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.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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 pmCalling 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.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
-What article are you referring to?
-The president won’t disavow the myths that most conservatives have emphatically embraced because that’ll lose the 30% hard core supporters they have left.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:07 pmMr. Todd,
#76 did not address a single point raised by Mr. Hitchens or Mr. Hayes.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:19 pmOil has been the subtext for everything, yes everything, that happens in the Mid East. The neocons wanted “stability” – read, control over gas prices. They are still prepared to go to war against Iran to maintain the “stability” because Iran controls quite a bit of oil production. We invaded Iraq with the promise that its’ oil would pay for the war – what a bad calculation! We buy an enormous amount of oil and we want to keep the sources under our control. That influences everything we do in the Mid East; if it weren’t so these countries there would just be emirates in the sand without much influence. As soon as a good viable economical substitute for oil can be found to power our cars, the Mid East will become a rather unimportant place.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pmCalling 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.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
And calling you a kool aid drinking republican lying propogandist who would say anything to forgive the war criminals and liars in this administration because you don’t and can’t think for yourself because you crave daddy’s attention is not calling you names, it’s a perfect description of someone, you in this case, that doesn’t have the basic competence to discuss these issues with adults.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pmRumsfeld is either so addled he can’t remember what he said or did, and therefore it isn’t a lie, or he lies and lies, as proven time and again by his revisionist statements. Jon Steward has had a field day with him (and Cheney and or current President) showing their lies. Either way, Rumsfeld must go and is a liability that Bush refuses to acknowledge. But don’t think that solves any problem. If Rumself goes and someone new comes in, it will be deja vu all over again.
First off, the Republicans lie. They continue to lie. So anyone new will come in and continue to lie. The Republicans (and that includes Lieberman) tell lies so they can stay in power. Why is everyone so surprised by this, so astonished, so affronted by it? If you expect them to lie, and anticipate it, as opposed to being blindsided by it, as Kerry was by the swiftboating, then you will perpetually be the victim. And the Democrats have a long history of being aggrieved, of being the victims. Continue along that path, and once again you’ll be a victim. As Morris Dees discovered, when you fight back, hit them hard, sue them where it hurts, make them pay dearly for each lie, then you will not be blindsided any more.
Second, given such factual materials as you can find everywhere, it seems to me that the Democrats have been playing the victim, as in “Poor me!”, for much too long. First, they let the Republicans mount an attack on them and their positions. Then they act surprised at the “bad” Republicans for doing this. Then they protest, calling what the Republicans do “dispicable” or “dirty tricks” or “untrue”. All of which only makes the Democrats look even more like victims. And so they dig their own fate. I also sense that, when they do this and ring their hands, they are hoping the Republicans will receive their comeuppance from some mysterious force, and that they will self-destruct of their own accord. Act like a victim, end up like one.
Please understand that cool, clear factual materials won’t help unless they are promulgated in a pro-active way by the Democrats. If they can’t convince people to vote for their own interests, we’re all in a very deep morass.
So vote Democratic and change what’s going on for now.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:37 pm[...] Source: Think Progress Posted by Michael Kolanos Filed in Iraq War [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 5:40 pmComment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Because you are so stupid I’ll lay it out for you. Go back and reread this thread. Every question you ask is spelled out here. The fact you don’t want to hear those answers is what shows your decidely lying republican attempt to divert attention from the matter at hand to word games. As such, my description of you as a lying Bush concubine, like Jeff Gannon.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:44 pm[...] Will someone in the White House please just tell this guy to Shut Up!!! So this is the new excuse, errr reason why we had to take out Sadamm. Well, it does coincide with the lowering of gas prices in the last two weeks. How freaking CONVENIENT! Does anyone have a count of excuses going by any chance? [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 5:54 pm[...] Rumsfeld explains at last. [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 5:58 pmWant some more good news about Iraq? This would be comical if it weren’t true. Read it here; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:01 pmThese republican apologists are unbelievable. Everything Rumsfeld has said has been wrong. At a certain point in evaluating any leader is to judge the persons skill at thinking through a problem, ability to predict and plan for contingencies, and a “scorecard” of wins vrs losses. Rumsfeld was the guy who said (1) the war could last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months; (2) you’re watching the same guy steal the same vase over and over; (3) we don’t need more troops in Iraq; (4) We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” –on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction; (5)As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time; (6)I am not going to give you a number for it because it’s not my business to do intelligent work.” -asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress; and the list goes on and on.
Intelligent people look at stupidity, criminality, and incompetence and make an informed judgement “this idiot has to go”, republicans see this and say “You’re anti-American because you’re attacking the Administration”. Just pathetic.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:09 pmbones continues to just call names instead of addressing the issues raised.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:25 pmbones continues to just call names instead of addressing the issues raised.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
No USA like you said in your post calling you a liar, stupid, a malignant tumor on the face of humanity is a “description” not calling names. Hey you set the rules, don’t cry because I use your own stupid words and turn them back around and use them to bite you.
And as to a discussion of the issues, list a question I can enlighten you on.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:36 pmbones,
Whereas I demonstrated with facts that you lied, you continue merely to spew juvenile insults.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:39 pmWhereas I demonstrated with facts that you lied, you continue merely to spew juvenile insults.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT
USA – you are a juvenile insult.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:47 pmComment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
I read both articles and the one by Christopher Hitchens is pure garbage. He makes the assumption that because of al-Zahawie’s background, the trip he made to Niger must have been an attempt to purchase uranium and he provides no evidence to back up the claim. The one by Hayes stretches the case for an Al Qaeda/ Iraq connection. I didn’t see anywhere in the article where it provides evidence of an Al Qaeda/Iraq collaboration. The article blasts the Senate Committee Report for using information obtained by Hussein and other detainees who he says are pathological liars then he uses information obtained by detainees (who I guest are trustworthy pathological liars) to back up his claims.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:55 pmIt is very convenient for gas prices to be at their lowest in months…right before the election. Nothing has changed in the political environment to effect oil prices…the problems is…that most Americans will not make the link and see how they are being manipulated. Most will breathe a sigh of relief because getting through to the next paycheck got just a bit easier.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:03 pmSo Nat must believe that despite Zahawie’s background in nuclear weapons issues, he went to Niger to buy goats. It’s an idiotic conclusion, but BDS makes liberals crazy.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:17 pmAnd Hayes related multiple instances of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq. This disproves the moonbat canard that there was “no connection” between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Your willingness to accept Saddam’s support for terrorists because it was not extensive enough support by your meaure is a separate issue.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:21 pmI’m not sure if anyone else has noticed this yet, but from a lot of the comments I’ve skimmed, it seems that no one has pointed out that this headline and the conclusions drawn by thinkprogress on this comment have been completely skewed. Rumsfeld isn’t arguing that high gas prices justify the war, he is observing that the insane gas prices everyone the world over is now paying would mean more money for Saddam to support himself in whatever he wished to do with it. This scenario, he argues, would put the former leader in a position to further support other “rogue” leaders against whom the administration have been warring for the past 5 years. However, as others on this site have argued, it is unlikely that–had the US not invaded Iraq, and Saddam still were in power–Rumsfeld’s hypothetical scenario of high profits from high gas prices could have manifested without the war he and others sold to the US, leaving Saddam and the rest of us with cheaper fuel. Though I would prefer it if we were all able to find renewable resources that don’t endanger our environment and future as much as the path set out by this administration.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:21 pmWow! lets pull down my whole post because i used the f word, how gay>
Comment by ren
I feel your pain, believe me. Welcome to the Deleted Club!
Do it like this: f*ck. That way no one can actually figure out what you really mean. :)
September 17th, 2006 at 7:27 pmHey I have a background in muclear physicis and I’ve been to Area 51, I must have gone there to buy alien spaceships. Please. The president has a background in running oil companies and Sports teams into the ground and he’s been to Iraq and Germany he must have gone there to buy an oil company or German soccer team. The line of “reasoning”, and I use that term very loosely, is garbage.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:28 pmProvide evidence of the claim that he went to niger to purchase uranium or shut up.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:29 pmAnd Hayes related multiple instances of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq. This disproves the moonbat canard that there was “no connection†between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
And yet in your appeal to authority, the weakest form of any arguement, you totally dismiss the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Senate reports that ALL deny ANY connection between Saddam and Al Qa’ida. And we all know Hayes knows so much more than any CIA, FBI, DIA intelligence operatives and analysts.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pmYour willingness to accept Saddam’s support for terrorists because it was not extensive enough support by your meaure is a separate issue.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
The 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Commission Report both mention contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Both reports came to the conclusion that there was no operational relationship. I’m sure the U.S. had contact with Al Qaeda affiliates and had no operational relationship with them I think. Nothing in Hayes’ article disproves this claim.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:35 pmAlong with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.”
But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:36 pmbones,
“the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Senate reports that ALL deny ANY connection between Saddam and Al Qa’ida.”
You said this before. It is still a lie.
Nat,
The Clinton administration listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism for eight years. Was that part of the big Rove-Bu$hCo-Halliburton conspiracy to frame poor innocent Saddam as well? Why are you so enthusiastic about lying and spinning for Saddam Hussein?
September 17th, 2006 at 7:45 pm“Provide evidence of the claim that he went to niger to purchase uranium or shut up.”
When a nation with a history of trying to acquire nuclear weapons sends one of their top nuclear experts to a country whose only valuable export is uranium, the only reasonable conclusion is obvious to any sentient being.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:48 pmAlong with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.â€
But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
Comment by bones — September 17, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
================================
The terrorist network is a myth perpetrated by the neocons in power. They have managed to convince paranoid conservatives that all groups in the Middle East are in cahoots with each other and that Osama Bin Laden is the head of this network.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pmbones, #149: “…the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Senate reports that ALL deny ANY connection between Saddam and Al Qa’ida.”
bones, #151: “…the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda…”
Oops, bones can’t even keep his lies straight from one post to the next.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:53 pmBones, USA PATRIOT is the latest troll, posting in the best Exley style. He cites someone’s opinion as fact, and disregards all other facts to the contrary.
I’ve pointed out earlier that the big assumption is that had Saddam stayed in power, the United Nations would lift the sanctions and allow him to do whatever he wanted to with his oil money. Of course, USA-P ignored that post.
Here then is what the Universe has to say to USA PATRIOT: Conflicts drain and weaken you. You are fighting a losing battle and may be better off surrendering gracefully. You are overwhelmed with negativity and loss of enthusiasm. You have been defeated.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:01 pmbones, #149: “…the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Senate reports that ALL deny ANY connection between Saddam and Al Qa’ida.â€
bones, #151: “…the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda…â€
Oops, bones can’t even keep his lies straight from one post to the next.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Hey crap for brains can you frickin read or what, just like a republican to actually pick lines out of an article and change the meaning of the sentences.
But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
This abject lying is why you can’t discuss issues like an adult. I said there was no link and the CIA, FBI, DIA backs that up. Now like a child reread the paragraph above especially the BOLD parts. Now you know why people here just ridicule you. faced with “evidence” you actually pull parts out of sentences to change the meaning of the entire sentence, you are either a moron or deliberately a Bush sucker you choose.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:08 pmC’mon, guys, apparently the only people in the WORLD arguing that there was a Saddam/Iraq-Al Qaeda connection are: Bush, Cheney, Rummy, the rest of the PNAC/WHIG people, “Hic” Hitchins, Hayes, and…(fanfare) USA+PATRIOT!
You’ll never convince USA+P, ignore him and he’ll go away.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:09 pm-The DIA is intelligence from the Defense Department which Rumsfeld is in charge of. Most of the phony intelligence came from there.
-The CIA had contradictory evidence all over the place and Bush, Cheney & Co. cherry-picked the information along with Tenet to fix the facts around the policy.
-The Senate report concluded no collaborative relationship.
-This would be a good question to ask Bill Clinton.
-He paid 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.
-Saddam is not innocent; he is just as guilty as Bush.
-Clinton did not invade and destroy another country.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:10 pmYou feel sorry for Bush apologists esp when they whine that despite being shown evidence that they don’t want you to just call them stupid, but you have to be a REAL TURD to actually pull out parts of sentences to change their meanings when the person you are discussing the topic with was the one who chose the sentences. It’s not like it will go unnoticed. I mean this USA guy must really really like be abused by his republofascist handlers to disgrace himself in front of evryone like this. He has no pride to grovel to Bush this bad.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pmComment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
-Saddam is not innocent; he is just as guilty as Bush. The envoy at the time visited several African nations and only one had ties to uranium but for some reason Hitchens doesn’t mention this in his garbage post.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:17 pmUSA PA-TRAITOR,
My, how clever you are at creating a falsehood where none exists! You should be a speech writer for Herr Rumsfeld, the way you use “…” is absolutely remarkable. You were able to leave out the part that demonstrates your total lack of understanding of an opposing argument: “But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. “
I see you for what you are, and others do as well.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:17 pmHere’s the rest of the article, you can see the CIA, FBI, and DIA are pissed they were blamed for “faulty intelligence” and aren’t going to be made scapegoats for republican liars agaian.
Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they’re concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
Officials at all three agencies said they suspect that the dubious information may include claims that Iran directed Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July; that Iran’s nuclear program is moving faster than generally believed; and that the Iranian people are eager to join foreign efforts to overthrow their theocratic rulers.
The officials said there is no reliable intelligence to support any of those assertions and some that contradicts all three.
The officials said they fear a replay of the administration’s mishandling of what turned out to be bogus information from Iraqi exiles in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, documented earlier this month in a Senate intelligence committee report.
But they said this time, intelligence analysts and others are more forcefully challenging claims they believe to be false or questionable.
“There’s no question that people are less afraid to speak up after what happened in Iraq,” said one intelligence official. “There’s less of an inclination to let Cheney and Rumsfeld run free.”
It is, said a second U.S. intelligence official, “a little more difficult to try to put forward a one-sided view.” Analysts “are not willing to be rolled over,” he said.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:28 pmWell, by golly.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:30 pmDoes this mean if we didn’t go into Iraq gas would be cheaper? You bet.
If Saddam was in charge he would price the US out of the oil market? Heavens yes.
Do I always talk out of my ass? No doubt about it.
Did I fag Ken Mehlman this morning? Gee whiz, yes.
Was I raped by my grandmother at age 12? Oh my, of course, my uncle too.
#164, thanks for the laugh, perfect Rumsfeld “interview!”
September 17th, 2006 at 8:42 pmRummy is acting stupid. He’s good at that. That asshole is laughing all the way to the bank. When will the public figure out that the average joe has paid for the Iraq war out of their own pockets and blood. And it will be the oil and contract executives that walk away with the money. It will all be hush hush and the average person living in the states will be too busy arguing over something rediculous like rhetoric. It is amazing!!!!
September 17th, 2006 at 8:44 pmbones said there was not “ANY” connection.
Then he said there were “contacts”.
This is a clear contradiction, to any thinking human.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:18 pmBriseaadh isa Fascist,
If you’re foolish enough to take one silly Senate committee report as gospel, despite all the contrary evidence, that’s your problem.
Absolutely nothing in the Hitchens and Hayes reports has been addressed by you moonbats, let alone refuted in any way.
If there was no cooperation between Saddam and terrorists, then why did the Clinton administration list Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism for eight years? Why did Clinton claim Iraq was a threat and sign the Iraq Liberation Act?
September 17th, 2006 at 9:25 pmbones said there was not “ANY†connection.
Then he said there were “contactsâ€.
This is a clear contradiction, to any thinking human.
Comment by USA+PATRIOT
I contacted your mother last night – and boy, was there a connection!
Are you really this stupid? If a person “contacts” me by phone, asking if I want term life insurance, suddenly I’m “connected” to the company?
September 17th, 2006 at 9:34 pmbarfly, are you really stupid enough to think that’s an analogy?
September 17th, 2006 at 9:38 pmAs stupid as yours, young man.
Oh, and by the way, Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers, after they had blown themselves up, and after the Israeli’s had bulldozed their houses (as is Israeli policy in such matters), leaving them destitute. In many cases, they didn’t find out about it until afterword. Try another tack, US; this one’s not very accurate.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:46 pmThe Girl Scouts just came to my door selling cookies; am I now connected to the Girl Scouts?
September 17th, 2006 at 9:49 pmRumsfeld sucks yards of cock
September 17th, 2006 at 9:52 pmHmmm, let’s see how many wars we can start and not finish before the next president takes office.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:53 pmComment by USA+PATRIOT — September 17, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
USA+IDIOT states a connection is all that is necessary. he has posted many times in this thread about Sadam and Al Qu’aida so there is an obvious “connection”, so USA+PATRIOT is obviously involved with Sadam and Al Qu’aida and needs to be turned over to the authorities for torture, after all by his own logic, there is a connection between him and sadam and Al Qu’aida. Stupid ignorant moron.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:58 pmBloods and Crips, Norteños y Sureños, the Mafia, etc., all use violence to further their ends, hence they are “terrorist” organizations. All operate within the borders of the United States, hence Bush harbors terrorists. Various members are used as government informants, hence Bush has contacts and connections with terrorist organizations. Therefore the United States of America is a State Sponsor of Terrorism and must be bombed back to the stone age.
If the argument is sufficient to justify the murder of tens of thousands of innocent children, women and men who happen to live in Iraq, it is sufficient to justify the murder of tens of thousands of innocent children, women and men who happen to live in the United States of America.
A true Patriot does not blindly support a dictator who puts forth such specious reasons for war as Bush has, but questions, challenges, and, if need be, revolts against those who commit crimes against humanity.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “A little revolution once in a while is a good thing.”
September 17th, 2006 at 10:00 pmTo add with barfly, Rummy is spouting filth all over the screen hoping we’ll buy his excuses. I guess that means we’re linked to him also.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:02 pmyuck!
September 17th, 2006 at 10:07 pmAccording to USA+IDIOT we are all linked to Timothy McVeigh, so turn yourselves in at the local police station for your beatings, electroshock, and waterboarding till we all confess to the Oklahoma City bombing.
Stupid moron.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:14 pm[...] In a radio interview last week, Secretary Defense Donald Rumsfeld introduced a new rationale for the invasion of Iraq: high gas prices. Rumsfeld said, “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.”read more | digg story [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 10:14 pmAfter giving excuse #563 for going to war in Iraq he is finally saying what we knew was the #1 reason all along. We went for the oil.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:20 pmWhat is this, the 10th different justification for the war? What will be the next reason? Maybe W will blame the Democrats.
http://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
September 17th, 2006 at 10:20 pmNow on Political buzz
Is Al Gore running in 2008?
http://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
A true Patriot does not blindly support a dictator who puts forth such specious reasons for war as Bush has, but questions, challenges, and, if need be, revolts against those who commit crimes against humanity.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “A little revolution once in a while is a good thing.â€
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 17, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
The patriots who threw King George’s tea into Boston harbor were considered terrorists. They were not only hunted down by England but by loyalists in America. The ones apprehended by England and the loyalists were thrown into prison and their families were put into slavery. The rest had to go into hiding.
There were also terrorists in Kurdistan trying to overthrow Saddam’s regime and Clinton tried to fund these groups with Iraqi Liberation Act. But the republicans in congress at the time refused to fund it even though it passed with overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pmcrazy, f’kn crazy!!!!!
September 17th, 2006 at 10:39 pmIts even worse than what Rummy is telling us. Saddam wouldn’t be rolling in petrol dollars, he’d be rolling in petrol euros!!!
How Anti-American can the Saddam get? Imagine, daring to use an alternate currency to the American dollar as a base currency for petrol!!!
At least we are gtting closer to some of the reasoning to attack Iran – They are going one step further. They are going to build a bourse so oil trading can be done is any currency.
=my2c
BC
September 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pmWhat is this, the 10th different justification for the war? What will be the next reason? Maybe W will blame the Democrats.
Comment by lcliberal
I’d tend to blame the whole mess on George Bush senior. He’s the one who told US representative April Glaspie to tell Saddam that “we wouldn’t get involved” when he invaded Kuwait in retaliation for slant-drilling his oil deposits. And then encouraging the Iraqis to stand up and overthrow Saddam after the Gulf War, while still allowing Hussein’s hellicopters to fly in the No Fly Zones – permitting the Butcher of Baghdad to slaughter still more Shi’a and Kurds.
What’s ironic is his son’s attempts at fixing the problem have only made it worse.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:42 pmIs it just me or do all these neo-cons make you want to puke your friggin’ guts out?
The bright side is, no matter who gets elected in 2008, be they John McCain, Hillary or that dead cat lying in the middle of the road, they will shine in comparison to this group of self-righteous, incompetent thugs.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:48 pmAll Donny is really trying to say is it could be worse. As to why it could do you really need to ask?
“GOSH DARN. You go into these elections with whatever lies
September 17th, 2006 at 11:04 pm—er—-reasons you can. Besides Saddam was a very bad man
and never mind that photo being passed around of me shaking hands
with him. HE REALLY WAS GOING TO USE ME FOR TARGET PRACTICE WITH HIS RIFLE IF I DIDNT!!! REALLY!!! GOSH DARN IT!!! REALLY!!!”
And if Saddam Hussein were still free and in control, he’d be enjoying season four of HBO’s “The Wire” right now. You expect us to have risked such a travesty? He had to get gone!!!
September 17th, 2006 at 11:36 pmAnd he would be seeing the Iranians interested in a nuclear program, he would be seeing the North Koreans developing a nuclear program.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
(quote from article:) “Donald Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea – a country he now regards as part of the “axis of evil”
How ’bout THEM apples?
September 17th, 2006 at 11:47 pmRolling in petrol DOLLARS or petrol EUROS?
September 17th, 2006 at 11:47 pmA business-government alliance, enforced by the military, and domestic police–once, this was called facsism. Now called the USA.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:51 pmI am the only person on earth who can save America, and this is how you people thank me – of all the ungrateful dogs, Americans are the worst. My job has more pressure than a combustion engine, I’m trying my best, and sometimes you have to torture, lie, defraud, and be a hypocrite until it becomes my second nature – oh heck, I’m almost there. Just remember, I’m doing all this for you – the people – so you should all get on your knees and kiss my old, scrappy, azz. Where’s my mommy?
September 17th, 2006 at 11:56 pmRumsfeld will never take responsibility for his failures. He’s a heartless bureaucrat who has a bunch of numbers spinning around in his head where his soul should be.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:02 amIsn’t that something? A quick look back at history: WWII to be specific. Japan attempted to extend their reach toward Manchuria in order to have access to mainland resources. Now take a look at the world about 100 years before that, and we were dealing with the British, French and Spanish trying to take over the world. So there you go! We’re justified in trying to take over the Middle East in order to further our goals. Everyone else will just have to suffer.
The U.S.A. takes a giant step backwards. The whole gang should be impeached and imprisoned. Shame on those of you who voted for Bush the first time around. Those of you who voted for him twice should go to prison with that wicked bunch.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:21 amhe’s not saying we went to war to lower the price of gas at US fuel pumps, he’s saying we went to war to prevent Saddam Hussain from being able to afford to do the things we accused him of doing to justify the war in the first place. duh. clear as pepsi.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:35 amI’m living in France and gas here is 2x what you pay in the united states. Imagine going to the pump and paying $6 or $7 a gallon…Seriously!! I think the U.S. pays a lot less than most countries, at least less than Europe. I guess it’s time for hybrid cars…smaller cars…etc. I don’t understand all the complaining about gas prices. It’s a natural resource that is RUNNING OUT!!!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 4:15 amIfinsanity was $3.00 a gallon, about a nickles worth would top off Rummys tank.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:20 amY’gotta love this guy. I sure do hope the Republicans don’t ditch him too quick – he’s a priceless asset for the Dems!
I live in the UK, where petrol is higher than anywhere in the States, but I suppose a lot of that is all relative. Average Americans also aren’t earning anything like what the average European makes, so even if gas is cheaper there, it still is taking a whopping big chunk out of the house budget. Rumsfeld apparently is unaware that Americans KNOW what the price of gas is, KNOW it’s gone way up since we invaded Iraq, KNOW what an idiot he is. Hopefully, they’ll still be mad as hell come November… if they can afford to drive to the polling stations, that is…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:23 amI am confused. He was in an oil-for-food program. He couldn’t get money except for those backhanders from French and US companies.
The US was the biggest exporter of Iraq oil before the Iraq war and even increased thier quota prior to the war. Magically thier debt was cleared after they liberated the Oil offices.
Rumsfeld is either lying or he needs to looked at by a doctor.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:36 am#200, Simon: Or both?
September 18th, 2006 at 9:39 am[...] Rumsfeld’s new reason why we went to Iraq? To stop Saddam from raising our gas prices! [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 10:02 amAs Bugs would say “What an imbesile, what an ultra maroon”
September 18th, 2006 at 10:14 amew
September 18th, 2006 at 10:26 amDoes it ever occur to anyone that they just say this stuff to keep everybody stirred up and off balance. Tomorrow it’ll be another off-the-wall outrageous red herring, and we’ll all swarm after it like 6-year-olds on a soccer field…
September 18th, 2006 at 10:45 amcan i say f***weasel?
September 18th, 2006 at 10:46 amSo we should go to war with someone because someday they might make money when the price of a resource they have oodles of goes up? Or perhaps this administration knew that Big Oil was going to raise the prices on oil before the war with Iraq ever happened. How thoughtful of them to make sure that Big Bad Saddam wouldn’t be able to make money while they were making money.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:14 amSomebody should tell Rummy that the Iraq oil production capabilities were in shambles before the war as they are today.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:31 amRegarding Dastardly’s comments on #112:
The second article puts Rumsfeld in complicity with US intelligence sharing with Iraq and removal of military support. His printed name has proximity of his name in the cited text to another paragraph about the US “looking the other way” as Hussein’s military engaged in chemical warfare against the Iranians, but this does not prove a connection.
As for the first article Dastardly cited, I want to know more about this weaponized salmonella and e coli that the US government shipped to universities and drug companies and the Iraqi Ministry of Health before I respond. Also, I wonder if someone could tell me why the US was selling chemical weapons to a nation it had just defeated (overwhelmingly) on the field of battle (as the Sunday Herald claims) one year previous, and I wonder if someone could point me to the original reports from the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs, which the author’s of the Sunday Herald article neglected to cite, but nonetheless used as supporting evidence for their claim that the US exported VX nerve gas to the Iraqis after the Persian Gulf War.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:57 amHoly geeze. You mean we’re in Iraq for oil. Surely Bush and his gang wouldn’t sacrifice American lives for some material item such as oil. We are only suppose to die for abstract concepts such as freedom, liberty, privacy, and basic human rights aren’t we? I would include in that list, the right to a trial by our peers, but it appears that Bush has decided that is not in our best interest. Military tribunals are preferable, even for civilians. What’s next, dismissing the Congress and declaring martial law?
September 18th, 2006 at 12:57 pmBullshit
September 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pmTHIS IS THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR!!! THERE WAS NO OTHER REASON, EXCEPT FOR A BUNCH OF LIES. AT FIRST I WAS BEHIND THE PRESIDENT 100% NOW I KNOW HE AND ALL OF HIS THUGS ARE FULL OF SHIT. BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR ALL THE LIES HE HAS TOLD, AND HIS THUGS SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL.
September 18th, 2006 at 1:28 pmI am ashamed that I voted for Bush, I am ashamed of 90% of what he has done. I would like to see someone run for President that is not a politician, that is not affiliated by big oil, that is not Rich, someone who knows what it is like to live close to the poverty line, someone that would actually give a crap about the American citizens and not be a sale out.
Lets us elect someone with those qualificatiosn and lets see where we can put this country.
September 18th, 2006 at 1:42 pmAs I had been saying all along; the price of human life doesn’t measure up to the value of oil to these sub-human, totally low class (and low class in everyway) people. It is not only our right to overthrow people who abuse that power, but our DUTY. In this case, lets throw out all of them, even the good republicans, that should throw some fear into their cold, money grubbing hearts.
September 18th, 2006 at 2:21 pmDoes anyone remember that Bush Sr tried invading Iraq? Soon as Bush Jr got into office he needed a way to finish what daddy couldn’t and when 9/11 happened this gave him the opportunity to try. Poor Powell had to face the UN and justify Iraq having WMD to invade, the UN denied but Bush insisted in defying the UN unauthorization of invasion. Look where it has us today, billions in debt and unfortunately thousands of innocent lives taken (military and civilians) and no end in site.
September 18th, 2006 at 2:30 pmProposition I: How many MINUTES after the polls close in November until the gas is back to $3/gallon?
Proposition II: If the Repugs lose more than 5 seats in the House, how high ABOVE $5/gallon will gas be on 31 DEC 2006?
Remember their motto: “We’re Big Oil! Play ball with us, or we’ll shove the bat up your ass!”
September 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pmWE ARE THE IDIOTS, FOLKS……THEY HAVE THE POWER, HENCE THAT S¿¿¿ E¿¿¿¿¿¿ GRIN ON THE FACE OF THIS POOR EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:27 pmyou guys are funny. you missed the point of his argument by 1000 miles. he isnt saying gas prices would be higher. he is saying, look at oil at $70 a barrel today, okay now imagine how much money sadam would have with $70 oil. now what do you think he would be doing with it, knowing iran is trying to get nukes. he would be using the money to get nukes himself, it would be financed by high oil prices. out the many stupid things this guy says, here he actually correct.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:32 pmThe price of oil wouldn’t likely be that high if BushCo. hadn’t buggered up the Middle East.
Secondly, the petrol dollars Saddam would be rolling in if he were still in power, are the same petrol dollars the States must be rolling in now. America must have ’so much money’ because they control Iraq. More lies. They’re certainly not spending it on body armour.
On another military topic, the ridiculous Missile Defense program- a mere portion of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’- obviously still doesn’t work. It was a bad idea back when Reagan was told he came up with it. Imagine having to ask North Korea to hold off using long-range nukes against America until there’s a nice weather forecast. We can’t launch things in the rain, no fair.
For what it costs, it should’ve easily struck down Lebanon-based Katyusha rockets fired into Israel. If such a system actually existed, it might as well be able to take down small rockets as well as more serious weapons that nobody else would dare use.
Time for the neo-cons to wrap things up.
A.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:13 am===============
only two things……………… jason you should pull your head out and look at the world instead of your home town.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:53 amWhy hasn’t GWB been impeached????????????
By my count, Iraq today is bringing in a billion dollars every week or two for its oil. That is on the same order as what the US is spending in Iraq.
Where is that money going today?
September 19th, 2006 at 7:32 amThe history of this great nation has been paved with secreat operations through out the third world when “big oil” interest are involved…..
Refer to http://www.addictedtowar.com and obtain the dvds and book…very good info. on our beloved nations history involved in covert wars…… also read http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00327.htm
and find out who stands to gain, when there’s war, death and destruction..
It’s all about the money people (Repubs) no one cares about freedom or voting rights for the Iraqie people….I say we make sure we (American’s) have the freedom first, to say and speak our minds about this war, with out being labeled as terrorist lovers and un-patriotic…I say lets make sure we have fair voting in our counrty first, before we worry about any other countries problems..and the overy used talking point that “Saddam Hussien” is a war criminal?..please, only the ignorante refuses to realise the history of our covert government operations, toppeling democratically elected third world gov.’s all for self interest, while millions of people have died as a result.
Who is the war criminal?
This administration has lied to the whole world, and now our nation and people are the laughing stock of all nations….especially our leaders
I predict that the oil prices are going to go down and their will be a fake terror attack either in Britain or one of our few remaining ally countries jusr days before November. Fear has been shown to move people, and the lowering of oil prices will swing the moderate repubs back to vote for their party….I just hope the Dems don’t take this laying face down and ass up again…
September 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pmI’ve never been to this site, but its obvious which way the readership leans.
Instead of pouncing on the idea that “OMG, they went to war for oil!!!! This proves it!!!”, try the more than likely intended perspective of “Imagine would he would be doing with all of that money right now”.
—–Breaking News——
“This just in – New witnesses come forward and say they say Bush rowing away from the Titanic with a crowbar on that fateful night. ”
Damn, I knew he must have been involved. So many innocent lives! Oh, the humanity.
September 19th, 2006 at 7:07 pmThink about your argument “mike”
“imagine would he would be doing with all of that money right now.”
What one country does with it’s money is it’s buisness, right?…I mean you don’t see or hear the whole world cry out and complain that we spend billions of dollars on the military, do you? or should we leave it up to other countries to dictate how we spend our tax money? and that same billions of dollars have caused the deaths of millions of people….
—Breaking News—-
“This confirms it, repubs still think that 911 and Iraq were connected, even though President Bush said that Iraq had no connections to 911″
Why do you think so many American’s are starting to question this administration?
1. Cherry picked intel on the reasons for the war?
2. Downing street memo?
3. WMD?
4. Secreat Prisons?
5. Pre-emptive war?
6. no bid contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq?
7. where’s Bin Laden?
Open your eyes and mind, it’s okay to question your President…and no, Bush is not to blame for everything, including the sinking of the Titanic, ..but he is to blame for most things, and how he handled most things since his presidencey…
September 19th, 2006 at 8:04 pmIt´s the American sons and daughters that are dying in Irak. Just take that into account. Save a couple of dollars for gas otherwise the “End of suburbia” or even worse… just look for “Loose change” in ya pokets. Bloody Zionism.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:08 pmI think he meant to to “petro euros”
September 20th, 2006 at 8:51 amThe Bush administration employs an interesting division of labor: Bush repeats the same tired rhetoric devised to deceive the general public, Cheney repeats lies aimed at the God-and-guns conservatives, and Rumsfeld keeps the way-out-there loonies on board. With some of their more outrageous statements, both Cheney and Rummie help distract attention from Dubya.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:18 pmRummy is the biggest asshole in the administration, and that is really saying something!
September 21st, 2006 at 10:45 pmIf you tree huggin whackos would let us drill for OUR OWN oil in Alaska or off the US Coast, build a few more refineries, we’ed be paying under a buck a gallon! But nooooo-ooo, the Caribou may be afraid of the twinkle lights!
Quit your bitchen and stop being part of the problem! Remember, even you hipocrite Dems drive big ass SUV’s!
And the drunkard Kennedy’s fly everywhere in their private jets…
September 25th, 2006 at 7:32 pmSimpson+Homer is right!!!!!! If most of the country was against the president they wouldnt have re-elected him, plus being against the war is just popular, if u ask most dems why they are against they dont know!!!!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 5:28 pmI don’t see how the entire blame is on the Bush administration when the ‘Experts’ were just as convinced that Iraq had WMD.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1993.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D – MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years …. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
DID PRESIDENT BUSH LIE ABOUT WMD? OR WAS HE GUILTY OF LISTENING TO THESE “EXPERTS?”
November 4th, 2006 at 2:41 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 2:26 amPrices Of Hearing Aids
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:33 pmCum Asian Cum Ass Cum
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pmnorway currency
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:11 amCock Massive Cocks Cumshots Big Gay Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 6:17 amEric
Learn all you can by reading the following article
March 18th, 2008 at 8:38 amHealth Insurance Gulf Breeze Insurance Flood Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 12:10 pmEric
Did you get this off MSN?
March 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pmVanna White
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 20th, 2008 at 4:23 amCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 8:26 amCock Very Young Boy Cock Small Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pmPrices That Houses Sell For In A Neighborhood
Hi – just wanted to say good design and blog -
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 amBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm[...] Think Progress » Blog Archive » Rumsfeld Unveils New … 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 … [...]
March 26th, 2008 at 4:34 amQuick Cash Loan Ohio
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pmForeign Exchange Rate Risk International Finance Html
Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. ~ Niccolo Machiavelli
March 26th, 2008 at 8:12 pmMelissa
I have seen many sites before and most of them do not look this good. I cannot wait to let my friends know about this site. Thanks for the excellent content.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pmGforex
i do agree but i don’t think that’s completely true. I’m so confused!
March 28th, 2008 at 1:25 amJack
I\’m going to look into this and let you know what I find.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:20 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pmGm Business Credit Card
How To Get Business Credit
March 31st, 2008 at 10:05 amford fusion forum
Some vehicle manufacturers are producing cars with devices that also measure the proximity to obstacles and other vehicles in front
March 31st, 2008 at 11:33 pmford fusion forum
Although various pistonless rotary engine designs have attempted to compete with the conventional piston and crankshaft design, only
March 31st, 2008 at 11:33 pm