Karl Rove saw the savagery of 9/11 and prepared to jeopardize national security for political gain.

Karl Rove saw the savagery of 9/11 and prepared to slime his political opponents with the notion that they were defending the terrorists.

Karl Rove saw the savagery of 9/11 and prepared to convince the country to attack a nation that had nothing to with the attacks in order to distract them and make them think Bush was dealing with Al-Quaeda when all he was doing was trying to steal more oil from the Middle East in case the Saudis turn against us.

Karl Rove saw the savagery of 9/11 and prepared to endanger the lives of undercover CIA agents as well as their friends, family and affiliates.

Karl Rove saw the savagery of 9/11 and prepared to put the bodies of murdered Americans in a campaign ad for his boss.

This is what the article says:

Larry Lindsey, President George W Bush’s economic adviser, said increased oil production in a free Iraq could drive down oil prices.

This is what you wrote:

White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey said of the planned US invasion, because rising Iraqi oil output would invigorate the US economy.

The sentence you wrote doesn’t appear anywhere in the Telegraph article you linked to. It does, however, show up on Alternet and a bunch of typical antiwar sites. A whopping 100 hits on Google. Gee, looks like you rewrote what was written to get the statement you wanted!

Oh, and plus that wasn’t even a quote from Lindsey.

So, again:

1. The Telegraph article you linked to doesn’t say what you said it did.
2. Lindsey never said WOULD, he said COULD.

Geez.

Their 2005 figures are all arond 9% profit margin, so they support the 2006 Q1 figures that have been released. If their OBVIOUSly hiding money, then their shares would have dropped as investors bailed on them for bad practice. Instead their shares went up, seems the investors have confidence in the company, and by association their pratices. So much for ‘WONKY’ numbers.

How does the oil industry compare to OTHER commodities businesses?

Oil Industry 8.2%
Materials 4.8%
Retailing 3.6%
Food and Staples Retailing 2.5%

“The word commodity is a term with distinct meanings in business and in Marxian political economy. For the former, it is a largely homogeneous product, whereas for the latter, it refers generically to wares offered for exchange.” From my defintition on wikipedia posted in an previous comment.
If you use the former, retail dosn’t count as a commodity due to the lack of homogenety, if you use the later, retailing counts, but so does pharm, banking, etc.
Materials are lower, but like I stated above, semiconductors are much higher then oil, seems like their is no clear range of commodities profit margins, regardless of how often you say their is.

Once again, your only posting part of the picture to prove a point that is obviously false when viewed from the entire picture, and not just the portion you use to support your world view.

because rising Iraqi oil output would invigorate the US economy.

Psychotics laugh a lot in the face of reality.

Care to explain how you WOULD increase oil output?

And besides, in the english language the construct is

if … you could …

The ‘could’ is implied as conditional only based on the if. It is essentially equivalent to a WOULD BE ABLE TO when the if condition is satisifed.

Take a grammar class sometime MORON.

Where did he say would? LOL.

From: SPC Fish
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:22 AM
To: soldiers@michaelmoore.com
Subject: I can’t sleep

Thank you! Thank you for caring about us, speaking for us, and telling the truth. A British coalition soldier gave me his copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 while I was serving in Afghanistan. That soldier was involved in a suicide car bomb this month and we took care of him at the hospital. I just got back yesterday and looked you up. I’ve always been a liberal girl, and it ticks me off to no end that Bush is going to try to take away my rights and screw America over with his Christian-influenced “leadership.” And what makes me even more angry is that all my friends and my husband are serving in a bullshit war in Iraq. I served in another bullshit war as a nurse in Kandahar.

I have sent soldiers with missing limbs, with vents breathing for them, with malaria infections, and with burns from IEDs and land mines back to Germany and I don’t know why this had to happen in the first place. We will never find Osama, it’s a lost effort. In Iraq, we are only breeding more terrorists because we won’t leave them alone and let them fix their own problems. We just want to storm on in and make “functional governments” within the Middle East so we can profit from them and their oil. The war is killing my friends and I’m sick of it, I want my husband to come home alive. I’m sick of thinking about the soldiers screaming in the trauma bay before we took them to surgery, and I haven’t even seen combat, only the effects. I watched C-SPAN today and saw my senator, Barbara Boxer, ask Condoleeza Rice why we’re still there if no progress is being made. She could not answer it, her reply was a tap dance of excuses. It made me cry. Thank you for listening to us.

- SPC Fish

“The right to post political speech on public property is absolutely guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

http://www.freewayblogger.com/impeachment_project2.htm

“If everyone in this country who felt President Bush should be impeached put up a sign, there’d be over 85 million signs.”

Hehe, funny you tell others to keep you, and ignore that I posted MULTIPLE sources that did in fact prove this thread’s point from the SAME person.

Wow, you should really take your own advice dumba@@.

A reference to the wall street journal coverage is archived here:

White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey said of the planned US invasion, because rising Iraqi oil output would invigorate the US economy. “When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply,” he told the Wall Street Journal in September 2002.

I don’t see anything about ‘in 10 years’ or qualifiers that would cause a rational person to believe anything but an immediate outcome.

“Wow, Lindsey said you COULD up the production of oil in Iraq after a regime change, and doesn’t specify the time range at all. So that proves Think Progress’ contention that he claimed it WOULD lower oil prices? Ehm… No. Stupidone”

Actually he said you WOULD up the production, and when you tell someone you ‘could’ add 3 and up to 5, linguistically it implies at least 3 million barrels and as much as 5 million.

“However, I can see how illiterate people such as yourself think that COULD and WOULD are the same word. Stupidone”

Considering you’re in norway, I’m guessing your own illiteracy is to blame for your inability to read simple english. You really shouldn’t call others illiterate while simultaneously proving that you yourself suffer from that limitation.

Maybe it’s a language problem, but based on your general incoherent and STUPID pattern of arguments, the more likely situation is that you’re just DUMB. Did your mom resist your grandpa, or was it her choice?

Tehran Times Political Desk
VIENNA – On Thursday, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei released a report on Iran’s nuclear program as demanded by the UN Security Council on March 29.

The confidential report was also circulated to Security Council members in New York. The report said the IAEA had taken samples on April 13 at Iran’s enrichment facility in Natanz “which tend to confirm as of that date the enrichment level (of 3.6 percent) declared by Iran.”

It said that during March, Iran completed a 164-machine cascade, referring to centrifuges arranged in series in order to enrich uranium, and that another two similar cascades were under construction at Natanz.

The Security Council had set Iran a non-binding, 30-day deadline — running out Friday — to comply with demands to halt enrichment, which makes the fuel for civilian nuclear reactors, but which can also be the explosive core of atom bombs.

According to AFP, in a first reaction, U.S. President George W. Bush said he wanted to resolve the dispute “diplomatically and peacefully,” while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said London would ask the Security Council to raise the pressure on Iran.

ElBaradei also said in his report that Iran has failed to fully cooperate with UN inspectors trying to determine if Tehran’s nuclear program is merely for peaceful purposes.

The report obtained by the Tehran Times explains: “Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran’s centrifuge program.

“Any progress in that regard requires full transparency and active cooperation by Iran – transparency that goes beyond the measures prescribed in the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol – if the Agency is to be able to understand fully the twenty years of undeclared nuclear activities by Iran.

“Additional transparency measures, including access to documentation, dual use equipment and relevant individuals, are, however, still needed for the Agency to be able to verify the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”

The report also adds that in a letter Tehran has offered to provide a timetable for cooperation with UN nuclear inspectors if the IAEA, rather than the Security Council, oversees Iranian compliance, the report said. The letter was submitted to ElBaradei as Gholamreza Aqazadeh, the director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), visited Vienna on Thursday and held talks with ElBaradei. The letter reads as follows:

“1-Islamic Republic of Iran has fully cooperated with the Agency during the past three years in accordance with the NPT Comprehensive Safeguards, the Additional Protocol and even beyond the Additional Protocol which was voluntarily implemented as if it was ratified.

“2-Islamic Republic of Iran has granted the full and unrestricted access to nuclear facilities during the past three years in the course of around 2000 man-day inspections.

“3-All nuclear facilities and activities have been under the Agency’s Safeguards.

“4-Nuclear materials have been declared to the Agency and have been accounted for.

“5-Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to its obligations under the NPT and the comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRIC/153).

“6- Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to continue granting the Agency’s inspection in accordance with the Comprehensive Safeguards provided that the Iran’s nuclear dossier will remain, in full, in the framework of the IAEA and under its safeguards, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to resolve the remaining outstanding issues reflected in [the Director General’s] report GOV/2006/15 of 27 February 2006, in accordance with the international laws and norms. In this regard, Iran will provide a timetable within next three weeks.”

When Bush came to office OPEC maintained an price target for oil of $15-25/bbl (funny how the US Government doesn’t oppose price fixing by OPEC).

Oil is a commodity but it cannot be compared to corn, soybeans, etc. A good portion if not most of the price rise in the last few years has is not attributable to actual supply / demand imbalance but to market uncertainty due to belligerent US foreign policy and (valid) concern for potential reprisals by Iraqis, Iranians, etc by disrupting production or transport in areas across the middle east including ’stable’ areas (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,). Sure, it would help if Iraq produced at pre-invasion levels or higher or if US consumption increases slowed. But those haven’t the main factors. Military and political uncertainties have been driving the oil market.

Why don’t you try using an ALTERNATIVE source that actually proves the point of the thread – oh wait, because you’re a delusional whack job that simply doesn’t want to believe reality – that’s right. And as for the 7 year old, no I’m not in your class little guy…

Eh, because I was showing that the source that Think Progress used didn’t say what they claimed it said? Try to keep up. I know you have ADHD or some other problem, but try to concentrate if you want to join the adults in a discussion.

A reference to the wall street journal coverage is archived here:

I don’t see anything about ‘in 10 years’ or qualifiers that would cause a rational person to believe anything but an immediate outcome.

Wow, Lindsey said you COULD up the production of oil in Iraq after a regime change, and doesn’t specify the time range at all. So that proves Think Progress’ contention that he claimed it WOULD lower oil prices? Ehm… No.

However, I can see how illiterate people such as yourself think that COULD and WOULD are the same word.

I guess “crackers” come in different flavors these days.

Comment by Seixon 128

Sicksombich,

…having “trophy” acquaintences doesn’t absolve you from ignorance, nor subliminal racist tendencies…