The 'Duh' Heard 'Round The World: US Policies All About Oil
	found on Another Thread written by robozoid, edited by Dylan (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 20 Sep 10:18am
		"A recent thread on Project Censored caught my attention," writes robozoid. "There was much discussion about whether the US oil policies are the driving force behind its Iraq, Afghanistan, and in general Middle East policies. A set of recent articles seems to glue all of this together: The lawsuit against Unocal for human rights abuses in Myanmar while building a pipeline with the aid of the military government. The increased involvement of the US in Georgia, coupled with the prospect of increased oil production from the Caspian Sea. The growing US interest in Africa as a source of oil, after long neglecting the dark continent. It is hard to argue against oil being a predominant theme in US foreign policy. The rights and wrongs of this are debatable, but it does seem that couching foreign policy in moralistic terms is a way of hiding larger strategic goals."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 53 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Add One More   by nemski       at Fri 20 Sep 10:46am score of 1.5 astute     How can one forget the Bush Administration's involvement in the failed coup in Venezuela? Plastic Book Club's Nov. Selection: Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Re: Add One More   by Richard Banks       at Sat 21 Sep 6:55am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 1     I am surprised this story didn't get more traction. Not even Chris Matthews, who has become one of the more strident mainstream, on-air critics of the Bush administration, had much to say about this ham-handed stunt. An interesting side note: it was revealed on Matthews program that that Luntz fellow, the pollster, was involved in the squelched insurgency. I had him pegged as a conservative, but up until that time, I didn't know he's a player, too. "I'm Against This War. But I'm not with These Other People."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Frightening   by Genady       at Fri 20 Sep 10:59am score of 2 compelling     Which is more frightening to the current administration? The idea that Iraq possess a nuclear device, or that such a device may be used on the middle-eastern oils fields? -- Yeah, well, that's like, just your opinion man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Re: Frightening   by Badbiscuit       at Fri 20 Sep 2:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Yep. This is indeed and interesting thought.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Blackgold....Texas Tea...   by mjfrederic       at Fri 20 Sep 10:59am score of 1.5 funny     Well the next thing you know Dubya's a millionaire, kin say George, you ought to move away from there Washington is the place you ought'a be So he called up his pa and moved to Washington DC The Whitehouse...1600 Pennsylvania avenue that is...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Old tactic   by Bearpaw       at Fri 20 Sep 11:03am score of 1.5 astute     It is hard to argue against oil being a predominant theme in US foreign policy. The rights and wrongs of this are debatable, but it does seem that couching foreign policy in moralistic terms is a way of hiding larger strategic goals." The U.S. is hardly unique in this regard, nor is this a recent development in politics. I think what may be relatively new is the transparency of the moralistic posturing and the apparent willingness of the general public to be more-or-less aware of it but play along anyway. I guess pre-packaged rationalizations are more convenient. Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  play along with it?   by Smallest       at Fri 20 Sep 11:07am score of 1.5   in reply to comment 4     as soon as anyone brings up the possibility that oil is a motivation, they get shot down for being a conspiracy theory nut or a "moralistic" poseur. and, so what if other countries do it? which country likes to call itself the example of democracy and a shining beacon of freedom? .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: play along with it?   by Bearpaw       at Fri 20 Sep 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     so what if other countries do it? which country likes to call itself the example of democracy and a shining beacon of freedom? Um, the US isn't even unique in that regard, other than possibly being the most insistant about it. (Despite of our mixed record on both counts -- pretty good in some instances, pretty bad in others. But that mixed record is likewise not unique to the US.) The fact that questionable US actions and attitudes are rarely unique does not automatically excuse them, but it does put them into a more meaningful perspective. It's these actions and attitudes combined with other factors and in recent and current contexts that makes them especially remarkable and makes them even more worth speaking out against. Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: play along with it?   by robozoid       at Fri 20 Sep 12:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     as soon as anyone brings up the possibility that oil is a motivation, they get shot down for being a conspiracy theory nut or a "moralistic" poseur. And this is the problem. It may be strategically suitable for the US to cuddle up to oil producers, but this rationale isn't as high-minded as the moralistic bombast that often comes out of DC. So it is important to debate this openly so as not to let people be "fooled" by seemingly principled arguments for war. After all, it is probable that Congress is caving into the administration's desire for war because popular opinion has been swayed that way. Gore Vidal has a nice rant on his web page about this: something about how Truman had to scare the public about the dangers of communism in order to finance the huge military buildup of the cold war. Karma Karma chameleon - you come and go, you come and go...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  A moral quandary for this Plastician   by geekybob       at Fri 20 Sep 11:04am score of 3 astute     I have said earlier that I'm not willing to trade my stepson's life (he's a tank gunner), or the life of any other American boy, for the reelection efforts of the Idiot-in-Chief. But, would I trade it for the continued availability of cheap gasoline for my truck, which only gets 15 miles per gallon? Wait... don't rush me, I'm thinking... I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by kallisti       at Fri 20 Sep 11:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     That's a tough one. How cheap are we talking, here?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by semonyenko       at Fri 20 Sep 11:23am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 7     How cheap are we talking, here? In real terms (factoring in subsidies, road construction & maintenance, etc.), it's estimated to be about this much. Your tax dollars at work! Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach become school adminstrators.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 20 Sep 12:43pm score of 1 succinct   in reply to comment 10     If gas rose to $15.14 a gallon, people in this country would be sacrificing their young on Aztec altars to get the price back down.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by jasonm1       at Fri 20 Sep 3:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     So basically the article says that the government (the people) is subsidizing oil? I see nothing wrong with that... we subsidize many things, and we spend our money on many things. Oil happens to be one that most people want, so what's wrong with a little shared cost? Of course, there are shared costs that cannot be well-valued. Like pollution. But slapping a price tag on health is a tricky proposition. "Always be willing to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you" -- William Blake   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by kallisti       at Fri 20 Sep 3:41pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 30     Two quick points: a) We massively subsidize the cost of oil, which is a corporate controlled industry which happens to have ties to (surprise!) many politicians. Is it corruption? Depends. But, it sure looks like corruption from a lot of angles. b) We blame the horrific cost of alternative fuel technologies for their lack of adoption, and then massively subsidize oil. City of Berkeley is producing biodiesel for part of their fleet of vehicles and it's costing them $2/gallon. If it really costs us $15/gallon to have the gasoline in the car, and we're paying the farm subsidies anyway, why don't we try to point people to biodiesel and grow our fuel at home? It could greatly reduce our dependence on people like the Saudis, reduce our military spending, and make those agri-subsidies a little less necessary. Oh yeah, point a. Nevermind.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by zanzibar       at Sat 21 Sep 8:22am score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 30     So basically the article says that the government (the people) is subsidizing oil? I see nothing wrong with that... we subsidize many things, and we spend our money on many things. Oil happens to be one that most people want, so what's wrong with a little shared cost? Government subsidies take important decisions away from the free market. For instance, what if it were possible to replace fossile fuels with non-polluting, renewable energy sources and still save money? That'd be a great thing, and if the costs were compared directly it'd be hard to argue against. Since the price of oil is subsidized, however, alternative technologies can't really compete on their own merits. The only way they'll have a chance is by going begging to the US government and asking for crumbs. And consequently, this depresses the investment that companies are willing to put into alternative technologies. So the end result is: we pay lots and lots of money (from your taxes) for the current situation, when we could potentially pay far less for a cleaner, cheaper solution that doesn't shackle us to the plight of the middle-east.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Link is about DRIVING, not gasoline   by tylerh       at Sat 21 Sep 8:56am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 10     The $15.24/ gallon figure is for driving, not gasoline. From the report:This paper estimates that the unrecognized private costs of driving amount to $59 billion annually (top cost: $40 billion for the costs of streets and highways not covered by fees and tolls) Even if you swallow this report's numbers whole (and if you do, I want to sell you a fabulous $10,000 a week work-at-home internet "business"), switching from gasoline to, say, bio-methane, would have only a modest effect these costs. But even this "cost of driving" estimate is highly suspect. Hasn't maintaining roads always been one of the prime functions of government? Roads are a pretty clear example of a public good, and they have fabulous network externalities. To assess the true "cost" to the government of this "subsidy", you also have to estimate the additonal tax revenue derived from the increased business enabled by those same roads. and so on. Does our Government subsidize petroleum products? Oh, probably. The US has a representative government, and US voters love cheap gas. But $15/gallon? yeesh. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Link is about DRIVING, not gasoline   by kallisti       at Sat 21 Sep 10:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 44     Right, but even if the difference is between $1.00/gallon and $3/gallon, that makes the difference between alternative fuels being economically competitive (NOT just viable) and not. Link: Berkeley Biodiesel program. I never took that number at face value for the real cost of gasoline. However, there's no doubt in my mind that the real cost of petrol is enough that alternative methods would be viable without government subsidy, and it's nice of someone to run some numbers on it. (Plus I'm a big advocate of public transportation in Urban areas, and so this study has even more relevant numbers for my arguments. I'm still thankful for the link. ;)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Sorry Kallisti   by tylerh       at Sat 21 Sep 11:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 46     Callisti said (Plus I'm a big advocate of public transportation in Urban areas, and so this study has even more relevant numbers for my arguments. I'm still thankful for the link. ;) Perhaps you should hope less and analyze more. The report states "Other likely effects [of $15/gal gasoline] include a minor shift to carpooling and an even smaller shift to transit ridership." Whatever your affection for public transportation, even this report doesn't think multiplying the cost by a factor of 15 will help much. ouch. Indeed, taking your numbers, the government subsidy for gasoline would have to be 50% for your stated alternative to be viable. And never mind that diesel pollutes like a mo-fo and would be banned in many urban areas if a viable alterative existed, so we have to tack on the tax to your Berkeley biodiesel as well. Petroleum has become the fuel of choice for some really sound reasons -- the Alternative fuel folks haven't lack for subsidies throughout the 20h century, either. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by Iluminati       at Sat 21 Sep 1:44pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 31     City of Berkeley is producing biodiesel for part of their fleet of vehicles and it's costing them $2/gallon. If it really costs us $15/gallon to have the gasoline in the car, and we're paying the farm subsidies anyway, why don't we try to point people to biodiesel and grow our fuel at home? Two words: transfer costs. Let's assume for a moment that everyone has the available land for biodiesel. Of course, you pretty much forget about the 30-35% of Americans that live in cities that lack the land to do this, but let us progress. For one, you'd need seeds and knowledge as to how to grow the diesel. Then, depending on whether or not you use organic methods, there's going to be a serious opportunity cost in terms of the labor one uses to grow their fuel. There is the massive spikes in water bills across the country, as well as possible reductions in the water supply. Also, you may have to pay for fertilizers. And you have to pay for all of this before you process one drop of biodiesel, which isn't cheap either. Even if you subsidized biodiesel production up the wazoo, it would still cost a lot of money simply because of the time and effort to get this done. Plus, the tax money has to come from somewhere and even Bill Gates only has so much money. Now, on top of all of that, you have to retrofit cars, trucks, SUVs and the like to take this biodiesel. While the trucking industry usually uses diesel anyway, many people would have to completely rebuild or replace their engines so they could use this fuel. Once again, this costs money. Now, I agree that the oil industry is heavily subsidized in the United States. Heck, most big business in the US is effectively subsidized either directly or indirectly, so it isn't a sin on them. However, to simply pooh-pooh the costs of alternative fuels isn't going to get anything done. When I'm not watching Fox News, I'm listening to my main man Marley Marl on Power 105.1!!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by jasonm1       at Sat 21 Sep 2:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     I cannot agree more. Our oil policy is ridiculous and we should spend more money on developing alternative sources of power. However, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to point out this subsidy for oil and not other products. If I were to look at the "total costs" associated with many of the products I buy, they would be far more expensive then their actual price on the shelves. "Always be willing to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you" -- William Blake   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: A moral quandary for this Plastician   by zanzibar       at Sun 22 Sep 11:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     However, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to point out this subsidy for oil and not other products. If I were to look at the "total costs" associated with many of the products I buy, they would be far more expensive then their actual price on the shelves. I agree that the real cost of many everyday things is actually higher than what we pay at the register (although, coincidentally enough, subsidized oil is frequently a major contributing factor. Did you know corn costs more to produce than it does to buy?) There are certainly direct government subsidies of all sorts, but I think that most of what you're talking about are abstract factors that our current system just isn't taking into account: intangibles like environmental damage and long-term trash disposal costs. Now, as much as I agree that those intangibles do matter, and that a balanced economic system should include them in the price, there is a difference between actual cash subsidies that we're already paying, and intangible sums. And in the case of oil, we're paying huge cash subsidies that come directly out of our pockets. I think that it's important to stress all of the cash that's actually being lifted out of our wallets for every gallon of gas we spend, even before we start taking into account the other intangible costs that we wind up paying for.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  I remember the first gas crisis.   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 20 Sep 2:04pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 5     Back in the 70s, when OPEC first turned off the spigot. I remember the long, frustrating lines at the gas pumps. I remember that even limiting sales on odd/even basis of your license plate didn't seem to appreciably lessen the amount of time you could expect to waste waiting to get to a pump. Not that I would have sacrificed one of my children on the altar of cheap gas, but I would have seriously considered my brother in law. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: I remember the first gas crisis.   by sulli       at Fri 20 Sep 2:59pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 24     That was due to price controls. Once price controls were lifted, gas lines disappeared. Fortunately nobody is advocating price controls this time - on the contrary, most "progressive" types are advocating higher gasoline prices as a way to force conservation. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: I remember the first gas crisis.   by HDwebdev       at Sat 21 Sep 9:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 24     odd/even sales actually made things worse. I can't find any articles online about that at the moment, but I do remember the government being warned by statistically inclined people that the scheme would make things worse (and it did).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  This is not about CHEAP Gas   by GodSpiral       at Fri 20 Sep 4:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Assuring uninteruptable flow of oil does not mean insuring cheap gas. Oil will still be sold at prices that meet suppliers interests. By having oil producing States as allies, we simply don't have to face the possibility of annoying embargoes, and we gain the foreign policy leverage of imposing embargoes on others. I guess, no embargoes means cheaper gas than with embargoes, but this may be misunderstood as promoting cheap gas policies. If anything Iraqi sanctions and antagonism has kept oil prices much higher than they should be in the last decade. I'm not sure about a happily ever after scenario afterwards either. Another (cheaper) way to avoid embargoes is to not be antagonistic. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  It's all about the Chinese...   by Notyou       at Fri 20 Sep 4:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     and we gain the foreign policy leverage of imposing embargoes on others. That's the only reason going after Iraq makes any sense to me. One billion Chinese driving cars is a lot of gas. If China is to take a place on center stage, it's going to need lots of cheap, reliable energy. The US' best bet is to make sure they get it from US aligned corporations and nations. Keeping everybody else in line is gravy... Me neither.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: It's all about the Chinese...   by kallisti       at Fri 20 Sep 5:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     So, what you're saying is, we should look to the far east for improvements in alternative vehicles? ;)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  It IS Moral   by uncarved block       at Fri 20 Sep 11:19am score of 3.5 compelling     If by moral you mean promoting the wishes of your citizens, which has been the standard for most of time. The actions that guarantee our supply may put some off, but in the end Americans will always need oil for one reason: we love cars. Fast cars, small cars, big trucks, what have you-- owning a car is deeply ingrained in US daily life. As someone who has never driven, I can assure you of this. Roads are rarely built to share with pedestrians or bikes, and the distances required for running many simple errands is prohibitive in both time and energy for those using anything but an automobile.       So while the US government occassionally acts without the consent of a majority, I posit that even if all the dirty necessities were shown, the average citizen wouldn't even bat an eye if it keeps gas under 2 bucks a gallon. Remember the flack Carter got for suggesting we turn down our thermostats? Imagine that a hundred times worse for any politician who suggests (seriously-- Gore doesn't count) that perhaps we should drive a little less. While the choices offered for president are often between bad and worse, when it comes to cars and hence oil, we're getting exactly the leaders we want.       As only a little proof, let me offer this chestnut of observation, namely that America is the only place where people drive to pick up their welfare checks. I can't offer much more, since it seems like trying to prove the sky is blue . . . Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: It IS Moral   by marduk_kur       at Fri 20 Sep 11:37am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 8     It's moral because 'we' want cheap gas? WTF crazy definition of moral are we using here? So if it becomes necessary to exterminate a few million people to ensure our cheap oil, that'll be moral as well? Because we want cheap gas? If the majority of americans want to assassinate Saddam, is that then moral? If the majority of Germans wanted to exterminate the jews, was that moral? Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: It IS Moral   by emperorpenguin       at Fri 20 Sep 12:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     The thing about morality is that there is no single definition, and one's 'morals' are essentially just a code of conduct. If you follow that code of conduct, you are acting morally (with respect to that code). If your entire morality consists of 'doing what the majority want' then yes, such actions would be moral. However, I think the suggestion that very many people would find that an acceptable moral code is implausible, and I don't think you can reasonably claim majority support as a moral defence for such actions. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Yes   by uncarved block       at Fri 20 Sep 12:18pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 11     Well, I wanted to elicit some responses, so here we are.       If the majority of Americans want to assassinate Saddam, is that then moral? Well, yes, as every civilization in existence has reserved the right to kill its enemies.       Look, I was trying to point out what I see around me. What morality are we to use? Christian? Well, it's not very Christian to have developed the largest military in history, and use the fear of its intervention to influence others-- but that's exactly what I see. And as a majority Christian nation, if we throw out that standard, there's really very little high ground left.       Personally, all this is absolutely reprehensible. If I had the chance, I would impose a good deal of my morality on the world, but I can't. The second best thing then, IMHO, is pointing out as best I can what I see around me-- in this case, I do think most Americans would overlook or excuse a large number of deaths in the name of cheap gas. My noting this is not an endorsement. But at this moment, the only way to combat an ugly fact is to highlight it, and hope a change occurs.       If you want a fuller explication of this stance, all I can do is point you to the Tao Te Ching. I'm beginning to find that the only permanent changes are those that individuals make on their own, and that attempting to force change on others is, if even possible, not really the answer. Again, I'm not advocating a Stoic aloofness-- I'm deeply horrified at what's going on, but when it comes to action, this is my way. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Less to do with morals...   by 1fastdog       at Fri 20 Sep 12:32pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 11     Perhaps, from the "average citizen's" point of view, it would be better classified as apathy in regards to maintaining (by however much it costs in loss of foreign life) cheap gas prices. I don't agree, but there's plenty o' people in this country who just don't give a rats ass about foreign loss of life. It's a concept that they ignore. Maybe it's subconscious, maybe not, but I doubt that too many Americans are gonna be crying over the loss of life in a country that they perceive as a hostile threat thanks to the tireless campaign of the warmonger-in-chief to convince them otherwise. As far as your wandering about the morality of killing Hussein...I would tend to think most "average citizens" would feel morally justified if we offed him. Morality tends to lose its focus when applied to other people that seem far removed from a persons everyday existence, ie - we hear how evil Saddam is every day - we don't see Saddam in any capacity other than "evil dictator" (although in reality that's what he is) - so, cheap oil + "evil dictator" + far away + administration propaganda = no moral hesitation to kill Hussein or his supporters, regardless of how many innocents die in the process. I'm feelin' a bit cynical today so take that with a grain of salt. (I hope I've mischaracterized the American public...but I probably haven't) Tipping The Bottle & Biting The Lime   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Less to do with morals...   by geekybob       at Sat 21 Sep 5:15am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 18     ...there's plenty o' people in this country who just don't give a rats ass about foreign loss of life. It's a concept that they ignore. Cynical? How about realistic Historically astute? There's a scene in the movie Collateral Damage where Arnold's character goes ballistic after hearing the deaths of his wife and son described on TV as "collateral damage." He pays the guy a little visit, which is broken up by the FBI. (Personally, I'd have gone to see the guy with enough firepower to render his remains unidentifiable to modern science... but I should stick to the point): The families, friends, and countrymen of the people we collaterally damage while we "protect our economy" will grimly, patiently wait for their revenge, sometimes for generations. And when they get it, we'll use that as an excuse to do more damage. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Yes   by Anaximander       at Sat 21 Sep 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     If the majority of Americans want to assassinate Saddam, is that then moral? Well, yes, as every civilization in existence has reserved the right to kill its enemies. Your "yes" presumes that Saddam Hussein in fact is the enemy of the people of the United States. Also, you don't seem to consider the power of precedent. If the US assassinates Hussein openly, then we are declaring that killing leaders you don't like is just peachy. When others start acting according to this principle we've just endorsed, we probably wouldn't like the consequences.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  The Power Of Precedent   by uncarved block       at Sun 22 Sep 7:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Ah, but I am considering the power of precedent. I think the average American has ever really understood why political assassination is so troublesome to our leaders.       We probably wouldn't like the consequences. Well, our leaders certainly wouldn't; I can't see how the average American is going to be more threatened than before. Now if we were to start bumping off business leaders because they support a Saddam, that's a whole 'nother matter-- the chances of mistaken identity would skyrocket. But if it were merely national leaders, well, the terrorists who would kill Americans aren't going to be more likely to act because of assassination (as compared to straight invasion). We're not going to see Saddam assassinated, but only because a minority of Americans think it's wrong.       Is Hussein our enemy? Well, he sure ain't our buddy. Snarkiness aside, that's an issue that's largely out of our control. If country music is really the voice of the common American, I'd say 'yes, he is'; and if not that test, a lot of money and political capital is being spent to promote that notion, and right now it seems to be catching. Last but not least, a sizeable minority of Polymers think he is. I think Hussein's shown an incredible restraint when it comes to the US-- he may be a despicable tyrant, but he's always understood that we were the biggest (only) dog on the block.       Why? When he invaded Kuwait, first he asked our opinion (though so opaquely that the diplomat probably misunderstood the query), then stopped abruptly at the Saudi border*-- a nation which both stations US troops and is a strong US ally. Those commonly mentioned chemical weapons were never used on US troop, at least not the gas he used against Iran and the Kurds. I think that when the Scuds were launched at Israel, Hussein was trying to drum up regional action against the US; when such a reaction never occurred, the Iraq counteroffensive stayed in and hid. Has he snubbed the UN? Yes, but as Jeanne Kirkpatrick would hasten to tell you, the UN is not the US.       Is this argument going to get much traction here at Plastic, much less in the larger market of ideas? Nope. So while neither you nor I seem to agree, Saddam seems to be an 'enemy', and from that status flows all sorts of reaction.       Anyway, Anaximander, if you've read this far, thanks for the listen.       *Though there's also the matter of the Holy cities, I posit, without proof, that Hussein really thought that if he didn't threaten US troops, the seizure of Kuwait would be overlooked as a regional power grab. He was wrong, but the notion that he merely desired to add more lucre to his pockets fits well with what we know about him-- every move is about his survival, and after that his personal enrichment. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: It IS Moral   by Bearpaw       at Fri 20 Sep 11:49am score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 8     If by moral you mean promoting the wishes of your citizens, which has been the standard for most of time. Actually, that's only been a standard for some countries, and only for a relatively short period of time. Further, in the case of the US, it's an oversimplified version of a supposed standard, rather than any reflection on how things work. I would be surprised -- no, astonished -- if more than a very few of our leaders base more than a couple of their decisions on what we want. They base decisions on what they (and their funders) want, and on what can be presented to us as if it's what we want. I actually strongly agree with you that automobiles are deeply enmeshed in both our infrastructure and (most of) our psyches. But that's mostly a result of political and corporate leaders giving us what it benefitted them for us to "want", rather than some deep human need that they had to bow to. (Yes, automobiles arguably do touch on some basic human needs, but if the other ways of meeting -- or pretending to meet, if you'd prefer -- those needs were more centrally profitable than this way, I strongly suspect that even suggesting our current system would be political suicide.) Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Just make mine Hydrogen   by zanzibar       at Sat 21 Sep 8:34am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 8     I like cars, just build mine around whatever renewable, non-polluting technology we aren't putting enough money into developing because the decision has been taken away from the free market through enormous corporate and military subsidies. I realize that hydrogen-powered fuel cells aren't perfect, because H carries less energy/lb than gas. But it's a working solution for a number of applications, and it's one that could definitely be deployed more rapidly. And god knows what industry could develop if it had the financial incentives. If this government isn't going to stop massively subsidizing oil, then it has a responsibility to at least heavily subsidize alternatives. And the levels of funding going to that area aren't exactly growing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: Just make mine Hydrogen   by kallisti       at Sat 21 Sep 8:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     I agree with you; I'd be a lot more interested in owning a really-alternative-fuel vehicle than a gas guzzler any day. (I don't have a car. The lack of real alternative fuel vehicles is part of the reason.) However, I just wanted to point out that I think you have the numbers wrong; H carriers less energy/gallon than gas. Pound for pound, H wins hands down, but you have to massively compress and cool it to get it to be a liquid (ie. as dense as gasoline.) That takes a hell of a lot of energy. ;)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Three Words: Standard Of Living   by Philosawyer       at Fri 20 Sep 11:59am score of 3 brilliant     The Bush Administration when considering Energy Options rhetorically praised conseservation and environmental protection, but consitently held their ground on insisting that nothing be done that might lower America's precious standard of living. I am not suggesting that is not an important consideration, but that it should not be the be all and end all. When he broke his campaign promise to take concrete action on carbon dioxide levels, he "explained" that this was due to the fact that it would cost money and threaten our standard of living. Needless to say I assume he was bright enough to know that it would cost money and that was one reason it wasnt happening all by itself. Every major policy decision he has made involving competing interests between corporations and consumers he has always sided with corporations and profitiability. This is also reflected in in his "environmental" policy which has consistently favored industry over environmental concerns. It is no accident that his push to change forest managment to allow more leeway to the timber industry would not cost them anything in addition to the fact that the claim that it would prevent wildfires was dubious to begin with except insofar as there wasnt timber left to burn. HIs energy policy has consistently been the most profitable option for industry. Even when he helped his brother in Florida by ruling out gas drilling he only did so by paying full market value to the owners of those rights. Is it a surprise they did not complain despite his hypocrisy. He has argued for the development of oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, because to do so only hurts the environment but with money to be made all around. The claim we need to do so to keep our oil independence is ludicrous since it only involved using up more of our potential reserves that we could use in a crisis and would only have a slight short term effect on domestic prices if anything. Should we be surprised that despite the rhetoric of Good vs. Evil, that the same basic concerns for standard of living and corporate profit opportunity should dominate other concerns? Right now Iraq is of no use to US industry due to limits of doing business there (Cheney's Hailburton business ventures being a notable exception). He claims just to want to be rid of evil regime, and that considerations about oil to be peripheral at most. It is worth asking whether his concern would be so great if there was no oil to be had. Is it a surprise that Iraq and Iran are two of his axis of evil and that they are strategically important to maintaining oil supplies. Why arent we threatening to invade North Korea, when they are probably closer to the bomb than Iraq? Why didnt the President make his case against Iraq months ago when we do not know anything more about the danger of Iraq than we did a year ago? As his chief of staff inadvertently said - its all in the marketing for politics. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: Three Words: Standard Of Living   by gerrymander       at Fri 20 Sep 12:27pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 13     Every major policy decision he has made involving competing interests between corporations and consumers he has always sided with corporations and profitiability. In at least one case, this isn't true: the steel tarriffs imposed last year do more harm to corporate profitability than good, when taken as a whole. Even when he helped his brother in Florida by ruling out gas drilling he only did so by paying full market value to the owners of those rights. As I recall, a declaration of eminent domain requires the government to pay market rates to owners for the loss of property rights. Why aren't we threatening to invade North Korea, when they are probably closer to the bomb than Iraq? Unlike Iraq, Korea has not overtly attacked any of its neighbors (even South Korea it only engages in a spy vs. spy kind of way) in nearly 50 years. But you're probably right about the bomb; would you be happier if Bush started saying, "and after Iraq comes the rest of the Axis?" If not, you haven't scored on this rhetorical point. Why didn't the President make his case against Iraq months ago when we do not know anything more about the danger of Iraq than we did a year ago? Logistics. There's good evidence that the fight in Afghanistan depleted a significant amount of the US' most-effective high-tech weapons. Rebuilding that supply takes time. Sure, we could have gone in with a more conventional force, but the whole reason to invade at all is to not make the US suffer unnecessary deaths. That rationale is to a large extent just as valid applied to soldiers' lives as it is civilians.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Rare Exceptions tend to prove the Rule   by Philosawyer       at Fri 20 Sep 1:03pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 17     In at least one case, this isn't true: the steel tarriffs imposed last year do more harm to corporate profitability than good, when taken as a whole One example of trying to score political points by going against his stated postion, does not win him a lot of points in my book. In addition, it helped steel producers, and eventually he backed down. I will concede that when politically expedient he rarely does something that harms industry overall while trying to appeal to a specific interest group. As I recall, a declaration of eminent domain requires the government to pay market rates to owners for the loss of property rights. Yes, but the point is he will do what is politically expedient even when it is inconsistent with his positions elsewhere (he failed to explain why Florida where the rights had already been sold and he was reversing policy was so fundamentally different from areas like Alaska where industry did not have any drilling rights). Unlike Iraq, Korea has not overtly attacked any of its neighbors (even South Korea it only engages in a spy vs. spy kind of way) in nearly 50 years. But you're probably right about the bomb; would you be happier if Bush started saying, "and after Iraq comes the rest of the Axis?" If not, you haven't scored on this rhetorical point. Bush has consistently called Korea a rogue nation, nor am I calling for him to invade them next. However, if you accept his rationale of good acting preemptively against evil, then North Korea is next logical target. It is also somewhat ironic that in the much longer war against Iran the US supported him in his attacks on that neighbor. Logistics. There's good evidence that the fight in Afghanistan depleted a significant amount of the US' most-effective high-tech weapons. Rebuilding that supply takes time. Sure, we could have gone in with a more conventional force, but the whole reason to invade at all is to not make the US suffer unnecessary deaths. That rationale is to a large extent just as valid applied to soldiers' lives as it is civilians. Logistics is a red herring that is in response to a different issue as to when it would be prudent to attack, not when you should seek international support against Iraq. Despite the distate the Bush administration has with diplomacy, we need allies in the region if nothing else for the purpose of logistics. Logistics will be a heck of a lot easier with the support of Saudi Arabia and other surrounding nations. Bush has stated clearly that regime change has been his goal for a long time and there was no reason not to pursue diplomatic means as soon as that goal was decided upon. Instead of building global consensus he administration has spent most of the last six months alienating potential allies with uniteralist rhetoric and saber rattling to the point that virtually the whole world was opposed except tenatively the UK. This strategy may have been good for short term domestic politics, but not in the long term strategic interests of the US as he claims them to be. As far as rhetorical points, I suggest that the narrow exceptions you assert tend to help establish the clear overwhelming tendency. The fact that they may not be 100% doesnt change the fact of the clear unstate agenda of the adminstration. They have proven willing to make limited exceptions when political calculations find it expedient in relatively small areas. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Rare Exceptions tend to prove the Rule   by gerrymander       at Fri 20 Sep 2:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     I can hardly argue that politicians don't take the politically expedient route despite inconsistencies their own positions, so I won't. It does seem to be in the nature of politicians in general, though, and not of this President in specific (as Sen. Hollings from the great state of Disney can attest) -- not that that makes it any better when a particular politician does it, mind. I disagree that logistics is a red herring. All the international bases in the world made available for resupply are useless if there's no supply to put in them. And of course, there may be an upper limit to the amount of international support available, regardless of the time spent campaigning for it. Sure, there were six months of saber-rattling; but now the gauntlet has been thrown, and even the least likely candidates for support (Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name drop) are agreeing to... well, not so much "aid" as "agree not to hinder". Since this is about the same as happened in '91, I doubt better could have been accomplished even in other circumstances.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  So fucking typical.   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 20 Sep 2:24pm score of 0.5 compelling   in reply to comment 21     One example of trying to score political points by going against his stated postion See, Philosawyer, this is exactly why your opinion is irrelevant. No matter what Bush does, you'll spin it so he comes out bad. If he does something you don't like, you'll grill him. If he does something that agrees with what you say he should do, you'll spin it into a cynical ploy to score points. You're so absolutely blinded by blind, kneejerk hatred for the man that you might as well be a broken record. Keep on towing the line, man. We all saw how you backpedaled on the "Gore's kid got caught drinking" issue, even when you railed against Bush for the same thing, and when the next Democratic president is elected, we'll all see how you'll change your song and dance then, too, and complain about the GOP's criticism. You'll bitch about "partisan politics," you'll bitch about "character assassination," and you'll white wash "your guy" for no other reason than he's not Bush. You're a caricature of yourself.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Oh... "So Fucking Typical" Who is angry?   by Philosawyer       at Fri 20 Sep 6:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     Thanks for all the conclusory criticism. It might help if you provided less bile and more substance to your claims. If he does something that agrees with what you say he should do, you'll spin it into a cynical ploy to score points Please point out what he did that I agree with what I say he should do. I support free trade and he says he does as well, I merely pointed out that his steel tariff move contradicted his stated position and he failed to explain why it was justifed. Let me know your argument on why raising steel tarriffs was a good idea and maybe you have something. I am criticizing that decision and I would have criticized the same decision if Gore had done or anyone else for that matter. Please show one concrete example of something I criticized Bush about that I would have spun positivily if done by a democrat. If you think my comments on Gore's kids versus his own were unfair, please point out exactly where you claim I contradict myself. Gore does not equal Bush, they have different statements about the issue. Please point out where I have white washed anyone? If you think the criticism is knee jerk character assasination maybe you could point out why you say that other than your conclusory claims of being blinded by hatred. Your criticisms sound pretty angree to me. If my claims are so obviously blinded by hatred it should be a simple matter to point out the concrete inconsistencies. Its ironic that you claim my prior posts show I am "irrelevant" when you post anonymously - now thats typical. I would be willing to do the same favor for you if you werent posting anonymously, however, I would try to point out the exact inconsistencies rather than general acusations. Of course, I dont know what your statements are on other issues. If you want to claim someone else is being unfair perhaps you should open yourself to the same. I would leave out the wilder claims about how you are a caricature of yourself and blinded by hatred without more support. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Oh... "So Fucking Typical" Who is angry?   by tjb       at Fri 20 Sep 10:30pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 35     On steel: The reason that steel was tarriffed was because the steel industry is deeply, deeply involed in national security. No steel, no tanks, no aircraft carriers, no aircraft. Period. If we ever get involved in a real knock-down fight with tank battles comparable to Kursk or a naval war like the Pacific in WW2, not having a domestic steel industry will severely limit the ability of the United States to defend itself and its allies should our steel suppliers either not trade with us or fall to our enemies. Now, I think that the issue could have been better handled through subsidies to US steel factories, but tarriffs are more a) more in line with laissez-fair principles (its a stretch, I know, but better than subsidies) and b) should have the same effect, in the long term - there's a lot of bitching about steel tarrifs, but really, a tarrif is just a disguised subsidy (it increases the cost of foreign competition ratehr than lowering the direct cost of domestic products, but the effect is the same), and the EU subsidises their domestic steel industry considerably, yet I hear no complaining about that. Tim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Steel Tarriffs for "Workers and Communities"   by Philosawyer       at Sat 21 Sep 4:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     While the argument that it is critical for National Security is an interesting one and politically convenient, it does not stand up to scrutiny. If that were the reason Bush certainly would have said so at the time, but he didnt in his statment of his decision. a www.whitehouse.gov link In fact the policy statement did not mention National Security but rather highlighted The President's Commitment to Workers & Communities a www.whitehouse.gov link At the same time he was claiming a loop hole exemption to the WTO, the Administration warned against other countries using it. Althought the anti-dumping rule is there for a reason, the adminstration failed to provide a rationale on why it did not bring the issue directly to the World Trade Organization. Although they claimed the move was justified any country can do that, and they did not claim that emergent action was necessary. Ultimately the WTO has rejected the Bush Administration's claims that the tarriffs were justified, perhaps that is why they did not bring it to the WTO in the first place. EU subsidises their domestic steel industry considerably, yet I hear no complaining about that. . As for subsidies to European Steel, on virtually every issue there is a contention of subsidies - and yes the United States complains, however a mere allegation is not the same as proof and that is why the United States supports the WTO. Without all countries claim such justifications as is politically convenient or when actually justified. If you really believe in your "national security" argument then it is hard to argue against alleged EU subsidy if they raise the same argument about their industry. Of course, every steel producer can make the same argument. The BBC offers the argument that domestic politics was the key to Bush's policies: a news.bbc.co.uk link While national security is a legitimate concern, every one can "claim" that, it does not justify tarriffs here, nor did the Bush administration even claim it did at the time the decision was made. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Rare Exceptions tend to prove the Rule   by Adipic Acid       at Sat 21 Sep 6:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Logistics is a red herring I would suggest that you find somebody in the military and make that statement. The surest way to tell an amateur from a professional is their misunderstanding of the overriding importance of logistics in military operations. How does this apply to efforts on the diplomatic front? Why prepare the ground if you are not prepared to act? An Army marches on its stomach - Napoleon Bonaparte No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Early Diplomacy Critical to help Logistics   by Philosawyer       at Sat 21 Sep 11:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 39     Why prepare the ground if you are not prepared to act? In this type of situation you can never have too much support. Yes, logistics are a very real concern. However, you dont have to be a rocket scientis to know that diplomacy is critical to the logistics questions. The logistics will be a great deal easier with the support of nations in and around Iraq like Saudi Arabia as well other nations. We still do not have their cooperation nor are we sure to get it. We are net ready to attack yet either, but diplomacy has finally begun somewhat. I am not a logistics expert, but more important for this limited issue is one in international diplomacy (and no I am not an expert) I have heard not a single expert in international diplomacy even begin to suggest that diplomacy should wait until after logistics are ready. On the contrary good diplomacy makes logistics potentially a lot easier, bad diplomacy a lot worse. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Stop wrapping...   by jbou       at Fri 20 Sep 1:00pm score of 1.5 astute     the package in the need to spread democracy, and liberty, and just say it, it's all about the Benjamins, and I've accepted this fact, and I'm done fighting. I'm looking to get my hands on some of that war money, I'm commishing a study on the effects of the war in Iraq on the kids in this country, and I'm willing to spin it either way, it depends on how much they are willing to pay. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  it's a problem our government created   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 20 Sep 1:22pm score of 0.5 interesting     IRAQGATE The Big One That (Almost) Got Away Who Chased it -- and Who Didn't by Russ W. Baker Baker, a member of the adjunct faculty at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, is a free-lance writer who regularly contributes to The Village Voice. Research assistance was provided by Julie Asher in Washington and Daniel Eisenberg in New York. ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop. "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy." Is this accurate? Just about every reporter following the story thinks so. Most say that the so-called Iraqgate scandal is far more significant then either Watergate or Iran-contra, both in its scope and its consequences. And all believe that, with investigations continuing, it is bound to get bigger. Why, then, have some of our top papers provided so little coverage? Certainly, if you watched Nightline or read the London Financial Times or the Los Angeles Times, you saw this monster grow. But if you studied the news columns of The Washington Post or, especially, The New York Times, you practically missed the whole thing. Those two papers were very slow to come to the story and, when they finally did get to it, their pieces all too frequently were boring, complicated,and short of the analysis readers required to fathom just what was going on. More to the point, they often ignored revelations by competitors. The result: readers who neither grasp nor care about the facts behind facile imagery like The Butcher of Baghdad and Operation Desert Storm. In particular, readers who do not follow the story of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, which apparently served as a paymaster for Saddam's arms buildup, and thus became a player in the largest bank-fraud case in U.S. history. Complex, challenging, mind-boggling stories (from Iran-contra to the S&L crisis to BCCI) increasingly define our times: yet we don't appear to be getting any better telling them. In the interest of learning from our mistakes, this reporter examined several hundred articles and television transcripts on Iraqgate and spoke to dozens of reporters, experts, and generally well-informed news consumers. Before evaluating the coverage, let's summarize the Iraqgate story itself: ARMING SADDAM The United States and its European allies have laws and policies designed to prevent arms and military technology from getting into the hands of developing countries, especially where there is a likelihood of their reckless deployment. If these controls were aimed at anyone, certainly they were aimed at the highly repressive, swaggering Iraqi regime, with its history of threatening both its neighbors and its citizens. Still, when Saddam went to war against Iran, becoming the world's chief practitioner of chemical warfare, U.S. realpolitikers dubbed him the lesser of two evils, and the one less likely to disrupt the oil flow. The essence of Iraqgate is that secret efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward. Much of what Saddam received from the West was not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology -- ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. We've learned by now that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. And we've learned that the obscure Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $ 2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq. All of this was not yet clear in August 1989, when FBI agents raided U.S. branches of BNL, hitting the jackpot in Atlanta. The branch manager in that city, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq -- some of which, according to the indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology. Yet three months after the raid, White House officials went right on backing Saddam, approving $ 1 billion more in U.S. government loan guarantees for farm exports to Iraq, even though it was becoming clear that the country was beating plowshares into swords. At the time, inquiring minds wondered whether Drogoul could possibly have acted alone in such a read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

55.  Re: it's a problem our government created   by CashCarSTAR       at Sat 21 Sep 3:29pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 22     In order to truely come to terms with these problems, changes are going to have to come internally as well as externally. I know what you must be thinking. What am I talking about? Maybe while we bomb the stuffing out of Iraq, maybe, just maybe we should go back and investigate those in power who helped make Hussein what he is today. Before going on like a raving looney about those of Arabic decent, maybe we should go back and investigate those who armed the fanatics. Maybe there were bigger geopolitical goals in mind. Maybe fighting the commies and the fanatics in Iran was a bigger concern at the time. Maybe. Hey, I'm a fair guy. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt....except...for...one..nagging...question... The former Reagan/Bush admin did everything in their power to hide this stuff..and in fact they still do. Look at not releasing the Reagan material from the National Archives, or the mass pardons given at the end of Bush Sr's presidency. What I compare it to is the idea of civil disobedience. In order for it to be civil disobedience, one must be willint to accept punishment for one's actions. If one is not willing to accept the punishment, one is just being a goon. If Bush Jr. is going to topple Hussein, we should investigate what brought the US to that point. Just maybe. What is it you want to change?....We are the radio...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Devils in the White House   by Mx       at Sat 21 Sep 2:33pm score of 1.5 astute     Finally. Please tell me that people are starting to open their eyes to what is happening. Our emotions are being played upon by money-grubbing, power-hungry politicians. I am beginning to wonder is it a war with terrorists/Iran that Bush & Co. want or are they eager to silence embarrassing witnesses to all their past and future illegal dealings. First of all...can anyone say conflict of interest?!?!? But I guess you got get all the right people in office to make things happen. Please go read the complete timeline. Before you dismiss it a radical press or conspiracy theory consider: could you live with Bush knowing that maybe half of it is true? Or even 25%? The republicans were calling for Clinton's impeachment after lying about a blow-job..what will we do with these two? Might I suggest Bush get a little bit of the ol' Texas injection. The blood of thousands of Americans are on his hands, I can't think of anyone more deserving.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Very simple ...   by orangeguru       at Sat 21 Sep 3:16pm score of 1     New World Oil Order. orangeguru   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

57.  So? Oil is important.   by superdude       at Sat 21 Sep 4:18pm score of 2 brilliant     I wish the Bush administration weren't entirely of, by, and for the oil industry. But even if Ralph Nader were president, oil would continue to be a vital resource for the foreseeable future. The market price of oil is, in large part, set by countries in the Persian Gulf. Some of these countries are Medieval in their outlook, in particular in their treatment of women. They aren't anyone the US would be friends with if it weren't for all the oil they control. Question: Since our dependence on these countries for oil forces us to look the other way while they oppress their people, shouldn't liberals support foreign policy that opens up the possibility of obtaining oil from other places, and thus, loosening the Persian Gulf region's stranglehold on the world oil supply? If Russia's oil reserves began to rival Saudi Arabia's, that would give us the opportunity to play them against each other, so that we needn't look the other way so much when they oppress their people, and do other things we don't like. The US doesn't have enough oil reserves, and never will have enough, to set oil prices the way OPEC can. So the next best thing we can do is work to tap other sources of oil. In doing so, we strengthen our hand in foreign policy, making it possible to force the issues Americans care about, such as human rights, democracy, and yes, cheap oil.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]