Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: ‘No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices’
Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: ‘No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices’
Appearing this afternoon on MSNBC’s Hardball, White House Counselor Dan Barlett adamantly denied that anyone in the administration claimed that the Iraq war would lead to lower gas prices. The transcript:
MATTHEWS: [W]e’ve been struck by higher gas prices. That was another promise made, that this war would help us get cheaper gas —
BARTLETT: I don’t think —
MATTHEWS: None of these promises come through.
BARTLETT: That’s not correct, Chris. The president or no one else ever said that this war was going to result in cheaper gas prices…
MATTHEWS: Ok, so just to make it official, Dan, no one in the administration has ever said that we would have cheaper gas because of war in Iraq, just to make it official?
BARTLETT: I don’t recall anybody ever saying that, Chris.
As Matthews noted later in the broadcast, Laurence Lindsey – President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:
As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.
Bartlett is a talented spinmeister but facts are stubborn things.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
So can someone please tell me why we’re handing our testicles over to gas attendants these days since we’re now in control of the second-largest oil reserves on earth?
Oh, and Frist, btw.
April 19th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWell, the best answer I can come up with is “Because dogs like to bury bones.” I know it doesn’t have any relevence, nor is it logical, but neither is our war in Iraq.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:01 pmAnother day another lie. What else can we expect at this point?
April 19th, 2006 at 6:07 pm100 years from now when people like Dan Bartlett and Ari Fleischer are mere asterisks in some kid’s history book, the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as some amorphous “error” that should have been avoided. There generation will face some turbulent disaster, after which politicians will call for a war on some country or other, and the people, cleansed of their memory of Iraq, will acquiesce to the wishes of the warmongers. It is bound to happen.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:08 pmAlright, I went to WashingtonTimes.com and tried to do an advanced search to find the article mentioned, failed utterly, but I also couldn’t find any articles at all from 7/20/2002-10/20-2002 so maybe its down right now.
Now that I’ve covered my base:
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,†which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.
Why isn’t the part about driving down oil prices in qoutes? Is it a paraphrase, or is it the author of the article stating it, and not a qoute, direct or otherwise, from Laurence Lindsey?
April 19th, 2006 at 6:10 pmMembers of the Bush Cabal are evil. There are no standards for truth with this administration. They forget everything they don’t like, and make up a twisted form of reality. Their perception of the world just stinks. They are out of line with the Constitution and the will of the people.
Carl Bernstein wrote, Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans—including some of the president’s top lieutenants—now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing fifty percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq…
How much evidence is there to justify such action?
Certainly enough to form a consensus around a national imperative: to learn what this president and his vice president knew and when they knew it; to determine what the Bush administration has done under the guise of national security; and to find out who did what, whether legal or illegal, unconstitutional or merely under the wire, in ignorance or incompetence or with good reason, while the administration barricaded itself behind the most Draconian secrecy and disingenuous information policies of the modern presidential era…
[from: http://www.vanityfair.com/ features/ general/ articles/ 060417fege08 ]
Failure to investigate, impeach, and then drive from office the Bush Cabal will leave in place the worse dictator and his henchmen this country has ever seen this close, this personally.
ITMFA now!!!
April 19th, 2006 at 6:11 pmMany more examples here:
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm
Fleischer, Armitage, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. All of them count as “in the administration,” eh,
April 19th, 2006 at 6:13 pm#7 great link, thanks =)
April 19th, 2006 at 6:18 pm#5
So it turns out you need to do a long term search, not an advanced search(although you would think advanced would cover long term, what with it having a date ranga and all, but I’m not bitter), and then pay 3 bucks for the article.
After reading it, seems like the author just goofed up and put the ending ” out of place, and the entire statement should be in the ” “, as opposed to only the first half.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pmNote the subtle word change, upon confrontation. He goes from saying “no one ever said….”, quickly upon challenge to “I dont recall anyone….”
So, it’s not a LIE. It’s selective memory. And only the Republicants have it.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:26 pmWhere’s the quote of someone saying that it would result in cheaper gas prices? I see a quote of someone saying it would lead to more an increase in world oil. I’m not seeing a quote of anyone suggesting gas prices would go down.
If you had to dig that hard to find SOMEONE who said it, someone that no one has even heard of, that might be a clue that you are being a partisan hack.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:28 pm. . . and it will get even cheaper once we nuke Iran!
Somehow irradiating the oil fields for 25,000 years will increase the world’s supply of oil. I’m not sure exactly how that works, but only people who are atheistic Communist fundamentalist Muslim liberals would ask such terrorist-emboldening questions.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:30 pmSure…all of the oil money that was supposed to “pay for the war”, obviously went into the jowels of the CEO at Exxon. Vote Fascists you morons of Nascar fame…we’d like to see just how big a fatass Daddy Warbucks can REALLY get!
April 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pmI’d say that it was Chris Matthews who lied. He said that the administration promised that the war would give cheaper gas. Would Matthews like to prove that claim? Ooops, guess not.
Oh hey, is this Think Progress using Chris Matthews as a source for their own claims again? I thought Chris Matthews was a right-wing stooge?
Man, you guys can never seem to make up your mind.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pmList ye not to those whom put profit before man
April 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pmThe times approach for man to forget his material things
And to turn his mind outward
to see that what is, is that what is not.
Hark Ye Man and know that the Covenant be that of Light and Heavy, If thy Heart be heavy with material wants then thou shall not then progress, If thy Heart is Light, and does not see hatred, then one progresses to that knowledge which no man can explain what that is, but which truly exists.
This is just too funny , to scream out ” That’s the fact Jack ” when he really had no idea of the facts is just too predictably like them . Politics will never seem funny to me after these guys are gone . Sort of like some of the past ” not ready for prime time players .
April 19th, 2006 at 6:37 pmentry 16 was under my daughters screen name , sorry I didn’t want to be one of those pseudonym guys like I wrong I
April 19th, 2006 at 6:41 pmSeixon, how can Wackjob lie while he is asking a question? It’s a suppostion isn’t it?
April 19th, 2006 at 6:46 pmPoint well-taken. Let me see what I can do…
-
April 19th, 2006 at 6:47 pmWashington Times
September 16, 2002
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil, which would tend to lower oil prices,” he said.
This line was used over and over by the Neo-Cons as an excuse to attack Iraq and you know it. Stop trying to pretend that wasn’t an excuse, because none of us are buying it.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:48 pmLike most GOPers, Seixon doesn’t understand basic econ, but Lindsey certainly does.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:49 pm“Where’s the quote of someone saying that it would result in cheaper gas prices? I see a quote of someone saying it would lead to more an increase in world oil. I’m not seeing a quote of anyone suggesting gas prices would go down.”
Wow, you are a twit. You remind me of a twit I debated on-line a couple years ago. He explained that we don’t use oil anymore. Since it got scarce, we switched to petroleum.
Let’s take it slow. In a market economy, the increase in supply of oil leads to a decrease in price of oil. Since gasoline is refined from oil (aka petroleum), the prices are highly correlated. That means they go up and down together. Here’s a picture.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:52 pm#12: “Somehow irradiating the oil fields for 25,000 years will increase the world’s supply of oil. I’m not sure exactly how that works” - - Simple. We all buy DeLoreans and retrofit a Mr. Fusion energy supply.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:57 pm“He explained that we don’t use oil anymore. Since it got scarce, we switched to petroleum.”
oh! thanks for that…a good belly laugh!
April 19th, 2006 at 7:00 pmthere are many such twits around here, for sure!
I think Baghdad Bartlett’s audition for Tweety went according to plan. He’ll make a superb replacement for Hamster McClellan as chief apologist/maker-upper of pure horseshit.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:01 pmSexion said “If you had to dig that hard to find SOMEONE who said it, someone that no one has even heard of, that might be a clue that you are being a partisan hack.”
Laurence Lindsey was President Bush’s senior economic advisor and was in the press all the time; hardly an unknown. That you’ve magically forgotten who he is and the role he played indicates that you’re a…wait for it…a partisan hack!
April 19th, 2006 at 7:04 pmIt’s time to move closer to work and get a decent bike. all the money i will save by not driving i should be able to get a nice one. That concept kinda reminds me of some people i know in colorado that have $6000 bicycles that sit on $400 bike racks mounted on their $500 cars.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:04 pmKaty,
don’t forget the guy who mixed up Sudan with Sadaam. He kept posting stuff about how Sudan had WMD’s and that’s why we invaded Iraq.
on topic. Again like many of the statements put out by the white house. parsed carefully Sexion is correct, noone said we would have lower gas prices. However the implied subtext is we will have lower gas prices. I do seem to recall phrases like a stable democratic middle east, and cheap gas. Not of that has materialized, and the middle and lower class are as usual taking it the shorts when the republicans control the government.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:04 pmDon’t forget Rupert Murdoch making the case for war:
“The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”
Granted, he’s not an official member of the administration, but unofficially, one could call him the Minister of Propaganda
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ Iraq/ Story/ 0,2763,897015,00.html
April 19th, 2006 at 7:08 pmYes, facts ARE stubborn things:
Like the FACT that no one could reasonably be expected to remember a tiny quote buried in a September 2002 news article; and
Like the fact that Lindsey’s prediction still may come true when a new constitutional government in Iraq gains full control ove its economy.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:09 pmNice quote Dean. Murdoch has been a cheerleader and water carrier for the neo-cons for a long time.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:10 pmIn the meantime, as if to prove my point that liberals are the problem, not the solution to our energy woes, Tom Friedman of the NY Times was on the Today Show rooting for $100 a barrel oil. His theory is that this will cause enough conservation to bring oil back down to $20 a barrel.
What a crock! With the Indian economy growing, and with the Chinese economy adding 20 to 30 million new middle classers (that is, duplicating the French economy) annually, there is no way that Amercia, already one of the leading conservation countries, can out conserve the demand for oil in the developing world. The only solution is nuclear power, which we can create in abundance, safely, cleanly and cheaply - if only we have the political will to do so.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:12 pmJust because you are too stupid to remember this doesn’t mean we are. You need to go see a memory expert and get your melon checked if you can’t remember something from 2002.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:14 pmOh man, theres a special on salt on the history channel. It’s awsome.
That is all.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:16 pmBlue State Red “Like the fact that Lindsey’s prediction…”
A fact is not a prediction; a prediction is not a fact: Literally, by definition.
It’s almost hard to believe, but I think you guys are getting even dumber.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:17 pmdid he say; ‘I don’t recall……’ now where have I heard that before…oh yes ronnie reagan,Iran-Contra. Chimpy makes threats to Iran, oil prices go up……DUH….no gas sales on may 1st, if that doesn’t work,we’ll go for a week, that will put a surplus in the billions of barrels.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:21 pmV
April 19th, 2006 at 7:21 pmWho Suggested it would lower Prices? Chief Fox propaganist Rupert Murdoch. “The greatest thing to come out of this [war in Iraq] for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.” [10] (4th paragraph on page)
April 19th, 2006 at 7:21 pm“no gas sales on may 1st, if that doesn’t work,we’ll go for a week, that will put a surplus in the billions of barrels.”
Then everyone who dosn’t buy just buys the next day/next week, you see a temporary slump followed by a temporary boom. It’s not as easy to boycott beacuse theres no replacement for it, unlike goods from one country or other types of boycotts.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:23 pm“Dan your doing a heck of a job!”
He he he
April 19th, 2006 at 7:25 pmYou need to go see a memory expert and get your melon checked if you can’t remember something from 2002.
Okay, wiseguy, so tell me who was Leno’s second guest on September 19, 2002.
You have 60 seconds to answer (more than Bartlett had).
No fair peeking.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:30 pmYou have 60 seconds to answer (more than Bartlett had).
Time’s up. You lose.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:32 pmHey America, how do you like the fact that we are a superpower now too? Looks like Bush let Russia slide back into dictatorship too!
Heckuva job, Machiavelli
-China
April 19th, 2006 at 7:32 pmBlue State Red,
April 19th, 2006 at 7:58 pmThe difference is that nobody here claimed to know one way or the other who Jay Leno’s guest was. Bartlett stated that nobody had made the claim about gas prices. Sure, he backtracked after being called on it. But the fact is that he still made the claim.
Good Gravy!
Can’t republicans do anything right. That washinton times site is crap. Crap I tells ya.
And why do all republican sites have ads featuring gannon/guckert doing pushups or something?
Sick puppies.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:59 pmBartlet just disqualified himself from becoming McClellan’s replacement. You’ve got to spin better than that.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:06 pmWho gives a crap about Jay Leno? He didn’t take our country to war over oil.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:06 pmTom Friedman is NOT liberal.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:17 pmThe idea, courtesy of Big Oil, is to maximize the value of the remaining oil. That means keeping the #2 reserves off the market. After Saudi Arabia is pumped dry, Iraqi oil can come on line at, say, $250.00/barrell.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:17 pmBullShit Red: Here’s some more straws for you to clutch at. You can build a straw man with them.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:23 pmDo we rely too much on oil? Yes. Did Lindsey turn out to be wrong about gas prices? Yes. But seriously folks, the effort to slam the Bush admin. on this does nothing to address the real problem — which is finding alternatives to fossil fuels. As much as it pains me to say this (as a libertarian type) I advocate aggressive federal funding for developing hydrogen-based autos. Oh, and building more nuclear power plants (which sombody else previously suggested).
April 19th, 2006 at 8:25 pmClipped that on CanOFun- segment edited to show both parts
April 19th, 2006 at 8:29 pmThis site is not for solutions. You will find those at the American Progress Action Fund That is the parent site for Think Progress.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:37 pmYeah, the privatization or liberation of oil brings down the prices just like the privatization of government services keeps the costs down. Privatization does not work that way. It is pure free market and the more need there is the higher the prices go. When it is government at least the goal is not “for profit”. When a service or a need is met through privatization it is to make a profit and you can bet your life that the prices will go as high as they can, until people can no longer afford it.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:39 pmThe big news is that someone from the MSM, especially from a noted apologist, actually did their job and called these guys on a lie. That’s 1 out of 100 million, but it’s a start.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:44 pm“This site is not for solutions.”
So it’s just a rant site? How progressive.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:49 pm#32: So Tom Friedman is the cause of high oil prices? Wow, he just writes an article in the paper today and lo and behold, record oil prices. He must be a very powerful man. Unlike Bush, Cheney, and Condi, all of whom came from the oil industry. Plus, Cheney still makes money from oil thanks to his Halliburton stock. No sirree . . . having the country run by ex-oilmen is not the problem, it’s instead an article printed in the New York Times. Genius. I would’ve thought the party that controls all three branches of governmen maybe would have more influence on the price of oil. Shows what I know. Darn those liberals and their newspaper articles! All that information is destroying us!!
April 19th, 2006 at 8:54 pmNo, this site is for people to discuss politics. This is only the forum/blog for a much bigger web site.
There is a whole other wing to this site that you are missing. I was pointing that out to you.
So, you go on the offensive. How progressive.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:59 pmIf Bush and the rest of his administration really believed we were in crisis mode over energy supplies, he would do what a real leader does and ask his citizenry to make sacrifices.
After all this is a time of “war.” Didn’t they ration during WWII? Where’s Bush exhorting the country to drive less? He won’t because it would hurt his oil buddies. He’s a phony. He’s a loser. He’s an embarrassment. He’s a half-wit. He has disgraced the presidency and this country. He’s pulled the wool over the eyes of all the people who voted for him.
Another thing, if supplies are so damn tight, where are the gas lines?
We’re being screwed, pure and simple. Anyone who believes otherwise has his/her head up his ass. The damn thing is, it doesn’t matter whether you’re Republican or Democrat on this energy issue. No party line loyalty will protect you from those whose god is greed.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:08 pm59 — point taken, but I do believe what I said had to do with politics
April 19th, 2006 at 9:12 pmlibertariandy = republican but too embarrassed to admit it
April 19th, 2006 at 9:23 pmBy the way, Larry Lindsey was the first of the truth-tellers to get bounced from the Administration for going public with the news that the Iraq adventure was going to cost way more than the Conman-in-Chief was saying it would cost. Lindsey giveth and Lindsey taketh.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:24 pmand the backlash will continue against us Americans all because of the neo cons and oil barrons…….I am scared for us and we can’t depend on the greedy neo con cabal to stop their wanton lust for these Natural Resources…….
David Michael Smith : The U.S. War in Afghanistan:
As hundreds of millions of people in Central Asia and the Middle East watch their oil and natural gas being extracted and transported for the profit of Western companies, the prospects for a massive, violent backlash against the U.S. and its client regimes are likely to grow. As horrific as the September 11 attacks were, they may only be the beginning.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:26 pmhttp://informationclearinghouse.info/article12789.htm
that was not the only lie, the guy kept saying that the mission was to liberate those poor people there…. Matthews did not question that at all… he forgot about the nukoolar weapons… these people have no sense of dignity left….
April 19th, 2006 at 9:29 pmthat was not the only lie, the guy kept saying that the mission was to liberate those poor people there…. Matthews did not question that at all… he forgot about the nukoolar weapons… these people have no sense of dignity left….
April 19th, 2006 at 9:29 pm62 — yes I lean republican, but I disagree with Bush on a number of issues such as immigration and spending
April 19th, 2006 at 9:32 pm62 — and I lean democrat on issues like abortion and environment (not global warming)
April 19th, 2006 at 9:37 pmMatthews sending hardballs to a Republican? Be still my beating heart!
April 19th, 2006 at 9:43 pmThe Bush Regime promised lower gas prices, but that was always a lie, because the OIL CARTELS are into making gross profits! The Iraq occupation allows Big Oil Corporations to regulate the crude oil extraction in that nation and to withhold it from the market to boost the price! Iraq is about petroleum, but not for lowering American gasoline cost!
April 19th, 2006 at 9:46 pm[…] what? Now the White House spokesman has developed a convenient case of amnesia. Permalink| […]
April 19th, 2006 at 9:56 pmI think it is time that the Oil Corps. in the USA be nationalized! Mexico is nationalized, and Canada is about half nationalized, I think a threat of nationalization to the oil Corp. might scare them to get their act together! It really isn’t that hard to do, all you do is take over their filling stations by emident domain, and pay them a fair value, natural gas lines are already controled by the Gov’t. That or split up Exxon-Mobile, for they should of never been allowed to merge, into a monopoly, but the judges were paid off by the bribers, I mean Lobbiests! In fact oil should be Nationalized world Wide.
April 19th, 2006 at 10:09 pmlibertariandy,
It’s all good. We don’t mind republicans here. The troll types are annoying. But we can’t have an honest political discussion without both sides present.
Like yourself I am not a typical lefty/righty. I lean republican when it comes to the death penalty and second ammendmant is just as important as the first for me.
Welcome to the board, no matter which direction you lean or if you float in the middle.
April 19th, 2006 at 10:14 pmIt is interesting that creeps like Steve Forbes are pushing the idea that war on Iran would lower gasoline at the pumps >lol. They know darn well it would shoot the prices up way beyond 5 bucks a gallon, possibly to 10 bucks! The Oil Cartels would then be able to control Iran’s output of crude oil, so they get a lock on profits, and force the Chinese to buy from them too!
April 19th, 2006 at 10:22 pmHey 59 million Americans who thought you were voting to protect national security and keep the barbarians at trhe gate in November, 2004. How is that choice working out for you?
April 19th, 2006 at 10:39 pmgood question, toes…damn, gotta wonder, huh…
April 19th, 2006 at 10:51 pmfools…
we’re paying for one-party government at the pump
April 19th, 2006 at 10:57 pmToes, I think a lot of people are regretting their vote for Bush but just for the record, the election results were Bush: 62 million and John Kerry: 59 million.
Here’s the link:
April 19th, 2006 at 11:02 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ ELECTION/ 2004/ pages/ results/ president/
Anybody care to recall who cut the tax credits on alternative energy research. Wait on it, yup it were reagan. A genius he was, think what 25 years of research might have accomplished. The turd who gave us Iran Contra, no AIDs policies, the star wars bull and a visit to Bittberg (war cemetary for Nazi heros).
A heck of a guy, sure miss him. The old bastard was senile for most of his presidency.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:06 pmSorry, I just get carried away when I think of what he did and didn’t do.
Touche’ Squeegee
April 19th, 2006 at 11:24 pmBSR, Friedman is not a liberal but a pro-globalization centrist: one of those that think that global capitalism and free-market flexibility wins for everyone. Hell, he’s closer to Forbes than he is to any progressive.
Just because he isn’t hawkish, don’t make him a liberal.
Back on topic…..catching Dan Bartlett in a lie is no great feat. It is to be expected. Everyone who promoted this war has a short term memory on promises implicit and explicit that were given beforehand. AND with the mess it is (IRAQI’s do not know how to collectively govern - no concept of compromise when two of the factions are adamant fundementals), maybe the foolish reasons that many accepted before the war don’t matter except as a lesson on what bullshit not to believe for the next engagement.
Since very few will believe the too good to be true rationales (bombing Iran will give us cheap gas, will promote democracy) and few believe Iran to be a current threat to us ( there will be no talkming allies into joining action - coalition of “willing” or not), and Congress will not approve of another action/war, GW will have to use the ploy that the Patriot Act or action on Iraq furhter gives him the right for expansion…..and dare the Congress and the US public to to something about it. We have not seen the limit of his arrogance yet (BET ON IT!)
April 19th, 2006 at 11:25 pmIn other words Bush and his henchmen will argue that laws and edicts enacted for the “War on Terror” allow him to expand military action to what ever theater he sees fit, without restraint or oversight.
Three more years left of this arrogance and not a defense of the US Constitution in sight (by the arrogant, not the cowardly Congress, nor the blind public, nor the Court).
April 19th, 2006 at 11:31 pm‘The Big Oil Companies’ have very little pricing power…they are more price takers than makers.
Exxon, the largest private company, produces 1 percent of the world’s crude oil…
OPEC produces mid 30s. Part of the problem is refusing to label OPEC a cartel. Congress and the Prez have consistently refused to label them as such because it brings economic penalties.
OPEC doesn’t include Russia which is a very large supplier now.
OPEC restrains supply only to a degree. Their quota is, in fact, not a quota. Most of the countries ‘cheat’. Venezuela is one of the worst offenders. (it also claims an ability to produce mroe crude than it can).
And the price of oil is determine……in the markets. Yes, by traders acting, perhaps, on instructions from a long only hedge fund that your pension provider invested in. Oil, right now, is essentially a one way bet and there’s alot of money flowing into commodity funds.
People buy contracts for delivery. They don’t take delivery, they sell before the date of delivery. But it is the markets that ’set’ the price of oil (and gasoline - futures are quoted on bloomberg, etc if you are interested) not the companies.
The only argument against high gas prices that can be sustained is that it is due to a lack of refining capacity. That’s *definately* true. We’re still short around 5 percent prekatrina capacity. We haven’t had a refinery built in decades while our demand has increased.
If you want a refinery fast lobby Congress to set up a fund to ‘guarantee’ a price floor for a new refinery’s products or zero interest loans or offer complete liability insurance or the best one is probably just to guarantee a profit margin.
The refiners are used to ages where they made pitiful returns. When oil was 10 dollars their cracking spread was near nil. Most oil companies want to wait because of this and regulatory nightmares.
As for the argument that oil and gas prices are highly correlated…they are correlated to a degree but the price depends on a shortage or excess of refining capacity. You can have as much crude as you want but if you don’t have the capacity to refine it the prices won’t budge.
Gas prices also differ because of the different regional ‘blends’ which prevents it from becoming a standardized commodity - which would attract foreign based refiners to ship us gasoline knowing anyone could take it.
April 20th, 2006 at 12:08 amThey also said it was going to be a long war,with flowers and candies.
”He remembered remembering contrary things,but those were false memories,products of self-deception.”
April 20th, 2006 at 12:31 am“handing our testicles over to gas attendants” - ha ha!
April 20th, 2006 at 3:50 amSo America kills women and children and its acceptable as to get cheaper gas prices ??
why does the world not join you in this thinking
and now Bush wants to charcoal women and children with nukes in Iran who pose no threat at all to the USA
WHY does America think the way they do
April 20th, 2006 at 4:53 amThe Iraq plan worked exactly like it was supposed to.The supply has been controled in order for the campaign contributers to make record profits.The fact that the Iraqis are still living with all that violence and DU has no interest to those bastards in DC.
April 20th, 2006 at 6:48 amUsually, in America, where there is bad policy, there is usually a jew making a killing off it. Follow the money.
April 20th, 2006 at 6:54 amRegime change is the key word. We’re still in the process of securing Iraq. Wars take time & Bush said it would take time. Cutting and running is not the answer. In the long run, if successful, which I believe we will be, oil prices will come down.
April 20th, 2006 at 7:17 amI’ve been calling the War in Iraq Bush’s dirty little war but nobody says it like Bob Herbert. Sneak behind the firewall if you’re feeling naughty.
Btw, does anyone know what the hell happened to Frank Rich? I haven’t seen an article by him in months.
April 20th, 2006 at 7:27 amCStorms - Eventually, perhaps. But in the mean time, George’s energy industry buds are becoming wealthy off of us. Great going.
April 20th, 2006 at 7:34 amSitting waiting for my kids with other parents two days ago, I was mentioning the unbelievable prospect that our “deciders” see nuclear weapons in Iran as an option, where that would lead us etc……….one of the mom’s said we should just “nuke that whole region then we can have ….” control of all the oil.
I asked her what made her think we didn’t already?
We are living among drones and it’s hard not to feel a little frightened about the future.
http://www.despair.com/leaders.html
April 20th, 2006 at 8:26 amWho, in this administration, isn’t a liar?
April 20th, 2006 at 8:51 amThis is not a partisan comment, administrations have lies to bring us to war since before the Spanish American War, of course none has lied as much or as criminally as this one! …..What has to be done is simply we must bring them all to trail and jail them for treason against ‘our’ country. Yes ‘OUR’ country, it’s not bush’s, then only then will future administration consider not trying the same BS again!
April 20th, 2006 at 8:57 am“Black Gold” Crude Oil is now something that evil men kill for control and selling of it! The Bush Regime uses our military as a goon squad army to seize oil fields and terminals for the Oil Cartel CEOs! Our government in DC is involved in criminality and we the people must stop it!
April 20th, 2006 at 9:30 am“In the long run, if successful, which I believe we will be, oil prices will come down.”
April 20th, 2006 at 9:38 amgood lord, anyone who believes that is, ok, harsh word here, but, STOOPID - after tasting those rich profits the oil guys are not gonna give that up - no way no how - and you know it…
goddam facts and video evidence and written transcripts - these are such a pain in the ass to these guys…
heya Matthews! if that were someone else lying or, “distorting the written record” (say, someone NOT from the party that you’re looking to represent in politics soon), I can picture you skewering them and going to tape… I’m sure the rest of america appreciates your oh-so-soft treatment of the republicans on your show - i mean, after all - you’re an entertainer NOT a journalist.
April 20th, 2006 at 9:58 amamerica, why are your libraries full of tears? :o(
April 20th, 2006 at 10:15 am#24 So you fancy yourself a twithag? Funny, come here call us all names but never go away. Hmmmm, quite odd behavior. Party crasher.
April 20th, 2006 at 10:22 amThe Wayback Machine has the original Washington Times story archived at the linked URL.
April 20th, 2006 at 11:40 amWhat are they doing invading another country ?Haven`t they killed and maimed enough people including innocent Iraqian?What ashame what this country has become.
April 20th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThat quote from Lindsey also appears in the September 16, 1992 Washingon Times.
April 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pmSECTION: NATION; Pg. A14
HEADLINE: Economic effect of war seen as small;
Lindsey says benefits of ousting Saddam outweigh costs
BYLINE: By Donald Lambro, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
After reading the comments of the pro-Bush appologists, it’s easy to see that they, like their heroes in the Bush Administration, live in a fantasy world where no matter how bad things get they always blame someone else like Clinton or Chris Matthews. Read it and weep but Iraq was much better off with Saddam than it is now. These Bush morons can keep telling the world that the Iraqi people are better off now that Bush has brought them democracy, but that doesn’t matter when they have no electricity, no job, no water, and can’t leave their homes for fear of being killed by our troops, who liberated them, or one of the many Iraqi factions fighting for control of the country.
April 20th, 2006 at 2:14 pmI guess it is all right to kill a couple of hundred thousand people to get lower gas prices. By the way, lower prices for the ignoran masses was never the point. More money for billionairs was the point , that and more power for them. If ‘the people are willing to sell their souls for cheaper gas, I can only say As you sow , so shall you reap
April 20th, 2006 at 2:45 pmfly-man,
It was a question? Let’s look at what “Wackjob” (why do you call him that? I thought you and Think Progress and DailyKos love him for “exposing” this guy…??) said:
MATTHEWS: [W]e’ve been struck by higher gas prices. That was another promise made, that this war would help us get cheaper gas …None of these promises come through.
Are you literate? If so, this doesn’t look like a question to me. It looks like a statement of fact. One that was incorrect. There was no promise made that this war would help us get cheaper gas. Think Progress hasn’t come up with any such promise.
Oh well, keep gulping it up as usual.
April 20th, 2006 at 3:15 pmAre you literate? If so, this doesn’t look like a question to me. It looks like a statement of fact. One that was incorrect. There was no promise made that this war would help us get cheaper gas. Think Progress hasn’t come up with any such promise.
Comment by Seixon — April 20, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Seixon, you are simply terminally stupid. If you are literate, simply google “drive down oil prices” Lindsey and read the results. Here, that’s probably beyond your capabilities, so I’ll do it for you: “drive down oil prices” Lindsey.
Now Lindsey was actually correct about what he said because he tied it to a successful war leading to a stable country. Had it not been for the incompetence of the post-conquest occupation, lower oil prices very well might have been the result. But you’ll perhaps remember (but probably you won’t) that Lindsey was forced out of his White House job for saying that the Iraq war might cost as much as $100 to $200 billion. Nothing gets you a faster ticket out of this administration than telling the truth.
April 20th, 2006 at 3:45 pmHardball Quote Shop…
Chris Matthews on MSNBC Hardball is caught making up quotes again. This time in an effort to play Gotcha Journalism with Dan Bartlett, Matthews quote-shops Bartlett to use “research” already found by his staff to create a lie. The liberal blogosphere…
April 20th, 2006 at 4:15 pmFrankly,
Think Progress has altered what the Washington Times wrote, and the part about the lower prices isn’t a quote from Lindsey at all. What the Times actually wrote is that more oil production would TEND TO lower oil prices. That is a general statement, and it is a true one, generally.
How in the world can you twist that into the Bush administration promising lower gas prices from the war? You’ve got to be a psychopath to do that kind of mindbending antics.
In other words, Lawrence Lindsey made a statement that, following the law of supply and demand, you’d expect the war in Iraq, if it was fully successful, which it so far isn’t, then you’d expect lower oil prices.
And this is a PROMISE being made by the Bush administration?????
Holy shit you guys are on drugs.
April 20th, 2006 at 4:19 pmNothing gets you a faster ticket out of this administration than telling the truth.
Comment by Frankly, my dear, …
As opposed to the Clinton administration where it got you killed. (Allegedly) Could that what W meant by “kinder and gentler”???
April 20th, 2006 at 4:21 pmPerle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith? who else has an Israeli passport in the admin?
April 20th, 2006 at 4:26 pmTHE REPUGS GO TO BED LYING AND THEY WAKE UP LYING.
April 20th, 2006 at 4:36 pmUsually, in America, where there is bad policy, there is usually a jew making a killing off it. Follow the money.
Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith? who else has an Israeli passport in the admin?
Comment by Christhughes
I’ve always said that the slack jawed droolers of Stormfront and the Filthy Left make a pretty good team.
April 20th, 2006 at 10:06 pmDid Laurence Lindsey state the key issue in Iraq was oil and regime change. If my memory serves me correctly Mr. G. W. Bush told us it was WMDs and Iraq’s nuclear potential. Mr. Lindsey had it right, we invaded Iraq to steal their oil, plain and simple, except we got caught and are now going to pay the price, through lost lives, and dollars. Will Iran be another story being fed to us. Remember they also have oil.
April 20th, 2006 at 10:23 pmRead Greg Palast’s story if you can. It hits the nail on the head about why ”mission was accomplished” as far as Bush and Cheney were concerned !! Bush went to Iraq for the Oil- Not to get more of it……But to prevent Iraq from producing too much.
April 20th, 2006 at 10:44 pmEconomics 101- The Lower the supply, the Higher the price.
Comment by Seixon — April 20, 2006 @ 4:19 pm:
Think Progress has altered what the Washington Times wrote, and the part about the lower prices isn’t a quote from Lindsey at all.
That is a lie (1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression).
This is what Think Progress wrote:
This is what was written in the original Washington Times story:
Think Progress has left the quotation exactly as it was given in the Washington Times, including the misplaced closing quotation mark, removing only the “he said” at the end. This was perhaps a mistake since it allows people with very low intelligence, such as you, and even lower editing skills, such as you, to claim that the final part of the statement is not a quotation, which, if you actually bothered to look at the Washington Times article before telling lies, it can be seen that the last part is clearly part of the quotation even if the final quotation mark is misplaced.
What the Times actually wrote is that more oil production would TEND TO lower oil prices. That is a general statement, and it is a true one, generally.
Whether what Lindsey said was true or not is not the issue here. I have already pointed out that Lindsey’s statments were quite competent and his analysis very good. This is the primary reason that he did not work for the Bush administration for very long. Competence and telling the truth to the public are not prized commodoties in the Bush White House. And it doesn’t matter that what Lindsey said was properly qualified and a reasonable statement of market forces. Lindsey was obviously a reality-based person, another disqualification for working for the current administration. Had Iraq been properly managed in the post-conquest phase, lower oil prices might very well have been the result. But when Lindsey spoke, oil was around $30 a barrel; today it is pushing $75 a barrel. Lindsey may have been right, but since his statements were predicated on a short, successfully prosecuted war, we’ll never know.
And it doesn’t matter that he didn’t put his hand on a Bible and promise lower oil prices. The mere statement by the president’s chief economic advisor creates that expectation among the public (at least it did then, when the public was still willing to believe what the president’s spokespeople said). Perceptions are created by the juxtaposition of words. The qualifications will soon be lost on the hearers of the message. The message becomes ‘the government says that invading Iraq will mean lower gas prices.’ No one has to make a formal “promise.” It is very much like mentioning “Saddam Hussein and the people responsible for 9/11″ over and over in the same sentence or saying “there’s no difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden”. The received message will be ‘Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11′, but the propagators of this message will still be able to claim “we never said Saddam Husein was responsible for 9/11.”
But what it comes down to in the end is that the only way you can defend Bush is by lying. Why you are willing to do this remains a mystery. But since your lies and rationalizations are so transparently false, I am willing to go with Hanlon’s razor here and attribute it to monumental stupidity.
April 21st, 2006 at 6:21 amFrankly,
Can you read the words in front of your face? Let’s compare the Washington Times and Think Progress.
Think Progress:
Washington Times:
Think Progress has rewritten the entire last part of it. They changed “would tend to lower oil prices” to the much more assertive “would drive down oil prices”.
Please tell me you can read that and comprehend it for what it is: a propaganda trick to support the angle they were going with.
Your Think Progress apologetics aside, you said:
The mere statement by the president’s chief economic advisor creates that expectation among the public (at least it did then, when the public was still willing to believe what the president’s spokespeople said). Perceptions are created by the juxtaposition of words. The qualifications will soon be lost on the hearers of the message. The message becomes ‘the government says that invading Iraq will mean lower gas prices.’ No one has to make a formal “promise.†It is very much like mentioning “Saddam Hussein and the people responsible for 9/11″ over and over in the same sentence or saying “there’s no difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladenâ€. The received message will be ‘Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11′, but the propagators of this message will still be able to claim “we never said Saddam Husein was responsible for 9/11.â€
Aha, so a promise isn’t actually a promise, and people taking things out of context to give them a different meaning than intended by the speaker suddenly constitutes them saying something they never said.
Gotcha.
Know what that is called? Lies and propaganda.
How many in the public read the article in the Washington Times? How many of them saw private comments made by a Bush administration official as a promise to lower gas prices by invading Iraq, rather than a general statement of what one might expect if that happened, qualifying it with a very successful and quick turnaround?
Yeah, keep spinning my friend.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:25 amSeixon, you’re trying to strain a gnat out of a bowl of elephant soup. And if you did your homework (which should include a decent Lexus/Nexus search), you’ll find that the Washington Times promise you claim no one saw bounced around the MSM so much that 64% of polled Americans believed the Iraqi war would help keep gas prices low.
As for James, April 20th, 12:08 a.m.- you have quite a bit more homework to do yourself about how gas prices can be and are manipulated; blaming the victim (for anything more than gluttony, which does NOT raise prices) just doesn’t cut it.
Try these resources for a start:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf
http://www.rmi.org/ images/ other/ Security/ S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf (one of my favorites, from 1988!)
http://www.ucsusa.org/ clean_vehicles/ cars_pickups_suvs/ life-in-the-slow-lane.html
http://www.thenation.com/ blogs/ bivens_outrage?mm=8&yr=2003
April 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pmDo you mean Jews like Lee Raymond, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, William Bush & George H.W. Bush? Or did you mean Jews like Randy “Duke” Cunningham? Or maybe Jews like the Saudi royal family? Maybe you could clear that up for the rest of us.
April 21st, 2006 at 3:34 pm“As much as it pains me to say this (as a libertarian type) I advocate aggressive federal funding for developing hydrogen-based autos.”
You are missing the point entirely. Oil & natural gas have chemical potential energy that was received on this planet a long time ago - it is a huge store of energy. Hydrogen does not exist free in nature - you can’t just collect it. It takes a lot of energy to release hydrogen from the chemical bonds in a molecule (eg hydrolosis of water), energy which is given back to you when hydrogen is combined with oxygen again - minus the inefficiency in the process to split the hydrogen free, and to collect it, store it and transport it.
The real problem is the grossly inefficient lifestyle of many, especially in places where large-suburban-house-plus-SUV is the norm. No one seems to recognize this fact, or if they do they have buried their heads firmly in the sand.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:04 am[…] Mr. Big Oil President also moved to temporarily stop deposits into the strategic petroleum reserve, a move that will have only a “negligible” impact on gas prices. Besides a War in Iraq, where has the Bush administration been for the last 6 years in creating a real alternative energy policy. Do you remember the promise that “regime change” would lower gas prices? “The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost. The Iraq War did not lower oil prices. In fact, it only raised – is a massive way – oil profits. I guess that’s logical considering the Bush Administration’s energy policy was written by corporate energy executives. Democrats have a real plan for energy independence that asserts that “alternative” energy should no longer be the alternative, it should be the norm. What about Republican Governor Carcieri? […]
April 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pm[…] In September 2002, when the price of gas was $1.40 per gallon, White House senior economic adviser Laurence Lindsey predicted regime change in Iraq would lower oil prices: As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.†But [Bush senior economic adviser Laurence Lindsey] quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.†[…]
April 28th, 2006 at 3:18 pmDisputo.net * ist free for u, hacked it.
Benutzername: stiffen.henk@disputo.net
Passwort: nogame12
kundennummer 239500
Server EU-1: news.eu.disputo.net
Server EU-2: news2.eu.disputo.net
Server US-1: news.us.disputo.net
December 13th, 2006 at 7:52 amServer US-2: news2.us.disputo.net
[…] can add in the brutal oil prices as a direct result of the War, too (so much for those winks about cheap gas, remember them?). $100/barrel is three times higher than it would have been without the War. Think of that the next […]
March 18th, 2008 at 12:14 pm[…] in New York, I could care less about skyrocketing gas prices - I can count the number of times I’ve driven a car on on my fingers. And to be honest, […]
March 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm