Rumsfeld Unveils New Justification For Iraq War: High Gas Prices
Rumsfeld Unveils New Justification For Iraq War: High Gas Prices
Prior to the war, the administration stressed that the United States needed to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and had connections to al-Qaeda. None of that turned out to be true.
Now, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has introduced a new rationale for the invasion of Iraq, high gas prices. From a radio interview last week:
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: The fact of the matter is - if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq, he would be rolling in petrol dollars. Think of the price of oil today. He would have so much money. And he would be seeing the Iranians interested in a nuclear program, he would be seeing the North Koreans developing a nuclear program, and he’d say well why shouldn’t he - and he would. So we’re fortunate that he’s gone.
Of course, one of the reason gas prices are high is instability in the Middle East — created, in part, by the invasion of Iraq.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Umm dude, have you checked out the price of gasoline right now? Is Rumsfeld totally disconnected from reality?
September 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amOne could also argue that if we hadn’t invaded, the price of oil wouldn’t be as high as it is today. But Rumsfeld’s logic never ceases to amaze.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:04 amYeah, since Saddam’s gone, then Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al get that money. Sweet!
September 17th, 2006 at 10:04 amAt least Rummy finally told the truth!
We went there so we could have their oil!
So Big Oil could be rolling in the dough.
Well done.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:05 amCan we impeach now?
Isn’t this the same thing Rummy said about Venezuela?
Why yes it was..
“I mean, we’ve got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money,†Rumsfeld added. “He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected …www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11159503/
The guy is off his rocker…C’mon Rummy stop your lying already.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:08 amrepubs are dropping gas prices now. who is going to call them out on it?
September 17th, 2006 at 10:09 amdemocrats?
This guy’s a world-class a$$hole.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:10 amSo according to Rummy, if one has a lot of oil money, one is dangerous…
He’s absolutely correct.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:15 am‘Organising Against Oil Privatisation’ - Iraqi Union Holds Second Strategy Conference
New Oil Minister Dr Hussein Shahrastani recently announced that Iraq’s new Energy Law will be passed by the end of the year. It is widely predicted to advocate for controversial Production Sharing Agreements to be signed with foreign oil majors. Until now, there has been no public consultation involving trade unions or other civil society groups on the country’s energy policy and economic future.
The Union believes that Iraq’s oil industry is the sovereign property of the Iraqi people and that revenue from the sale of oil should be used to rebuild Iraq on terms and conditions democratically agreed by the Iraqi people.
If you look at what America is trying to do with Iraqs oil , this PSA is nonsence
I would also say look at http://www.crudedesigns.org/
Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth
download the .pdf and carefully examine the details
WAr was started to steal their oil for sure - Thiefs
September 17th, 2006 at 10:16 amHi Zooey,
my mailbox is lookin’ quite empty….
September 17th, 2006 at 10:19 am;)
Oil Pressure
When it comes to oil, the U.S. administration is bypassing democracy in Iraq
“The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. It’s their asset,” declared President George W. Bush in a press conference on the White House lawn in June. He had just returned from a surprise visit to Baghdad, in which oil had been one of the main subjects of discussion.
Attempting to reverse this perception and change U.S. policy, lawmakers in the House and Senate have passed legislation stating that the United States should not exert “control over any oil resource of Iraq.” But usurping democracy here at home, Republicans stripped this language out of the bill’s final version Hoping for better luck the second time around, Senator Joe Biden successfully led the charge to add this language to another bill currently awaiting final passage.
In an ideal world, this legislation wouldn’t be needed after Bush promised that, “The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.” But actions speak louder than words. If democracy is to be upheld in Iraq and the constitution is to be protected, it should be the Iraqi people who decide how oil is managed, not the U.S. administration and Big Oil.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:21 amHe also rejected the suggestion that the United States had a master plan for the Middle East and that after Iraq it would go attack countries such as Iran to make the region safe for Israel. And he denied that the United States was after Iraq’s oil.
“If somebody owns oil they’re going to want to sell it. It’s going to be in the market … Money is fungible and oil is fungible. This is not about oil, and anyone who thinks it is, is badly misunderstanding the situation,” Rumsfeld said.
It’s Fungible!! It’s not about oil but oil money and they elected that leader! And it is about gas pricess!! Yes. WMD! Yellowcake WAR WAR MONEY MONEY! FUNGIBLE BANKER! OIL all mine mine mine mine! Cha Ching! Fungi-oil-Hitler-fascist money, start more WARS!! JUST WAR!!
This guy is such a screwball, really..
September 17th, 2006 at 10:21 amHow original!Does he really think people are idiots?
September 17th, 2006 at 10:23 amThis “fossil” is a first class idiot!
September 17th, 2006 at 10:24 amGood Morning trueblue and all……Just another day in thow the crapola around by the bull shit bush bunch….They have to keep up the lies in huge amounts now untill election day….I must admit it, all this is pretty rediculious…We knew from day one it was about the oil…..Need to find the duct tape to put over
all their mouth’s, they are polluting our air space…..
One of the local fishermen that is not political was spouting about heir leader trying to pass a bill that would get this bunch a free pass this morning….A few month’s ago I had given him some info on site’s to look into and way’s to become informed. Great thing how spreading the word works and better yet when people start to pay attention. Screw you rummy and the bloated elephant you rode in on…..Blessings..Peace
September 17th, 2006 at 10:24 amHes doing this statement for the elections and to the ENDTIMERS to vote for him …. Maniacs in Power in the USA
September 17th, 2006 at 10:25 amWell, reading that was certainly an offensive way to start the morning.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Can you say the government is giving the populous of this nation a lube job? Every time they start to trot out some policy that could say be suspect and possibly illegal they fall back on the protection of the sheep herd from those evil shepherds parable. I think the evil shepherds have shaved the ice so thin that navigation of the political mire and maze within the Bush bubble is very tenuous and cracks are finally visible. As Bush showed in his Rose Garden news conference on Friday, his will and way should never be challenged. Things are not so funny and his wrath could have cataclysmic repercussions. Protection of his dream and vision is EVERYTHING. Obvious wisdom and hard learned lessons are not welcome as in put into his policy. Can you say “complete nutters” equals the sacrifice of the many for the good of the these three?
September 17th, 2006 at 10:34 amThis war will pay for itself -Paul Wolfowitz
Every one of these neo-cons needs to be removed from office.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:40 amI guess Bush is getting too popular lately to bash, so you flee to your favorite whipping boy - Rumsfeld. He is a tough guy doing a tough job, so he is easy to demonize. Sounds to me like the early signs of desparation for the upcoming election. All indicators are that momentum is swinging towards Republicans, well enough for their superior organizations and money raising can carry them the rest of the way. Dems will NOT capture either house of congress, and will have two more years to gripe. This, of course plays into Hill’reh’s hands, who still gets an inordinate amount of coverage on Sunday morning. No doubt, the mainstream media wants her to lead the Democratic Party, and NOT Howard Dean.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:47 amRemember posters, jason h. is the one who posted he wanted to “distroy all democrat’s”..Even verbal terrorism is terrorism…..Blessings
September 17th, 2006 at 10:52 amThe opinion polls have to look slightly better for the republicans towards November IN ORDER TO CHEAT AGAIN.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:56 amI see we are once again graced with the presence of the neo-fascist Jason Hendler.
Well, Mr. Hendler, there’s a challenge for you, post #20 over on the “Civil Liberties” thread. It’s your chance to show how Fascism increases civil liberties.
And I leave you with a simple prayer: May your God grant you the same compassion you give others.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:00 amFunny how the price of gas has dropped lately. I just paid $2.18 per gallon today. As opposed to $2.95 just two weeks ago. How unexpectedly timely… I bet it goes below $2.00 until November 8th when it then shoots up to $5.00…
I’d say the neocons were smart about it, except that the majority of Americans who used to fall for their nonsense are the same people seeing family members, friends and/or neighbors coming home from Iraq in coffins… Not even the price of gas is going to save them this time.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:04 amAll indicators are that momentum is swinging towards Republicans
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — September 17, 2006 @ 10:47 am
Only in your twisted mind. In reality, it’s the opposite.
Remember Jason, unlike your side, we are not manipulated by ridiculous fear tactics. Now, go read your Bible and stop blogging. Jesus us watching you… And probably Santa, as Xmas is just 3 months away.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amAnd I leave you with a simple prayer: May your God grant you the same compassion you give others.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 17, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Ouch! :)
September 17th, 2006 at 11:08 amWant a little nuggest of TRUTH to chew on these last few weeks going into the elections?
When Bush took office gas was $1.67 a gallon on the National average!!!!!!!!! Thats right $1.67. This being before the secret energy task force meetings and multibillion dollar hand out to Big oil.
WHY ISN’T THAT IN THE MEDIA?
September 17th, 2006 at 11:12 amAnd I leave you with a simple prayer: May your God grant you the same compassion you give others.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Heh.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:12 ammy mailbox is lookin’ quite empty….
;)
Comment by trueblue
Demanding sort…check it!
September 17th, 2006 at 11:13 amAt last Rummy says what this was all about not WMD’s but oil. Yes this Administration planned to attack/invade Iraq for their oil that’s what this is all about. Notice Bush wont let any other countries in and he controlls the Iraq leaders. Bush has made the United States criminals by invading another country to steal, kill and torture.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:15 amRummy’s getting closer to telling the truth, finally. The war was about the price of oil, in petro dollars. Iraq had switched to selling oil in Euros, instead of dollars.
Iran started to talk of doing the same thing in March 2006. http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
And the United States started talking about invading Iran.
If you hold stock in any oil company, if your mutual funds invest in oil companies, your dividends and capital gains is paid for with the blood of thousands of American soldiers; men, women, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers; and tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. Can any profit be worth such a price?
Look at the billions of dollars of profits the oil companies are making each quarter right now. Look at the flag drapped coffins, the pictures of carnage in Iraq, the pictures at Abu Gharib, the grief at a funeral. That’s the true price of gas.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:15 amEXECUTIVE ORDER 13303
It is WHY we fight. How many Americans know that as Troops were rolling into Bahgdad that Bush signed E.O. 13303 giving American companies direct authority over al of Iraq’s petroleum?
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:
(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/ articles_2003/ executive_order_13303.html
September 17th, 2006 at 11:16 amunbee, unbee, unbee ….
True, you are too steeped in your own delusions to be influenced by anything, especially reality - now go back and create more Reps in your magnet school by espousing your views ….
Oh, and yes, I noticed gas prices plummetting too. Oil companies had to raise prices, so that they could take gas money from Dems to use for Republican campaign coffers. Now that the coffers are full, they will lower the prices to bring the swing voters back into the Republican camp.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:17 amHay, Unvelievable and BnF…Good post’s…This morning TP. org worked and I didn’t have to wait 3 hour’s….Thank’s TP..
How’s the job going Unbelievable.?…..My little job of doing all I can to piss off the reich and enlighten every one else is progressing nicely……Blessings all
September 17th, 2006 at 11:19 amWhat is he smoking? Oil prices were reasonable before war.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:21 amYes, well it’s much better that Halliburton be ‘rolling in the petrol dollars’ than Saddam. The fact that it has been pumping unmetered oil since 2003 helps a lot.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:23 amThe oil companies did the same thing during the 2004 election cycle.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:25 amrollin’ rollin’ rollin’
September 17th, 2006 at 11:26 amkeep them barrels rollin’
rollin’ rollin’ rollin’
to new highs!
I believe I heard somewhere that Haliburton is screwing up the oil production in Iraq.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:30 amThey were in charge of the pumping stations after the war. I guess as you pump oil out, you have to put something in to keep the pressure up (water), and they neglected that little detail. So they are damaging and reducing the oil capacity in Iraq.
Good going, Haliburton!
So, if Iraq swimming in petrodollars would be a bad thing, what does that make Iran swimming in petrodollars?
September 17th, 2006 at 11:34 amI find the fact that they are dropping at this time of year particularly humorous consindering when the excuse for raising them at this time of year was the change over to heating oil and therefore the lowering of supply for gasoline.
Funny how OPEC is concerned about the falling of gas prices but will continue output at the current rate.
And how did we get all of these surplusses in the supply of gas. Weren’t we told that gas prices were high due to the high demand in the US? So if OPEC did not INCREASE output, and the demand in the US DID NOT FALL, and the oil companies are readying for winter heating oil, where are all of these surplusses coming from.
Dare I say we had them all along?
September 17th, 2006 at 11:34 amHey, Halloween’s a little too far out to be showin’ scary pictures.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:36 amTrue, you are too steeped in your own delusions to be influenced by anything, especially reality - now go back and create more Reps in your magnet school by espousing your views ….
You mean I am too steeped in reality to be influenced by your crazy ideals? True.
Oh, Jason, I may not have gone to an “Ivy League” university like Stanford, but I am much smarter than you think you are. I am creating liberals, dear. You should see the little liberal light bulbs going off in their heads when I show them the truth. I give them the lattitude to question things - all things - and boy are they eager… They call religion crazy, and I don’t dare inhibit their Consitutional Right to say so…
Nice how the charter school thing is working out so nicely for teaching reality instead of fairytales about the ‘intelligent appendix’…
Oh, and yes, I noticed gas prices plummetting too. Oil companies had to raise prices, so that they could take gas money from Dems to use for Republican campaign coffers. Now that the coffers are full, they will lower the prices to bring the swing voters back into the Republican camp.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — September 17, 2006 @ 11:17 am
Jason, even if someone introduced me to Charles Mason, you’d still be the most unethical person I’ve ever met.
I agree with BnF’s sentiment. Only I think you’re already reaping what you’ve sown. It’s called lonliness and self-hate.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:38 am#38 -J+H
September 17th, 2006 at 11:41 amTrollin’, trollin’ trollin’,
go away, you’re boring,
leaving us all snoring,
GOODBYE!
For Truth,
September 17th, 2006 at 11:44 amIn Cuba they have billboards portraying Dubya as a vampire!
How’s the job going Unbelievable.?…..My little job of doing all I can to piss off the reich and enlighten every one else is progressing nicely……Blessings all
Comment by Sharon Cox — September 17, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Hi Sharon,
It’s going very well. The kids are hungry for learning something relevent to the real world, and so they seem to be enjoying the opportunity to learn about the reality. They are future progressives in the making… :)
Glad to hear you’re doing well and that your efforts to point out the hypocrisy in the far-right’s agenda have been paying off. Keep up the good work!
September 17th, 2006 at 11:46 amRummy is dead wrong! If Saddam were still in charge he would be rolling in PETRO EUROS not dollars. That is the reason bushco invaded Iraq and kisses up to Saudi Arabia. S/A is the major force in keeping the medium of oil exchange in dollars due to their ties to US Big Oil. It is also the reason bushco will invade Iran if the Iraqi/Irani plan to pool their oil and convert to Petro Euros starts to come to pass. The price of the oil is not as important, for the US Big Oil, as the medium of exchange. With oil trading in petro dollars China is forced to acquire dollars. Under the present circumstances if China could use Euros to purchase oil there would be no need for the dollars and China could call in the US markers and the bushco economy would go to hell.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:49 amCute Cyra! :)
September 17th, 2006 at 11:53 amAh… another day, another shit-for-brains meme.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pmFor the first time Rummy’s statement actually contains a grain truth. One only needs to substitute “euros” for “dollars”. If you are unaware, Sadam was floating the idea of moving to a euros based oil market. This would not be friendly to america (would cost us a bundle). Hummmmm.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#20
Mr. Jason Hendler.
I see that you are constipated.
As usual.
Maybe the smell of your own poop will make you feel better:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/
I am sitting, waiting with anticipation to see how you will demonstrate some sort of uniquely misguided pride for what is described in this article.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pmThere you go again Clyde, great post…..Yep! and to think these fool’s still try to lie their way out of everything…Well when China say’s pay up it’s all over for the neocons…Wonder how many will do the high dive out of windows this time…..Blessings
September 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pmIf Saddam Hussein was in power, he would be screwing up big oil’s profits and their attempts to influence U.S. elections.
Interesting how much gas prices have dropped suddenly two months before the mid-term elections. And gas prices are supposed to continue dropping. Even with a leaky BP pipeline, escalating tensions with Iran and increasing violence in Iraq.
“Supply and demand” they say. But I know I’m not using any less gas than I was a month ago…
Something tells me gas prices are going to start rising again right after November 7. They’ll tell us it is because of the demand for “heating oil”.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmHussein would have flooded the market with cheap oil to build market share and needed cash for Iraq. We as Americans would have been treated to a dollar a gallon oil thru European distributors and American Oil would have been denied access to Iraqi oil profits and been broken over the barrell of their world wide competitors. So Rummy is wrong yet again, what’s that a million times now?
September 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pmUmmm, wasn’t speculation the reason for the most recent surge in high gas prices? Just askin’…
September 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#53 Star
It is all about “supply and demand” but not oil. It is the supply of voters and their demand for lower prices that is driving the price down. I have an optimistic feeling, quite an accomplishment for this old sarcastic pessimist, that “the ploy will be seen through” and there will be a mass exodus of the true 68% Americans to the Left of the aisle. If the Rethugs (Big Oil) maintain control in November gas will be up to$4.00/gal by the end of the year. If the Dems gain the majority look for the deficit to be cut in half in 2007 by an excess profits tax on Big Oil, the Pharmaceuticals, and the HMO’s (we may have to forgo reinstating the “Death Tax” until Paris Hilton pays off her DUI fines and lawyers).
That will sure supply bushco with a demand for some heartburn medicine.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pmThis is getting more rediculous by the day.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:42 pmAnother excuse for the deluded Christian Right that has a strangle hold on our Constitution to swallow hook, line and sinker.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pmI hate Rummy, too, but everyone has misinterpreted the quote.
Rummy said Hussein would be raking in the bucks *because* the price of oil is so high, thereby making him more of a power player in the Mid East. Why do you think Hezbollah was able to dole out $12,000 checks to all the victims of the Lebanese war… Iran’s petrol dollars.
He wasn’t saying Hussein would be determining the price of oil. If anything–if we hadn’t invaded– the price of oil might be less than it is today since Iraq oil production before the invasion was slightly more than it is now.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pmThe reason for high gas prices is not speculation directly. The Bush cronies support war in Iraq because it strangles a “large” oil supply, remember Iraqi oil output since the US took over is almost nonexistant, their production and export is LESS THAN when Saddam was in power and their was in essence an embargo on buying Iraqi oil. This allows the remaining oil on the market to increase in price (less supply, higher price). The reason Bush et al had to invade Iraq was because the sanctions on Iraq were about to end and Saddam was going to flood the market with cheap oil and refuse to trade oil in US dollars, opting to trade in Euros, which would markedly reduce US profits and hurt the US dollar on open markets. i presume he would have also refused to trade with US oil companies hurting their market share and profits. Prices have dropped not because of “speculation” stability but big US oil has dropped prices to support Republican re-election efforts because Americans vote their pocket books.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pmWe went to Iraq to fight the terrorists, only they weren’t there before we arrived.
And we went to Iraq to battle high oil prices, only they weren’t high before we arrived.
Rumsfeld really should resign, he’s full on insane.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmTo be honest, he didn’t say we went to war to improve gas prices at home. That’s spin. He said, with the price of gas right now, if Saddam Hussein were in power, he’d have a lot more money right now.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:48 pmWhat a dumbass remark!
We have high gas prices because we have oil men running the country.
I think we should offset what we are paying for the war by taking that amount of oil at discounted prices from the Iraqi oil fields and then selling it to the American public at a discount.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by the Lemming Herder from Don’t Be A Lemming!
September 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pmThere is some grain of truth here although (as usual), it is very distorted. We may be past Peak Oil as predicted by Hubbert’s Peak oil theory.
BTW, AMERICANS use 32 times more resources per person than any other nation on earth.
AND, we are so dependent on oil for everything (transportation, growing food, generating electicity, powering our industrial processes) that even running low on it at the falling edge of the bell curve IS going to have an enormous impact on the lives of every American. It is already impacting the third world very strongly NOW as they can’t afford the prices at over $70 a barrel. In the not too distant future, we could see $200 a barrel oil.I read two books recently that I would highly recommend: The Long Emergency and Twilight in the Desert about the coming Saudi peak oil crisis and how it will effect us all since the Saudis have been a critical swing producer.It can very much clarify the Iraq war and other issues if you read up on the Peak OIL problem. [Suggestion–read the whole page on the Peak Oil site; it gives a good explanation]. The Iraq war is a RESOURCE WAR. It is the first such war, but it won’t be the last.
All of the above is BARELY in the consciousness of the average person, most of it is not really even on their event horizon. We are all IN FOR IT when the oil shortages really come in full force. This is already starting in some sectors such as winter heating, but this is only the beginning. It is going to get a whole lot worse.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pmThe price of wine is way too high - let’s invade France!
September 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThere is no shortage of oil currently. All the Iraqi oil that was there 5 years ago is still there. There is Anwar, and the “major unexpected find” of a vast oil reserve in the Gulf of mexico. Canada has major oil sands fields that haven’t been tapped to any degree. The war in Iraq was about artificially shutting off oil availability to increase prices.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmSaddam Husseian did have WMD programs and did have ties to al Qaeda. Why is Judd so determined to lie for Saddam Hussein? Is it for money or just a love of murderous dictators?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:04 pm#59 - Tom Parks
Here is another perspective for you …
I am sure you are familiar with James Baker III. James Baker III has an institute which is named (of course) the James Baker III Institute.
Within this institute is a group called the Council on Foreign Relations.
The author of this link
http://www.freepress.org/ departments/ display/ 13/ 2006/ 2108
says that an insider gave him a copy of a 300 plus page report written by the James Baker Institute’s Council on Foreign Relations.
The part of the article that you may find interesting begins midway through the article with the following comments:
‘In the sanitary words of the Council on Foreign Relations’ report (written up by Amy Jaffe herself), Saddam’s problem was that he was a “swinger”:
Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key “swing” producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.
Now hold on a minute: Why is our government in a “difficult” position if Iraq is a “swing producer” of oil?
The answer was that Saddam was jerking the oil market up and down. One week, without notice, the man in the moustache suddenly announces he’s going to “support the Palestinian intifada” and cuts off all oil shipments. The result: Worldwide oil prices jump up. The next week, Saddam forgets about the Palestinians and pumps to the maximum allowed under the Oil-for-Food Program. The result: Oil prices suddenly dive-bomb. Up, down, up, down. Saddam was out of control.
“Control is what it’s all about,” one oilman told me. “It’s not about getting the oil, it’s about controlling oil’s price.”
So, within days of Bush’s election in November 2000, the James Baker Institute issued this warning: In a market with so little cushion to cover unexpected events, oil prices become extremely sensitive to perceived supply risks. Such a market increases the potential leverage of an otherwise lesser producer such as Iraq… ‘
Just another perspective for your consideration …
September 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pmSaddam Husseian did have WMD programs and did have ties to al Qaeda.
No he didn’t. And the Senate, the UN, the CIA, the FBI, and the President have all said so. So unless you’re calling George Bush a liar….
September 17th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#69 bones
You have convinced me that Saddam had WMD and ties to Al Qaeda because I don’t have to call DUHbya a liar, I know he is!
September 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmNo, I’m calling you a liar.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pmIt’s internal logic, oblivious to real world issues. Bush will never ask this guy to leave because he supports a HIS misguided White House.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pmNo, I’m calling you a liar.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Typical neo-con inability to admit obvious defeat…
bones is correct. There were no WMDs by admission of the conservatives in power… Go do some research. Even if it’s against your neo-con religion to live in reality.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmNo, I’m calling you a liar.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
What are you 5? I have freshmen studenta who show greater intellectual capacity!!!
September 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmSaddam Husseian did have WMD programs and did have ties to al Qaeda. Why is Judd so determined to lie for Saddam Hussein? Is it for money or just a love of murderous dictators?
Comment by USA PATRIOT
uh, dude, you’re one of the true believers. your first link to the Hitchens article with the allegation of “WMD programs” makes no sense. Nowhere in the article does it say Saddam had a nuclear program post-Gulf War. Even assuming everything in it is true (which is a bit much since you’re relying on the reporting skills of a renound drunk), the most you can infer is that Saddam may have been looking into procurement of yellowcake for a FUTURE nuclear program. Note the absense of an actual program. You’re a long, long way from the 2002-2003 OMG!…he’s going to kill us with his WMDs!…to…OMG!…he sent one of his bad guys to
talk to some other guy! Brilliant.
I can’t even comment on the Hayes article, he’s been wrong so much on the Saddam-al-Qaeda stuff its ridiculous. he was probably the only ‘journalist’ available to write Dick Cheney’s biography. but still, assume everything he said about those links is true. They are about as definitive as Ronald Reagan’s links to “Islamo-fascists” like Gilbuddin Hekmatyar. what are the chances that Reagan would give WMDs to such people. pretty high it seems since he actually gave them weapons. where was the ‘one-percent doctrine’ then?
But for the record, Saddam’s only plausible link to al-Qaeda was through Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which as the Senate report makes clear, was non-existent. Saddam was apparently alarmed about his presence and wanted him aprehended. Isn’t it just easier to believe what the evidence tells you, that you’re government is full of sh*t, just like, o i dont know, pretty much every government everywhere?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmThe price of oil is controlled by the cartels, not by nations.
Over the Labor Day weekend, a friend from Ohio was visiting in Johnstown, PA, and went to gas up to return to Ohio. She was shocked when I told her that prices had just dropped from $3.00 to $2.75/gal. She was shocked because in her neighborhood near Colombus, the price when she last filled up to come here was $2.20/gal. During the last nine months, the highest prices in the Columbus area did not exceed $2.50 I understand this is true for all of Ohio.
Suddenly it hit me. THE OIL CARTELS, COORDINATED BY CHENEY, ARE KEEPING GAS PRICES LOW IN OHIO BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST THREATENED SWING STATE FOR REPUBLICANS IN THE COMING ELECTION. This is Ohio’s reward for swinging the election in 2004, and to induce them to swing it again in November. Most people cannot or will not relate to the esoteric arguments that condemn this administration on many counts. But they can and will react to the price of outrageous gas costs at the pump.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmI just paid $2.18 per gallon today. As opposed to $2.95 just two weeks ago.
In Baghdad its $6 a gallon ……….
September 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pmWrong. Iraq would be rolling in petro _EUROS_. They were going to start selling oil in euros, which would mean that those petro dollars would be coming home to roost and cause massive inflation. Interesting to note that as of March, Iran has opened up an oil bourse that trades in… right, you guessed it… euros. Time to blow the shit out of them. This is ALL related to the fact that we have, are and continue to print too much money. On deck… Norway. They opened a euro based oil bourse as well. I wonder how this administration is going to justify invading Norway?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:49 pmhigh gas prices and record oil company profits are directly related.
but, yes, it takes a lot of jet-fuel to lift a C-130 aircraft full of tubs of chicken wings for Halliburton.. more to carry it to the other side of the world.
and, when the locals keep blowing up the pipelines instead of going to work and school, then yes, the price of gas gets higher.
still, for all of the cost, the oil companies are profiting, in new record amounts this year..
this administration are oil barons and stockholders. they are supporting high gas prices so they can have high profits.
Democrats will impose government oversight on the oil industry, which will result in lower gas prices.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmIts called gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is a controversial form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage.
We Too have the same problem in the UK , Labour are shutting 60 hospitals and guess what none are in labour seats …..its dreadfull what politicians do
September 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmAmerica is 4% of the worlds population creating 25% of greenhouse emmisions and eating up 25% of the worlds petrol
September 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmRummy says enough dumb things without having to blatantly misinterpret them to be worse than they are.
He’s not saying that the war was for gas prices; he’s saying that high prices would result in Saddam having a lot of money to spend on a nuclear program.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmI’m trying to figure out who’s the bigger idiot, an inflamed and sore Bush or a smiling Rumsfeld?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pm“[. . .]rollin’ rollin’ rollin’
to new highs!”
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Dude, my stash is low; could ya’ spare a little?
Reading your posts, it must be killed sh*t!
September 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pmLet’s see…
September 17th, 2006 at 2:01 pmNo weapons of mass destruction,
no need to keep sanctions impossed in the 1990’s
So Sadam is about to re-enter the global oil market again & He wants EURO DOLLARS for oil, not US dollars….
well ,can’t have that can we?????????
Has anyone here read Greg Palasts new book Armed Madhouse? In it, he reveals the real reason the US had to take out Saddam; because he was jerking the oil markets up and down with his irrational behavior. It had nothing to do with “WMD’s” or “mass graves.” It all comes down to the almighty dollar and big oils bottom line. It always does. As President Coolidge said back in 1920, “The business of America is business.”
Its interesting that the administration is finally leveling with the American people. On second thought, considering that the SSCI report released last week completely shit on the “real” justifications, it would appear as if they were left with no choice.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:03 pmDemocrats will impose government oversight on the oil industry, which will result in lower gas prices.
Comment by nobody
You and Jason should share some of that with the rest of us.
“Don’t bogart that joint’ my friend . . .”
September 17th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#67, What’s your point? The first article you cite to is an opinion article, not fact. And this opinion article does not support the inference that Hussein had on-going weapons programs in the relevant period prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Would you kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children based on an opinion?
And your second article, a critique of the Senate Intelligence report from someone who was not there, nor was privy to all the testimony, does nothing to support your contention. You might as well be claiming The Path to 9/11 is the official true story of the events leading to the tragedy of that day. Oops, sorry, somebody already beat you to that.
The greater question is: Why are YOU so determined to lie for Bush and Company? Is it for money or just a love of murderous dictators?
September 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pmI’ve never seen a passage (Rumsfeld’s comments quoted at the top) so completely misunderstood by so many people.
Now, I understand why we all distrust Mr. Rumsfeld, but let’s at least try to sound intelligent when we analyze his spoken words.
STATEMENT 1:
“The fact of the matter is - if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq, he would be rolling in petrol dollars. Think of the price of oil today. He would have so much money.”
INTERPRETATION:
Mr. Rumsfeld is pointing out that Mr. Hussein had near-complete control of a natural resource whose market price is sky high right now. Given the opportunity to sell that resource, he would have reaped in nearly 100% of the profits.
STATEMENT 2:
“And he would be seeing the Iranians interested in a nuclear program, he would be seeing the North Koreans developing a nuclear program, and he’d say well why shouldn’t he - and he would.”
INTERPRETATION:
Saddam would use his oil wealth to finance a nuclear program.
STATEMENT 3:
“So we’re fortunate that he’s gone.”
INTERPRETATION:
Mr. Rumsfeld asserts that Saddam’s removal from power has had a net benefit to us.
Statements 1, 2 &3 constitute the entirity of the quoted passage that everyone in this forum has been commenting on. Statement 1 is a statement of fact, while Statement 2 is conjecture, and Statement 3 is opinion. Because Saddam has been removed from power, we do not know for certain that he would use his oil wealth to finance a nuclear program. Regardless, Mr. Rumsfeld believes Statement 2, and he uses Statement 2 as support for his thesis, which is Statement 3.
Now, it has been overwhelmingly asserted by writers in this forum that Statement 1 is also support for Statement 3, something like “Gas prices are high, so it’s good Saddam is gone.” Has anyone else even read Statment 2, or did we all read just the bold-faced words? There are implicit logical connections between 2 and 3; President Hussein is the agent of action for development of a nuclear program in Statement 2, so his removal from power implies Statement 2 cannot come to fruition (that is, Hussein cannot build a national nuclear program because he is no longer an active element of the nation he once led).
By contrast, there are not implicit logical connections between Statements 1 and 3, and as you have observed, any explicit connections have been disproven by history: Hussein’s removal from power has not caused the average annual price of oil to decrease. Indeed, Hussein’s replacements in the Iraqi government are now the proprietors of his oil fields, and it will be they who become rich (if they nationalize their oil), or foreign companies who become rich (if they don’t nationalize their oil) instead of Hussein.
Here is my interpretation of Mr. Rumsfeld’s statements. I know that Mr. Rumsfeld is preternaturally obsessed with nuclear proliferation. Anyone who remembers the “Rumsfeld commission” from years ago knows that this is so. While the price of gasoline might be important to you, his detractors, and the White House, the Secretary of Defense is too firmly entrenched in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to give the price of gas more prominance in his speech than he has to in order to prove his larger point. Therefore, because of this contextual evidence, my interpretation is that Mr. Rumsfeld is not promising lower gas prices, but rather better national security, by the removal of Mr. Hussein from power.
Now, this is all fair ground for debate. You may disagree with Mr. Rumsfeld’s arguments. But hopefully you will agree with *my* conclusion that, in this radio interview at least, Mr. Rumsfeld is not saying the war in Iraq is about “High Gas Prices.” Really, he is saying the war is about nuclear proliferation.
Just a word of advice: give your adversaries a little more credit in the future.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:09 pmGive Saddam credit for time served, turn him loose, and give the sonofabitch back to him with no sanctions. Let him run it. The Iraqi people were better off and the rest of us were better off with Saddam in power. Sorry, but that’s the truth, bad as he was.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pmSaddam Husseian did have WMD programs and did have ties to al Qaeda. Why is Judd so determined to lie for Saddam Hussein? Is it for money or just a love of murderous dictators?
Comment by USA PATRIOT
*buzzer sounds*
No using the Weekly Standard for resource material…
September 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pmER, #90, my post, #31 was about Rumsfeld getting closer to the truth, the Iraqi switch from U.S. dollars to the Euro.
Now the assertion Rumsfeld makes, Hussein would be raking in billions of dollars of profits and he would use that to create a nuclear weapons program…that’s the connection Rumsfeld, Bush and Rice have pushed for years; the smoking gun would come in the form of a mushroom cloud example.
This assertion ignores the fact that the U.N. Sanctions were working to keep Saddam from having nuclear weapons, or even an active program for creating them.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pmi think you guys are really reading too much into the ‘euro v. dollar’ thing. The US has been gunning for Iraq and Iran long before each country mused about converting to euros, before there even was a euro for christ’s sake. Of course the war has to do with oil, establishing secure client states and military bases in the heart of world’s most easily accessible oil reserves. Policymakers and honest neocons have been pretty open about that for decades, until that is, people found out that our soldiers were supposed to get shot over those plans.
As far as the international financial system goes, Iran and Iraq don’t matter enough to precipitate a run on the dollar. Iran’s oil exports in 2005 for example were $46 billion. The US current account deficit on the year is $808 billion! If Iran put it all in euros at once, financial markets would recover quickly, China would probably make up the shortfall, since it doesnt want to see a rapid depreciation of all its dollar denominated assets. Still sanctions on either Iran or Iraq would make them likely to divert oil revenues into alternate currencies, and yet thats exactly what we did with Iraq, what we’re about to do to Iran now, so its probably not a big deal. To think this is an immediate reason for the invasion seems pretty silly, but granted i wouldnt put it past the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. when have they ever had the need to make sense.
in regards to an actual likely drop in the dollar, well it needs to happen on account of our huge current account deficit. thats actually good in the long term, eroding the real value of our debt, boosting exports, repairing global economic ‘imbalances’, etc. Unless evidence emerges Saddam was trying boost American exports, for uh, some reason, id advise just sticking to theories that make sense.
also, all this stuff about cheney and the price of gas. cmon people. two big things affecting the short term price of gas, 1) the price of a barrel of oil, which is set by OPEC, and 2) whatever’s going on with refinement. OPEC has been cranking the oil out full speed, not holding it back. and refinement hasnt been disrupted this summer, which is why gas is lower than last, even tho the price of oil is still high. When Katrina hit, oil was around $70 and gas was 3.30 where i live. Oil is hovering around mid 60s and 70s still, but gas is much cheaper. the reason is refinement has continued apace while much of it was shut down during Katrina. incidentally this is why a country like Iraq has gas shortages. You cant just put the oil straight into your car. so yes, please learn how oil and gas markets work before the conspiracy theories about dick cheney, crappy though he is.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pmReason for Iraq “war”.
Caused 9/11.
Linked to people who caused 9/11.
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Aluminum tubes.
Anthrax.
Evil dictator that would have killed ALMOST as many people during the time period of the Iraq “war” as the Iraq “war itself.
Gas prices??? Yeah, that’s it. Gas is cheaper now right.
How about to boost Cheney’s Halliburton stock options to +$8 million?
Cheneys_stock_options
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” - Copy to Clipboard
September 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pm— Theodore Roosevelt
in my humble opinion and pardon my grammar, the USA has a loan,
credit-card and mortgage overextension massive problem, it’s also what
the IMF and WB are warning, we are putting a financial bullet to our
heads, and with the 8.5 trillion dollar total national debt, is not
smart at all ! an honest patriot ,Democrat , Republican or Independent
would warn all and : a) starting by cutting the foreign oil/gas import
bill, which amounts to 240 billion dollars a year and also the reason
why the US car industry is slowly going under, firing workers and
closing plants, they are in the pocket of the Oil Lobby which insists
in huge SUV’s that can’t even get 15 miles a gallon, a stupid dodo !
but hey ! many so called patriots will say : if i want to drive a gas
guzzler is my right to do so ! so they are very proud to have the
Middle East and others oil/gas sources to —-America up its
——,real smart patriots they are !
b) and on the other side,many USA Farmers are already being duped into
September 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pmusing only Monsanto’s, Dupont’s ,Syngenta and others proprietary
genetically modified corn and soy seeds to get ethanol, putting at risk
our health, these genetically modified GM seeds are like plastic to
withstand herbicides and bleach almost, they are not fit for human
consumption , and will eventually mix with regular corn and soy crops,
but the allergies,skin reactions, cold sores ,stomach problems and
diahrrea they create are a huge market for the Pharmaceuticals,and
because the Board members of Pharma ,Bio and Food crops share
directors, executives,lawyers and Investors- HedgeFunds,they win and
America gets sick,but hey ! thats what some call capitalism, just look
at the Politicians in D.C., last year the 435 Reps and 100 Senators and
their staff took 2.4 billion dollars in campaign and Lobby’s money’s,
thats capitalism up your ——,what a way to go ! c) and President
Bush could make sure genetically modified corn and soy crops for
ethanol do not hurt the Food chain, but he does not even know about
this, his neocon staff,Bolten,Weinstein,Keller,Kaplan,Berman and
Mehlman will keep him distracted and after the photo-op or
campaign-money-lunch-stop, so we will ge poisoned and sick and they
will blame the poor farmers in the end !,d) since the US has ben in
Afghanistan,poppy and opium production has gone up 50 % , THE STREETS
OF AMERICA ARE AWASH WITH CHEAP VERY POTENT HEROIN, SOME INNER CITY’S
ARE WASTED ON THE STUFF,PEOPLE WALK AROUND LIKE ZOMBIES,SOMEONE IS
MAKING LOTS OF MONEY but then again, we all know that to keep the
masses calm,distracted and docil,heroin has been the “product of
choice”,right before the elections the streets of America are drowning
in very potent and cheap heroin ,what a coincidence! maybe we should
ask the neocons in charge, Bolten(W.H.) and Bolton(U.N).,Mehlman-RNC
and Whitman at the Pentagon if they know something that we dont know !
they and their muslim partners( for the very important “moves”,key
israeli and arab intelligence work very together! ) could tell the USA
and Europe a lot ,the 2 with the same problem , massive amounts of very
cheap and very potent heroin and everybody wasted and calm ! the
criminal traitors! but Bush does not know anything about this,he does
not even know that for the key actions, the neocons and the
fundamentals are happy to stick it to the gentiles, i wish Bush could
come down to planet Earth for a while and do something important for
America and the world, i wish !
Sorry, #93, but I was merely commenting on interpretation of the quoted transcript from the DOD Radio Interview, and not really trying to make an argument about Rumsfeld’s actual reasons for supporting military action against Hussein’s government, only his stated ones.
As for the former, I will have to read the Energy Bulletin (from the link you provided) to determine whether I agree with your theory about the Dollar and Euro.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:58 pmWell, Rummy, sounds like you are getting a bit closer to the truth… you just missed a few words such as, we invaded Iraq so that we could raise gas prices and all our oil friends can make more money.
Never, ever, trust your life or money with a Republican.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:01 pmRummy is a certified dummy! If Saddam was still in power he would have flooded the market with oil, so gasoline would still be cheap!
September 17th, 2006 at 3:02 pmLet me amend what I just wrote. I meant to say that I was not commenting on the actual reasons of the U.S. government for taking military action against Iraq. As I stated earlier, I believe Rumsfeld’s personal reasons for lending his support to said action have to do with proliferation. So basically I’m saying what Rumsfeld said in the Radio transcript may not necessily be the complete, unofficial story, and I allow for the possibility that some other reasons (e.g. the price of oil, or what currency oil is traded in) might have factored in the reasons of other elements of the Bush Administration. (Of course I don’t really believe it, but I allow for the possiblity.)
September 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pmWhat’s happening here at TP? It’s taking a long time for posts to appear.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#90 Eric
Your presentation is good, your arguments sound, and I agree with everything but your conclusion. Your argument is that Rummy is justifying the war with the threat of nuclear proliferation. That is all well and good except before the invasion there was no threat of Saddam developing the capability because, by your own admission, of the sanctions and the low price of oil. Hence, at the time of the invasion of Iraq the nuclear proliferation argument was not germane. Rummy now admits that the high price of oil today, manipulated by the various Big Oil companiesand cartels, would have provided Saddam, IF he were still in power, the necessary funding for a nuclear program. If Saddam is in power high oil prices will give him an opportunity to develop a nuclear program: unacceptable. If the oil prices stay low Saddam has no program but the oil companies will lose their collective ass: unacceptable. If Saddam is not in power and the price of oil increases there is no chance of a nuclear program: acceptable. BOMB BAGDAD! Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that bushco invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam from profiting from high gas prices.
Exactly as the Headline of the post indicates.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:05 pmCNN) — Twenty years ago, the U.S. government was building ties to Saddam Hussein’s government — not trying to overthrow it.
In the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration sent then-private citizen Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to improve relations. Rumsfeld is now the U.S. secretary of defense.
Iraq’s burgeoning oil revenue to improve the daily lives of its people. It even won UN humanitarian awards for its literacy programs.
I guess Rummy doesn’t like it when fungible oil money is spent on such things as humanitarian programs and improving relations?
By God man, an elected leader with fungible oil money, thats reason for perpetual war!! -Rummy
==
September 17th, 2006 at 3:06 pmOh and Jason, if I troll pot-boiling ‘freeper’ sites I usually go armed with facts and attack the posts on the board, not go in with no facts and make up posts..sheesh, Jason can’t even troll, what exactly are you good for Jason?
I don’t like Rumsfield at all, read: AT ALL. But, that passag is completely misinterpreted. I don’t know if Think Progress intentionally wanted to distort the statement that high oil prices was a justification for going into Iraq, or if it was a simple mistake.
The passage states that given the high oil prices, Saddam would be rolling in money right now. So it’s not that we went in to Iraq because of oil prices, but to halt Saddam from amassing a lot of money. However, let’s not forget that gas wasn’t that high before the war in Iraq, nor is halting his money source a legitimate reason for war.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:08 pmCaption Contest:
“Before”
From an ad for new extra-strength Crest White Strips
September 17th, 2006 at 3:14 pmWouldn’t he be rolling in petroeuros?
September 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pmwhat exactly are you good for Jason?
Comment by Dick_Dastardly — September 17, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
He’s inspired birth control, the man-bra, extra-extra-strength antipersirant and Revenge of the Nerds…
September 17th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#
This guy’s a world-class a$$hole.
Comment by DrSinker — September 17, 2006 @ 10:10 am
Big Time
September 17th, 2006 at 3:20 pmI don’t like Rumsfield at all, read: AT ALL.
Comment by Stephen — September 17, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
You’re not fooling us… Saying you don’t like Dumsfeld and then defending him makes you another troll who thinks he’s smarter than he is.
No one is misinterpreting anything, you just don’t get it.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:24 pmNo, I’m calling you a liar.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
Thatg’s ok because each of them is on the record stating no WMDs were found, or existed and I’m calling you a KoolAid drinking immature dickhead fascist AntiAmerican Nazi loving Gannon sucker.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pmIran has opened up an oil bourse that trades in… right, you guessed it… euros. Time to blow the shit out of them. This is ALL related to the fact that we have, are and continue to print too much money. On deck… Norway. They opened a euro based oil bourse as well. I wonder how this administration is going to justify invading Norway?
Comment by Lance — September 17, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
First, they have the right to trade in any currency they want. Second, what actions that the US recently took might make countries want to trade Euros not dollars. you have to put two and two together. When you piss people off they aren’t going to follow your lead. We pissed on Europe and they left us, we pissed on the Middle east and they are going their own way.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pmReally, he is saying the war is about nuclear proliferation.
Just a word of advice: give your adversaries a little more credit in the future. –ERic
Oh Really?
Sunday Herald
08 September 2002
http://www.doublestandards.org/mackay1.html
The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs – which oversees American exports policy – reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee’s reports on ‘US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq’, undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis – the micro-organism that causes anthrax – were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers’ City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
Ok ERic,lets put Rummy in the middle of this mess;
http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ shows/ pentagon/ etc/ cronfeld.html
And Rumsfeld [who] is White House chief of staff, says, ‘There have been so many lies during this war. Let’s finally tell the truth’.”
(yeh tell the truth)
Under Nixon and Ford, Kissinger is both national security adviser and secretary of state, and his influence over the president’s foreign policy is seen as absolute. Says Mann: “Ford really tells his new staff, ‘Look, you guys help to put together the domestic side of things, the budgets, everything else. But, really, foreign policy is up to Henry’.” However, during 1974, Rumsfeld slowly begins to challenge Kissinger’s authority. “It’s little things at first,” says Mann. “It’s paperwork. It’s who clears off on the speeches. It’s personnel….” By October 1975, in what comes to be known as the “Halloween Massacre,” Ford announces a shake up inside his administration: Rumsfeld becomes secretary of defense
Despite knowing that Iraq had used nerve gas on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, U.S. officials decide to look the other way, says Washington Post military correspondent Dana Priest, because, “we thought that was the right thing to do in terms of our own national security.” Robin Wright, another Post reporter, tells FRONTLINE that the U.S. played an important role in helping Iraq win the war against Iran: “We provided intelligence to the Iraqis, satellite images of where Iranian troops were deployed, that allowed Saddam Hussein to know where and how to target. And in some of those operations, his forces used chemical weapons…. And in one case, involving a major offensive in Iraq eventually launched, we helped effectively plan it.”
In yet another mixed message about U.S. relations with Iraq, Rumsfeld promises Saddam in 1983 that the U.S. will tell its allies to stop selling arms to Iran. He could not have known that only months later, other members of the Reagan Administrations will begin planning the Iran-Contra Affair, in which the U.S. will sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to fund the anti-leftist Contras in Nicaragua. But before then, Rumsfeld will resign as Middle East envoy, feeling that peace in the Middle East is unattainable.
***********************************************
SO…Rummy want’s the truth, wants power, wants to stem Islamic fundamentalism, while looking the other way and supplying the ‘fundamentalists’ with weapons and sattelite intelligence and even WMD, and thinks that peace in the middle east is unattainable, and that oil is fungible, the guy seems to have no idea what he’s saying anymore.
The thing here is ERic, these neo-con Republicans and their paranoid reactionary might is right, big bad chickenhawks followers have created much of the islamic fundamentalism that we see today, most notably Iraq and afghanistan.
Cheney Rummy and the rest of these people have been morons
for decades and the people know it.
And as far as your advice?
September 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pmNo thanks.
Just a word of advice: give your adversaries a little more credit in the future.
Comment by ERic — September 17, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
Yeah we all did that and now we have rendition, torture, illegal wiretapping, violations of first and fourth amendments, troops deployed against their will by stop loss orders, back door drafts, $3/gallon oil, no bancruptcy protections, no knock swat teams, the largest deficiet in the last 50 years. Yeah we gave our adversaries credit and they spent that too. We will no longer give murderers, war criminals, war profiteers, theocrats and assholes any credit, we will give them grief though.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pmIf you didn’t want the Islamists to have nuclear weapons then I guess reagan and the same players we see here in the Bush administration should not have given nuclear material and a reactor to Iran. If you f@!^ up forward thinking diplomacy and strategic planning you create more problems than you solve. time to rid the US of idiots who can’t think their way out of a paper bag and get someone with some smarts in the job to unf#@! what his holiness GW has done.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:44 pm#104 Stephan
Go back and read post #102.
Then apologize.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmhttp://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ shows/ iraq/ etc/ cron.html
September 17th, 2006 at 3:57 pm-If Saddam were still in power, the sanctions against Iraq most likely would have been lifted; he would have started denomating Iraq’s oil in euros [as he threatened to do before the Bush led invasion; he would have increased the flow of oil thereby decreasing the profits of Bush, Cheney and Co.
-Could be, but I think the reason why North Korea is nuclear and why Iran wants to become nuclear is a direct result of the Bush administration’s actions. Bush threatened their countries with his “Axis of Evil†speech and both, I think don’t want be caught off guard as Iraq was.
-I don’t think so. To get rid of Saddam the Bush administration sacrificed 2,600 American troops, more than 50,000 maimed, mangled, mutilated or psychologically damaged, 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, our reputation around the world, and our moral authority. All of this was not worth getting rid of someone who never attacked us, never threatened to attack us and did not have the means to attack us.
-No one in the Bush administration is interested in curbing nuclear proliferation. Bush just handed over nuclear secrets to India in exchange for mangos. A few years from now, the neocons will say India is somehow a threat to the world.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:57 pmHow about President Bush (approximately monthly) periodically “secret Administration Subpoenas” SWIFT Corporation that allowed International Telex Transfer Monitoring Agency officials stole over US$26 million dollars from the United States Citizen?
For more information regard the case, please visit http://www.wdcic.org/NewsRelease.asp.
Because President Bush’s periodically secret subpoenas upon SWIFT Corporation allowed the group of criminals intercepted the United States citizen telex transfer fund, demanded for US$13,123.00 VAT charges, and stole the entirely full amount of US$26,013,123.00.
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE do something about this case to bring justice to the victim.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pmIt is typical for those on the left today to simply call the person who wrote an article names rather than to try to address any of the facts and arguments contained in the article.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:31 pmShouldn’t we all be suspicious about the recent drop in oil prices and gas prices just after Labor Day? Gas for a buck less per gallon is bound to help the Republicans. It seems to remarkable to be a coincidence. The experts, of course, would explain that oil and gas prices are subject to market forces and not political forces. But those experts say lots of self-serving things, and MANY of them are republicans.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pmIt is typical for those on the left today to simply call the person who wrote an article names rather than to try to address any of the facts and arguments contained in the article.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
No, I’m calling you a liar.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
A usual republofascist attempt to lie and obfuscate since you yourself started by calling someone a liar instead of “address any of the facts and arguments contained”.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:43 pmbones,
I said, “…to simply call the person who wrote an article names…” clearly referring to Hitchens and Hayes. So far no one has refuted any of their points. So far no one has even made an attempt.
Calling you a liar is a description, not name-calling. The president has not said Iraq had no WMD programs. the president has not ever said there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. So you lied at least twice already.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:50 pmUSA PATRIOT, i responded. #76
September 17th, 2006 at 5:07 pm