Rep. Porter cites gas prices as reason to stay in Iraq.
By on Aug 30th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Rep. Porter cites gas prices as reason to stay in Iraq.
Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), who recently returned from a visit to Iraq, said he was told that an Iraq withdrawal would cause gas prices to rise to $9/gallon. “To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave,” Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas. “Porter did not elaborate on the assessment that gasoline prices could spike. His spokesman, Matt Leffingwell, said afterward that the scenario ‘makes sense if Iran moves into Iraq.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh yes….because our demented occupation of imperialistic aggression has done so much to keep the price of gas down thus far…
</snark>
August 30th, 2007 at 10:50 amProve it, Porter. Show me a study that shows EXACTLY how that could happen. Otherwise, it’s pure guesswork and speculation and that’s no way to wage a war.
Oh, wait.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:51 am“al-Qaida would continue its expansion” – So he’s basically admitting that Bush’s Iraq policty has FAILED to stop Al Queda.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amYou know what would be one of the worst jobs in America nowadays? Being a spokesman for those doofuses (doofi?) who’ve drunk the kool-aid and will spout random nonsense that you, as spokesman, have to try and clarify afterwards.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amBoooo!…Eeeek!
That is the response they are hoping for.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amIt’s a known fact that if we leave Iraq, the world as we know it will come to an end. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Wooooooooo…..WOOOOOOoooooo…
August 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amWOOOOOOOOOOOO…..
But if Iran took over Iraq and began refining Iraqi crude, wouldn’t that cause oil prices to decrease?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:53 amPorter sez:
You know, we had previously installed a safeguard whose function was to prevent just this sort of outcome…
He was called Saddam Hussein.
We all told you this would be precisely what would happen, and you jackasses went and did it anyway. You don’t get to use this as a talking point.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:54 amAnd Freddie Krueger, Jason, and Chuckie will team up with Alien and Predator, to form a new Legion of Doom! Run for your very lives!!!
August 30th, 2007 at 10:54 am“To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave,â€
There already is genocide, and our military has been providing weapons and training to both sides of it. If genocide is a reason to stay in Iraq, why isn’t it a reason to go into Darfur? Average gas prices when this war started were $1.55 per gallon, so obviously the continued occupation of Iraq has done nothing to lower that. As for Iran, they are being openly invited by the Iraqi government who wishes to have open diplomatic relations with their neighbor. Al-Qaida makes up only 4% of the insurgency in Iraq and is mainly funded by Saudi Arabia, who will be pushed out by the majority Shia when we leave. The only reason they have hung on this long is because we have been arming Sunni militias to fight Shia death squads, most of which belong to Iraq’s elected government.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:54 am(O)peration (I)raqi (L)iberation….
’nuff said.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:57 amIt might be the best thing for the world if gas prices rose to $9. Sure there’d be short term pain but at that price alternative fuel becomes a bargain worth investing in.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:59 am‘His spokesman, Matt Leffingwell, said afterward that the scenario “makes sense if Iran moves into Iraq.”‘
Saudi Arabia would never allow Iran to take over Iraq. And from what I’ve read, SA has a lot more American weapons at their disposal these days.
Why don’t the politicians ever talk about Saudi Arabia?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:59 amWhy don’t the politicians ever talk about Saudi Arabia?
not nice to talk about your puppet master.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:00 amWhy don’t the politicians ever talk about Saudi Arabia?
Whenever Bush meets with S.A. his mouth is full of tongue.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:01 amYou know, we had previously installed a safeguard whose function was to prevent just this sort of outcome…
He was called Saddam Hussein.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — August 30, 2007 @ 10:54 am
But he didn’t do our bidding. That was the problem. We bribed that guy with billions of dollars, thousands of planes and tanks and missiles – we even had Bechtel build him factories for chemical weapons. And when the Iran-Iraq war was over, he refused to sign a deal like the Saudis to let us rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure and take control of their oil.
The jerk wouldn’t even let us sabotage his plane or take him out with a disloyal bodyguard. Can you believe the nerve of that Saddam guy?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:01 amSo maybe $8 or $9/gallon gas is just what we need in this country to force the otherwise yawning public and incompetent government to finally come up with sustainable strategies for alternative fuels, public transportation, telecommuting, etc.
But it’s good to see that the al Qaida boogeyman is only #3 on Porter’s list…
August 30th, 2007 at 11:01 amand bush doesnt support gays?
http://mjhinton.net/slides/duhbya/bush-abdullah-8.jpg
August 30th, 2007 at 11:02 amCan’t we send Sylvester Stallone over there and clean that place up? He did it back in the 80’s in Vietnam.
-GSD
August 30th, 2007 at 11:02 amEven if we just take this guy’s ravings seriously for only a moment…
1) There is already attempted genocide going on, with each side trying to “ethnic cleanse” the other. All our presence is doing is to provide them with arms and money to do it.
2) Gas prices might go up, but hardly to the extreme cited here. Iraq (or Iran, if they take over that “portion” of the world) is sitting on a large pool of petroleum, but the only way they can realize the benefit of this resource is to find a market for it.
3) Al Qaeda is continuing its expansion quite well while we’re there. Our occupation is the best marketing tool for recruitment they’ve ever had.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:03 amOk, here’s my question(s)/comment(s):
1. How much gasoline does the US use on a daily basis?
2. How much have we spent as a nation on the war in Iraq?
If you take those two numbers, and if (as it seems Rep Porter suggests in this article) the reason we are in Iraq is to ensure energy security – which would be quite the admission if the President were to say it also, you would see that we have been subsidizing the price of gasoline through government spending since 2003!
According to some figures I have seen, the US consumes about 22 million barrels of oil per day. Each barrel of oil produces slightly less than 20 gallons of gasoline. That’s 440 million barrels of gasoline per day. We have been in Iraq since March 2003. So, that’s 4.5 years. If you figure that in that amount of time, the US has consumed more than 720 billion gallons of oil (that number alone should make you sick to your stomach) and we have spent 500 billion dollars on operations in Iraq, we have been subsidizing approximately $0.68 per gallon already.
And before anyone says it… I appreciate that cost is completely nominal compared to the human toll – both our dead and injured. I have done two tours as a mobilized reservist in Iraq.
Rep Porter demonstrates a level of understanding on par with most of our congressional leaders – slim to none. He is throwing down a fear card and also insulting the intelligence of every American who successfully completed a freshman course in college economics.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:03 amSaudi Arabia would never allow Iran to take over Iraq. And from what I’ve read, SA has a lot more American weapons at their disposal these days.
Why don’t the politicians ever talk about Saudi Arabia?
Comment by margaret — August 30, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Know what else they don’t mention? That after the Iranian revolution, the Saudis began investing heavily to build up Sunni education to counter the growing Shi’ite power. Much of this Sunni eduation was in the form of Wahhabist Islam, which spawned the Afghan Arabs who fought alongside the Muj in Afghanistan and later became al-Qa’ida.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:04 amWasn’t it just a couple of days ago that the Repugnants were accusing a blogger of using “scare tactics” for quoting Iraq War Czar Lute on possibly re-instituting the draft? But shouting “mega dollar gas prices” if we draw down Iraq, that ain’t “scare tactics”???? Remember, this was all caused by the Bush PREEMPTIVE war scare tactics in the first place and the implications were all laid out by folks such as Gen Shalikashvili who was fired for not having the neo-con dumbbass vision.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:06 amThe American Iraq Telephone System:
1) bush tells petraeus what to say about Iraq
2) bush/neocon sycophants go to Iraq to ‘get the real story on the ground.’
3) petraues relays the administration’s line to bush/necon sycophants visiting Iraq and provides well choreographed protected tour
4) bush/neocon sycophants get US corporate media soapbox to tell the American people of the glorious victories occuring in Iraq.
If it weren’t so tragic and pathetic, it’d be histerical.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:10 am.
LOL when Bush attacks Iran gas might be rationed, and 20 bucks a gallon, so that GOPer is a complete imbecile.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:10 amOf course gas prices will rise once we run away from Iraq with our tails in our legs. The world oil price is very touchy to conflict. Once we leave Iraq, millions will die in genocide. Iran will also likely move into parts of Iraq. Terrorists will follow as well. I would expect Oil to stable out again within a year but at a slightly increased price after the massive spike we will see once we decide to be defeated.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:10 amwe have spent 500 billion dollars on operations in Iraq
Spent but not paid. The final cost of that $500b will end up over a trillion over the years of debt servicing costs. It’s like a dude earning $30k buying an $8k sound system and putting it on his credit card and just making monthly payments. That’s one expensive system.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:10 amWell, if a Republican says it, it must be true. Being so morally superior to everyone else, they don’t lie. We better do everything these Republicans say, or we’re going to find ourselves in a real mess!
August 30th, 2007 at 11:11 amRoger, I assumed that the only reason the right would care about Iraqi losses is that it might affect oil prices. The right’s biggest fear is that the U.S. leaves Iraq and the killing stops.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:12 amAaaaaand…. now we come down to it.
The elephant in the room, so to speak. Fearmongering over gas prices.
We are progressing nicely through the steps to recovery. Denial and Anger have had their day. Let’s work on that Acceptance part.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:12 amhe forgot the fire and brimstone part.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:15 amRoofles.. that’s a funny reason to stay in Iraq.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:16 amWhy don’t politicians ever talk about Saudi Arabia?? Because they’re close, personal friends or course!
August 30th, 2007 at 11:19 ama year but at a slightly increased price after the massive spike we will see once we decide to be defeated.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 30, 2007 @ 11:10 am
We decided to be defeated when we allowed the SCOTUS to overthrow the election of 2000. that was a defeat of the Constitutin, and of the United States government. bush’s unilateral, illegal, immoral, lawless invasion of iraq sealed the defeat. It’s all over except the spending. We are a defeated nation, defeated by the GOP and the neocons, and the 5th columnists who followed in their footsteps, no matter what “party” they are affiliated with.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:21 amAs usual, you guys rock!
If we’re staying in Iraq to keep oil prices down then how about we leave and the $4B per week, or whatever it is these days, can then be used for energy alternatives research so that we can break away from dependence on oil? Think of all of the domestic jobs that would create. It’d be good for the economy!
August 30th, 2007 at 11:22 amWow, Porter has the talking points down. Give him a gold star on his neocon reporrt card for today.
But, the most important thing to remember is that we did not go to Iraq to steal their oil. We went there to take it off the market, which it is for the most part, so no, leaving will not make gas prices go up, unless the oil companies fix prices……..again.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:22 amWell that’s an EXCELLENT reason to stay in Iraq: rising gas prices (to $8-$9/gallon nonetheless!)!!! You notice, by the way, how it’s sandwiched between genocide on the one hand and al- Qaida expansion on the other? I mean, this is right up there with genocide and an al-Quida expansion!
Lets get real: another f*cking scare tactic by another Republicon that has no basis in fact. It’s pure conjecture based on what?
It’s also funny to note the implication here: we can’t possibly afford $9/gallon, but we can continue paying billions for a never-ending war? Great logic.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhen the Iraqi Parliament returns to session next week, they will face yet another round of pressure to pass the Iraq Oil Law as a “benchmark” of their progress. Oil Change International is prepared to counter that pressure, but we need your help.
Iraqi citizens, labor unions, oil experts, former ministers, and political leaders around the world are opposed to this law. The Iraqi Parliament needs to hear these voices and know that we are standing in solidarity with them as they stand against US pressure.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:22 amIt’d be good for the economy!
Comment by margaret — August 30, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Republicans are never good for the economy.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:23 amIf Congress gives Bush another 50 Billion he will attack IRAN with the money
August 30th, 2007 at 11:24 am8-9 dollars a gallon.
So now we know how much the lives of our soldiers are worth.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am#
If Congress gives Bush another 50 Billion he will attack IRAN with the money
Comment by Tobey Tall — August 30, 2007 @ 11:24 am
#
Agreed.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:26 amIf Congress gives Bush another 50 Billion he will attack IRAN with the money
Comment by Tobey Tall — August 30, 2007 @ 11:24 am
But he can’t legally do that – money appropriated for Iraq operations cannot be used for military operations in Iran.
Unless, of course, Bush were to, say, declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a “terrorist organization” and thus could categorize military strikes against Iran as part of the initial post-9/11 military authorization.
Or have I said too much?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:27 amLook at what we’re spending already.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:27 amComment by toasterhead — August 30, 2007 @ 11:27 am
#
Exactly. He used the AUMF that was authorized by congress to fight Al-Qaeda as a tool to invade Iraq. Now we are seeing phase 2.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:29 amUnless, of course, Bush were to, say, declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a “terrorist organization†and thus could categorize military strikes against Iran as part of the initial post-9/11 military authorization.
Oh noes, we’re all gonna die!
August 30th, 2007 at 11:30 amRoger Rhetoric sez:
“With our tails in our legs”? RR, you’re not even trying…
Perhaps the administration should have thought about that before they launched their occupation of imperialist expansion.
Or, perhaps, they did think of that.
Nearly a million are dead right now, as a direct result of our invasion and occupation. The death toll will continue for generations, thanks to our irresponsible use of depleted uranium in Iraq.
When exactly do we start calling it “genocide”, RR?
Speaking of “genocide”, when are we going to start doing something about the genocide in Darfur?
See my post #8 above. You don’t get to use this as a talking point.
Again, by deposing Hussein with no plan to fill the resultant power vacuum, this is a situation entirely of the administration’s making. Again, you don’t get to use this as a talking point.
“decide to be defeated”. That’s rich. You never fail to amuse, RR.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:30 amBob at #18. You assume that oil would have risen to its present level had Hussein been left in power – not true. Oil would have been far more stable these past 6 years without the invasion. Two problems from the bush/cheney/neocon perspective with the pre-9/11 status quo:
1) bush/cheney Texas oil baron buddies would not have reaped stratospheric windfall profits from the price instability caused by the bush/cheney excellent Iraqi adventure.
2) Hussein’s move to use the Euro for the purchase of Iraqi oil would still be in place. Other oil producers would likely have followed and US financial dominance would be seriously threatened.
So US $500 billion and counting investment in Iraq didn’t subsidize oil, it undermined it. What it has purchased is a delay in the inevitable demise of the petrodollar and additional windfall profits for the fat-cat defense industry barons to retool and rearm the destroyed US military. Oh, and of course, on-going obscene windfall profits for the oil barons.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:31 am.
Exactly. He used the AUMF that was authorized by congress to fight Al-Qaeda as a tool to invade Iraq. Now we are seeing phase 2.
Comment by Chris L — August 30, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Bummer. And it was such a nice planet, too… :(
August 30th, 2007 at 11:31 am2) Hussein’s move to use the Euro for the purchase of Iraqi oil would still be in place. Other oil producers would likely have followed and US financial dominance would be seriously threatened.
Comment by zoot — August 30, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Hey, has anyone mentioned Iran’s plan to open an oil bourse using the euro instead of the dollar? Anyone?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:37 amIf higher oill prices are a good reason not to leave Iraq, they’re an equally good reason not to attack Iran.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:41 amU.S. Economy: Expansion Was Faster Than Estimated
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP3CFLmKC2CQ&refer=worldwide
Damn I blame BushCo :)
August 30th, 2007 at 11:47 amporter sez; send your kids to be killed & maimed for cheap gas at the pumps. Funny, I did not see HIM go do that for US.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:49 amKazakhstan renegotiating contract for Caspian oil
one of the most watched projects in the Caspian region. Kashagan, an offshore oil project in the Kazakh sector of the Caspian Sea, is the largest oil field to have been discovered anywhere in the last 30 years, with an estimated 38 billion barrels of oil.
According to the article: “With oil prices about $50 higher than when Kashagan’s first well was drilled in 2000, Kazakhstan is no longer happy with a contract that gives it just 10 percent of the project’s revenue and an 8.33 percent stake in the field through its national oil firm, KazMunaiGaz.â€
Most of the revenues from oil field are going the project’s major shareholders: “Project operator Eni holds an 18.52 percent stake in Kashagan, as do ExxonMobil, Shell and Total. ConocoPhillips owns 9.26 percent and Japan’s Inpex has 8.33 percent.â€
http://www.priceofoil.org/
August 30th, 2007 at 11:52 amhe was told that an Iraq withdrawal would cause gas prices to rise to $9/gallon.
And this gullible fool believed it cause it was on a general’s power point presentation.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:57 amElection 08, hurry up!
Let’s say gas goes to $9 a gallon. Far less than the 1 trillion that will be spent staying in Iraq. Plus the benefit of having our soldiers back.
This Senator is blatant in his fear mongering. Disgusting little troll breeder.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pmComment by Bob — August 30, 2007 @ 11:47 am
From your link:
“The figures may be the peak of the expansion for this year as the cost of borrowing increased in August and the Fed said that risks to growth “increased appreciably.” In a sign that the labor market is weakening, separate government numbers today showed claims for jobless benefits climbed to the highest level since April. ”
Should I “blame BushCo” too?
August 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pmLets be real. The reason gas is $3 a gallon rather than $1.80 a gallon is BECAUSE we are in Iraq.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm“If higher oill prices are a good reason not to leave Iraq, they’re an equally good reason not to attack Iran.”
Comment by pbg — August 30, 2007 @ 11:41 am
WAY too logical for the talking point-spewing neocons and their minions.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pmWith oil prices about $50 higher than when Kashagan’s first well was drilled in 2000, Kazakhstan is no longer happy with a contract that gives it just 10 percent of the project’s revenue and an 8.33 percent stake in the field through its national oil firm, KazMunaiGaz.
Very nice!
BTW, thank you Tobey for consistently injecting useful information and alternate perspective into these discussions.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pmhmmm…
August 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pmfunny how the senator didn’t cite these things as reasons not to go into iraq in the first place.
accidentally gave the representative a promotion and called him a senator. wouldn’t ever want to do that.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pmfunny how the senator didn’t cite these things as reasons not to go into iraq in the first place.
The reason to go into Iraq was to control the oil. The reason to stay in Iraq is to control the oil. The risk of attacking Iraq was that oil prices would rise and supporters of GWB would make billions. The benefit of controlling the oil is that oil prices will rise, but supporters of GWB will make billions. The risk of staying out of Iraq/Iran is that the Middle East will start an oil bourse and the oil will be valued in Euros and supporters of GWB will lose billions.
Now you can argue that these were not the motives of GWB but you can’t argue the fact that big oil has made billions as a result of the actions of the last 6 years.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pmSpeaking with as much authority on the issue as the fear-mongering Rep Porter (ie, NONE), I say gas prices will DROP to 10 cents per gallon if we leave!
I can play that game too…
August 30th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWhere does this fella stand on cafe standards, alternative fuels, and conservation? Screw that, getting our kids killed is so much a better plan besides hasn’t he heard that this has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with liberating the poor oppressed people from the nasty man whom used to be our friend against those other nasty men next door
August 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm““To a person, they said there would be genocide,”
• 1 million persons killed, 1/3 of them probably children.
• Complete destruction of Koran-Torah Repository.
• National library burned down.
• National museum looted with forklifts.
• Destruction or degradation of every significant archaelogical site in Iraq.
• Committing repeated pogroms on several whole cities, such as Al-Fallujah, with refusal to give quarter, and use of banned white phosphorus as antipersonnel weapons.
• Hundreds of thousands of tons of half-strength uranium salting the ground.
• Failure to guard hundreds of thousands of tons of high-explosives, munitions, missiles, and ammunition.
• Allowing tens fo thousands of dismissed armed services to keep their AK-47s.
• Fomenting civil war by prolongued failure to rebuild basic services.
• Fomenting civil war by installing major permanent airbases and a 600-acre fortress in the heart of the country.
• Fomenting civil war by overtly controlling Iraq’s oil resources.
• Torturing and broadcasting the evidence of torture in order to terrorize the population.
• Abducting and holding hostage family members of suspected insurgents, in violation of Hague Conventions.
• Deploying tens of thousands of mercenaries — including deathsquad felons from several foreign countries — with a complete legal waiver on their actions .
And on and on.
THIS IS GENOCIDE.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:19 pmIt is an ILLEGAL foreign policy, major warcrime, crime against humanity, and genocide. It is holocaust by every means imaginable.
The nightmare scenario that Porter is forecasting would actually only happen if someone in the Bush administration was stupid and insane enough to attack IRAN and go after Iran’s oil resources in Khuzestan Province, which lies alongside the Iraq/Iran border and reportedly produces almost 90 percent of Iran’s oil revenues.
We already know that BushCo’s pre-war promise that Iraq’s oil revenues would help pay for their invasion was a wingnut pipe-dream, mainly because “liberated” Iraqis started sabotaging oil pipelines, dramatically decreasing Iraq’s oil exports, with current Iraqi oil export levels still remaining below pre-war levels.
Thus, if the insane Bush and crazy Cheney order an attack on Iran with a concurrent attempt to seize Khuzestan Province, Iranians will conduct suicide missions to try to sabotage their own oil fields, oil pipelines, oil refineries and Persian Gulf oil depots, driving Khuzestan’s oil exports down to Iraqi oil export levels, which will definitely have an inflationary effect of oil prices around the world.
If we pull out of Iraq and don’t attack Iran, however, oil prices will remain the same or even decrease, since in the case of Iraq, oil exports might increase without unwelcome foreign governments or unwelcome foreign oil companies interfering with Iraq’s internal power struggle, while in the case of Iran, their oil exports will not be disrupted due to BushCo expanding their insane war in Iraq next door into Iran.
The next few months are indeed critical.
Either Bush and Cheney are impeached, stopping their warmongering, or they go ahead with their plans to attack Iran, with the horrendous result that Porter’s prediction of tripled gasoline prices in the U.S. will actually happen.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:32 pmPaul in LA, I was going to comment with my usual sarcasm that I find I need to cope with this outrage, but you stopped me dead in my tracks. Great post and the absolute truth.
But I still want to know who told him…KBR or Halliburton.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:34 pmwell, i got money invested in oil companies- 9$ gallon will make me money
August 31st, 2007 at 12:28 amyou guys should hope for high gas prices because that is the only incentive 90% of americans will use to change their ways. Mnay of my liberal coworkers still drive gas guzzlers. I am the only person in my work group who lives 5 minutes from my job and on the busline- and iam a Conservative!
August 31st, 2007 at 12:32 am