Proving once again, we did not invade Iraq for oil

Are you taking logic lessons from Tommy? Please explain how this proves that oil wasn't a motive.

If oil was a motive - then why did the price of oil INCREASE during our "occupation" of Iraq? If anything it would have DECREASED due to our pumping and shipping oil to every refinery and then off to every retailer in the US, putting the price at the pump to under one dollar. And President Bush would have exclaimed "Cheap Gas is BACK!"

Yeah, because flooding the market with oil would be a great business move by Big Oil.  If demand maintains and supply increases the price goes down and the fat cats make less money.  The War has destabilized what was before a steady stream of relatively stable oil production, therby jacking up the price and making Cheney and his cronies millions in investment money, no bid contracts and war profiteering.

Duh

Take a look at Wal-Mart - their ability to sell items at a low price was what drove their profits.

 

 

And while we're talking about profits, and how Exxon posted record profits last quarter, can you tell us how much their EXPENSES were? And also, IIRC wasn't it Exxon who's planning on shutting down numerous gas stations? Why do that when you're experiencing RECORD PROFITS? If anything record profits has you expanding business so you can make more.

I can tell you they spent less than 1% of their profits on alternative energy research, but what does that matter? Profits are gross - expenses, so who cares what they spent?

BTW, do you really want to suggest that oil coming from a destabalized region should be cheaper? Risk is what is driving the price up, and until the risk resides oil will continue to be more expensive than it should be. You can thank speculators for that, BTW...

 Take a look at Wal-Mart - their ability to sell items at a low price was what drove their profits.

 

Erm.............

 

No, l think you will find that that is what drove out their competition. Walmart's policy of charging less to people in bulk destroys local businesses who cannot compete. If they try to drop their prices to match Walmart they go under. Standard Operating Procedure for large company in a small store market.  

 

Wal-Mart started out as a small business, just like every business in America. How'd they get there?

connections...

How'd they get there?

By predition, plain and simple.

By abusive working conditions for employees.

By dictating to their suppliers in third world countries. Cutting the price they're wiling to pay manufacturers, who pass on pay cuts to the lowest paid workers on the planet.

Thank God for free markets and the global economy. 

 

Ignore wussy. His weak arguments don't deserve the time of day, or anything else.

umm, isn't it gross income minus expenses equals profit?

and to the topic, bush is of course a huge liar.  he lied for years after the war about why we had to invade, by saying that saddam would not let the inspectors in.  they were there, finding nothing and it was bush who forced them out.  and before the war the british government knew the truth.  the downing street memo is the proof.  the decision to invade had been made months before the actual invasion, but the evidence for wmd was weak, so "the facts are being fixed around the policy". 

Don't forget all the "morphing" reasons for the dang invasion either.....

 

And repubs fell for every single one of them. 

Take a look at Wal-Mart - their ability to sell items at a low price was what drove their profits.

Wal-Mart's buys their 70% of items from China, not from American companies. The items Wal-Mart buys from China come from factories where workers make pennies, work under inhuman conditions and create cheap and sometimes toxic products.

Rah Rah Wal-Mart and their profits

"And while we're talking about profits, and how Exxon posted record profits last quarter, can you tell us how much their EXPENSES were? "

What do their expenses have to do with it?  Profit is income MINUS expenses.  Exxon had record PROFITS, not record INCOME.

And while we're talking about profits, and how Exxon posted record profits last quarter, can you tell us how much their EXPENSES were?

 

You're an idiot.  Profit is revenue minus expenses, and Exxon had record PROFIT. 

You got that right, but he's also pretty good at distracting people from the issue being raised by the posting by Media Matters.

Neither characteristic is something to be proud of.

Apparently, conservatives/republicans in general, do not understand what "profit" means.

8-) 

The price of oil has increased because a small cartel are making lots of money off of it and getting away with it because they know that the politicians in their pockets who they send "donations" to kindly looked the other way. Didn't Exxon just post the largest quarterly profits in US history last month? Shoudn't you really be making a statement about that? This was always about the oil. As soon as Saddam Hussain stated that he was going to trade Iraq's oil in Euro's instead of Dollars the balloon went up. If it was about removing vicious dangerous dictators who have committed genocide there would be a lage UN backed US presence in Darfur.

 

  BTW the Aussie Rupert Murdoch was one of the poeple who said that oil would be less than $20 a barrell. Maybe you should direct your question to him.  

Opps.......

 

That should read large UN backed US presence.

 

Sorry!! 

Dawuss

 The article asserts Bush "said" Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked. That doesn't prove or disprove the "real" reason(s) the U.S. invaded Iraq.

 The fact that the price for gas has risen doesn't disprove the concept that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil. A goal can be pursued and not achieved. That doesn't mean the goal didn't exist.

The Bush administration thought the Iraqis would be so happy to us that besides throwing flowers, they would also throw oil at us.  Instead of throwing flowers and oil, the Iraqis threw bombs.

Yeah, just like when we invaded North Korea.

And why do we spend millions of dollars a day in tax payer money for naval carrier groups to patrol the Persian Gulf?

Are they looking for al Qaeda? 

I heard those sneaky bastids were real good swimmers...

Proving once again, we did not invade Iraq for oil

• - DAWUSS / Thursday August 7, 2008 7:16:01 PM EDT

Proving once again that DaWuss is out for attention and distraction, not for any contribution to this site. That's been his behavior since he started posting and worked as a 'stooge' for Science101.

How was that a distraction? The article is about misinformation about why we invaded Iraq. My post reinforces the corrected information.

 

I mean, sure, we can talk about my least favorite subject (me) if you want, but that would be a distraction and a diversion to the main subject.

No, the issue is that Kilmeade lied about what Bush did, and what the Bush Administration did.

It's not about what the alternative is. Or about Exxon's oil profits, or about Walmart either.

The topic is Kilmeade lying. The issue is Kilmeade lying as an attempt to further the conservative agenda. Your claim that oil wasn't the reason for the invasion, and that this proves that, was another attempt to further the conservative agenda and had nothing to do with what the topic was.

Spot on, BB

Yo, Kilmeade, try googling your statement before you actually say it on air.

You're a uninformed idiot or you're purposely lying to protect Bush. Either way, you ended up looking foolish by telling falsehoods to the viewers.

Proving once again you can take what FOX NEWS says to the bank, then drop it in the bank's toilet.

Back on topic after DaWuss' misdirection....

Anyone in the Bush Administration speaks for Bush, and so not only do Bush's own comments count against him, but comments made by people in his adminstration count against him.

However Brian Kilmeade tried to cut Bush some slack by specifically saying "So, I don't understand, because the president of the United States never even said there's a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That wasn't the premise for going in there."

He didn't say "the Bush Administration" because he knew that was a lie. He said "the president" because he thought he could get away with that.

The issue is what did the Bush Administration, including Bush, said, and they said that it was an issue of WMD's being in the hands of someone who couldn't be trusted to use those WMD's himself or couldn't be trusted to not give them to some sinister terrorist like Osama bin Laden.

Far from the truth being that using WMD's wasn't the premise, it was the premise!

When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.

 

Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?

When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.

Two problems.  Saddam didn't have any WMDs to give them.  Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.

And you know what they say about assuming things.

Yes, you make an A$$ out of Uma Thurman. 

(stolen from the next senator from the State of MN)

Yes, Gore would have approached terrorism differently. He had more sense than to go off half coked, I mean half cocked, and launched a war on an ideology in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

but there is no evidence that he was doing that.  you're going to invade because of something that is unlikely, but "might" happen?  and al gore would have paid more attention to counterterrorism.  bush didn't, in fact he ignored all the threats.

If we're gonna talk theoreticals, than yes, he would have. He'd have taken Clinton's pass off asessment a little more seriously since he worked with Clinton as VP and had inside information on what drove that asessment, and I think he'd of picked up that document titled "bin laden determined to strike in the US" and read it. Bush clearly chose to act in a partisan fashion to please his followers and purposely chose to ignore, nay, dismiss everything Clinton had to say on any subject. What Gore would have done, no one can say, but I think it is fair to say he'd have been better able to understand the situation and respond.

I've never met Al Gore, but I would venture that he would not have set any records for US presidential vacation time either.

Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?

Do you think Gore would have acted on your fear-based assumption and conjecture?

When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.

Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?

 

• - DAWUSS / Thursday August 7, 2008 8:33:02 PM EDT

What Al Gore would or wouldn't have done is 100% irrelevant to this discussion, Mr Wuss.

When it comes to national security, the Bush Administration preferred to put us a greater risk than at lesser risk. They didn't think about 'safe rather than sorry'. They didn't think at all, really. What they did was made us sorry, not safe.

Democrats would rather be safe than sorry. Republicans, not so much.

Let's recall that Bush didn't care one inch about terrorism before 9/11. And 9/11 is, first and foremost, a colossal republican national security blunder.

The Bush administration was the worst failure in history at the only thing republicans think government should do. And republicans are campaigning on national security!

Why does this party still exist?

"When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.

Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?" - Dawuss

Jeeze, Dawuss, how can one person get so many things wrong in a mere two sentences?  First off, given the same circumstances, Gore *would* have done things differently.  Gore was/is a policy wonk, not a brain-cooked cowboy under the thumb of Cheney and his PNAC cohorts.

Gore most certainly would have been interested in putting the collar on bin Laden, but he would have brought the world in on it and not squandered the civilized world's outpouring of post 9/11 sympathy and support.  Everyone would have worked as a team (quite likely a police team), and bin Laden would have no longer been freely circulating.  Al-Qaeda would now be worth not much more than your average shriveled raisin.

But here's the *major* difference you didn't dare brook...if you are even capable of understanding it...

The circumstances would never have been the same.  Period.  You think bin Laden couldn't read U.S. politics?  You think bin Laden didn't know at the time Gore is a policy wonk?  You think bin Laden didn't have a high degree of certainty that under Bush, Iraq would be invaded as a consequence...thereby opening up a motivational and fertile recruiting ground in Iraq for al-Qaeda growth?  Hell, PNAC tried to push Clinton into an Iraq invasion (from the archieve of the now defunct PNAC site: http://web.archive.org/web/20051125051423/www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm).  Gore understood the way the world works (that's what wonks do) just as well as Clinton.  Gore would have known there was no reason to go into Iraq, and that would have stayed bin-Laden's hand till the "right" administration was in place in the U.S.  Bin-Laden needs animosity between Islam and the West/U.S.

But with Cowboy George and the PNAC posse in the house?  Like an open can of tunafish just ready for the cat's tongue.  "Board those planes, boys.  It's time for God's Work to be done."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/30/in-fighting-al-qaeda-bushs-global-war-on-terrorism-is-off-target.html

Just a week ago, a think tank, the Rand Corp, released a report that said regular old police actions are the best way to fight terrorism. No other country besides the USA (because of the Bush Administration) is still fighting 'a war on terror' like we are.

A terrorism study prepared for the Defense Department has some bad news for the Bush administration—and presents a sizable challenge for whoever is next in the Oval Office.

The current strategy for defeating al Qaeda has not been successful in diminishing the group's capabilities and is unlikely to do better without a shift in emphasis, the Rand Corp. study concludes.

Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."

So, who was it that was saying the Republicans want to be safe rather than sorry? Oh yeah, that rightie who tried to deny he was a rightie when he first appeared here with a new screen name and cooperated with Science101 to disrupt this site, DaWuss, said it. How can we possibly be safer rather than sorrier if Al Qaeda has not been weakened and they've made more attacks??????

What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world.

The report couldn't have been clearer in its refutation of one of the central tenets of the Bush administration's strategy against al Qaeda: the characterization of the conflict as a "global war." The administration has frequently attacked critics—especially Democrats—who say that counterterrorism should be built around law enforcement strategies.

But the 200-page Rand study suggests that using the label "global war" skews priorities and sends the wrong political message. "Almost all of our allies, from the Great Britain to Australia, have stopped using the concept of a "global war on terror," Jones told congressional staffers in a briefing on Tuesday, suggesting that "counterterrorism" should become the preferred nomenclature for operations against al Qaeda. "There are simply no battlefield solutions to this problem," he said.

Wow. No battlefield solutions to this problem, huh? That means that the Bush Administration wanted to raise our taxes and increase our deficit and starve other domestic programs and didn't care about killing thousands of American soldiers and maiming many more for NO GOOD REASON.

And we're the blind ones?

When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.

Oh yeah, we're really safer now. Starting a war in a Muslim country that did not attack us, killing thousands of innocent Muslims and displacing thousands more. Oh yeah, that was a really smart thing to do. 

The Pentagon study which shows Saddam Hussein had no link to Al Qaeda. http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

 

"Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything."

What is with right-wingers and hypothetical questions?  This did NOT happen, so why bring it up? 

we better invade canada.  you never know what they're up to.

Yeah, they don't even know what real bacon is.

And they're getting way too close to our northern border.

Big oils largest expense has been buying back their own stock.

Gawd and I thought it was all the feel good advertising I have been seeing on television.

STEVE ,Your last post is so right. I personally believe that every decision made by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was made for the benefit of the REPUBLICAN PARTY and the NEO-CONSERVATIVE CAUSE.

DaWuss can't take full credit for his idea, I've heard it thrown around, and it's pretty adorable.

High oil prices prove that "we" didn't go in there for oil. A very conservative co-worker of mine, at the outset of the iraq invasion, mentioned how excited he was about liberating the Iraqi people, with the side dish of cheap oil we'd be getting.

When I stopped laughing, I gave him my take on it, which he  dismissed as crazy.See, I was brainwashed into thinking we (average Americans) were going to pay for the invasion, but the people planning it probably had no intention of giving us a return on our investment, or sharing their profits.

He had already been laughing at me for buying a compact 4 cylinder pickup for my everyday driver at the onset of the Bush plague, as he'd bought a full-size 4wd V-8 to get to his office job.

That's one of those things that just baffles me. The cons that don't trust the government on anything (so they say) actually believe the most corrupt and corporate party is out there working for them.

The same guy now has a little sign he made, up on the wall of his office. It says "Hope is Not a Business Strategy". I've never bothered to ask him if it's a jab at Obama, but I'm guessing it translates as "Not learning from your mistakes  Rocks!"

High oil prices prove that "we" didn't go in there for oil.

I'll believe we didn't go there for the oil when Cheney's secret energy meetings are made public.

I can just envision the meeting - energy execs, Cheney, etc., sitting around a large Middle East map, divvying up the oil fields.  Why do you think he went to such extreme lengths to keep the details of this meeting from the public eye?

Lets not forget that the attorney that negotiated the oil deals in Iraq, with the US Oil Giants taking the longest and mostest....best deal,  is rewarded with a position in the White House, couple years ago by the thief in charge himself, BUSH.

Great post.  Absolutely right.  I know many people just like that.  I just don't understand how some people can be in such denial about their decisions.  The blood of many innocent people is on this administration, yet many are willing to vote for another four years of a similar style of governing.  Some are simply willing to remain loyal to their party instead of loyal to America.  If Democrats had f-ed up the way Republicans have 8 YEARS IN A FREAKIN ROW, I wouldn't be voting Democrat come November.  They're all fools.  IMO.

It's the Republicans who are anti-American, it's true. They're the ones who want to destroy the Constitution, and violate our laws and treaties.

A bit off topic, but related -- How credible is that new book regarding the white house instruction to the CIA to draft a false memo about Iraq/al qaeda connection?  I guess I'm a bit behind, and I saw only a little about it this morning on Morning Joe.  What I mean is, is the book full of anonymous sources or does it contain actual names of people with first hand knowledge of the White House instructions?

I generally have little regard for books written contemporaneously about a white house administration, as I'm skeptical that they tell only half the story.  But this one sounded interesting as hell.  Anybody read it?

Haven't read it, so I cannot say what's in it.  But this might interest you:

http://www.truthout.org/article/suskind-stands-by-white-house-wmd-forgery-claim

I heard rumors on that several years ago, then nothing....so....could be true given the lying and cheating administration to date........

Suskind interviewed a lot of people. He didn't interview George Tenet, but he was concerned that Tenet has a history of 'not remembering' important things, so if Tenet denied that it happened, it would not be much evidence that it didn't actually happen. Others could be more trusted to tell the truth.

Proving once again, we did not invade Iraq for oil AND If oil was a motive - then why did the price of oil INCREASE during our "occupation" of Iraq?

DAWUSS??...are you just a typically uninformed wingnut or is this just a game you like to play with yourself???

let's just assume you don't have a clue(which you don't)....geopolitically, it was a benefit for the oilmen(companies, Bush, Cheney & the rest of the neocon boyscouts) to make this land grab---Saddam was a paper tiger who was contained by sanctions....Irag has the 2nd largest oil reserve on the frickin' planet, outside of Saudi Arabia, but maybe that's not enuf evidence for you.

By invading Iraq & creating private contracts to be sucked up by Bush's cronies....it created instability in the price of oil which in turn created higher prices(that's not the entire answer but I don't want to overload that small brain of yours with significant information)    

So what will Obama do to lower the price of gas? What will McCain do? What will Congress do? Why isn't Congress doing anything now? The Republicans are in a lame-duck period in the White House, and the Democrats are in control of Congress, with an election breathing down their necks.

You do realize that republicans are essentially obstructing anything going through Congress currently right? Meaning, lots of things can get through the HOuse, but when they're brought up in the Senate, the republicans block, well, almost everything brought in my democrats. That's called obstructionism.

What can we do about high gas prices? Probably, nothing. As Obama has been saying, we need to reduce our dependence on oil. Period. You can do something yourself about high gas prices, and that's, reduce your consumption, and hence, save yourself some money.

Why is it the republicans who are allegedly the bastions of self dependence keep asking the government to do something about high gas prices?

Why is it the republicans who are allegedly the bastions of self dependence keep asking the government to do something about high gas prices?

And, in turn, why is it the republicans don't rely on their precious "free market philosophy" when it comes to oil/gas prices?

So what will Obama do to lower the price of gas? What will McCain do? What will Congress do? Why isn't Congress doing anything now? The Republicans are in a lame-duck period in the White House, and the Democrats are in control of Congress, with an election breathing down their necks.

 

• - DAWUSS / Friday August 8, 2008 11:05:06 AM EDT

More crapola from DaWuss that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Oh, and you've been proven wrong countless times in the last few days. Supposedly you're willing to admit your errors. You need to start doing that - it'll take you all day.

Lastly, there's an office poll to see how long you're going to continue posting under this screen name before you become the laughingstock of the place you work - you know, the paid rightie posters union # 42!

It's not just crapola. It's worse. He just repeated RNC talking points.

The truth is that the cons who put the con in congress blocked meaningful legislation that Democrats put forward. The cons blocked tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a ban on gasoline price-gouging, legislation to stop excessive speculation and a tax break paid for by a windfall-profits tax on big oil.

Anything the republicans disaprove of' they are able to block. This does not give them much in the way of control.

Perhaps they have shown insufficient creativity to manuver arround the republicans, but with 50 votes on a good day in the Senate does not make it past a presidential veto.

50 votes, doesn't break them out of the filibusters that the republicans keep putting up for, well, almost anything and everything a democrat brings into the Senate.

I'm actually a little skeptical about Suskind's book but Kilmeade is flat out lying.

Shagg, would a dozen or so examples of goverments and depots using mis-information on their own country in the past help you out? This is a ploy as old as armed confict, in fact I would venture to guess that almost every war, conflict, police action etc. ever in the history of humanity had some propaganda and false information program, to justify the slaughter and mayhem. Would we expect anything less from an administration apparently hell bent on being the most secretive ever in US history?

Wow, and easily found to, by the most witless of people.

If, the document was NOT faked, then why would they possibly have needed Feith and his Special Intelligence Committee to look at "evidence" in a different "light"?  To take intelligence and throw together "different" data and say this is why we need to attack Iraq.

 

Answer:  They wouldnt have.  They just would have presented the evidence as is, and said here, this is why we need to attack Iraq. 

In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD -- as Habbush had foretold -- the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization."

 -huffington post-

Yup, another Mission Accomplished by the famous Bush Admin.

I might add.....that this "special" committee was disbanded as soon as the "newly looked at evidence in a different light" was promptly disbanded as soon as it was presented to the Admin too.   Which I thought was strange....since they were soooooooooooo  good at looking at things in a different light.

and.........then I might add, why the outting of the agent who's husband declared the Niger yellowcake to be untrue also? 

 

Gets a little sticky with all that icing on the cake doesn't it. 

You can go read some excerpts from the book here.

http://www.progressivebookclub.com/pbc2/viewArticle.pbc?aid=3172

 

and sign up to get the book for $1. 

What the frig is everyone arguing about?  Those right-wingers have us chasing our tails again, and they are laughing!  The Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq REQUIRED Bush to certify a link between Saddam and 9/11:

   –"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." -George Bush, certification to Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, March 23, 2003

"Armed force against Iraq is consistent with"...actions  against...nations...who...aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11," is what that sentence reads, with the lawyerly gobbledygook stripped out. In other words, Saddam "aided" 9/11.

Did he lie?  Forgery or no forgery, on Sept. 18, 2003, on Meet the Press, Bush said:

  –"No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Stop the presses.  Do not pass go.  Either Saddam "aided" the attacks on 9/11, or he didn't.  That right there requires a subpoena of the president, for something a heck of a lot more important than lipstick on underwear.

Fox-Logic Lesson #86 with Professor Phoebus Hannitus, to wit:

See I told ya,  that lefty Susskind's book shows that they had to forge documents showing a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. See! that proves that the president never linked Al Qaeda with Iraq, see? I always knew there were WMD. Proof positive.

See? I told ya so!

hey jinxer--when did you bump your head--if this were true-the original gulf war would have driven oil prices up  to  $4.00 a gallon when Saddam torched all the wells and pumped oil into the gulf--and if you ask me -yeah I bumped my head -more control the I have --I would have nuc"ed Baagdad-taken control of the oill fields--the mullahs woulde be tied up up w/ dealing w/ a nuclear strike--the arabs shit there pants --these countries around 2000 yrrs before us -yet wehave been around 200 yrs -who has the highest stndrd of living???and were gonna depend on there generosity --fk that--worse case the soviets bitch--the french would bitch to bitch--the rest o the world will survive as usuasl due to america's generosity--is this a big deal??