Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations’
Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations’
UPDATE: The Stanford Daily, which originally reported on the round table, incorrectly attributed some of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s comments to Gen. Abizaid. Though Abizaid did say “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” it was Friedman who said “We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations.” The Daily has posted a correction.
During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“:
“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.
“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”
Abizaid has previously argued that the U.S. would need “to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq” in order to protect “the free flow of goods and resources” such as oil, but his Stanford comments go much further in pinning oil as a prime motivator for the war.
The Bush administration, however, still denies any connection between the war in Iraq and America’s geopolitical interest in Middle East oil. Just last month, after former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates rejected the notion, saying “I just don’t believe it’s true“:
“I wasn’t here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war,” Gates said. But he added, “I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true.”
“I think that it’s really about stability in the Gulf. It’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It’s about aggressive dictators,” Gates said.
Though Abizaid says that Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil “prices low,” the per-barrel cost of oil has risen dramatically since the U.S. first invaded. In March 2003, the price of oil was roughly US$35 a barrel. Today, prices reached “above $85 a barrel for the first time.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
216 Responses to “Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oil, racism, and religious bigotry.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pmAmerica creates terrorists through amoral mideast policy.
“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,†Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.
Wasn't he just quoting Alan Greenspan?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:23 pmfu*king sickening.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:24 pmWell said, Guido. Count me as one of the "Blame America First"ers. Pigs at the trough, Bushco. Republicans can't govern without killing people.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:24 pmHow come everybody in the whole freakin' WORLD knows that this war is about oil -- except for the asshats who started it??
Stupid ...or evil. (and I'll vote for the latter)
October 15th, 2007 at 5:28 pmIt was about Oil. We need oil and nobody can deny it. Since our loser congress will not open American Oil fields, we have to protect the only place environmentalists don't care about, the middle east. It may be a sad truth, but a truth none the less. Lets use more American Oil from American oil fields and reduce our dependance. That may keep us out of wars afterall.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pmThe neo-con slime machine will have to work overtime on the growing list of fake soldiers.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pmGeneral Abiz-ay-Us?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pmOil, water and air?
Wow, its a global warming war.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pmOK, Redhaters, time to go after another military man who tells the truth.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:37 pmWait a minute...Isn't the second paragraph of his quote taken VERBATIM from a Thomas Friedman article. I've heard Friedman say those exact words a number of times in interviews.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmOh no, another Retired General telling the truth? Let the bashing begin!!
October 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmAn observer posted a comment:
October 15th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
It’s about aggressive dictators,†Gates said.
Oh, as opposed to sneaky and underhanded ones such as we have here?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:42 pmWe dont need alternative fuel, we need president bush to ask for more volunteers so all those brave freepers will flow unto the battlefields and win one for the gipper!
October 15th, 2007 at 5:42 pmIt’s about aggressive dictators,†Gates said.
Is that anything like a wide stance?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pmDuh.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pmBig Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance = Bush's Holy Trinity
October 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmI looked out the window and the price of gasoline just shot up 15 cents since Abizaid said this.
/kidding, it will be at least a week.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:51 pmHe didnt say taking the oil Billy Hill, he meant, as many cons have, securing the oil, which they haven't really been able to do because of the security situation in Iraq.
Remember when wolfowitz said the oil would pay for the rebuilding oof Iraq? Why hasn't that happened? Can you say oil law Billy Hill?
October 15th, 2007 at 6:03 pmThe assertion that war with Iraq is to keep oil prices low is simply too idiotic for words. They're not after oil - they're after oil profits. A high price is exactly what they want. When will everyone realize that the BA is after as much treasure as they can swindle, before relocating to Paraguay/Dubai?
October 15th, 2007 at 6:05 pm"...Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil 'prices low,'..."
It all depends on whether you are buying or selling. Bushco is keeping the Iraqi oil at a very low price, they are stealing it for nothing---the value they place on the lives of our troops---and selling it for the low price of $85 per barrel. Had Sadam not been about to sell his oil for Euros instead of Bush dollars he would still be in power. Of course it was, is, and will be about oil as long as the neo-con crooks remain out of Leavenworth.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:05 pmIt was for oil….OK, where’s the oil? Where is it going? If it was about oil Iraqi oil would be flowing to the US in huge quantity’s. Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Well, that would be true if you wingnuts had run the country competently! It's kind of difficult to keep the oil flowing, when the oil infrastructure keeps getting attacked!
Or we could have just bought it…it would have been cheaper than the war. Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
That was Kristol's promise! But you wingnuts failed to deliver that one as well! Although we hear your GOP friends in the Texas Oil bidness are thrilled to death with the current situation! Who says that grabbing oil resources has to be about producing more oil?
Whats Abizaid talking about “big gas station†the US gets only a small portion of oil from the middle east? This guy was centcom commander……WOW!
Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Really? What about US companies? You know, the guys that dictate our policies? What do they get?
October 15th, 2007 at 6:05 pmWho could have forseen the security problems in getting the damned oil to market?
October 15th, 2007 at 6:07 pm"Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,"
Clearly just another leftist kook, that general.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pmIt is all about PNAC Doctrine.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pmWhat Oil? !!
Iraq is producing about 60% level before the war. The barrel of oil was around $20.00 before the war began...now it is above $80.00.
Russia,Iran and Venezuela whom we label them as our enemies are enjoying best time with good revenues due to rise in oil prices...
What did we get..?!
The average American is paying 3.5 times what he used to pay at the pump.
But when you look at the stocks and revenues in the oil industry..indeed there is a nice upward trend.
We lost many markets due to this war, we got ourselves deeper in debt. Israel is a winner here, because one of their biggest enemies,Saddam was crushed by USA.
But what did we get?
Iran is a winner too of this war...they didn't have to send troops to topple Saddam ..we did it for them.
He was a thorn in their side and their biggest enemy.
BUT WHAT DID WE GET...?!!
Ummmm, tarazan, lemme guess...
S C R E W E D???
October 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pmIf you know anybody who still doesn't think that it's about the oil, have them read Jim Holt's superb piece in the the current issue of the London Review of Books. You can find it here:
October 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pmhttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html
CtR says: "Had Sadam not been about to sell his oil for Euros instead of Bush dollars he would still be in power."
That is a fact not often repeated, Clyde. Isn't Iran talking about trading oil in Euros at this time? Aren't we talking about attacking Iran for its nuclear facilities (WMDs)?
October 15th, 2007 at 6:28 pmWe don't have to wait a generation for history to repeat itself.
They need signatures. They have close to a Million signatures.. But need all they can get !!
ImpeachBush.org
October 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pmIt’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It’s about aggressive dictators,†Gates said.
Like North Korea? Oh, that's right, they DON'T HAVE OIL. Liars.
Buck Fush
October 15th, 2007 at 6:36 pm#21 Billy Hill,
I agree with you, USA gets small portion of its imported Oil from the Middle East conterary to what the majority of Americans think.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:43 pmYet Arab producing countries always take the blame..
But we get oil from Norway, Mexico, Venezuela,Nigeria,Indonesia and many other countries.
“I think that it’s really about stability in the Gulf. It’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It’s about aggressive dictators,†Gates said.
He's right, it is about an aggressive Dictator...
George HW Bush - Shrub's dad - the ACTUAL President of the United States.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:46 pmFYI:
There is no "Osama Bin Laden"
He does not exist, and no one here can prove that he does.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pm#31 Marie
You are Correct about Iraq selling oil outside the dollar domain and accepting other currency shortened Saddam's regime life.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:48 pmIran now is doing the same thing and that is why they are on the adminstration radar screen as the next to be attacked.
Even "stability in the Gulf" is about oil. Why else would we care $500 Billion worth for stability in a relatively low population desert region?
Come On, Gates!
October 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pmOc course it's about oil! And the US presence in Iraq/Iran is a long-term proposition. According to an article written by Jim Holt there is no exit strategy because there has never been any intention to leave.........and whoever is elected the new Dem prez she(he) won't leave either. As oil quickly heads towards $100 bucks a barrel, Jim Holts article is a must read: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/print/holt01_html
October 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pmJust wait until January 21, 2009 when gasoline shoots up to about $5 a gallon!
October 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pmMarcus Aurelius: "They’re not after oil - they’re after oil profits."
EXACTLY! The oil corporations have enjoyed record profits during this period. Exxon posted the biggest corporate quarterly profits for any corporation in the history of measuring profits.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:10 pmGosh, Gates, could you be any more naive?
October 15th, 2007 at 7:11 pmI was present and as mentioned above it was Tom Friedman not Abizaid who said this.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:13 pmBart: "And as I pointed out to him, the REAL question is not “where†its going, but who’s making the money."
Again, oil Corporations have posted record profits in recent years. That's where the money is going. To the corporate oligarchy. It's certainly not going to fund civil government. The share of corporate taxes is down to about 7%, the lowest it's been since right before the Republican Great Depression.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:14 pmAn observer posted a comment:
Observer less than a minute ago
Friedman had this quote, not General Abizaid: “We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,†the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.â€
Comment by STPdem
Got a link?
October 15th, 2007 at 7:19 pmGates joins the long line of Bush inspired liars. What does "it’s really about stability in the Gulf" really mean? It means "o-i-l". Bush has this talent, like Circe, for turning men into pigs, dirty, snouting, lying, spinning pigs. See people like Powell, Rice, Petraeus, the Republican Party and so many others. You'd have to find it funny if it weren't so deeply tragic.
It's all about the oil. Don't ever forget it. If Iraq wasn't one of the largest oil reserves in the world, no one would give a damn about any deaths resulting from our withdrawal. Remember that, and look at how hypocritical we've been about plaxces like Darfur. Oil is the 600 pound gorilla that most people won't mention. Petreaus is a stooge, turned into one by Bush, just like Colin Powell and Rice; does anyone in their right mind expect Petreaus to come out for a withdrawal? His career is on the line: look at the generals who have been retired when they tried to tell the truth about Iraq. It's all quite disgusting how easily such people allow our troops and Iraqi civilians to be killed, and no one even thinks about the silent contractors and what has happened to them. Disgusting. And the media usually hasn't a clue.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:19 pmWait, does this mean Abizaid is a "phony soldier"!?
Quick, someone call Limbaugh! Abizaid needs to be exposed as the anti-American, anti-Bush, troop-hater terrorist appeaser traitor that he is.
Where is that very fine fair and balanced news organisation when you need it?
/sarcasm off
October 15th, 2007 at 7:39 pmCol. Jack, correct. Prior to Iraq, big oil was posting quarterly profits of $1-4 billion; now they are posting quarterlies of $12-13 billion. Another example of obscene war profiteering. With a little help from the Dick, of course.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:47 pmI was present and as mentioned above it was Tom Friedman not Abizaid who said this.
Comment by paulc — October 15, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
First of all, troll alert! The only other commenter who pointed this out was STPdem. I suspect a sockpuppet.
Second, Friedman had a similar comment in an article published in 2003. There is nothing in the Standford Daily article to suggest that it was Friedman and not Abizaid who said those words during the round table that is the topic of the thread.
Lastly, so what if Friedman said it first? How does that make Abizaid's point invalid? Specially since it's true: The US has treated the Arab world as little more than a gas station. It's not as if that is news to anyone.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:55 pmIt's important to also remember that we can't flood the market with oil; that would weaken prices. By keeping Iraq in chaos, we can control the timing of it's oil being released. Be de-nationalizing it, we can control it's flow to the US and UK. The bushies aren't as stupid as people assume. They knew going in that they needed a quick military solution and a political solution (chaos) that would provide the excuse for us to stay there indefinitely. Hillary gets the point, which is why she won't commit to a quick pull out. She needs the support of the oil interests as much as Bush needed them.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pmWhats Abizaid talking about “big gas station†the US gets only a small portion of oil from the middle east? This guy was centcom commander……WOW!
Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Hey Bill...give this a read and learn yourself up a bit.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov03/middleEast.asp
October 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pmMaybe someone else mentioned it to Billy Hill, but it's not even about getting that oil to our market it's about who controls the oil, and makes those profits, currently it's NOT Exxon, BP, Conoco, etc. they are just making a killing on the shortage, as well as pure gouging the consumer. (thus their profits skyrocket). One of the "benchmarks" of the war was getting those Oil contracts signed, which last I heard was not ever going to happen.
Let's not forget everyone involved in the oil industry even before the elections.. We have the whole Bush Family, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and so on.
Billy Hill you're a typical fox news watcher, and sadly American.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:01 pm"..it's about agressive dictators." Certainly is, and GWB is the dictator... And the general believes in dictators. Don't let him pull the "fool me once" BS. He was in it for the "star".
October 15th, 2007 at 8:06 pmI think the Bushco cabal is THRILLED that oil prices have gone through the roof; that was one of the main ideas, I imagine. That big jump in big oil profits, and their huge shares in defense "contractors" including private compaines like Blackwater taking over military function is making them billionaires.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:27 pmAnyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that Iraq is all about oil and has nothing to do with democracy or freedom for Iraqis.
I wonder if these people who helped implement this disastrous policy are starting to have pangs of conscience?
I can be somewhat forgiving of the people in the military who are having pangs of conscience because they really were not free to express their opinions while still on active duty.
Come to think of it, is there even one retired general out there who still supports what is going on in Iraq? I can't think of any.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pmCan anyone name anybody that has served in any capacity with this president go down in American history as a great American??
October 15th, 2007 at 8:42 pmJust curious as to who that person could be compared to in our history.
This Friedman stuff is just a distraction. The article says Abizaid said it and I see nothing in the article to contradict that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
That's in the RNC's Troll Strategies Manual. When you don't have anything you can say to dispute a point, bring in a distraction to confuse the issue. We see it used here every day.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:43 pmThe biggest 'IN YOUR FACE' moment was...
O..............peration
I.............. raqi
L..............iberation
There is only one man that would come up with that, guess who?
October 15th, 2007 at 9:22 pmFirst of all, troll alert! The only other commenter who pointed this out was STPdem. I suspect a sockpuppet...
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 15, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
First off, here's the link; read the second comment.
Second, I can assure you, I'm no troll. I just want to make sure we're attributing the quote correctly.
Third, Friedman echoes the same point in a 2005 column.
Lastly, anybody who has seen Friedman on any talk show discussing the middle east would know that this is his standard point. As soon as I read it, I knew it was an inaccurate attribution. I can guarantee you that Friedman said what was in the second paragraph of the quote attributed to Abizaid.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:06 pm"I think that it’s really about stability in the Gulf. What could possibly be more conducive to stability than to remove the restraints on a perennial hereditary war? Isn't producing a million or so refugees increasing stability?" the Secretary of Defense said. "And if that's not enough, didn't we increase stability by failing to guard our weapons dumps? You can't have stability without sectarian executions, can you?"
"It’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction," the Secretary continued. "You know. Like Korea. You remember when we bombed and invaded Korea. Don't you? And when I say regimes, I mean more than one."
"It’s about aggressive dictators,†the Secretary went on thoughtfully. "You know. The kinda guys who try to get what they want with threats. And if the threats don't work, they invade. Without the permission of the people. Without permission from the UN. You know, those aggressive kind of dictators."
October 15th, 2007 at 10:07 pmBoth Dandy and Mudshark posted this link to a British article. It essentially answers those questions we are grappling with.
"Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades – a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics – dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration – could scarcely have been more effective."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html
October 15th, 2007 at 10:26 pmI respect this blog tremendously, but I'm extremely disappointed by this thread. Everyone here is so giddy about a former Loyal Bushie is acknowledging the progressive point of view that you have been totally unwilling to research a potentially inaccurate article.
I always appreciate the progressive position because we want the news to be accurate and we correct ourselves when we're wrong. This paranoia about a couple of wingnuts infiltrating your space has led to the disrespect witnessed in this thread and an abandonment of what makes the progressive blogosphere a legitimate medium.
My initial point...
Wait a minute…Isn’t the second paragraph of his quote taken VERBATIM from a Thomas Friedman article. I’ve heard Friedman say those exact words a number of times in interviews.
...was totally valid, and I was absconded for bringing it up. Just because I raise a well-intentioned alternative perspective, does not mean that I'm trying to rain on your parade. I'm only trying to ensure that we retain the highest standards of debate.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:30 pmDid you read the second comment after the article? As anybody that reads the news regularly knows, not every article is accurate. Especially a college paper.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:35 pmLook, I completely agree that this war is about oil.
That's not the point I am bringing up. I have just heard Friedman say that exact statement time and time again. I find it very hard to believe that a well educated man like Abizaid would echo verbatim someone else's position.
I'm not claiming that Abizaid did not say this war was about oil. I'm saying that he likely did not repeat exactly what Tom Friedman reiterates over and over.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pmWow. I tried to be civil. I tried to have a discussion.
An observer at the forum obviously took issue with the attribution of the Abizaid quote. Mr. Friedman has said the same thing many times before. It would be odd for Abizaid to say the same thing Friedman always says. I believe that raising the issue is completely legitimate.
If you look at #70, you'll see I directed everyone to read the second comment after the article, which raises the quote issue.
Also, you totally lost me with #84. Not sure I follow.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:51 pmIf you posted the second comment, which says Friedman had the gas pump line, then why are you arguing? That's exactly what I'm saying.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:01 pmWow, you have some kind of imbalance. I would not like to run into you in a dark alley.
I'm also from St. Paul. Does that mean I'm a mole, working for the RNC in preparation for the Repub National Convention?
Have a fantastic night stewing in anger over nothing.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:08 pmFolks - The Stanford Daily made a mistake attributing the comment to Abizaid. The discussion was "filmed for broadcast" so the facts of who said what are easy to determine...
October 15th, 2007 at 11:09 pmPaulc, thank you for rescuing me from being savaged for the last half hour. Unfortunately I do not have anything better to do than argue with BARTLEBEE.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:12 pmWOW!! Seems that since TP is deleting most of the troll's postings, the hostility, anger and frustration we are ALL feeling about this administration is being misdirected at our fellow travelers. First of all STPdem ALSO posted Freidman's March 3, 2005 column in which he writes precisely what has been attributed to Abizaid by the Stanford college paper. (See #70)NOTE: STPdem is correct in that it appears to be a MISattribution. He/she is NOT accusing the paper of some intentional error, but mistakes do happen in reporting. That's obviously why all newspapers have a section in their papers where they print their "corrections." He/she is also not accusing TP of some nefarious motive either...just that there should be more fact-checking and cross referencing when starting a thread. Otherwise, a really fine progressive blog is going to look more and more like Drudge and others of that ilk.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:21 pmYou’re a pathetic liar and a worthless waste of keystrokes.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 15, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
I think you're overreacting. There's nothing in what STPdem has written that could be called a lie or a waste of keystrokes. Relax, not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy! Besides, you don't own TP, do you?
October 15th, 2007 at 11:22 pmI would like to get TP to post an update or at least check into it. Obviously, if Abizaid actually said the first line of that quote, he made some big news. But if he didn't, a lot of people reading this blog are going to be misinformed.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:26 pmComment by STPdem — October 15, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Your attention span obviously doesn't go beyond the first line.
I had already found (and linked to) the 2003 column that Friedman wrote about the Middle East being a "big gas station" (yes, that's 2003). So you are saying nothing new.
Second off, the link you provided is the same one ThinkProgress already provided and the one I read. Again, you say nothing new.
Third, if you have evidence that the Stanford Daily got their quote wrong, post it. Otherwise you ar ejust babbling.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:30 pmHey foreyes.
Go f#$k yourself.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 15, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
Is that you, Cheney?
October 15th, 2007 at 11:30 pmI would like to get TP to post an update or at least check into it. Comment by STPdem — October 15, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Better yet, Einstein.
Why don't you go pester The Stanford Daily until they correct their report?
After all, it's their mistake, isn't it?
October 15th, 2007 at 11:33 pmWhat a pair of right wing mooks.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 15, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Do you always see enemies all around you, "mysteriously injecting an object of doubt" into what you consider to be your irrefutable arguments? If so, it's time for help, my friend!
October 15th, 2007 at 11:37 pmYes, Bartlebee.
Amazing how they demand 100%, absolute correctness beyond any doubt at all when it comes to evidence that they support a disaster of an administration.
But their (mis)Leader tells them he needs their support to invade Iraq because of non-existing WMD, in a phony "war on terror"? Oh, ah! All hail the Leader! His word is the truth, don't you dare doubt it!
October 15th, 2007 at 11:38 pmAnd by "beyond any doubt" I mean that they set the bar so high that it's impossible to reach. They do that on purpose, of course, lest their Dear (mis)Leader be shown for the walking disaster that he is...
October 15th, 2007 at 11:40 pmThe proof is in the pudding.
Look at the 12th paragraph, which clearly states that Friedman claims the "gas pump" quote. This is the point I have raised from the beginning:
Concerning the Middle East, Friedman blamed the United States for treating the region as a collection of cheap "gas stations" for the last 50 years. In exchange for low oil prices and a hands-off policy toward Israel, he said, the United States turned a blind eye to the entrenchment of ideological, authoritarian regimes. "It is my opinion that Osama bin Laden and 9/11 represented the distilled essence of everything that was going on out 'back there,'" he said, referring to Western acquiescence to policies that preached intolerance and rejected equal opportunity for all citizens.
It also says in the following paragraph that Abizaid said the war was closely tied to oil, which I have not disputed and it delights me that he said it.
Bartlebee and Gregor Samsa, you'd be amazed by the capability of Google News these days.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:44 pmComment by Gregor Samsa — October 15, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
I think you're letting yourself be drawn into BARTLEBEE'S paranoia. I am not a troll. I just don't like it when a different point of view is treated as if it were a crime followed by all kinds of ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, Bart goes over the top sometimes and someone should remind him that we have a right to our opinions.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:47 pmComment by STPdem — October 15, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Except you are the one who made the claim, so the burden was on you to show the "pudding", not on me.
And the capability of Google only extend to the point of its users, being as it is that it took you about 4 hours to find said "pudding". Not very impressive.
At any rate, it seems I stand corrected.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:50 pmI think you’re letting yourself be drawn into BARTLEBEE’S paranoia. I am not a troll.
Comment by foreyes — October 15, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
I don't buy into anyone's "paranoia", but I do tend to trust people who have been right in the past. Bartlebee has. You, well, I don't know.
As for you not being a troll, ditto. I won't take the word of some random unknown person in some random blog.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:54 pmHe’s a lying troll, and foreyes is too.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 15, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
TP seems to have its own version of a Blackwater enforcer "shooting" innocent people!
October 15th, 2007 at 11:54 pmAnd the capability of Google only extend to the point of its users, being as it is that it took you about 4 hours to find said “puddingâ€. Not very impressive.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 15, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
Yes, I wish I would have found this piece earlier. But that does not in any way justify the attacks from Bartlebee, which you endorsed. I read this blog every single day, and I have never seen so many vile, profanity-laced comments directed at someone trying to raise a legitimate issue. I know this is an open forum, but I wish people who claim righteousness in their positions would do it more intelligently.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:55 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — October 15, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Follow his link to Global Security.
They have a different account of what was said at the round table.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:55 pmI meant to the Stanford News Service....
October 15th, 2007 at 11:56 pmFolks - please check Itunes, Courting Disaster, a free video download of the entire discussion. Then perhaps the discourse could be reset to
factual rather than speculation.
Think Progress has been in my top 3 links to progressive blogs and it is because the "truth' is the most important aspect of the reporting. Please try to keep it so...
October 15th, 2007 at 11:58 pmI meant to the Stanford News Service….
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 15, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Bartlebee - this is the link
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/october17/round-101707.html
"Concerning the Middle East, Friedman blamed the United States for treating the region as a collection of cheap "gas stations" for the last 50 years. In exchange for low oil prices and a hands-off policy toward Israel, he said, the United States turned a blind eye to the entrenchment of ideological, authoritarian regimes. "It is my opinion that Osama bin Laden and 9/11 represented the distilled essence of everything that was going on out 'back there,'" he said, referring to Western acquiescence to policies that preached intolerance and rejected equal opportunity for all citizens.
Abizaid said the dynamics in the Middle East, particularly the war in Iraq, are closely tied to oil. "We can't really deny that," he said. Furthermore, the rise of Sunni and Shiite extremists, the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict and global dependence on Middle Eastern oil have created problems with global implications."
October 15th, 2007 at 11:59 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — October 15, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
Please Bartlebee, trust me.
This is the link to the News Service not to the Daily.
The News Service has a different version.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:00 amOil was $35 a barrel before the United States invades Iraq and now it's $85 a barrel.
Saudi Arabia has remained conspicously silent while its next-door neighbor has been viciously attacked. This also seems to also be the case with regard to many other oil-producing nations in the region. Although it might seem that the matter of a nation that wears its "Christianity" on its sleeve invading and occupying a country in the midst of the Middle East would result in a unanimous, concerted outcry. But, such does not appear to be the case.
In the meantime, those other countries (as well as Bush and Cheney's Big Oil and defense contractor friends) are laughing all the way to the bank, meanwhile running up the bill on the credit cards (aka the national debt) of this country's lower and middle income citizens. This country has also experienced the equivalent of an extremely heavy tax increase represented by significantly increased prices for gasoline (remind yourself of this the next time you fill up at the pump).
The apparent purpose was to increase oil prices, not lower them. Should this be the case, the Bush/Cheney cabal has been a smashing success.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:01 amIf the object of the overthrow of a legitimate government was to insure obscene profits for our texas buddies, we have sucseeded beyond our wildest dreams. The profit Haliburton makes does not help me one g#d damn bit buy fuel for my trucks.
I suggest we vote the same bunch of SOBs back in next election!!!!!
October 16th, 2007 at 12:02 amComment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 12:00 am
You are correct, that is the quote from the Daily (daily.stanford.edu). But what I am saying is that the News Service (news-service.stanford.edu) has a different version.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:04 amI was at this Stanford forum.
This is Thomas Friedman's quote not General Abizaid. Please correct it ASAP. We don't want to be inaccurate like the rightwing blogs are often. General Abizaid did not openly criticize Bush; however, he also did not support him. or defend him except when Thomas Friedman accused Bush of messing up the Middle Ease. Abizaid pointed out that the British screwed it up a long time ago.
-Election Countdown
October 16th, 2007 at 12:06 amForeeyes ALWAYS pretends to be calm and polite, while meanwhile he’s attacking me.
but I assure you he is a lying right wing troll.
Nothing more.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 15, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
When are you going to understand that I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU? I just don't agree with the way you insult people whom you label "right wing trolls for no valid reason at all.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:08 amAs far as "lies", will you please point out any lies I have said.
So once more I ask, where does it suggest anywhere in there that Abizaid did not say the war in Iraq was for Oil?
WHERE?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 12:03 am
If you read #12, #81, #97 and #112, you'll see that I never disputed that Abizaid did not say the Iraq war was about oil. I've only been trying to clear up the Friedman quote.
I hope this puts all the accusations to bed.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:08 amGregor, you just got through pointing out how the right wing trolls get us to discuss silly parameters and tidbits, and ignore the actual data that is there for the taking.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 12:06 am
::sigh::
Yep, I am guilty of that too....
The data here is this. Abizaid DID say the war in Iraq was about Oil.
And I think that is the bottom line.
The occupation of Iraq is an oil grab. End of story.
Whether or not he uttered the words "gas stations" is really a distraction.
I think we all get too caught up in the details sometimes.
Peace.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:09 amIf you read #12, #81, #97 and #112, you’ll see that I never disputed that Abizaid did not say the Iraq war was about oil. I’ve only been trying to clear up the Friedman quote.
I hope this puts all the accusations to bed.
Comment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 12:08 am
**Correction**
I never disputed that Abizaid DID say the Iraq war was about oil. Damn those double negatives.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:10 amI think we all get too caught up in the details sometimes.
Peace.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 12:09 am
If everyone had paid attention to details in 2002 and 2003, we never would have ended up in Iraq in the first place.
I agree, it's a big deal that Abizaid said this war was about oil. But the fact is, 70% of the country knows this. I think accuracy is extremely important. Abizaid's comments would have been far more noteworthy had the misquote been true. Thousands of people read this blog, and it does a disservice to us and the country if inaccuracy is not corrected.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:15 amThousands of people read this blog, and it does a disservice to us and the country if inaccuracy is not corrected.
Comment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 12:15 am
You're so right STPdem. You have done a great service to TP and, at least, some of us appreciate it.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:19 amIf everyone had paid attention to details in 2002 and 2003, we never would have ended up in Iraq in the first place.
Comment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 12:15 am
I meant we get too many trolls trying to "correct the record" about his or that, parsing all the minutia in the data, to cast doubt on the critics of the Bush administration.
There is no need to view and review said minutia to realise this White House has lied, misled, and told half-truths.
On the same token, there was no need to "look at the details" back then considering the case for war was falling apart almost as quickly as the Bush administration was putting it together.
It is partly thanks to this tactic of getting us (war critics) to look at all the little details that the Bush administration has got away with so much: They lie, move on, while we try to point exactly where they lied and how.
Thousands of people read this blog, and it does a disservice to us and the country if inaccuracy is not corrected.
Well, you could use the "power of google" and find trusted sources that help correct that mistake. As I said before, if you have evidence, post it. It's not all that complicated.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:22 amYou know what the most telling word in those two sentences was?
“Butâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Ugh. It's pointless.
I brought something up that you latched onto. You subsequently insulted me for over an hour while refusing to pay attention to the core of my point.
I'm glad the issue was resolved. I hope we can have a friendly discussion sometime.
Be well.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:23 amWell, you could use the “power of google†and find trusted sources that help correct that mistake. As I said before, if you have evidence, post it. It’s not all that complicated.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 12:22 am
See #121.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:26 amComment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Oh, and if you really did read this blog "every single day", you would have expected to be challenged on your fact-check.
You would know all too well how many times our "conservative" visitors post all kinds of lies, and half-truths. I am really surprised you were surprised.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:33 amWell, we agree on something. You ARE being an ass. And I would have gone to bed long ago had you not made my blood boil for two hours.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:33 amYou would know all too well how many times our “conservative†visitors post all kinds of lies, and half-truths. I am really surprised you were surprised.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Understood. I read, I don't usually participate. But I figured the factual nature of my assertion would be recognized. I know most people here tend to be well-informed and I assumed the issue would be quickly corrected.
Bartlebee will forever haunt my dreams.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:42 amYou may have fooled these people troll, but I know you.
I’ve dealt with you many times before, and I’m sure this won’t be the last one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Who are "these people" that have been fooled? Are you the only one who can detect the enemy? Man, you're one sick puppy!
October 16th, 2007 at 12:44 amI get a sense that Bartlebee doesn't get proven wrong too often, especially by a newbie.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:44 amBut I figured the factual nature of my assertion would be recognized.
Comment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Why? Because you say it?
Well, you will have to forgive us if we don't just take the word of an anonymous poster in a political blog.
This is not Freeperville, you know...
October 16th, 2007 at 12:47 amWell, you will have to forgive us if we don’t just take the word of an anonymous poster in a political blog.
This is not Freeperville, you know…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Dude, anyone who's heard Tom Friedman on Meet the Press has heard that quote.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:49 amThis is not Freeperville, you know…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 12:47 am
You did buy into Bart's paranoia, whether you admit it or not.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:49 amDude, anyone who’s heard Tom Friedman on Meet the Press has heard that quote.
Comment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Which doesn't mean Abizaid couldn't have repeated it. Now does it?
October 16th, 2007 at 12:50 amYou would know all too well how many times our “conservative†visitors post all kinds of lies, and half-truths. I am really surprised you were surprised.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Understood. I read, I don’t usually participate. But I figured the factual nature of my assertion would be recognized. I know most people here tend to be well-informed and I assumed the issue would be quickly corrected.
Bartlebee will forever haunt my dreams.
Comment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 12:42 am
I, for one, understood what you were trying to do by correcting the record. I also agree that accuracy is extremely important. We constantly criticize FOX and other right-wing groups for being inaccurate, and shouldn't be in a position of the "kettle calling the pot black." If truth (with a capital "T") is as important as we say it is, then we should apply that to ourselves as well.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:51 amComment by foreyes — October 16, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Lay off, foreyes... I've had no peeve with you. Although it seems you are working hard to change that
October 16th, 2007 at 12:51 amLet us not forget that the headline of this post states: Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations,' which he did not say.
I'm done.
Inhofe '08
October 16th, 2007 at 12:53 amBartlee,
Youre gonna call me a troll but I could care less. You seem very angry and bitter. Maybe if you actually knew how to read you'd see what STP was trying to say.
I just read this entire thread and want to point out this NYC times article link that STP posted, a Friedman article dated March 3 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
2nd Paragraph: America has treated the Arab-Muslim states for 50 years as a collection of gas stations. All we cared about was that their pumps were open and their prices low, and that they be nice to the Israelis. As long as the regimes did that, we said, they could do whatever they wanted "out back."
And then what Abizaid supposedly said within the past day or so:
We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,†the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back."
You don't find it remotely odd that Abizaid said the same quote verbatim to Friedman's quote which he made over 2 years ago? Dude, wake up and smell the coffee man!
October 16th, 2007 at 12:54 amLay off, foreyes… I’ve had no peeve with you. Although it seems you are working hard to change that
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 12:51 am
You endorsed your friend Bart's name calling or, at least, did not object to it. Next time choose your allies better.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:00 amNext time choose your allies better.
Comment by foreyes — October 16, 2007 @ 1:00 am
And I suggest you doll out advise to those who ask for it.
I will object -or not- to anything I very bloody well please.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:01 amOk so at least you do acknowledge that the quote was first used by Friedman, in 2005, albiet very slightly different wording. What are the odds that Abizaid would use the same quote? Has this ever happened before? Where a political/military figure identically quotes a journalist 2 years later, passing off the comment as his own?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:03 amBushcon,
Thank you for the open mind. I'll point you to this link:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/october17/round-101707.html
It provides an entirely different account, FROM STANFORD, and attributes the "Gas Stations" quote to Friedman.
Gregor has already acknowledged this, but apparently has a short memory.
I'm really leaving this time.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:06 amCould it be a typo or a misquote? Sure. But theres nothing to suggest it was, and this guy has spent the entire night trying to prove there was.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 12:59 am
And you've spent the whole night trying to prove the it wasn't a typo or misquote.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:06 amfor the record, Gates is a liar and is nothing more than a pupet for the BushCo war crime machine. The war is for "stability and agressive dictators"? Yeah right, so why aren't we invading DPRK? or every other African nation?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:08 amGregor has already acknowledged this, but apparently has a short memory.
Comment by STPdem — October 16, 2007 @ 1:06 am
I already acknowledged it, haven't taken it back, and my memory is just fine -thank you.
As I said before, don't expect people to take your word just because you say it. You are an anonymous poster in a blog.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:10 amBartboy,
if I'm a troll, then Bush is the next Mother Theresa. And Rummy really was a man of honor.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:11 amI will object -or not- to anything I very bloody well please.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 16, 2007 @ 1:01 am
That's your right. Oh, and by the way, take your condescending tone and shove it!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:11 amWhat, now people take offense that anyone should ask for evidence?
Yeah... the outrage! the gall!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:12 amRa Ra Ra GOOOO B USH! GOOO CHENEY!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:13 amComment by foreyes — October 16, 2007 @ 1:11 am
Says the twit who condescendingly gave me advise to better choose my "allies".
Did I mention where you can put that advise?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:14 amBartboy, why are you getting angry? Ra Ra Ra
October 16th, 2007 at 1:16 amLOL! Oh man if you only knew just how LIBERAL i am and what an ANTI-NEOCON I am.
But it's all good, keep living in your little world of paranoia and dementia. Everyone who can't agree with you is a NEOCON Troll, myself included. And keep playing wack-a-troll. You sure need to get better at it!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:20 amHis claws will come out soon. He’s stalked me for months now Gregor.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 1:14 am
Are you often stalked by people with claws? Do they hide under your bed? My, you're one sick puppy!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:21 amEverytime I am busting on one of his double agents, in he comes to run interference.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 1:14 am
Bart, you could almost be funny if you weren't so pathetic.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:24 amHow pathetic. Maybe Bartman is really a neocon in troll disguisel? After all, why is he getting so angry over nothing? LMAZZOFF
October 16th, 2007 at 1:25 amBartman, are you one of those nutjobs who thinks we never went to the moon? You sure act like one!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:26 amAnd are you by any chance related to that A-Hole Bartman who spit on at Wrigley Field for foul ball interference? It would sure explain your childish and paranoic behavior! LOL!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:29 amWhy not just answer the question instead of being such a paranoid schizo?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:31 amTroll? Ok. But can I be a liberal troll or do I have to convert to Neoconism?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:32 amyou are right, not verbatim..I stand corrected. Are trolls allowed to accept being corrected? Yeah not verbatim, but god damn nearly identical wording, would you not say? Duh
October 16th, 2007 at 1:34 amYes I am a troll, I admit it. But If I'm a troll then Rummy is a man of Honor. So is Bushy. Rah Rah Rah
Rah Rah Rah
October 16th, 2007 at 1:36 amAfter all, why is he getting so angry over nothing? LMAZZOFF
Comment by BushConHater — October 16, 2007 @ 1:25 am
That's what I've been asking myself all night. Someone (STPdem) points out quite rightly that there is a possible mistake in attributing a quote to Gen. Abizaid. No harm done, just an attempt to make things more accurate for the readers of TP. Bart takes that personally and starts hurling insults and calling everybody a right wing troll. He claims that any attempt to set the record straight goes against the credibility of TP.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:38 amNoone, and I mean noone, doubts that the Iraq war was for oil, yet, Bart keeps insisting that, somehow, we are trying to deny it. I think he needs help.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/May2004/ross0504.html
October 16th, 2007 at 1:38 amLeave it to this White House crew to choose the path of maximum destruction, maximum profit for the cronies. We wallow in profit, you die.
Bartman now that I have been exposed as a "troll" will I have to behave more like a neocon around here? Just curious. Serious question.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:38 amComment by foreyes: That’s what I’ve been asking myself all night. Someone (STPdem) points out quite rightly that there is a possible mistake in attributing a quote to Gen. Abizaid. No harm done, just an attempt to make things more accurate for the readers of TP. Bart takes that personally and starts hurling insults and calling everybody a right wing troll. He claims that any attempt to set the record straight goes against the credibility of TP.
Noone, and I mean noone, doubts that the Iraq war was for oil, yet, Bart keeps insisting that, somehow, we are trying to deny it. I think he needs help.
Yeah this is one wierd guy. Oops, now that I replied to you it will only confirm that you and I are the same poster helping each other out. What a nutcase. I wonder who's wackier, Bush or Bartman? Rah Rah Rah!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:40 amBartman if I'm a moron then you are dumber than Bush. What now?
Rah Rah Rah!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:41 amIf I'm a neocon, then Bush is a leftist liberal. What now?
RAH RAH RAH
(pom poms)
RAH RAH RAH
October 16th, 2007 at 1:43 amBartman if I'm dumb, then you're dumber. What now?
Rah Rah Rah
October 16th, 2007 at 1:43 amHow could we two get a room when we're one person trolling you?
You just got OWNED.
Rah Rah Rah
October 16th, 2007 at 1:44 amI didnt format anything, the only thing i admit was incorrect was my use of Verbatim. the two paragraphs are cut and pasted IDENTICALLY to the articles they came from, MORON. Instead of verbatim, I meant NEAR IDENTICAL. I think anyone with 2 brain cells knows what I meant to say. Dumb A-S-S!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:47 amIn case your little brain can't comprehend, I retract the term verbatim and substitute it with "NEARLY IDENTICAL". What now moron?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:48 amYeah but where did I actually "FORMAT" the article quotes?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:51 amYou got busted for lying, you claimed I formatted the article. Where did I format the article? PROVE IT!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:52 amLMAZZOFF!!! You are one retarded bushwacked fuctard. All anyone has to do is read both articles and see they the glaring and obvious similarities and yes, certain parts of the quotes ARE IN FACT VERBATIM. Dumb f u k!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:55 amsemantics, semantics. You probably never made it through English or comprehension, am I correct Bartman? You live on a farm in the South? Thought so!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:56 amAnyway, now that I've completely OWNED and Destroyed any credibility you might've still had, I'll leave you to wack off to yourself and the "sock puppet stalkers" that ruined your day.
Good night, fuctard!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:57 amseems to me there are two trolls that have destroyed this comment site for four hours now!you americunts just disgust me!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:03 amNow, about the TOPIC:Could it be that the war is about just having CONTROL over the oil,having the emerging China in mind...
Could it be that most of the suicide bombings are arranged by Americunts,just to keep the chaos going...of course,you would have to have some help from "private contractors",maybe...
And would it be possible for you idiots NOT call the Iraqi RESISTANCE
for insurgents...
brtle I am not bushconhater
October 16th, 2007 at 2:06 amhow can I prove it?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:08 amSorry Bartman, but you first got OWNED by STP. Then I posted the 2 articles side by side for everyone to see that there are several phrases ABSOLUTELY VERBATIM in both quotes. That makes both quotes NEARLY IDENTICAL.
Being the retard that you are, you won't be able to see this no matter how hard you try.
You got OWNED.
B-I-T-C-H-S-L-A-P-P-E-D
OWNED
Sweet dreams, Fuctard!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:08 amCreflo, you can't. Dont waste your time. Just admit you and I are the same and you'll have yourself some good entertainment at the expense of the uneducated neocon bushwacked loser Bartman.
G'nite!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:09 amI've not seen one American actually get right what this war is about. It is about the American people supporting, aiding and abetting the actions of a group of war criminals, both when they originally initiated their illegal war against Iraq, and later continuing to support the prime war criminal when he ran for re-election, as evidenced by the results of the last presidential election.
Not all Americans of course but more than enough to get the dirty deed done dirt cheap. They did this because while they might profess a dislike of war they secretly supported it, presuming in some way to see profit from it. Its called wanting to have your cake and eating it too. Until the American people by a sizable majority decide they've had enough of invading and occupying other countries at the whim of their monarchs; become prepared to prosecute war criminals who advocate such invasions as the criminals they are; and elect a leadership that calls war crimes crimes and war criminals war criminals, all America's endless litany of wars and agonising about the cause of them can be put down to the simplest of equations: "War = Utter stupidity on the part of the American people". Please America stop blaming your leaders, and begin the process of blaming yourselves. As long as all you do is blame your leaders, tomorrow (having had a most satisfactory change of leadership) will be just as good a day to start the next war as the day before.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:10 amijdavais are you another neocon troll? Sure sounds like it!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:11 amone of the oldest words in the English language, or you’re a troll.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 2:00 am
I couldn't resist this: "Verbatim", one of the oldest words in the ENGLISH language, excuse my Latin while I laugh.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:11 amStp scurried off to get away from turning into a psycho paranoic lunatic like Bartman. I'm about to do the same.
G'nite, Bartman you fuctard!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:12 amBartman, one more thing before I leave you to deal with your sock puppet stalkers, you must really hate women too? Ever had a girlfriend? Didn't think so!
Sweet dreams retard!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:13 amWell, i agree with you a little,but nowadays americunts are as powerless than any other people including where I live.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:17 amAnd they will soon pay,they are losing their freedoms day by day,a "gestapo "has been formed (homeland security)they have been conditioned at the airports and it just goes on and on....
I wonder when they wake up...
Wasnt there an alcoholic woman murdered at the phoenix airport some time ago?And then there was that dangerous mummy armed with a sppy cup, wrestled down by yet another acronym:TSA
October 16th, 2007 at 2:24 amamericunts are sinking....
Whens the rally?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 2:20 am
Already picking a fight with another TP visitor? I bet you're getting ready to hurl some of your choice insults at him/her. Blackwater Bart is on the prowl again!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:26 amWee hours of the morning, and mr “I am not a troll’s†still here, running interference.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 2:29 am
No, just making sure that contributors to TP understand that they're dealing with a paranoic individual who has appointed himself the Blackwater trooper of TP.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:33 amSure, retard, here are phrases and parts of phrases, anything outside of parantheses is ABSOLUTELY VERBATIM. UNDERSTOOD? Everything in () is all semantics anyway, for your little brain in case you're wondering. If you are so dumb that you can't see it, then I have no doubt you were an F student throughout school.
Friedman: "collection of gas stations"
Abizaid: "collection of (big) gas stations"
Friedman: "pumps (were) open (and their) prices low"
Abizaid: " (keep your) pumps open, prices low"
Friedman: "be nice to the Israelis"
Abizaid: "be nice to the Israelis "
Friedman: "(you can) do whatever (you want) out back.â€
Abizaid: "(they could) do whatever (they wanted) “out back.â€
There you go, fuctard.
OWNED AGAIN!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:34 amForeyes, if Bartman is the Blackwater trooper of TP then he'll be out of a job soon! LOL!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:36 amYou got OWNED good. I just proved VERBATIM wordage use in both quotes. The likelyhood of that happening are close to nil. Unless Abizaid intentionally used Friedman's words, which is also a possibility. Abizaid did not come up with those words himself as history has easily proven.
YOU GOT OWNED AGAIN, Beatch!
Why not just admit that you wouldn't even acknowledge that Friedman had made these comments 2 years ago until the NYC times article was reposted for your slow brain to pick up on?
OWNED!
B-I-T-C-H-S-L-A-P-P-E-D
October 16th, 2007 at 2:42 amUhh, don’t mean to confuse you there Dudley, but wouldn’t your own description of your own purpose here make YOU the “blackwater trooper of TP�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 2:35 am
Wrong again, peabrain! I'm not the one hurling insults all over the place (including references to people's mothers). It's you who is trying to intimidate people. And I will keep on denouncing you for what you are: a coward and a paranoic would be bully just like the president you say you despise so much.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:43 amForeyes, I already proved he hates women and has never dated a girl. That could explain his angry frustration and lashing out at those who merely take into accounts all possibilities.
What a loser this guy is!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:44 am5 of the same words? You really are retarded! wow, you can't even count right! But that doesn't surprise me one bit.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:46 amLol, you got busted, limpdick. Admit it.
Why do you hate women so much? Are they out to get you too?
LMAZZOFF
October 16th, 2007 at 2:48 amHey Bartman, how was life after you interefered at Wrigley few years back? Musta sucked for you, huh? That explains why you are so bitter and angry to this day.
Oh the humanity!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:50 amCause he’s a troll.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 2:45 am
You didn't like being called for what you are, ha Bart? By the way, are people with "claws" still stalking you? Have you found any under your bed. If you did, would you face them or pee in your pants like the good little coward you are?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:51 amLol, we're past that boy, I already proved several phrases to be nearly identical containing verbatim wording. Yet your little peabrain can't seem to grasp the simplicity of what's starting right at you in the face.
OWNED!
The sock puppet trolls are really robots from outer space. We are here to take over planet earth!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:52 amThere are words and phrases that are EXACTLY the same as i've repeatedly proven. Notice how nobody agrees with you. Go read it again, troll!
The Sock Puppets have Landed!
Rah Rah Rah
October 16th, 2007 at 2:57 amYep, the same IDENTICAL thing minus parentheses (semantics). Duh. you are really that ignorant?
Amaizing!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:01 amBecause you’re still having problems with that pesky word.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 2:55 am
This from an individual who wrote in #134
"Gregor, you just got through pointing out how the right wing trolls get us to discuss silly parameters and tidbits, and ignore the actual data that is there for the taking".
And then he latches on to a word and makes a federal case out of it. Typical paranoic behaviour, if you ask me.
Owned again!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:03 amNope, the same implied meaning and minus that one word they are IDENTICAL. Big is a relative word, and when talking about entire countries or a region big is already implied whether it's there or not. You still don't get it, do you. Did your english teacher fail to teach you about semantics?
Were you brain damaged as a toddler or an infant?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:03 amMan, this is too easy. It's like schooling a child.
Bartman gets OWNED again!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:05 amMan, you got so owned so now you're going into petty semantics. The quotes are there in black and white for everyone to see that Abizaid's quote was in fact a variation of Friedmans. This article hasn't and probably will not appear on any mainstream news source because it probably is simply not an accurate quote. If it does appear as wide spread news, I will be the first to acknowledge that Abizaid did indeed make that comment, regardless of where he got it from.
Keep 'em coming Bartman, i've already B-I-TCHSLAPPED you numerous times tonite and I will continue to OWN you.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:11 amBartman, I've already proven you hate life, women, and were an F student. If you're gonna try to hate on me, try to be a bit more thoughtful and original.
OWNED!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:13 amWhy hasn't this quote appeared in mainstream news yet? When it does, I will give it due props. The ret general for Centcom speaks out against the war in such a negative way and every major news outlet fails to report it? Why? Probably because it wasnt his quote, duh!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:16 amAnd two men saying similar things is NO basis for discrediting TP’s quote. Which is what you assclowns were and are still trying to do.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 3:13 am
Bart, I think you know by now that TP is not going to hire you so you can stop the Blackwater trooper bit. I've noticed that you continue to use derrogatory remarks in your previous posts; you're not doing TP any favors by insulting people who come here to make a contribution, in fact, you're probably driving them away.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:24 amand tells Bartlebee whats what.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 3:26 am
Do you always refer to yourself in the third person. For instance, do you excuse yourself by saying: Bartlebee needs to go to the bathroom, or, Bartlebee is tired and wants to go to sleep? That's really funny coming from a supposedly grown person. You'd expect that more from a child but, then again, your behaviour shows quite a bit of immaturity.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:33 amare u kidding me? I am against this war with a passion but obviously your closed mind is tainted with hate and filled with anger for people who disagree with you. so who gives a rats ass. You can't prove to me you're not in fact a right wing neocon so we're even. Your posts dont prove anything, neither do mine.
At least you're willing to acknowledge he might've not said it, I'm saying there's a more likely chance that he didn't than he did. For that you have to jump all over me and anyone else who shares this view? Grow up Bart and welcome to the world of free thinking. I don't have to prove jack to you or anyone else about my political views.
I am as far left as can be, but will vote for neither party next year. Hillary will want this war to continue if she gets elected, and well, lets not kid ourselves, Obama has no shot at the ticket. Guliani leads the rep poles so he'll probably be our next wacko president. That fuctard not only will keep the war going, he will try to invade iran. Big big mistake.
If Abizaid really did say that, then kudos to him, but isn't it too little too late? He couldve had more influence making those statements while in control of Centcom. Little good it does now. Same with Powell, that puppet lied to the UN in '03 about WMD, where was his concience back then? Too little too late. We need the leaders in power NOW to speak up so something can actually be done. But who are we fooling? If the bushies reacted so childishly to the Petrayus-Betrayus incident, what will they do if an active general actually speaks up about the truth of this war? Come on Petreaus, just do the right thing and tell the bush war machine what's really going on since they seem to be clueless the past 4 years.
Good Night.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:42 amEveryone knows I’m a bastard sob,
Its too late to change that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 3:35 am
Bartpeepee has finally said something truthful tonight. No need for more, g'night.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:45 amBecause I am a neocon right wing hawkish republican who loves hating on liberals? Stop being so simple minded and get some sleep dude.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:50 amMaybe you can teach me how. Your behavior is IDENTICAL to that of the neocons. Remember how they pounced on democrats back in '04? You pounce on every poster here. Next thing you know we'll all be called flip floppers. Your attitude is very, very republican.
Hopefully I can learn some more hawk-like ways from you.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:57 amFor starters,
RAH RAH RAH
BUSH!
CHENEY
GOOOO!
RAH RAH RAH.
Is that neocon enough for you yet?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:58 amBartman,
you keep getting bi t ch slapped. The article will prove to be a misquote and will never be printed anywhere but here, where it will eventually be retracted. Count on it and bank on it. It's all you got to save face. You will be OWNED by the very article you are trying to defend.
LMAZZOFF!
Sleep well. Remember the teddy bear. And when you wake up, try not to hate women as much anymore. If you're lucky, you might get a girlfriend one day. Even though she might be as fat and ugly as you.
OWNED!
G'nite, LOSER!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:03 amBartman,
Have you ever been with a girl?
Do you even like girls?
Didn't think so!
OWNED!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:06 amHopefully I can learn some more hawk-like ways from you.
Comment by BushConHater — October 16, 2007 @ 3:57 am
Since you've already proven he doesn't like women nor has ever had a date in his life, I doubt very much he's a hawk, more like little duckie bartpeepee pretending he's TP's Blackwater trooper.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:08 amSo sad, still trying to play the semantics defense when the quote has repeatedly been proven as a repeat.
Hey bartman, will you cry when the article never publishes?
LMAZZOFF!
OWNED!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:08 amForeyes, I almost feel sorry for him. It's like his heart got broken when it was pointed out to him that these were not the general's words. He almost cried. But like a paranoic child, he refuses to acknowledge that it was in fact Friedman who made these comments not Abizaid. That's why you don't see this printed in main stream media. A quote like this 3 days old would've been smeared across papers worldwide at first chance.
Poor Bartman got OWNED.
Sad. So Sad.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:11 amI agree with you BushConHater. I've enjoyed reading your posts. Good night. Peace!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:17 amIn your own world you are always victorious. Overwhelming evidence proves that you are wrong, and that the article while is a feel good story, will turn out to be erroneous. Only a poor uneducated fool like you can't see the truth.
Wake up fuctard!
OWNED!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:17 amBartboy has no one to his defense at all. The lone troll stomper at work trying to stomp out "sock puppet trolls" who allegedly stalk him.
How sad.
Bartman, you ever see the movie "A Beautiful Mind"? LMAZOFF!
What will you do when the article proves false? Will you weep?
I have an idea. Wack yourself upside the head. Maybe you'll awaken your 2 brain cells.
OWNED!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:20 amBy the way, you’ve been saying goodnight for about two hours now.
Another trademark of a troll.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 4:16 am
Do they also have 666 carved across their forehead? What kind of clothes do they wear? Do they like McDonald or Burger King? Wait, if that information is too secret you don't have to tell me, I understand.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:22 amGee I don’t know, pull your hair back and lemme see…
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 4:24 am
Maybe your hairy ass is a better place to look duckie bartpeepee!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:29 amIn fact, the links you posted both show Abizaid as saying the war was about Oil.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 16, 2007 @ 4:42 am
When are you going to get it through your thick skull that NOBODY here is disputing the Abizaid quote about the oil. It's the SECOND paragraph that has created the controversy, you moron! I've known some stubborn, immature people in my lifetime but you take the prize by a long distance.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:55 amHey TP, lets keep the blog clean and accurate. Either re-word the headline or delete it:
***Correction: In this article, The Daily inaccurately attributed a comment equating countries in the Arab world to gas stations to retired Army General John Abizaid. The comment was actually made by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.***
October 16th, 2007 at 7:29 amLefty Patriot I don't blame America. I love America. I blame the Republicans.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:32 amWhere is the oil going if it is not comig to the US?
Well, remember that Haliburton moved its headquarters to Dubais, last March. Their stated purpose is to increase marketing of oil to China.
That expains why Dick Cheney thinks his office is not part of the US executive branch. It is part of the exeutive branch of Dubais.
The US government has been hijacked by Haliburton, and serves no other purpose than to increase their profits...the worst conflict of interest in US history.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:59 amWas it called that John? Thats pretty crazy if it was. But i thought it was Iraqi “Freedomâ€. OIF.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
It was OIL before some people started noticing the acronym and commenting on it. They then changed the operation name to freedom along with their changing reasons for going in in the first place.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:14 amBilly Hill said
Perhaps it would be true if the situation weren't grossly mismanaged.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:30 amIs Robert Gates in FantasyLand, or does he think that WE'RE in FantasyLand?
Gates' quote is so ridiculous, a comedy script writer couldn't get away with it.
Come on, Bobby. Get to the stall, keep your stance at a normal width, and empty out your system. Then get back in front of the microphone and apologize to all of us for letting shit come out of your mouth.
Of course the war is about oil. And you're pathetic for not admitting this murderous fact.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:33 amand then we'll have some of the same DUMB ASSES asking "...well, why do they hate us?!!?!?..."
Those who support this admin and their policies are ignorant and that is hurting us.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:12 amO peration
I raqi
L iberation
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html
1:00 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a report on the President's day. The President this morning has spoken with three foreign leaders. He began with Prime Minister Blair, where the two discussed the ongoing aspects of Operation Iraqi liberation. The President also spoke with President Putin to discuss the situation involving Iraq. They discussed cooperation on humanitarian issues. They both reiterated their strong support for the U.S.-Russia partnership, and agreed to continue, despite the differences that the two have over Iraq. And the two also discussed the United States' concerns, which President Bush discussed, involving prohibited hardware that has been transferred from Russian companies to Iraq. Following the call, the President also spoke with Prime Minister Aznar of Spain.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:47 amThey really do think we are stupid...
Stability in the oil supply. Dictators all over the world, we pick the one we had been beating on for over a decade.
Duh.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:48 amOur presence in the middle east is about oil in the general sense that middle east oil supplies are vital to the world economy.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:38 pmDuh.
Exxon Mobil got to be the largest corporation in the world without US aggression. Big business does not like war. The oil industry never lobbied for the war. The mideastern oil-rich countries have to sell there oil on the world market so the US does not need to control the area. If you want to know why the US invaded Iraq, look to who lobbied for it and who in the administration pushed for it; the Israel lobby and the neo-cons.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pmThe NYT Magazine long ago published a detailed article tracing the war to its neocon roots rather than to oil, so I believe we're seeing some revisionist history based on what people think and their need for simple explanations, rather than the blow-by-blow messy decision-making that actually took place. We sent troops to Somalia and Bosnia to support regime change, and oil was not behind either. But whatever the root cause, what is wrong with this debate is the theory itself. Instead of trying to deligitimize the war on the basis of saying that it is "all about oil", it is far easier to deligitimize it by saying that the evidence for going to war to defend ourseleves did not and does no exist, and that our constitution does not allow us to go to war without self-defence as the cause. The latter point takes care of the neocons too.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:57 pm"our constitution does not allow us to go to war without self-defence as the cause."
Prove that?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pmCite the text from the Constitution that backs up your statement.
7.30pm BST / 2.30pm ET update
Clinton would use violence against Tehran
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday October 15, 2007 Guardian Unlimited
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton speaks at the University of New Orleans in Louisiana. Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.
In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
"True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims."
"If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives," Ms Clinton wrote.
???????????????????????
Why Clinton is asking for Iran to help US for security in Middle East; while with her vote is US who started the war in Iraq to destabilize Middle East; why is US asking Iran for help in regard to Middle East peace; while it is non then Hillary Clinton that asks for more wars in the area by announcing that Iran “renounce sponsorship of terrorismâ€; why is US asking for Iran to be more understanding in regard to Israel and its apartheid policies; while it is US that’s been helping Israel to become where it is and what it is today. So why this nonsense about Iran nuclear “bomb†ambition while it is US that have “every options on the table†which have and will use it when it comes to Iran and Middle East; why is this “nuclear†social psychological warfare while it is US that poses the greatest fear and threats of wars in the world with its militarism regime and its nuclear warheads; why this nonsense, where there are 33000 nuclear bomb in this world and most of it owned by US and Europeans; why this nonsense while it is US that been making new bombs for last 10 years and been using them in Yugoslavia, in Iraq and against other countries for no reason at all, why this nonsense when it is USA that having the largest militarism budget in the world yet is afraid about Iran and its possible nuclear energy “bombâ€?
During the Yugoslavian war the China embassy was bombed by US air force and 7 Chinese national including a Chinese journalist was killed, although USA announced that it was a “mistake†and blamed it on a “old map from CIAâ€, which this argument at first rises this question, why US Air Force needs CIA to provide a map for them to bomb a place in Yugoslavia?, second, while they were bombing Baghdad in 2003 every government buildings was hit but not the Oil ministry building, at the same time non of the Saddam palaces where these palaces housing the US militarism regime now in Baghdad, therefore, there is this perceptibility that US did wanted to start a bigger war with China, or at least see what the Chinese reaction would be to his provocation, this time around Iran and Russia is reacting before its getting late and before either been hit.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pmThe peace in Middle East can only be achieved if US democrats and European governments are willing to put the leash on Israel and present US government in regard to human rights violation, war crime and act against humanity and their militaristic idea about the world and the humiliation of the Palestinians for last 60 years. Here, not that Iranian government is better but it is not Iran’s militarism that holds millions of Palestinians hostage and is not the Iranians that are in Iraq occupying the country and killing civilians there, it is not the Iranians whom have militaristic plans for neither Central Asia nor the African Horn, it is not the Iranians that are asking for missiles shield to be placed in Eastern Europe while Madeline Albright actively promoting the idea.
If there was nothing to hide about the future US war plan in central Asia and African Horn why have any missiles shields there (Eastern Europe) at all, if there were no such plan why implement the idea in militarizing the entire Middle East, Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Gulf of Oman? Why the nonsense that Iran is going to attack Europe or USA and that’s why this missile shields system in Poland or Czechoslovakia is needed? Why would they (Iranians) attack Europe, are they benefit if they do attack Europe or USA, what would they gain by doing such stupid move, for one thing there is no oil in Europe and they don’t need oil, for other, they are to of a small militarism with much less effectiveness then NATO militarism is?
This is the question that has to be answered first by Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright. Is Russia a threat to the world security, is China a threat to the world security, is India a threat to the world security, is Africa a threat to the world security and peace? For one thing non of these countries are fighting for oil nor they are looking to empower themselves to rule the world and non of these countries military are in Iraq, nor is their “privet security services†(mercenaries) or their military threatening rest of the world, so the entire matter becomes to the question about energy and what US needs is Oil.
Here and in this moment in mankind history it is obvious that US needs to learn to stay in line, cooperate and be more adaptable in its unjust and unrealistic demands, US needs to learn to be honest and transparent, the slavery is dead and prohibited by law, the world is not belongs to US, Iran, Israel nor the British or any other European or China nor India for that matter, it never was and it never will be. In the other hand and according to everyone, in one way or the other, they all have said: that Iraq war is about Oil, latest to be added in this list is nonetheless then General Abizaid: We’ve Treated the Arab World as a Collection of Big Gas Stations’
UPDATE: The Stanford Daily, which originally reported on the round table, incorrectly attributed some of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s comments to Gen. Abizaid. Though Abizaid did say “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,†it was Friedman who said “We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations.†The Daily has posted a correction.
During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet†at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course†the Iraq war is “about oil“. Here, there is no more evidence needed to prove this fact that Bush administration, so as British invaded Iraq for oil and oil only.
No country or government can deny that: world is an open market for civilizations to exist, therefore it is absolutely essential that peoples culture are exchanged, a just social economic system along with a social functioning democracy established where from these changes people will benefit, it is absolutely essential that a social justice is at work to implement justice whereby in a functioning democracy and its social principals people are protected from ideas in imperialism. If these basic matters by any industrialized country - governments are not recognized, the militarism regime in US would like to be the world empire, unless these basic matters are by religious Hypocrites and their daily lies is not understood, human and its social existence will face the brutality by all kind of religion regimes and militarism which hide its agenda behind its religious and its brutality. Such matter has happened, is happening and as we speak the evidence is Iraq, Iran and Burma,meaning, no to fundementalism, no to militarism and not imperialism. Funny, that in one hand they say what it is and wipe their saying by the other. Though Abizaid says that Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil “prices low,†the per-barrel cost of oil has risen dramatically since the U.S. first invaded. In March 2003, the price of oil was roughly US$35 a barrel. Today, prices reached “above $85 a barrel for the first time.†Bijan.
In response to janeg's question: “our constitution does not allow us to go to war without self-defence as the cause.†Prove that?
Cite the text from the Constitution that backs up your statement.
While the constitution does not explicitly prohibit going to war for any reason but self-defence, where it *does* mention any cause at all, it discuss only self-defence as a reason. We have a situation here where both common-sense and the Constitution say that self-defence justifies war. While common sense and common morality also suggest that a whim to destroy another nation does not justify war, the C. does not explicitly take a stand on such whims. However, I would argue that a C. designed to limit gov. power and one which discusses only self-defense as a cause for war leads to a reasonable interpretration that "our constitution does not allow us to go to war without self-defence as the cause.†You will note that the Bush administration used self-defense as justification (sans the actual justification.)
Here are some passages:
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the common defence*, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1 - Legislative
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common Defence* and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article 3
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall *protect each of them against Invasion*; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Remember, powers not ennumerated to the government are restricted to it, not granted carte blanche.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am