Tonight - the gloves are off!!!…
I agree with Neal that the fatal flaw in Michele's reasoning is that she has, to put it in my own words, bought the cover story. Its components are the false claim that Iraq had WMD, that the war is not about oil and that it is about making Americans safe.
I suspect that the latter is the most important to understanding why the Right has embraced the invasion and occupation of Iraq. America, at least since the Cold War, has been a country in search of enemies. When it finds or appoints one, be he Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega, there is a temporary feeling of safety. But, inevitably, that illusion fades, and the search for the next enemy is on. However, I think the stakes are different this time around. The millions of Muslims being thoroughly alienated throughout the world will produce a small population of terrorists. They will feel justified in striking back. There is even an increasing danger that they will be justified in striking back. That prospect will worsen if Bush is returned to office. He will see reelection as permission to impose American will on Muslims (and any dissidents here in the U.S.?) in any way he chooses to.
re: Atrios, from this week's NYTimes Magazine male political bloggers are either too over-caffeineated or distracted by horny drunk blonde housewives with all that lap-top action.
(my apologies Dawn, if you happen to be a horny drunk blond housewife, we don't want to promulgate a stereotype like that with USAian female political bloggers)
Dawn, you kiss your babies with that mouth?
"...It doesn't matter a good goddamn who won, what person made good points or if we all get blown up tomorrow..."
I beg to differ: It matters if one believes the B.S. and thinks Iraq did anything to discourage us all gettin' "blown up" -- or if one accepts the reality that Iraq was a huge blunder that
a) wasted US military, monetary, intelligence, and diplomatic resources that could have been better used elsewhere
b) took America's 'eye off the ball'
c) wrecked our credibility internationally
d) made Bush the 'boy who cried wolf' if and/or when we actually do need a preemptive war to protect us in the future
e) did plenty to boost Al Kayda recruiting worldwide...
f) ---and most importantly, encourages a few 'undecided' to vote that moron from West Texas out of the Oval Office.
What happened between comments 13 and 25?
Take-over by aliens?
If Bush wins this election, oil price will soar to over $70 per barrel! Why?
If Bush wins this election, price of oil will soar to over $70 per barrel. Expensive oil will keep eating up our jobs, wrecking the entire manufacturing sector in the process.
By PROFESSOR3, Director of US Market Institute,
Guest commentator for London BBC(British Broadcasting Company) covering US economy and financial market
If Kerry wins, price of oil will tumble to below $30 simply because Kerry promissed to re-enter the Kyoto Protocol and pay attention to SAVING SIDE of the oil problem.
The two of them differ in their attitudes toward energy. Energy saving tactics will produce immediate effects, while increasing oil production won't do anything to save us in the near future. To increase oil production Bush did a number of sleight-of-hands to stimulate oil consumption and prices, producting mammoth profits for oil companies.
Specifically, Bush did the following:
1. Nullifying the Kyoto Protocol, conveniently setting the stage for pumping up oil prices. And if that wasn't enough, Bush also convinced Russia to back out. Oh wait, isn't Bush a President of US, the largest oil importer in the world? Or he still is a governor of Texas, the second largest oil producing state in America?
2. Implementing a "Weak Dollar" policy. In May 2003 issue, Business Week surveyed 130 industries in America, finding energy sector to be the biggest winners under a weak dollar. Surprise or not?
3. Going to war in the Middle East to meddle with oil prices. Most significant consequence of Iraq War was a rising oil price, not the opposite. Iraqi oil production falls short of the pre-war 2 million barrels/day. If Bush is re-elected, skyrocketing oil prices will garner support among americans for a 2nd war in the Middle East (with Iran) or in African oil producing regions . $70-100/barrel is within easy reach.
4. Disrupting international efforts to cap oil prices. August 2002, at UN's Environmental Summit in South Africa, the EU proposed increasing usage of alternative energy. The plan was unanimously supported by (almost) all oil consuming nations. The US and OPEC vetoed. Republican presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan acted quite differently in '73 and '82, respectively.
5. Using the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) to drive oil prices upwards. With each increase the Bush administration reiterates its conviction to hold the SPR, a declaration that functionally only raises oil prices. The US SPR level did not diminish during the Iraq War. In fact it rose 130 million barrels (from 540 to 670 mil). Who's the mysterious power behind surging oil prices? Not some hedge fund but the Bush administration. The SPR completely loses its original price-balancing purpose, becoming a price-hiking instrument.
6. Stalling energy-saving measures to stimulate oil consumption. The Hybrid Car, a crucial innovation in the automobile industry, saves more than 45% energy than normal cars. In respond to Clinton's 1993 IRS Act's Form 595 "Clean-Fuel Car" tax deduction, the technology was mature for mass production by 2000. Half of U.S. oil consumption is used for transportation (12 million barrels/day). Even saving 1/4 of that energy will amount to 3 million barrels/day. But in 2002 Bush changed the direction of U.S. energy research, drying up federal funds for developing the Hybrid, instead forking over 1.7 billion USD for developing the Hydrogen Car, a technology that will not mature for production for another decade. This is an important reason we're seeing escalating oil prices, but disappointingly, the media still has not properly investigated and exposed the scheme.
Effects of high oil prices for Big Oil?
Earnings reports during the Iraq War tell a good story. The 4th quarter of '02 and 1st quarter of '03, profits for large U.S. oil companies, rose 700%! Remember the economy was still in recession at the time.
Americans consume about 24 million barrels of oil/day, summing to 8.8 billion barrels/year. Oil prices are $20 above normal prices ($45 vs $25/barrel) and American consumers spend an extra $170 billion per year, an amount pocketed by oil companies. Tax cuts went in the right pocket of taxpayers and out the left to Big Oil, and still didn't satisfy their appetite. Tax cuts came from the treasury and are sustained by the budget deficit. But oil companies are private. Part of their unethical profit went into Bush's pocket as political contributions.
Many foreigners see America as a single entity, which is just a misconception of the American political system. "United" States do not exist. The American philosophy is "Every man for himself and God for everybody." The American political system is "Winner takes all."
Bush's policies are ABC (Anything But Clinton), while the opposing camp rallies behind ABB(Anybody But Bush). This is the reality of American politics.
If reelected, Bush will maintain high oil prices for profit and expensive oil will keep eating jobs. Last year's 4th quarter GDP growth reached an astonishing 7.4%, surpassing any in both of Clinton's terms (5.5% the highest). But unemployment loomed. Because of high energy costs firms had to layoff to cut costs. This is the fundamental cause for the mysterious jobless recovery under Bush. In addition, energy and raw material producers are upstream firms. When they extract very high profits, they eat up the profit share originally belonging to downstream firms. Consequently, manufacturing, travel, airline, transportation industries are all in recession. In manufacturing, the automobile and airplane industries will completely collapse under competition from Japan and Europe.
Where is this article from? Can you provide a link and the name and background of the author and where it was published?
BAB, it looks like he's the author