texas, on one-way-only rentals.

Then I'm afraid my using United Van Lines wasn't much of a help.

But it was--United was thankful. Think of all the deadheaded miles you saved them. Usually they go into Texas for their inbound deliveries, then have to drive hundreds of miles OUT to find loads elsewhere. And the drivers don't get paid for those miles.

* * *
www.mlive.com
Four Texas metropolitan areas were among the biggest population gainers as Americans continued their trend of moving to the Sun Belt in 2006 and 2007, according to Census Bureau estimates to be released Thursday.

Dallas-Fort Worth added more than 162,000 residents between July 2006 and July 2007, more than any other metro area. Three other Texas areas -- Houston, Austin and San Antonio -- also cracked the top 10.

Wasn't the Iraqi oil going to repay us for the war and reconstruction?

At least that's what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz told the American people and Congress when they were beating the war drums.

Well, they told us all some HUGE whoppers, didn't they?

I've read several of the pipelines in Basra don't even have meters to measure the oil being shipped out.

Typical FUBAR Bush WH crap.

Bush preferred to hang on to the illusion that the war would be easy and cheap.

As did a certain senator from Arizona.

One cool thing about Middle East oil, is that President Obama will have us buying ever more of it.

Haliburton was right. If you've got a President and a Congress that refuses to develop energy resources in the United States--and demonizes those who try--may as well move to where the action's going to be.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-07-02 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Notice the flurry of activity under 6 years of a Bush WH, that actually had Ali Burton's ex-CEO in it, combined with a republican house and a republican senate....yup ...that sure fixed it all!


I left 2 1/2 years ago. Felt like a giant weight lifted from my shoulders as I crossed the border into civilization.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-07-02 02:00 PM

Whta part of Cleveland is civilized?

What have we become?

Four Texas metropolitan areas were among the biggest population gainers as Americans continued their trend of moving to the Sun Belt in 2006 and 2007, according to Census Bureau estimates to be released Thursday.

Dallas-Fort Worth added more than 162,000 residents between July 2006 and July 2007, more than any other metro area. Three other Texas areas -- Houston, Austin and San Antonio -- also cracked the top 10.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-07-02 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where does tex-us fall in the ranks of illiteracy?

Actually it was about American security, but if Bill Moyers want to believe it was about purple butterflies, that ok by me.

One cool thing about Middle East oil, is that President Obama will have us buying ever more of it.

Haliburton was right. If you've got a President and a Congress that refuses to develop energy resources in the United States--and demonizes those who try--may as well move to where the action's going to be.

Posted by rightisblight

What's wrong Rightisblight? No commentary on the subject at hand?
I'm quite sure that you were one of the dipshits saying, "It's not about oil, it's about (insert moronic reason here)!!!".

Actually it was about American security, but if Bill Moyers want to believe it was about purple butterflies, that ok by me.

Posted by Burt

Security from what?


Actually it was about American security, but if Bill Moyers want to believe it was about purple butterflies, that ok by me.


Posted by Burt


Security from what?

Posted by RastaCyborg at 2008-07-02 06:07 PM

Depends on what he hears on Ruuuushhhh!

Security from what?

Yeah, we'll all be checking back for the answer to that one.

Bush or Rove (that political genius and seer into the future) had the foresight to start this war 5 years before oil became a factor. Moyers is correct, after 5 years, about it always being about oil.

But Shrub would deny it all to this day. Our Liar in Chief, whether we like it or not. Thank you SCOTUS, you criminal motherfuckers.

About that Japanese car that runs on water: Only makes sense to keep a coupla 6-packs in the car to sip on and ready yerself for topping off the tank on a long trip.

The water powered car is an old thing. It can be done (according to an article I read long ago) several ways. The only serious drawback is that the motor eats itself up or requires huge amounts of maintenance.

One easy way is to use a heavy water vapor as in a water carburetor, then using the injectors pop in a burst of hydrazine. The two chemicals water and hydrazine burn together but causticly.

Due to costs as well as damage this isn't very useful.

Of COURSE it was about oil. Big Whoop! Bob Scheer columns about that today. We have the Iraq oil theft thoroughly in the win column and look to Iran. That may be the October surprise. McBush's best chance. Together with Florida elections in '00 and and Ohio elections in '04, theft is what Republicans are about, all they know. The GTOP - Grand Theft Old Party. herm

Kill for oil and let god sort em out!

"Four Texas metropolitan areas were among the biggest population gainers..."

True. And certainly one positive aspect of that is that ever so slowly, Texas is becoming more liberal and progressive. You see that especially in Dallas and Austin.

So there is hope that someday congenital redneckness may be something we look back on ... like polio.

Until then... Gig 'em Aggies, and Guns Up!

congenital redneckness

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

LOL... FF

There are so many things wrong with the comments here that it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, it's America's enemies (Venezuela, Iran, terrorists in Nigeria, Saddam Hussein, etc.), China, India, and a growing human population that are responsible for the high price of oil.

Also, the Saudi people share in the oil wealth of that country. In 2001, when the price of oil was around $20/barrel they were on the verge of revolt. Their standard of living was very low so the Saudi royal family chose to drive up the price of oil rather than get overthrown. They did this with OPEC by limiting output. That was documented in newspaper for all you people with short memories.

Yes, 9/11 helped drive prices up, but it was many things that contributed to the rise including terrorism in Nigeria, the mullahs in Iran who use Hezbollah to cause trouble in the Middle East and cause uncertainty, OPEC cutting supply to drive up the price, the war in Iraq, Hugo Chavez's bluster in Venezuela and lack of American action to drill and add refineries for 30 odd years, our refusal to build nuclear reactors, and people like Ted Kennedy using their influence to keep wind turbines from disrupting his view on Martha's Vineyard.

You conspiracy theorists look like raving lunatics. Yes, that includes Bill Moyers. It's so easy for you leftists to simply blame George Bush, but the truth is much more complicated than your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

P.S. You might want to wipe that spittle from the corner of your mouth.

Actually it was about American security, but if Bill Moyers want to believe it was about purple butterflies, that ok by me.

Posted by Burt at 2008-07-02 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag

Oil, not purple butterflies. Please, try and keep up.

New American Perspective:YES Iraq War was about Oil but NO! -No One in Washington is Guilty of anything!!!

America is so pliable and amenable to accept whatever happens in Washington.Eighty per_cent of Americans now agree that the Iraq War was all about stealing Iraq's oil,just as a majority also believes that neither Bush nor Cheney nor the US Military etc. are guilty of any kind of crimes regarding their instigation and perpetration of the Iraq War!
So all the people who died in Iraq during that war were not victims of a massive criminal operation instigated by the Bush Regime.No!They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the only ones they can ever blame for that unfortunate incident (as the new American perspective dictates) is themselves!

SEANR

The Iraqis aren't yet pumping the oil they were when the "Oil for Food" program was active, we had Saddam "boxed in" (Cheney's words days after 9/11), Iran was balanced by Saddam, and moderate Arabs didn't hate us.

Invading Iraq is THE penultimate cause of high oil prices.

I was paying $1.29 months after 9/11. It didn't start going up until Bush started talking about war with Iraq.

Bin Laden wanted $144 a barrel oil. Well, he got his wish. In fact, he got most of his wish list. Terrorist recruiting through the roof, America in financial trouble, the world pissed at us, et al

AMERICANUNITy

Not that it would do any good, but I hope you will go back and read my post. That you think the only reason oil is $144/barrel is because of Iraq doesn't make it so.

There are numerous reasons why oil is so high. China, India, Hugo Chavez's bluster, Iranian backed terrorism, terror in Nigerian oil fields, the war in Iraq, OPEC, lack of American expansion in our own oil fields and lack of increased refining capacity for 30 odd years have coincided to create a perfect energy storm, if you allow me to use that.

Iraq pumped 3mbpd before the war. That's about 3% of what the world uses daily www.crudeoilbiz.com That is, as of 2001 that's what the world used.

How can 3% cause such a rapid rise of oil cost? I suggest to you that it's much more than the war in Iraq that has caused the spike in oil prices and only the most unserious person would insist otherwise. Besides, Iraq has recovered to around 2mbpd. So if it was Iraq, then prices should now be back down to near where they were.
Wouldn't they? If that was the only cause. But it wasn't.

Oh and one more thing. That "the world is pissed off at us" schtick doesn't work anymore. In case you missed it, Germany and France elected pro-American leaders. Italy recently returned a pro-American prime minister. The only people who are "pissed" at us are countries led by dictators, Islamic nutjobs, leftists like Castro and Chavez and American leftists such as visit this board everyday.

This Coutry If it had any morals would truly be ashamed of this Administration, but you all don't give a fuck, GOD DAMN AMERICA, Reverand Wright was right.........

Yes, we should be ashamed. Our country freed 22 million people from a mass murderer. I don't know about the rest of you, but I agree with CELISARY. We should be ashamed that we have given hope and freedom to 22 million people who were destined to be ruled by men like Saddam Hussein and his two psychopathic sons, Uday and Qusay, for the next 50 or more years.

We're talking about murderers who slaughtered well over a million people www.iraqfoundation.org (Iraqis, Iranians, Kurds, political rivals, Shiites and Kuwaitis) since 1990.

Yes, America should be deeply ashamed. You are so right CELISARY.

"Moyers: It was oil all along"?

No shit.

Ever single piece of American policy in the Middle East since the 1940s has been predicated on America's desire to "secure" the oil there.

Why? Are there still morons out there who wanna try and dispute this?

S'rsly?

Google "Carter Doctrine" if ya want half a clue.

Be Well.

We're talking about murderers who slaughtered well over a million people www.iraqfoundation.org (Iraqis, Iranians, Kurds, political rivals, Shiites and Kuwaitis) since 1990.


SEANR

Shoot. And estimated 600,000 since 2003.

Did you know that over 250,000 of those milion you referred to were slaughtered after Bush's daddy told the Iraqis to revolt? Yep. They did, and then we stood by as Saddam's Republican Guard systematically killed them. We even have it on film from U.S. fighter jets and ground units near the border.

DETHSPUD

We have over a trillion barrels of oil in the shale of Colorado and Utah. That's more than all the oil in the Middle East combined www.breitbart.tv

That's a link to a CBS News story about the oil shale in Colorado. That's just in Colorado and Utah. How many barrels do you think we have in ANWR? Have you ever heard of the Bakken Formation in North Dakota? Do you know that we have another trillion barrels offshore? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Bill Moyers is simply filled with hate for a politically ideology that he opposes and so he will say and do anything to score cheap political points.

AMERICANUNITY

Yes, I know that's true. But you are opposed to this war. Why am I supposed to believe you would support the Shiites then? You would have said the same things then as you're saying now if President Bush had decided to go help them.

Or are you saying that Saddam HAD to kill those people because of what President Bush said? Are you blaming President Bush for the fact that Saddam slaughtered 250,000 people? It sure sounds like you are blaming Bush instead of the man who actually slaughtered 250,000 people. It sounds like you are saying Saddam didn't have any choice, that HE HAD TO SLAUGHTER 250,000 people because of what President Bush said.

SEANR

The problem with all this talk about domestic production is that oil ends up on the world market sold to the highest bidder.

Case in point: The Trans-Alaskan Pipeline which was supposed to be a first step. Lots of that oil goes right to Asia from Valdez.

Unless and until some laws are passed that oil pumped from federal lands stays in America all this talk if fruitless.

We have over a trillion barrels of oil in the shale of Colorado and Utah.

Posted by SeanR

And its really expensive to extract. your average oil well just won't do... the price of oil needs to be up around where it currently is, if not higher, for it to be cost effective for extraction.

oil pumped from federal lands stays in America all this talk is fruitless.

SEANR

The other factor is that oil companies already HAVE 42 million acres leased. They're drilling on only a fraction. The talk of offshore drilling is politically good I guess, but it's got to be less expensive to drill on terra firma than on water.

"The only people who are 'pissed' at us are countries led by dictators, Islamic nutjobs, leftists like Castro and Chavez and American leftists such as visit this board everyday."

What a marvelous definition of good guys and bad guys. So neat, nothing between the cracks. But the writer better accept that just because corporate money elected a few Bushie style leaders, that doesn't mean the people of the world suddenly like us ... or Bushie. Trust me. They don't. herm

Hagbard Celine

en.wikipedia.org

From $12 a barrel to $95 a barrel to make shale extraction economically viable. Oil is going for $144/barrel right now and is only going to go higher.

That's substantially less and the supply is stable and not subject to OPEC.

SEAN

We (the U.S. Government) received calls form several members of the Iraq Army General Staff (generals) offering their support of an uprising against Saddam. When they didn't receive a positive response they covered their own hides.

Read up on it first, then we'll talk.

Oh, and SEAN, sure I was against the war, but for exactly the same reasons Dick Cheney was in 1994 when asked why we didn't invade at the end of Desert Storm with 650,000 troops massed on Iraq's border instead of the 140,000 we invaded with in 2003.

AMERICANUNITY

So why are the oil companies wanting to test offshore? If it's too expensive for them to get then why even test?

Perhaps they want to develop technologies for the future. I don't know why they want to test, but when we won't even let them explore opportunities it sure does limit what we can do in the future.

" Indeed, it takes so much energy in other forms (likely electricity from coal) to recover oil from shale that the net energy benefit ends up being much smaller than it appears--sort of like the corn ethanol of Utah. Needless to say, this should (and almost certainly will) be a non-starter with Democrats in Congress, who wisely inserted the ban on federal oil shale leasing into an omnibus spending bill last year."

blogs.tnr.com

Dick Cheney 1994: Iraq would have become a quagmire

1991 Uprising in Iraq (at Bush 41's urging)

HERM

Do you know that you just gave a perfect definition of postmodernism? It's not an accident that you said that. That's THE defining characteristic of Leftism.

Postmodernism is a school of thought that says there is no right or wrong or good or evil. Just perspective. Nietzsche is the father of postmodernism.

From the postmodern point of view, Hitler wasn't evil. He simply had his point of view.

That's why leftists today don't hate Castro, Mugabe, Chavez or any other leftwing dictator. Because from your point of view these are noble and honorable men who have done wonderful things for their people. Even if they murder and incarcerate those who oppose them or do all the things these men have done. It's like when Stalin starved millions of people. That reporter for the New York Times Walter Duranty said, "Oh well, if you're going to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs."

See, from his point of view, those were necessary for the greater good. Kinda like what Obama and Hillary have planned for us except without the death.

I bet you thought you had an original thought when all you were doing was repeating leftist philosophy.

The Cheney link didn't work so hot.

Here it is again:

Dick Cheney 1994: Iraq would have become a quagmire

The Cheney link didn't work so hot.

Here it is again:

Dick Cheney 1994: Iraq would have become a quagmire

And one more time GEESH

Cheney 1994

"Just perspective...."

Hate to puncture your balloon, SEANR, but I've been around long enough to see persons who identify themselves as liberals and persons who idnetify themselves as conservatives adopt just that attitude.

And one more time GEESH

Cheney 1994

"That's why leftists dpn't hate castro, etc., etc...."

That's also why you could never shame many conservatives by pointing out the parallels between Bush's America and the former East Germany.

AMERICANUNITY

I will go so far as to stipulate that what you just said is true. Now what? Are you saying Bush FORCED SADDAM TO SLAUGHTER THOSE PEOPLE?

Where are you going with this? Yes, it happened. I agree. Now what? If we had acted on those requests from Saddam's general's you would have said the same things then that you're saying now. I don't even know why you are continuing on this. What's your larger point?

You wouldn't be saying anything different, but what it does sound like is that you are saying we forced Saddam to slaughter 250,000 people.

"From the postmodern point of view, Hitler wasn't evil. He simply had his point of view."


You're full of shit. I know of no leftists that share that view. So you're talking to someone that doesn't exist on this blog, much less responding to an actual post. In other words, you're blowing straw.

SEANR

I"m saying Saddam was 'boxed in' (Cheney's words days after 9/11), and that we've caused that many deaths and serious injuries to the Iraqis after we invaded.

We didn't need to invade. Most of us know that. There were no WMD's. Saddam's presence kept Iran in check, and I was paying $1.29 a gallon for gas - more of which was being pumped in Iraq THEN than NOW, and the Middle East was a more stable place with less terrorists than now. That last fact backed up by years of NIE's from our own intelligence services.

"That's why leftists today don't hate Castro, Mugabe, Chavez or any other leftwing dictator. "

Hugo Chavez is as much a dictator as George Bush, you idiot. Dictators don't lose referendums, as Chavez did.

SeanR,

To believe that domestic oil production is the answer you must believe in the benevolence of the oil company's that would access it. Prices are already disconnected from supply and demand. Why would any oil company offer up oil at below market prices.

We are addicted and the dealers can charge what they want. We need to end our addiction. It's the only answer.

Or..... are you suggesting State owned and supplied oil?

What parallels ZED? You mean the Berlin Wall? The Secret Police? The Gulags? What parallels?

Tell me ZED, what did President Roosevelt do in WW II? Did he execute spies, did he intern tens of thousands of American citizens, did he read telegrams that came from overseas, did he imprison those who dissented from the war, did he go to war with a country that didn't even attack us, did he invade Africe and Italy, did he cause the deaths of millions of civilians, did he cause hundreds of thousands to be refugees, did 1700 men have to die in a Normandy training exercise so that he could wage his war against a country that hadn't even attacked us?

Who exactly more closely resembles the East Germans ZED? Bush or Roosevelt?

AMERICANUNITY

I will go so far as to stipulate that what you just said is true. Now what? Are you saying Bush FORCED SADDAM TO SLAUGHTER THOSE PEOPLE?

Where are you going with this? Yes, it happened. I agree. Now what? If we had acted on those requests from Saddam's general's you would have said the same things then that you're saying now. I don't even know why you are continuing on this. What's your larger point?

You wouldn't be saying anything different, but what it does sound like is that you are saying we forced Saddam to slaughter 250,000 people.

Posted by SeanR

Yes, it's true. Saddam killed THAT many AFTER they revolted at the urging of Bush's daddy BECAUSE they revolted. If only Bush's daddy had backed them up with protection. We had nearly a nearly 700,000 strong international coalition to help. We could have at least provided air support.

Tigerbalm

I hope your side wins that debate because the American people are going to get fed up with that argument and you are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Gas is only going to go up and up and up and you're going to be the ones who are telling us that we can't drill, we can't have any new refineries, we can't have nuclear, Ted Kennedy can't have his view obstructed from Martha's Vineyard with wind turbines, we can't have coal, we can't have any increase in energy production. I honestly hope you stick with that argument because it's a sure fire winner.

Please have that added as a plank in the Democratic platform this August. PLEASE!

To go back to glen Beck. Those countries that have invested and used the most for other energy sources still have the highest gas prices. We need more oil, and do the others, but until the gas need is less, the gas must come from oil. And if we are able to drill our own that would be the least. And those newspapers that scream the most about oil profits seem to be the ones that are suffering the most of their own profit shortages. Perhaps they need to check out their own content if they are so shocked at their own losses.

YOU ARE BLAMING BUSH! You are saying that Saddam was FORCED to slaughter 250,000 people and it's our fault. Wow!

Got that people? SADDAM had no choice but to slaughter 250,000 people.

How about, no he didn't have to slaugher even one person. He could have NOT killed anyone. He acted in his own self interest.

I got it. How about we don't blame the gang member for his drive by. Society forced him to do it. Good G*d, the left has lost it's collective mind.

Forget about impeachment, these two oilmen need to be handed over to the International Courts to face war crimes charges. -- Corky

On September 13-14, 2008, Lawrence Velvel, the dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, plans to convene a 'convention' at the school's facilities; the attendees of which will plan strategies to prosecute members of the Bush administration for war crimes.

"This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred," stated Velvel in a press release. "It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth.

"We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable...

rawstory.com

"That's why leftists dpn't hate castro, etc., etc...."

Trade and travel to Cuba - NO NO NO!!!!

$800,000,000,000 (billion) a year trade deficits and massive borrowing from CHINA (with which they're building their military( - YES YES YES !!

Sincerely, Conservatives

SeanR,

I honestly hope you stick with that argument because it's a sure fire winner.

The fact that skyrocketing oil prices are disconnected to from supply and demand is not a political perspective. It's an economic fact.
If you have some revelation as to how domestic production will change that, let's hear it.

Otherwise just stick with the ad hominems. Tried and true.

Sean R.... you have problems...and they start with your ignorance...
I think you need to read a bit of history published by those who were there...not by the "friends of the white house."


Bani I have been saying this since I arived here at the Retort some 4 Years ago(God 4 Years I need a life)Everyone thought I was either one dumb mother fucker crazy Unpatriotic traitoruos. Just to name a few. If anyone had any common sense they too could have figured it out. I am sure some had their suspicions but didn't have the guts to face them. Like I have said in most recent times I TOLD YOU SO


Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at


all because bill moyers said so.one of the most bigoted and biased liberals to grace the great state of texas of all time......

SEANR

600,000 Iraqi civilians killed since 2003, 2 million displaced, 1 miliion Christians who USED to be able to practice their faith freely.

Our invasion resulted in a HIGHER kill rate for Iraqis. 1 million since 1990 (your figure) until 2003. 600,000 since 2003.

Oil prices through the roof, less oil out of Iraq, more terrorists, and American image damaged worldwide.

Yep, you keep on keepin' on SEAN.

Go Bush! Right?

NULLIFIDIAN

I didn't call Chavez a dictator you idiot. I called him a leftist.

Oh, and Postmodernism is the ideology of leftism. I don't care if you are ignorant of that fact. It is true.

How about, no he didn't have to slaugher even one person. He could have NOT killed anyone. He acted in his own self interest.

~Sean

How about he REACTED to a situation put deliberately in play by Dumbya's Daddy.

Saddam did the killing but HW Boosh set them poor bastards up to fail.

And if we are able to drill our own...

~Cin

Wot "our" are you talking about?

This notion that drilling ANWR and allowing more leases off shore will drop the price of oil is ludicrous.

Drilling in ANWR and off the coast will not lower the price of oil substantially.

The oil companies will be pleased by the move but nobody else will.

Be Well.

McCain recently acknowledged that the off shore drilling would be mostly a psychological benefit. We just don't have time for feel good policy.

Cindy, I will forgive your inability to write a coherent sentence and then call me ignorant.

"Hello pot? Kettle here. You're black."

so allen Greenspan is a "consipracy theorist"?

"That's why leftists today don't hate Castro, Mugabe, Chavez or any other leftwing dictator. "

Posted by SeanR

I didn't call Chavez a dictator you idiot. I called him a leftist.

Posted by SeanR at 2008-07-02 10:08 PM


I just report. You decide.

I hope you leftists keep up with this whole "We can't drill, we can't have more refineries, we can't have nuclear, we can't have any wind power if it disturbs the Kennedy's view, we can't have coal" argument. I really do. You guys are brilliant. I mean that.

BTW, when does this miracle energy source get here? How many years do we have to wait?

SEAN

Oil companies already HAVE 42 million acres leased. What are they waiting for? Why are refineries mysteriously cutting back production? I'm for nuclear. I've traveled a lot. Makes sense. But, first we need safe disposal of nuclear waste.

Thanks for the 'brilliant' compliment!! I knew Bush 43 was a fucking moron when he was running in 2000. But, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

The fact that skyrocketing oil prices are disconnected to from supply and demand is not a political perspective. It's an economic fact.
If you have some revelation as to how domestic production will change that, let's hear it.
POSTED BY TIGERBALM

Still waiting Sean. Your argument hinges on the answer.

Americanunity

I recently posted a link to Wikipedia that said that it would cost between $12/barrel and $95/barrel to get that oil from the shale in Colorado. The senate recently blocked further exploration in that region, but I did post the price quote.

Now, can you tell me how much it would cost the oil companies to get that oil from the 42 million acres? Because if you can tell me that it would cost anywhere from $12/barrel to $100/barrel I will shut up and go away.

My guess is that oil is so deep that oil would need to cost $200/barrel or more to make it viable to get that oil. Do you have any links to show how much it would cost to get that oil?

Oh, and don't give me some far leftwing site. I need a geology report from a respected outfit. Moveon.org won't cut it.

No question about it. What does W know about Woodrow Wilson? Nothing! It was oil and wildcatting all along.

Tigerbalm

Your grasp of supply and demand is astounding.

Just because you say it's disconnected does not make it a fact.

I love you man, but socialist economics has no basis in reality.

It's like Obama's plan to increase the tax on capital gains. It would seriously hurt revenue to the federal gov't but he would still do it because it SOUNDS fair.

Also Tigerbalm, I would allow the U.S. to build more refineries in addition to allowing us to drill. The supply would come online about the same time as the refineries.

SEAN

60 Minutes just ran a piece on wildcatters in Texas who are pumping oil and making a profit.

The oil companies are using this 'shortage' (there is none) as an excuse. We're having a hard enough time collecting the royalties from them for oil pumped from federal lands and seas as it is.

Had we carried through with Carter's energy independence plan we wouldn't be in this mess. But, the right just LOVES to throw stones at him. The record inflation at the end of his term was due to exactly the same circumstances we find ourselves in now due to skyrocketing oil prices. Bush castrated fuel efficiency requirements, and the GOP even passed a 100% tax credit for buying a Lincoln Navigator or similar 2 ton vehicle.

Compared a grocery shopping bill from last year to this year? Everything's going up by leaps and bounds.

Sean,

Once again Sean, this is not a partisan perspective.

Mr. Hastert said Republicans wanted to make certain that Americans were not victims of price manipulation. The increases appear "disconnected from supply and demand,"

Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at New York-based brokerage Avalon Partners, said: "You see Oil prices are in a bubble that is disconnected from any fundamental valuation of the commodity."

Socialist economics?

Wake up man, you're being played.

Sean, you are generous with your compliments and words of affection. If only your facts were so free flowing.

Just because you say the price is currently subject to usual market forces doesn't make it so.

Still waiting.....

Tigerbalm

Speculators. That's what you're talking about. They are gamblers in effect. If they were discredited and didn't have any credibility then they would be out of business, but the fact of the matter is they are gambling on future supplies and what they see is a United States refusing to drill, build refineries, build nuclear or coal plants and generally do nothing to ensure, in the future, that there is abundant energy.

What you are talking about is blaming the speculators, but important people must be listening to them.

I virtualy guarantee you that almost immediately after announcing the building of more refineries, more nuclear and coal plants and more drilling the price of oil plummets. It would happen seemingly overnight. But as long as this country signals a refusal to expand our energy supplies this is going to continue.

Let me say that again: It would happen almost overnight. The price of oil would drop in a big way immediately AFTER we announced our intention to drill, build refineries, and add coal and nuclear plants.

It's called legislation and it's the way we speak to the world and to the markets. Till now we have said, "No, we're not going to build or expand" so the speculators have said, "Oil is going to become more and more scare IN THE FUTURE" and that's why the price continues to skyrocket.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. We need to send a message to the markets and to the world about our intentions to expand our energy supplies and THEN the price will plummet.

Let me say that again: The price of oil would plummet almost overnight if we passed legislation or legislations saying that we were going to expand our energy supplies.

But till now we haven't and we won't until the American people get fed up.

Consensus is it would take 10 years to get them online and pumping gas.

The ONLY way to reduce oil prices is to reduce demand - higher fuel efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear.

Americanunity

That's the same argument they were using ten years ago when we first wanted to drill in ANWR.

Let me say this again:

The price of oil is high because the markets are looking at us and we are saying: "We are not going to drill or build refineries."

And the markets are saying, "Well, then the supplies, IN THE FUTURE, are going to be less and less."

It really is as simple as that. It's about what we are saying to the world markets and so far they have no reason to believe that the supply is going to increase. If anything, the markets are correct. As long as we maintain this position the world supply is going to continue to dwindle.

Speculators speculate on the future. That's why they are called, "speculators."

That's the same argument they were using ten years ago when we first wanted to drill in ANWR.

And, none of that got done either.

Sean,

The price of oil would plummet almost overnight if we passed legislation or legislations saying that we were going to expand our energy supplies.

I realize that this song is emerging as the rights last hope for holding onto power. I hope you understand what I'm saying is that leading economist say your full of it.

SEAN

Oil companies don't want us to have alternatives to fossil fuel.

If we can produce solar, wind, wave, thermal, nuclear, and a whole host of energy sources here that go to the grid they're outta business.

Plastic can be made from hemp.

We don't really need oil. We're all getting played.

BTW, the government just shut down solar on federal lands. Wonder who was behind that chestnut. Shut down private entrepreneurs who want to build solar arrays (one of which can power 200,000 homes) in the most sunlit area of the North American continent.

I hope $5 a gallon gas gets the ball rolling. We put a friggin' man on the moon in less than a decade. Surely with investment and a Manhattan Project type endeavor we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels forever. At this point a lot is riding on it. It's not only a national security issue, but also a quickly rising environmental issue.