Today on Blogcritics
Home » State of the Union Address – The Exact Point Where Bush Got Me Mad

State of the Union Address – The Exact Point Where Bush Got Me Mad

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Bush started his speech great – he said he had the high honor and distinct privilege to be the first president to utter these words: “Madam Speaker.” I felt a real warm feeling inside. Then, only a few lines later, he delivered a sentiment that got me so mad I wanted to pull out my entrails and strangle a rodent with them.

He said we must “keep faith with those we sent forth to defend us.”

Well, blow me with a meat grinder.

“We sent forth to defend us?” Listen, who is this “we” he is talking about? His “we” does not include me, and it does not include the majority of our people. More important, our troops are not in Iraq to defend us.

He sent our kids to Iraq for two reasons. Number one, to head off the oil deals that Saddam Hussein was signing with the Russians and the Chinese and get those deals for his Texas oil buddies. Number two, he wanted permanent military bases in Middle East to secure our oil interests. There’s a bill now before the Iraqi Parliament that will take Iraq’s oil business away from the Iraqi people and hand it over to our oil companies, in which our oil companies get to keep 75% of their oil profits.

There you have it: the real reason our troops are fighting in Iraq.

Buys his own hypocrisy

Bush’s hypocrisy is astonishing. But here’s the rub: this is a man who buys his own hypocrisy. He actually believes in the neocon dream of bringing democracy to the Middle East, which he again defined as part of what victory would mean in Iraq, besides the usual BS of linking Iraq with the war on terror (plus other thumbsuckery like the war on terror being “the defining ideological struggle”: listen, the fight against millions of Communists with nuclear weapons — now that was a defining ideological struggle, not having to police a few thousand Caliphate crazies).

Not only is Bush a big fat hypocrite lying to us, he’s being a big fat hypocrite lying to himself. It takes a special kind of dry drunk to be that pathologically misguided. He’s lived in his own spin so long, he has become it.

“Keep faith?” The man has not kept faith with our troops or with us. He lied us into the war and has never stopped lying to us. He is still not keeping faith with our troops, because he is now sending more kids into harm’s way. The only faith he has kept is with his oil buddies. If the oil law goes through, and our troops stay in Iraq to protect the interests of Big Oil, he will have kept the faith he started out with. The business about bringing democracy to the Middle East is just a gloss on his real faith, which by now he may be too much of a hypocrite or a fool or a nut to admit that to himself.

Interesting side issue: the two times the GOP listeners got most enthusiastic in their applause was when Bush mentioned keeping taxes low and constraining trial lawyers – more proof of the GOP’s personal greed and their belief that corporations should be free to harm people without being held accountable. What a despicable bunch of elitists.

I thought the rebuttal by Democratic Senator Jim Webb was brilliant. Webb obviously wrote his speech himself, being a novelist and all. His speech was everything Bush’s speech was not. It was honest, straightforward, personal and devoid of hysteria. And he had some great historical references.

He explained that he, his Dad, and his brother fought in the military not because of politics, but out of love of country. He mentioned his son who is in Iraq. This is a marked difference between him and the GOP chickenhawks — and obviously the reason Nancy Pelosi chose him for the rebuttal. Kudos to her for picking him and not taking this important speech opportunity for herself.

Wall St. and Main St.

Webb made two big points. The first was domestic. He said that our economic news seems to be about two different countries. There’s Wall Street, where the economy is doing great, and Main Street, where it’s not. He said when he started working, CEOs earned 20 times what the average worker earns, and now the ratio is closing in on 400 times. It takes a worker one year to earn what a CEO earns in a day. We’re splitting along class lines. The middle class, he said, “is losing its place at the table.”

About Iraq, he said the war was mismanaged and unnecessary. He talked about his Dad, who flew cargo planes into Berlin, and was unable to live with his family for three years. He said our leaders owe us their sound judgment for sacrifices like these, which they displayed when his Dad was supplying Berlin. He said we expect from our leaders that “the threat to our country is equal to the price we might pay.” I thought that was a great line. Obviously, the threat to us from Iraq was and will never be equal to the price we are paying, so far a cost of 3,050 American lives and $400 billion (estimated by some to actually amount to two trillion bucks).

He said we need a policy that takes “our soldiers off the streets of Baghdad,” the absolute opposite of what Bush is doing.

And then he brought up two great historical analogies, when he referred to two former Presidents – Teddy Roosevelt, who took on the robber barons of his day, and Eisenhower, who brought the Korean War to an end.

It’s amazing that George Bush is such a bad president. Even his father, a very average president, now appears to be a colossus compared to his son.

Bush Senior famously wept when he recounted the story of how his son Jeb lost his first run at becoming governor of Florida, but came back to win in his second attempt. Why did Bush Senior weep? Because when Jeb lost, George W. won the governorship of Texas, and the mantle of potential presidential candidate fell on George instead of Jeb. The wrong Bush became president. I surmise that Bush Senior not only wept because of this, but because of what transpired.

What a tragedy George W. Bush has been for our country, for the Middle East, and for the world. We got a guy who can stand up in front of Congress, the nation, and the world and preach that we must “keep faith with those we sent forth to defend our country.”

Excuse me while I throw up.

Powered by

About Adam Ash

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    Good job Adam.

  • ProfEssays

    It is not necessary to dramatise the situation. Even if Mr Bush sent American troops to Iraq to head off the oil deals that Saddam Hussein was signing with the Russians and the Chinese and get those deals for his Texas oil buddies, wanted permanent military bases in Middle East to secure our oil interests. And even if there’s a bill now before the Iraqi Parliament that will take Iraq’s oil business away from the Iraqi people and hand it over to our oil companies, in which our oil companies get to keep 75% of their oil profits. All these facts simply testifies that he defends national interests and his policy in Iraq should be supported by Americans without going into hysteric.

  • SHARk

    re: ?keep faith with those we sent forth to defend our country.?

    Pretty easy to parse:

    “if you’re a liberal or a Democrat, you’re against the troops.”

    And we’ve heard it before.

    Jeezus, after all this — They still think we’re stupid.

    —–

    Iraq is still the worst foreign policy blunder in American history; and history will judge Bush the worst president in American history.

    Too late for us, tho.

  • SHARK

    re comment: “…he defends national interests and his policy in Iraq should be supported…”

    Yah, that Iraq endeavor has really worked out swell for America, hasn’t it!?

  • Zedd

    Just wondering what the President was refering to in his speech when he said “the serious challange of global climate change”?

    Considering there is no such thing as global warming and all……

  • Nancy

    What a low-life, lying, hypocritical, sleazebag dogturd. All this bush-shit was just more of “stay the course” – with more troops. What kills me is that in a local poll, after the speech his approval rating actually rose 5% among those halfwits too stupid to actually understand what he’s talking about, and easily swayed by vocal emotional appeals no matter how cynical.

    Will no one rid us of this turbulent fool?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “Iraq is still the worst foreign policy blunder in American history; and history will judge Bush the worst president in American history.”

    Shark, I agree with the sense of what you are saying. But I have the nasty feeling that it wasn’t a “blunder” – America’s involvement in Iraq will bring it down. A very different world will judge what George Bush was or wasn’t after he is dead.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Adam, the ‘exact point’ where Bush got you mad was when he was born into a republican family and grew up and entered politics.

    Dave

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    OK..since i wrote this article within minutes of last years SOTU, I just have to sound off a bit on this one as a follow up.

    Everybody appears to have missed two very huge and insidious bits that were tucked into that speech last night.

    One is about nuclear power, touched on lightly, but as the link shows, just another payoff for over $47 million in GOP campaign contributions in the form of MORE corporate welfare, and still NO answers as to what to do with nuclear waste.

    Another is taken right from the speech, and could be just as insidious. Rumsfeld’s failed policy for a “leaner war machine” was drafted and written by the folks at MPRI and KBR..private military firms (mercenaries), with the goal of sending less troops, contracting out work that the military has always done itself, with long term contracts going to these PMF’s.

    In the speech Bush said: “A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.”

    Now, it could be that he is talking bout a governmental agency that duplicates the services these PMF’s have been getting way overpaid to do, if so, that’s one thing. But with the history this WH has with the mercenary industry, it could be an even worse form of corporate welfare. The results of this Administrations policies in this matter can be seen daily in the news form Iraq.

    What’s even worse, NO mention of Afghanistan, which has about the same number of troops in the entire fucking country as the WH is sending into Iraq as part of the “surge”. No mention of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, the ONLY mention in the speech implied that the strugle in Afghanistan was over, and that the Taliban/al Qaeda have been defeated there. Nothing is further from the truth.

    More attempts at conflation of al Qaeda and Iraq, in the speech…but NO mention of the man behind 9/11…

    Where’s Osama?

    the Tao of D’oh

  • Nancy

    No, not from birth: from the moment he decided to do what he was not qualified to do, i.e. run for office. GDGWBTEH

  • Nancy

    Yeah – the absences of various items were as important as what was said. What a slimebag he is. GDGWBTEH

  • Robert

    Blah, blah, blah. Same old Bush bashing rhetoric. Easy to sit on the sidelines and spew this crap, but I notice you don’t offer any of your solutions to the problems. No intelligent discourse or even alternative solutions, just bitch, bitch, bitch.

  • http://kanrei.blogspot.com Brad Schader

    Good job, but you forgot reason number 3 for going to Iraq and probably the biggest. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq we would have Iran surrounded and make invading them easier. It failed in every regard and we only made Iran stronger, but I really think that was major factor in the plan.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Alternatives have indeed been brought up, Sen Biden has given a plan that consists of3″states” and shared oil revenue, of course there is/was the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, tossed aside by Rumsfeld in favor of mercenaries who have been over billing to the tune of billions according to the GAO, and still not provided what was contracted.

    Let us not forget the speech’s mentioning of fiscal discipline and earmarks, from a President who never saw a bit of pork he didn’t sign under a Republican House, no small hypocrisy there. Yet the House has already put “pay as you go” out there, and finally required the POTUS to put the Iraq fiasco into the main budget rather than as emergency supplementals.

    Intelligent enough for you? I can go on, as always the devil is in the details.

    For all that some may deem critique as”Bush bashing”, you must recognize that this Administration has fucked shit up, continuously and in many ways, calling them on it is civic responsibility, and required for our Republic to operate properly.

    Of course, those who lost the public in the last election might be a bit bitter, but it shows the system works, and the last few years re-enforce the absolute NEED for a divided government. One party rule is NEVER good for our nation, no matter which set of crooks is in charge.

    As for feeble attempts to mock those who criticize, here’s a link…. the Tao of D’oh.

  • Nancy

    You were probably stupid enough to vote for that ersatz Texas redneck twice, Robert; he scammed you, too, & made a fool of you – 2ce. I should think you’d have realized that by now. GDGWBTEH

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    What does GDGWBTEH stand for? God damn George Bush the evil hellhole?

  • Arch Conservative

    The fact that even I can realize what a failure Bush is turning out to be as president still does not change the fact that you’re an extreme left wing moonbat incapable of being objective in the least Adam.

    I voted for Bush and he’s a fucking wanker but don’t worry you baby killing, socialist, tax-loving, big governnment, race-baiting, class warfare propagandizing, illegal alien enabling, christian bashing, first amendment distorting, terrorist sympathizing, UN loving, Hillary loving, LEFT WING MOONBAT FREAKS…….. I still have nothing but complete and utter hatred and contempt from the very bottom of my soul for each and every last one of you.

    Although I have just tried there are no words that can even come close to accurately conveying the level of hatred I have for you and everything you stand for.

    My party may have stumbled due to the idiot in charge now but we will be riding high in 2008.

    Vive la Mitt Romney!

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    D’oh:
    That is an amazing point you make about the Civilian Reserve Corps. You say:

    “Now, it could be that he is talking bout a governmental agency that duplicates the services these PMF’s have been getting way overpaid to do, if so, that’s one thing. But with the history this WH has with the mercenary industry, it could be an even worse form of corporate welfare. The results of this Administrations policies in this matter can be seen daily in the news form Iraq.”

    The issue of the mercenary industry making a killing in Iraq out of our taxes is not discussed enough. They LOVE the war — it’s great business for them. I think labelling these over-charging fuckheads “the mercenary industry” is a good start.

    Adam Ash

  • Nancy

    God damn George W Bush to eternal hell. I explained it in your thread, Adam, I think.

  • Nancy

    Arch, those in the middle & on the left don’t necessarily espouse all those causes you condemn. There’s a whole spectrum of folks out there. What political party segment do you exactly affiliate yourself with – becawz even a lot of moderate GOPs go along with some of those things; I’m curious?

  • Nancy

    Oops. Forgot me anti-Dubya malediction: GDGWBTEH.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Adam, and any others interested in reading the Cornell Study on the subject…

    Corporate Warriors by P.W. Singer

    IMO, the definitive study on the subject so far, EVERY “Congress Critter”(TM by Nancy) should be forced to have this read to them.

    Any who want to be informed on the subject, can find no better single source, the Appendix to this alone is priceless and more complete than any other study publicly available.

  • Bliffle

    GWB forfeited his claim to ‘keep the faith’ when he failed to keep the faith after 911 by suppressing dissent and enforcing his own Personality Cult. The duty of any US citizens is to Keep The Faith to this country, not necessarily any temporary executive such as the president, in spite of any attempt to substitute the latter for the former.

  • Zedd

    Funny stuff!!!!

  • Nancy

    Dead on, Blif: ALL oaths & pledges are to “the United States of America” i.e. the constitution, NOT some elected political maggot who sold himself to the highest bidder – despite the wannabe King George W’s opinions to the contrary.

    Thanks for the acknowledgement, D’oh; I also use “congressmaggot” which is actually more accurate in terms of ethical levels.

    That is one scarey book, as well as veeeery interesting, as Artie Johnson used to say.

    GDGWBTEH

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    I read the scary stuff sometimes, Nancy.

    Why, you ask?

    the Tao of D’oh.

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Arch baby, dearest, dahlin:

    It took you 6 years to realize Bush is a wanker, while us “moonbats” figured it out the moment he started bush-shitting us that there were WMD in Iraq while the UN was there and couldn’t find anything.

    So who is the moonbat freak — you or us?

    Calling us names is no argument. You’re setting up a self-invented straw dog and boogieman that has nothing to do with reality.

    Baby killing? Say what? Race-baiting? Christian bashing? Who are you talking about? If you think Nancy Pelosi, for example, is a baby-killing race-baiting socialist Christian basher, you’re beyond moonbattery. She is a grandmom who has more common sense in her little finger than you appear to have in your entire brainpan.

    Who do you really hate? Some self-examination is in order, Arch. You may be suffering from your own form of queer-bashing syndrome. Guys who bash queers are often guys trying to suppress their own homosexual tendencies. Conservatives who yell about baby-killers and socialists may be trying to suppress their own “baby-killing socialist” — translation: compassionate liberal — tendencies. Why don’t give your compassionate side a chance, Arch sweetie? Heck, you’re evolved enough to figure out Bush is a wanker, just take the next step.

    Even if my suspicion about your syndrome is mere speculation, there has got to be a psychological explanation for your hysteria. When someone gets this crazy about their supposed “enemies”, there’s something bizarre afoot inside their own heads, methinks. The Arch doth protest way too much.

    Adam Ash

  • Nancy

    LOL – I would have said the same thing, Adam, except that I’d just gotten thru explaining GDGWBTEH & thought it might seem a tad hypocritical or bizarre of me.

    D’oh, probably like me you try to keep some sort of eye on what the jerks who run the country are up to – for real. Trouble is, reading stuff like that makes one bitter &/or keeps one up nights.

  • SHARK

    ArchConservative: “…you baby killing, socialist, tax-loving, big governnment, race-baiting, class warfare propagandizing, illegal alien enabling, christian bashing, first amendment distorting, terrorist sympathizing, UN loving, Hillary loving, LEFT WING MOONBAT FREAKS…….. I still have nothing but complete and utter hatred and contempt from the very bottom of my soul for each and every last one of you. …there are no words that can even come close to accurately conveying the level of hatred I have for you and everything you stand for.”

    heh.

    An angry, frustrated, violent, nervous breakdown from yer typical Conservative.

    Good stuff!

    ===

    PS: ummm, Arch, I’m assuming yer a “Christian” too?

    PS: um

  • SHARK

    Hey Arch, will you do us a favor and post your real name and hometown? When you finally go apeshit and end up on a water tower with a high-powered rifle, we wanna be able to say,

    “I knew him when!”

    xxoo
    S

    =====

    PS: Gotta run! I’m off to perform an abortion.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I have to now step in once again in defense of mercenaries.

    First off, the mercenaries themselves are certainly not the problem. They are mostly veterans, many of them pushed out of the service during the Clinton years, who had skills that weren’t all that useful for civilians, and had been undercompensated by the disgraceful pay and benefits of the military in that era. So when a company came to offer them 5 times what they were earning for relatively low hazard duty where they could use their skills, who can blame them? Hell, they deserved a chance at a decent job after being exploited in the military.

    As for privatizing some functions of the military. It’s not a bad idea in theory, so long as the practice is handled properly. Having a large standing army is inherently indesirable, and money can be saved by not being responsible to paying a large force inbetween wars. So long as there’s proper financial oversight and excessive charges are avoided – a problem with any government contractor – the use of mercenaries should be looked on positively.

    And BTW, Thomas Jefferson hired mercenaries to fight in the first foreign war the US ever fought and he didn’t have a problem with the idea.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    D’oh,

    One party rule is NEVER good for our nation, no matter which set of crooks is in charge.

    Why does that sound somewhat familiar? :>)

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Familiar, Clavos?

    Yes…yes it is.

    However, when did you hear it from ANY GOP partisan in the last few years? When was said control NOT used like a club, and cheered on by all and sundry within said party?

    I was glad in ’94 when the GOP took the House, I was happy this past November for the same reasons.

    Not many can say that honestly.

  • Clavos

    You’re right, and I agree with you, D’oh.

    I should have been more specific: I was referring (facetiously) to the part I underlined.

    Think about it, my friend :>)

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Dave, Jefferson hired what? 114 local guides in the ENTIRE force, if memory serves.

    There are about 100,000 “contractors” in-country Iraq as we type.

    Oversight is one of the main problems, as the GAO found out last year to the tune of $9 billion dollars that just went missing, schools that went double their allotted time, double o rtriple the budget and held halt the contracted capacity.

    Now we can also talk conflict of interest in having the corporate mercenaries writing the battle plan as contracted “advisors” and they come up with a so-called *strategy* that involves them building and manning bases in country indefinitely, billions a year as far as the eye can see.

    Direct conflict between the profit motive, and National Interests. Do us all a favor, the book I linked above, get it…read it, check the facts in the Appendix..I did.

    Fair enough?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I’m glad we all agree on this.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Heh..but Suss, my point is about the tendency of partisan’s to SAY “they are all crooks” when their gang of crooks is out of power.

    Fuck the *gangs*, whether it’s Reps and Dems or Bloods and Crips. Rip on those who deserve it, no matter the affiliation.

    VERY few can do that, either unwilling or unable. As soon as someone whips out the “socialist moonbats” or “redneck dittoheads” and the like, that individual is part of the fucking problem, and should have their *colors* tattooed on their foreheads for easy identification and so we all know which gang owns their unthinking soul.

    Would be nice if the talking heads had a scroll under their names telling the public which gang is paying them..full disclosure and all that.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave, Jefferson hired what? 114 local guides in the ENTIRE force, if memory serves.

    105, actually, and the WERE the main force. There were about 30 US Marines as I recall. And they weren’t ‘guides’ they were armed Greek soldiers.

    But I’ll agree that the key is oversight, and as long as it’s present I don’t see a problem with using contractors.

    Dave

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Start with using the word mercenaries rather than “contractors”, as I pointed out earlier, there is virtually NO oversight in the mercenary industry, if the contract is under $50 million dollars NO government agency even looks over the contract, so all contracts are broken up into $30-40 million chunks.

    Then there is the policy of those in the mercenary industry to hide actual numbers to anything under the guise of “proprietary information”, this excuse was even used on the GAO accountants, and other federal officials, in attempts to block oversight from how much silverware was ordered for a messhall to just how many firearms these *civilians* have.

    Just because you don’t see the problems, does not mean they are not there, or that they are not VERY severe. Check Afghanistan.

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Nobody commented on Senator Jim Webb’s excellent rebuttal. I think he’s a real comer, a budding ex-GOP star in the Dem firmament.

    His marriage of populist economic and anti-war feelings is very interesting. He bashes Bush and he bashes overpaid CEOs. It’s an interesting combination. I especially like how he finds a way to connect with a blue-collar sensibility without having to espouse social conservative causes like gay-bashing.

    Watch this guy. He has a way of talking to the people without hig-flown rhetoric — unlike Obama, who likes to soar. Webb stays close to the ground, and it’s refreshing.

    Adam Ash

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Good writing Adam, couldn’t have said it better myself. What other president uses “hath” and “Sent forth”, he’s obviously trying to regain the support of the religious right, which is probably the only ones that still support him in the first place.

    He’s trying to rewrite the bible, now that he’s nearly succeeded in rewriting the constitution.

    If you watched closely you could see Chenney behind him with his arm up George’s ass moving his lips.

  • SHARK

    Dave Nalle: “I have to now step in once again in defense of mercenaries.”

    heh.

    This is a classic — and yet another reason I love this place.

    =====

    And D’oh, y’know I love you too, right?

    xxoo x2! <– platonic, of course
    S

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro nicolo

    Please allow me. A mere outsider to comment. “GWB forfeited his claim to ‘keep the faith’ when he failed to keep the faith after 911 by suppressing dissent and enforcing his own Personality Cult.” “What a low-life, lying, hypocritical, sleazebag dogturd.” So, where’s the censorship? Did Bush and his narcissism personally come and wipe out these threads? Oh, I get it. It’s deeper than that. I don’t mean to single out others but I could not resist. To me, it seems hyperbolic – this hatred of Dubya. The interesting thing is that Americans have usually been at each others throats through out their political history. Remember the election between Jackson and Adams? The point is that there are very few nations on earth that allow such discourse. Americans should literally be proud. Yes, the democracy is imperfect but it remains an oasis of freedom too many people take for granted. If there are injustices I have faith in America’s ability to rectify them. Americans face their shortcomings dead on. That’s more than I can say for my own country who counts itself as perfect. Very little true debate happens up here. Of course, we can debate about the quality of the debate but that’s another story. I wish we had a culture where a leader must speak to his people.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Adam, if you like Jim Webb then there’s no hope for you. Webb is creepy and more than a little evil. How anyone could watch him speak and not want to vote for any other candidate, including a dead, yellow dog, is beyond me.

    Dave

  • sr

    LETS JUST GET IT OVER. LOOK FOWARD WHEN WE SELF-DESTRUCT. NUKE THE UNBORN DUMBFUCK GAY AMERICANS.

  • Zedd

    On the mercenaries:

    “It is just a horrible thought that such people are working for the Americans,” said Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, speaking to European reporters last month.

    Strydom was a member in the Koevoet, Afrikaner for “Crowbar,” an outlaw group that paid bounty for the bodies of blacks seeking independence during the 1980s. The Koevoet terrorized blacks in Namibia and northern South Africa for more than a decade. Hundreds of deaths are attributed to its members.

    More notorious is Gouws’ past. A former police officer, Gouws was a member of the notorious Vlakplaas death squad that terrorized blacks under apartheid. Only after South Africa established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and Col. Eugene de Kock, a former death-squad leader who supervised Gouws, applied for amnesty, did the activities of the Vlakplaas come to light. Gouws faced a choice: repent by confessing, or be charged with crimes. He applied for amnesty, confessing on his application for absolution to killing 15 blacks and firebombing the homes of “between 40 and 60 anti-apartheid activists.”

    There are an estimated 1,500 South Africans employed by security contractors in Iraq, according to the South African foreign ministry. Many used their backgrounds as mercenaries during Apartheid to bolster their credentials.

    __________________

    I suppose we will introduce American style democracy by any means necessary to these savages(???)

  • Zedd

    Arch

    I know that your extreme comments come from not really knowing what “baby killing” is or else you wouldn’t so cavalierly dump it in with other drive by shockers so casually. You would treat the topic with reverence. If any of those misdeeds were truly significant and had real meaning to you, you would not sling them around carelessly like darts in a cork padded room. You are safe and sheltered and your excitement comes from pretending as if there are atrocities like a child with a towel around his neck, pretending to be a super hero, when there are none.

    The baby killers were in Iraq working for our government getting paid large sums and dolling out freedom Suid-Afrika style.

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    This Arch guy is obviously a fake to make us true conservatives look bad. No conservative would be for Mitt “I was for abortion and gay marriage, before I wasn’t against it” Romney.

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Dave:
    Creepy? What are you on about, crazy guy?

    It seems to be the general consensus that this was the best rebuttal of a State of the Union ever.

    In fact, some Dems are saying Webb’s speech is a template for winning the presidency in 2008.

    So there are many more besides me willing to side with your dead dog.

    You’re out on your own with this one, Dave.

    Adam Ash

  • Lumpy

    Adam. Did you actually watch the speech while stoned and a bit paranoid? C’mon you can admit it. Because your description sure sounds nothing like the speech I saw, but I guess u were looking for somethinf different, like an excuse to mindlessly bash Bush yet again.

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Lumpy:
    I don’t have a TV (I watch TV at houses of friends), having long ago decided to free my brain from TV’s mindless addictiveness.

    I listened to the Bush speech on NPR radio, and I wasn’t stoned. I reserve being stoned for fucking, listening to music, correcting my writing, and getting ideas.

    But thanks for inquiring. You’re welcome.

    Adam Ash.

  • Lumpy

    I tried to give you an out with the stoned option, but you can have petty, vindictive and delusional if u prefer.

  • Zedd

    Does anyone have to look for an excuse to bash Bush? And can we call it, mindless??

    I think that the person that can adequately describe what this phenomenon that we call a President is, should be granted a doctorate instantaneously, no questions asked. It’s all so weird and pear shaped. It’s wrong on so many levels. Bless him he is one of God’s creatures but man!!!!….

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Dave in #44 says: “Webb is creepy and more than a little evil.”

    You are fucking kidding me, right? You voted for CHENEY, twice!!

    Webb is a Nam marine vet, if memory serves he was an assistant secretary under a GOP administration, and now beat Allen as a Democrat in Allen’s own backyard and sent him from contender for ’08 into obscure oblivion.

    But you consider this guy too creepy to vote for in comparison to Cheney the Unblinking lizard lord, who has been “in” on every fucked up weirdness in the GOP since Nixon.

    I get it, that was satire!!

    How could I have missed it.

    theTao of D’oh.

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Zedd:
    Well said: “It’s all so weird and pear shaped.”

    I have spent too many hours getting upset by Bush and thinking about him. It’s part of the responsibility of loving America — getting upset by Bush because he traduces what’s good and to be loved about our country.

    Bush is like America’s own Hitler — not nearly as bad, but about as dangerous as an American President can get. I mean, over 600,000 Iraqis dead. Christ. For oil. Jesus.

    So now I think I might write an opera about Bush and the Iraq War (along the lines of “Nixon in China” and “The Death of Klinghoffer”) — then at least I’ll have something to show for my annoyance.

    Imagine Bush tenor arias about cutting taxes, WMDs, bringing democracy to Arabs, the surge, and a baritone Cheney singing about coercive interrogation techniques. No lyrics to write, just take it straight from their own words. As a counterpoint, Jon Stewart could be singing satire.

    And just think of the Bush character development arc — from supreme cockiness to his current incarnation of a rather beaten-down chimp.

    What do you think, good idea or not?

    Adam Ash.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    D’oh, as you should know I didn’t even vote for Cheney once. Living in Texas I was free to cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate in both 2000 and 2004 because there was no chance of the Democrat winning this state.

    Plus Cheney is a VP. You can tolerate a lot more creepiness in a VP than you can in a presidential candidate. I didn’t see Webb’s response speech last night. Maybe he was better than in other appearances I’ve seen from him. But every time I’ve seen him he’s come off as a barely under control psychopath.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Bush is like America’s own Hitler — not nearly as bad, but about as dangerous as an American President can get.

    He didn’t suspend the Constitution and put ethnic americans in internment camps. I’d say that gives FDR just a little leg up on Bush.

    I mean, over 600,000 Iraqis dead. Christ. For oil. Jesus.

    Until you can get past the propaganda and deal with the real facts of the last six years, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? Do you have no rational capacity of your own, or are you so brainwashed that all you can do is repeat what you’re told to think?

    Dave

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    For Dave in #56 – I stand corrected on your vote then, you have just spent so much time defending this Administration and their Iraq policy, I had thought you voted for it.

    Catch the tape of Webb’s response, MSNBC probably has it online, it was the best one I can remember, even better than Newt’s old ones.

    And a correction for you, Webb just got elected Senator for VA, he’s not running for president this time around, no need for you to do the pre-emptive mudslinging bit.

    And no, a creepy VP is still MUCH worse than a senator…a heartbeat away from his finger on the “button”… if that doesn’t creep you out, turn in your humanity card cuz your license is revoked. (kidding, of course)

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    For Dave in #56 – I stand corrected on your vote then, you have just spent so much time defending this Administration and their Iraq policy, I had thought you voted for it.

    Hardly. If I were on Free Republic I’d probably be pointing out the flaws in administration policy. I’m compulsively driven to defend those who I perceive to be under attack on an illegitimate basis. I figure if Shark, Nancy, Adam Ash and their ilk are all so hot about Bush’s evil, there’s got to be something there worth sticking up for.

    And the fact is that Bush has screwed up in ways which most of you don’t even think about, but he’s also done some good and I’m still convinced that the Neocon and religious conspiracy theories are absolute fantasy, and that Bush is basically well intentioned, even if he’s strategically inept.

    Dave

  • Emry

    And even if he’s responsible for the unwarranted killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, women and men.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    in #59 Dave says: “and I’m still convinced that the Neocon and religious conspiracy theories are absolute fantasy”

    Every time I think you’ve gone and gotten reasonable, able to look at some of this objectively and without partisan bias, you type something that reminds me such is not the case.

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Dear Dave:

    Compare my comments with yours, and it’s pretty obvious who’s drinking the Kool-Aid.
    BTW, I have never EVER called Bush evil. Others may have, but not me.
    Of course Bush is well-intentioned. That’s the really scary part.

    You can follow the neocon “conspiracy” through the documents put out and signed by the Project for the New American Century. It’s not a secret conspiracy or a fantasy. It’s very open, it started when Clinton was president, it’s there for everyone to read. Including you. Just google ’em. It’s all there, signed by all the usual suspects.

    The religious part is also very well-documented in the words of many evangelists. The Rapture, etc.

    Don’t you read, Dave?

    Adam Ash

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Dave:
    You say about Bush: “but he’s also done some good”

    Now what exactly might that be?

    Adam Ash

  • S.T.M

    Nancy wrote: :What a low-life, lying, hypocritical, sleazebag dogturd”

    Nancy, why don’t you say what you really think … no need to mince words :)

  • Zedd

    Adam #55

    You are totally mad!

    I say do it!! Seriously, it would be a riot. We need a release because no matter how much we “talk among ourselves” about this conundrum, its just not enough. Its so mind boggling. We need something really wacky to put it into perspective, well…to at lease exorcise it out of our system and make it all better for us… oh what a day that will be… sigh.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Yes what good would that be. Something really outstanding.

    I personally need to acquire a different perspective on him because I am in shock that he is President. Living in Texas and knowing about him from the Rangers years, I am stunned and am not getting over it. Help me to get over it. Give me something to help me understand and accept.

    Thanks in advance!

  • Franco

    Adam Ash,

    This is a highly hysterically written opinion. It’s constructed with irrational objectivity and furthermore shins facts that are grossly misleading.

    “I felt a real warm feeling inside. Then, only a few lines later, he delivered a sentiment that got me so mad I wanted to pull out my entrails and strangle a rodent with them.”

    “He sent our kids to Iraq for two reasons.

    Number one, to head off the oil deals that Saddam Hussein was signing with the Russians and the Chinese and get those deals for his Texas oil buddies.”

    I say better us then Russian or China (no friends of ours) getting it. Besides there is more to it then your stated. It’s also a direct effort to break up the OPCE cartel truning oil hawks against us. Remember Osama bin Laden’s stated goal is to get oil up to $144 dollars per barrel. Where he got the number is anyone’s guess but it would send us into a major depression.

    Iraq under Saddam, along with Iran and Venezuela desire for OPEC to unite and turn economic supperhawk againts us. Saddam saw himself as the MAN who could pull it all together for potential full economic terrorism. All this was moving under the right set of circumstances (which were clearly forming before March 2003) most assuredly included Russia and China with its own interests in discounted Iraqi oil while at the same time Russia caters its own back home oil wealth from its own wells to satisfy and off set and shelter the EU from any OPEC’s economic attracts on the US, while Russia continues to black mail other smaller European states to get in line with Mother or freeze.

    These efforts even working subtly against US interest could leave us facing a possible energy economic check mate and leaving us either facing a war of unimaginable consequences or the option to recede into a major depression and weakened us to the point of having the Euro replace the dollar as the oil standard. Which opens up a whole other can of worms.

    “Number two, he wanted permanent military bases in Middle East to secure our oil interests. There’s a bill now before the Iraqi Parliament that will take Iraq’s oil business away from the Iraqi people and hand it over to our oil companies, in which our oil companies get to keep 75% of their oil profits.”

    Imagine that, our President (along with 90% of congress who won’t admit it publicly just yet) wants to put permanent military bases in the Middle East to secure our oil interests. For pete’s sake, what can he be thinking? And of course the Russians or Chinese’s wouldn’t have provided state of the art high-tech military weaponry in Iraq with operational advisers and staff had they gotten in. What’s the difference Adam? Who’s intertest are you realy concern with?

    Addressing Adams spin.

    According to industry sources in the Iraqi government, the 75%-profit provision up for a vote would last only a few years until they have recouped their initial drilling and equipment upgrade costs which would modernize and increasing Iraqi oil capacity.

    After that, they would collect 20% of profits with 80% for Iraq. It is being looked at by all involved as the only way to get Iraq’s oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war, and the loss of expertise and maintenance.

    Additionally the plan is centered on creating incentives for both the Iraqi government and the Iraqi forces to arrest internal attacks to secure and protect their own interest, while at the same time industry investors bring up modernization standards and output which become the property of Iraq.

    Now whether you like the plan or not is unimportant. What is imported is that Adam chooses to level these important details out to spin his own biased agenda.

    There is more hysteria and spin that can be addressed, but this article is too naïve and immature in its bias to go dealing with.

    I concur with post #2 — ProfEssays “All these facts simply testifies that he defends national interests and his policy in Iraq should be supported by Americans without going into hysteric.”

    A good read the explans why we are in this oil war, even if I do not share the authors anit-US summory comment, dose outline in a very interesting format what most likly is going on.

    (excerpt) –

    In 1999, OPEC demonstrated unprecedented solidarity, forcing the price of oil to triple in less than a year. Could this resurgence in OPEC’s power be related to the current conflict in Iraq? Author and speaker Tefel Hall explains the relationship between OPEC and American militancy.

    Oil and the War in Iraq

  • Zedd

    Prepare for a novel………

  • Nancy

    STM #64, check out my statement on the State Of The Union thread by Dave. I could write a book – but only if I could then stuff it down his filthy throat – from the rectum.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Franco: the new anti-spam measures at BC have taken to incorrectly marking your comments as possible spam. I am correcting these errors as fast as I can during this training period. Please don’t re-post the same comment repeatedly in the meantime.

    Ironically, it’s just started doing the same to me as well, so I’ll have to go tell it this comment isn’t spam before it will allow the page to display it!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    for #57 – Franco tries to make two points, but both suffer from false postulates.

    #1 – in this section he basis his analysis on the premise of “Saddam saw himself as the MAN who could pull it all together for potential full economic terrorism.” – Since ’93 there wasn’t much that Saddam could have possibly thought he was much of anything, and I woudl ask you to prove how you know what this freak was thinking at ANY time. Basing statements on unfounded bits of telepathy concerning a madman is not the basis for logical analysis.

    In #2 Franco again displays his telepathy as well as precognition in asserting what Russia and China were/are going to do, with nothing to back up said predictions. It may just have escaped notice that Russia is working with Iran, and many in the U.S., including the VP, have stated on the record that they want to drill in ANWR and sell directly to China rather than keep the oil from public lands for the American public.

    After that is some talk about spin, beginning with this; “According to industry sources in the Iraqi government”…what sources in what industry? Link please, if you are, as I suspect, quoting from Haliburton documentation, might I point out that NOTHING in the entire war when dealing with Haliburton has happened as they stated it would.

    Check the GAO reports for that.

  • Franco

    #70 — Christopher Rose

    Thank you for the update.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Dave, re your strange comments in #44:
    I know Jim Webb and can give you some facts about him. There is nothing in the slightest that is “evil” about him (where on earth do you get the right to call someone “more than a little evil”, and yet offer no evidence to support such a statement?); and as to “creepy”, maybe your standards of creepiness in Texas (what with Bush and all) have distorted the way you view others who are normal.
    Webb is highly intelligent, articulate, honest, plain-spoken and patriotic. He has little patience with bureaucracy and, strangely for someone in politics, doesn’t really enjoy speech-making or being interviewed by the press. He can be feisty, blunt and opinionated, but he is a man of fairness, integrity and principles. He is both a scholar and a gentleman.
    Personally, I think it’s creepy and a little evil to write comments such as yours about Webb (or anyone) without offering reasons, facts or supporting evidence–don’t you?

  • Nancy

    Good for you, Lee. Please give Mr. Webb my sincerest congrats for his election & very excellent rebuttal. I only wish he’d spoken longer & blunter. I look forward to watching his political star rise.

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Franco:
    Liar liar pants on fire. I heard on NPR that the 75% of profits the US oil companies will keep if the new oil law is passed by the Iraqi parliament, will be for 30 years.

    But you say: “According to industry sources in the Iraqi government, the 75%-profit provision up for a vote would last only a few years …”
    Did you suck these “industry sources” out of your thumb?

    Adam Ash

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Lee:
    Thank you. Jim Webb is a very impressive guy. He was Secretary of the Navy I think under Reagan. I believe he’s going to go very far, and with his decency help save us from the crazies in our Republic.

    Dave Nalle can get weird, but I must say, I’ve never seen him get this weird, calling a good man “creepy” and “more than a little evil” out of the blue with no explanation.
    It’s beyond hysterical, it’s insanely rude, almost pathological, and quite beyond the pale.

    Maybe Webb stole Dave’s girlfriend back in college or something.

    Adam Ash

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Personally, I think it’s creepy and a little evil to write comments such as yours about Webb (or anyone) without offering reasons, facts or supporting evidence–don’t you?

    As I said before, it’s just my personal opinion from having watched him on TV. He comes off as extremely tightly wound and a little scary. Just my impression. He may have other wodnerful qualities which I’m not aware of.

    On the issues I probably agree with Webb more than I agree with Allen or most other Democrats, though I don’t agree with him on gay marriage, social security, the national ID card or some of his strange ideas on gender and racial issues.

    But like I said, in the appearances I’ve seen he comes off as weird and scary.

    dave

  • Zedd

    Franco- you novelist you

    There are a couple of things that you are forgetting,

    1.Iraq was a sovereign nation.

    2.We have caused the death of 600K of its citizens.

    3.You are accusing us of criminal activity. We attacked a nation in order to steal its natural resources.

    The president took that approach prior to seriously formulating a plan to curb our dependence on oil.

    After 911 Bush had the ear of the nation. A wiser and more thoughtful man would have taken that opportunity to rally the nation to working together in making the necessary sacrifices that would start us on our way towards less oil dependency. We would have done it and he would have garnered a great deal of respect both here and abroad.

    We know why he didn’t take that route.

    Your Kissinger-esque view of the world is troubling. I see no difference between what you espouse and what you accuse the Communist leaders in South America of doing. Your rather unrefined Machiavellian approach says all is justifiable as long as it contributes to the end.

    As I see it, you think that our national interest is to drive Hummers, Suburbans and Escalades and you think its worth killing for.

    Also, an important element which dismantles your premise is that France had a major interest in Iraq. They had just signed contracts with Saddam which meant Billions of Euros for the region. Saddam also started demanding that payments be made in Euros and not dollars.. When it was suggested that the IMF should be responsible for rebuilding Iraq, we protested.

    Since it is late, I wont go any further to elaborate on these points but see your way to dismantling your own assertion about how a fear of a cartel between Iraq, Iran and Chavez was the the motivator…. greed (easy pickings) was the impetus.

    You may tell me tomorrow just how brilliant I am. No whining and name calling necessary please.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    1.Iraq was a sovereign nation.

    Run by a genocidal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his people, sponsored terrorism and threatened the nations around him.

    2.We have caused the death of 600K of its citizens.

    We did? How? The fact that many Iraqis died as a result of post-Saddam chaos doesn’t mean that WE caused their deaths. Their deaths were caused by terrorists and insurgents who made the choice to kill their compatriots. We did not force them to take that course, nor are we responsible for it. They could have chosen to work together and build a new nation. They didn’t.

    3.You are accusing us of criminal activity. We attacked a nation in order to steal its natural resources.

    Which from the very beginning of our time there we have clearly stated we were NOT taking control of, and which this very week are being allocated by the Iraqi government using standard methodology and likely resulting in access to the oil going to a variety of multinationals, with the frontrunners being based in Norway, Russia and the Netherlands.

    Why do you lefties keep saying this stuff?

    Dave

  • ronel de wit

    As a South African white person, I should think that the remarks on the South Africans in general shows your fear of them. I can assure you we are just as humane as you are?

  • S.T.M

    Yeah, Ronel, I’ll show you how much we fear them when the Super 14 starts next month :)

  • http://adamash.com Adam Ash

    Dave:
    You say access to oil in Iraq is “going to a variety of multinationals, with the frontrunners being based in Norway, Russia and the Netherlands.”

    Links, please.

    Adam Ash.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The ‘frontrunners’ thing is mostly speculation, IMO but the companies in question are certainly champing at the bit.

    But I’ve got several articles on the subject you can take a look at. The reason it drew my attention is that I kept hearing people say that the PSAs were already in place to give 75% of the oil to American companies. As is typical with these rumors I went to do the research and discovered that not only were the PSAs not even being negotiated yet, but that the Iraqi government is still working on their own oil laws and procedures and they’re being held up by the Kurds who do have a PSA for one of their oil fields. Plus the revenue sharing is likely to end up with 80% of the money going to the Iraqis and 20% to the oil companies once the PSAs are negotiated, plus there’s no indication that American companies are being given preferential treatment.

    Anyway, I have two of the links on this computer. Take a look at The Washington Post and the Kuwait News Agency.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave

    I don’t understand these mental glitches that you undergo. You truly overlook the unpleasant. Again it makes you an adorable person but a horrible historian or political commentator.

    The fact that many Iraqis died as a result of post-Saddam chaos doesn’t mean that WE caused their deaths

    If we caused the chaos….. Take it from here

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Dave says, “The ‘frontrunners’ thing is mostly speculation”

    Why do you Bushies keep making things up?

  • Zedd

    ronel de wit

    There are two other South Africans on this thread. I am one of them. What’s to fear….. What are you on about?

    Bedaar Makker!!

  • Zedd

    STM #82

    We hugged and made up. Don’t get on my bad side :o)

    I suppose everyone is allowed to dream.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    I can only guess that you were referring to me because you listed my points but when you called me a leftie it threw me off. I don’t consider myself a leftie. I go where the best solution is. As an immigrant my father was nauseatingly patriotic however what I picked up from him was a love for the entire constitution; a reverence for this brilliant document and what it enables humanity to accomplish. To me being partisan limits my ability to experience and support everything that the constitution affords us.

    I’m also not a joiner more of an independent thinker. However, I tend to side with people on the left at this moment in our history because the right is inhabited by the intellectually deficient. I have not respect for the way their politics are conducted and they really are rather uncouth aren’t they??? I mean Rush (I feel a sudden urge to bathe) Limbaugh, Fox (creep central) “News”. It’s all so trashy….

  • Zedd

    Dave

    We were negotiating a 30 yr contract for a 75% profit provision.

    Sadly oil makes up 95% of Iraq’s economy.

    I know…. you believe!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    troll, your link is to a site which I’ve seen before and have had to reject as a source when I’ve found stuff there. It’s a antiglobalism fanatic site and the stuff that’s on there is mostly speculation or pure fabrication.

    Did you even read the article? It’s written like propaganda directed at a sympathetic audience.

    The issue here – and nothing is resolved yet – is whether it’s better to have an exclusive agreement with one favored company as Saddam did with the French, or to have multiple companies involved under PSAs which are long term revenue sharing contracts.

    Contrary to what your link suggests, PSAs are in use all around the world as a way for governments to minimize their direct investment in the oil industry and maximize their profits. The structure of the Iraq PSAs will almost certainly be similar to other PSAs. While the government and the companies involve share startup expenses, once the fields are fully operational the lions share of the profit (usually 80%) goes to the government and the smaller share to the oil company.

    It seems to me that allowing multiple companies from different countries to be involved in Iraqi oil is a good thing. Certainly better than some exclusive deal with a single provider which could abuse the relationship. The reason Total accepted a 90/10 revenue sharing deal was that they were essentially bribing Saddam for exclusive access to the oil field. Plus they weren’t opening up new oil fields, but operating already established ones so they had none of the initial overhead. And what’s more Saddam pocketed a good portion of the money or spent it on palaces, so it wasn’t exactly a great deal for the people of Iraq.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    MCH and Zedd. As I’ve said before, the factions in Iraq could have chosen to work together like civilized people. We DID give them that opportunity. They chose not to. That puts the ensuing violence on their heads far more than on ours.

    And MCH, this doesn’t have jack shit to do with anything military.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    This is a political issue, something you’re clearly not qualified to discuss. If it were a military issue then I wouldn’t say ‘we’ because I’m not part of the military.

    Obviously, when I say ‘we’ I mean the United States Government, because even if you don’t like it, the government represents all of us and therefore when it acts ‘we’ are acting.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Yes, but I don’t agree with their interpetation of the typical PSA deal as negative, and they have no evidence that US companies are getting favorable treatment.

    Getting 20% of the money when you do ALL the work seems more than fair. The people of Iraq remain the main beneficiaries, especially in comparison to the situation under Saddam.

    The point is that characterizing an 80/20 PSA as unusual or exploitative is deceptive. It’s a typical arrangement and the reason most of them follow that pattern is that it’s fair.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave

    MCH and Zedd. As I’ve said before, the factions in Iraq could have chosen to work together like civilized people. We DID give them that opportunity. They chose not to. That puts the ensuing violence on their heads far more than on ours.

    I know that you understand human nature better than that. Just reading these threads, it is clear that without an established set of rules (governance) people loose it. If we on BC were a nation, we would be in turmoil. Not because anyone is bad necessarily but because we are human, different and have varying view points.

    We went into a nation with thousands of years of factional issues, removed its government and destroyed its infrastructure, allowed terrorists to come into it and you think that they (who ever they are, since there was no government) should have held it together. WE tore it up Dave.

  • Zedd

    Troll

    Every source that I have looked at said 75% was being negotiated. Your source says the agreement was for 70% max.

    None-the-less, the 20% that is to come after the recoupment that is twice the industry average for such deal.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    imo their spin is more or less irrelevant…it’s the information that counts

    I’m not sure the basic facts are in dispute. What troubles me is that they’re suggesting that PSAs are already being negotiated – which is not true – and they are suggesting that an 80/20 PSA or even a 75/25 PSA is not a good deal.

    The Kurds currently have a worse deal – I believe it’s a 65/35 PSA and they are holding up the negotiations of the oil law because they want to be able to keep their existing deal.

    And Zedd, show me your source for average PSAs being better than 75/25. The 90/10 deal Saddam had with Total was uniquely high. All the others I’ve been able to find information on were lower than that. Russian PSAs are typically 80/20. Oman’s PSA is 80/20.

    In a nationalised system where the state keeps all the money and there’s no PSA the oil companies still make profit when they buy and distribute the oil, but the government assumes all the risk and all the cost of overhead.

    In a PSA risk and profit are shared between the government and an oil company. Considering that risk and as a result potential overhead are substantially higher in Iraq than elsewhere, a PSA that gives slightly more to the oil companies who are going to have to deal with that risk, makes a certain amount of sense.

    Whether a PSA is a good idea depends on whether the local government can run the oil fields more cost effectively than the oil companies, which is highly unlikely in the case of Iraq, wouldn’t you agree?

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle


    We went into a nation with thousands of years of factional issues, removed its government and destroyed its infrastructure, allowed terrorists to come into it and you think that they (who ever they are, since there was no government) should have held it together. WE tore it up Dave.

    What concerns me here, Zedd is that you don’t see that much of the blame rests on the terrorists themselves and on the Iranian government. They are the ones doing the killing and creating and maintaining the chaos. Were they not doing this the US and the Iraqi government would have no problems getting the country running on a sound basis.

    Yes, we should have secured the borders. But does inadequate defense against invasion make the defenders to blame that they got invaded? That’s like saying that being conquered by the Germans was France’s fault for not preparing well enough for the Blitzkreig.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave

    This information came out two weeks ago around the 7th. It was all over. From what I can tell, this was the original source

    I don’t know how to create links.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Yes, I’ve seen that ‘news’ article. That opening paragraph is hardly what I’d call objective, nor is the title.

    Here are the basic facts from the article, with the spin taken out.

    The Iraqi government is working on a plan for developing and exploiting their oil resources.

    That’s the entire factual content of the article, adn no one can argue with it.

    The problem with how that’s being interpreted is that The Independent and plenty of others are making out like PSAs are unusual or unfair to the country that enters into them. That’s just not true. PSAs are quite common and they’re a perfectly reasonable way to develop and make use of oil resources. And the terms likely to be considered – which haven’t actually even been settle on yet – are pretty standard, including the 30 year term for such a contract.

    As for the supposed outrage of western companies being involved, who the hell do you think does most of the oil exploration, refining and distribution? If you’re going to trade in oil, there’s a good chance you’ll be dealing with Shell (dutch), Exxon (US) or BP (British). They’re basically multinational corporations, so it’s not like the US is being particularly exploitative here.

    This is a classic example of taking something which is absolutely SOP run of the mill stuff within the oil industry and presenting it to an ignorant public – who outside the industry had even heard of a PSA before this – and telling them that it’s all bad and evil and rapacious, and they don’t know any better so they take the media’s word for it.

    To use a term from the readership of The Independent – bollocks!

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Russia made those PSA’s out of desperation. They are touted as horrible deals for the country and they are sighted as a reason to be concerned for Iraq and the agreements that have been proposed.

    On the Kurds, just an excerpt from the referenced address:

    Kurdish authorities said they have no intention of submitting existing contracts for review. Duran said Genel’s (a Turkish exploration unit) contract was renegotiated last November and falls within the 20 percent share production that would be the ceiling under the new law. – WashingtonPost.com.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Everything has significance once its placed in its proper context.

    Firstly, what is significant are then numbers. If we are looking at 75/20 then those numbers certainly are unusual. France signed 40/10 I believe with Iraq prior to the invasion.

    Also don’t forget

    “Oil belongs to the Iraqi people; the government has… to be good stewards of that valuable asset ” -George Bush; Press conference, 14 June 2006

    “The oil of the Iraqi people… is their wealth. We did not [invade Iraq] for oil ” -Colin Powell; Press briefing, 10 July 2003

    “Oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50bn and $100bn in two or three years… [Iraq] can finance its reconstruction” -Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Defense Secretary, March 2003

    “By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies” -Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999

    Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people” – Tony Blair; Moving motion for war with Iraq, 18 March 2003

    Dave we should not pretend to be experts on the negotiations of PSAs. That would be foolish and dishonest. However from the research that I had done, early on to get a better understanding of Frances position, anger and objections and of the recent disclosure of laws being drafted, it looks as though the agreement that the Western nations that are represented by those companies are formulating, does not serve Iraq well. It is also quite clear that we are making out like bandits. This deal were it to go through, would only fuel more anger against us and put our men and women at greater risk…

  • Zedd

    Dave:

    That’s like saying that being conquered by the Germans was France’s fault for not preparing well enough for the Blitzkreig

    Dave WE are Germany to the Irqis.

  • Zedd

    troll

    I had read a similar article to the one you referred to actually by the same British publication that broke the news on the law draft that I referred to earlier. I knew what you were referring to. I just didn’t want to confuse those that were reading the thread so I didn’t spend time explaining anything and end up with a debate on 5% (rather silly).

    I don’t know if the deal will go through especially since the draft was leaked. I noticed that the major news outlets in the US are teetering carefully around this story. Perhaps there is a chance that it wont happen. While it would be a great deal for us, it would also contribute further to the distrust of the US and invariably make us even more unsafe.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You don’t need to be an expert on PSAs to understand some simple, basic facts.

    First, there is more risk in Iraq for the oil companies involved in the deal, so a slightly more favorable deal isn’t outrageous. And BTW, the only deal I’ve heard of that’s more favorable than 80/20 is in Libya, which has a great location and a very stable government. The idea that Russia made PSAs out of desperation given all their resources seems preposterous.

    Second – and this is a very important element in the context of Zedd’s irrelevant quotes – it doesn’t matter to the US what the profit ratio is or who extracts the oil. All we as a nation need is for the oil fields to be open, pumping and putting more oil into the marketplace. Remember, oil is a fungible resource. All more Iraqi production does for us is increase oil availability and lower the price. We have no need as a nation to profit directly from it, and no one has ever proposed a role for the US government in extracting the oil.

    Third, stop talking about ‘american’ oil companies. There’s no such thing unless you’re talking about some of the smaller regional distributors like Hudson or Knox or Sinclair. The oil companies which will be bidding on Iraqi oil contracts are giant multinationals which have no special allegiance to or shared interests with the United States. The fact that Bush and Cheney are oil men does NOT mean that they have any special stake in these oil companies, it just means that they know how the system works – which a lot of Americans clearly do not.

    Fourth, no matter who gets the contracts, Haliburton is going to profit. Be prepared for it. Haliburton is one of a tiny number of companies which have the equipment and positioning to be hired for some of the on-the-ground work which will be required, just as they are for oil fields all over the world. This doesn’t mean that they are getting special favors from Dick Cheney, it just means that he’s a smart guy and knew a winning business model to hitch his career to. They’d get hired for the kind of work they do best whether he’d ever been involved or not.

    Dave

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMW5iYFGhM D’oh

    Spin, spin and more misdirection.

    Do note just how far from the actual topic things can be dragged, and by whom.

    It’s all about focus, kiddies.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    You must enjoy seeing just how far you can take a distortion. Bud at some point its called lying. Be careful.

    Nothing that you stated has anything related to a FACT. You are just spouting your opinions. You take a small fact, distort it to fit whatever scenario that you choose to make up (one that force fits into your teeny tiny world view). You then spend time discussing the notion that you just made up and say that you are discussing facts.

    Save that stuff for your barnacles. Buddy, you need to go to the gym if you want to engage people who think. Bulk up man. That weak twaddle isn’t going to cut it. Its sort of clever but it’s just not good enough.

    If you didn’t take yourself so seriously I would think that you are sitting at home laughing at just how much BS you are getting away with. But I’m sure that you are as serious as a tack.

    Dave you are BSing. Cut it out. We need to have a really good, juicy, and engaging discussion.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Telling me I’m BSing and that my facts are opinions doesn’t count for much if you can’t come up with facts that disprove what I’m saying, Zedd.

    You then spend time discussing the notion that you just made up and say that you are discussing facts.

    Just because a fact I reference isn’t included in your vast store of knowledge, that doesn’t make it something I fabricated. Most of what I talk about in #114 is general knowledge or easily researched with a google search. If you think something I say is a misrepresentation I suggest you learn more about the subject.

    If you didn’t take yourself so seriously I would think that you are sitting at home laughing at just how much BS you are getting away with. But I’m sure that you are as serious as a tack.

    Actually, I’m sitting here laughing at your complete inability to counter anything I say with anything more than unproven charges of lying and racism, personal attacks which are the last refuge of those who cannot discuss a subject effectively.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave

    I am just flabbergasted that you are serious about the post that you made. You’ve given me nothing to counter.

    You said that what is taking place is standard. I started out telling you that it is not. 75/20 is not standard…bottom line. You saying it is, is useless. You gave no tangible prove for your position. What am I supposed to do? Say nuh huh… I love to learn. If you disprove what I know about this topic, I will be happy because my understanding will have broadened. But you’ve said nothing.

    You don’t believe that Russia got a raw deal because of their desperate situation. Okay but THAT is standard opinion. You just don’t know about it… I bet you tried to google it and couldn’t find it :o) Goober…

    I believe you now, you really aren’t BSing. I’m sorry I read you wrong. You really think you presented an effective argument. I’m disappointed. I thought there was more cunning than thick -on this one.

    Oh and did we have a dialogue about Bush and Chaney’s personal interest in this deal??? I don’t think I did Dave. I don’t know how to respond to that either.

    This is a stupid move on our part. This administration is committing us to a 30yr commitment of being looked at as schemers, killers and thieves. Whatever your position is, you must know that this is BAD PR for the United States. The best way to gain respectability would have been to invite an international entity (World Bank/IMF or whomever would be qualified) to go in and help Iraq formulate their oil contracts. “By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies” -Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999 With statements like that in the archives, a wiser administration would risk taking the financial hit and invest in the resolution of this fiasco. Going for the greediest deal existing is not a way to quail those who say that we went into Iraq for monetary purposes and not humanitarian reasons. But again we are talking about wisdom, something that this administration doesn’t respect and this party has abandoned.. in exchange for wit and craftiness.

    I am glad that you are not taking this too seriously. I never do.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You said that what is taking place is standard. I started out telling you that it is not. 75/20 is not standard…bottom line. You saying it is, is useless. You gave no tangible prove for your position. What am I supposed to do? Say nuh huh… I love to learn. If you disprove what I know about this topic, I will be happy because my understanding will have broadened. But you’ve said nothing.

    First off, my main point was that NO arrangements at all with any oil company have been made yet. They’re still working on the legislation to determine what their terms will be. Last I heard the absolute worst PSA deal they were going to allow under the law would be 80/20 which IS pretty common. I even provided examples of other PSAs which were negotiated at that split. That’s hardly saying nothing. Someone else suggested a 75/25 split was being considered – though I have heard nothing of the sort – and I said that if that ended up being true it would likely reflect the higher risk of operating in Iraq and so made some sense.

    You don’t believe that Russia got a raw deal because of their desperate situation. Okay but THAT is standard opinion. You just don’t know about it… I bet you tried to google it and couldn’t find it :o) Goober…

    I didn’t even try to google it, actually. Oman certainly ISN’T in a desperate situation and those are the terms of their PSA as well. The terms of the current Kurdish PSA are worse than that. In fact the only PSA I could find which was better was Libya’s. I’ll take your word for it that Russia is desperate, what with one of the largest militaries in the world to defend its interests and a government-backed oil company of its own to do the work. And here’s a link for you to an article on PSAs which points out that the average government take in a PSA is between 64% and 68% depending on the size of the oil field. This is based on an average of 324 PSAs. So that would make an 80% PSA standard for Iraq well over the worldwide average. Of course there will be multiple PSAs at different terms for different fields, but if they stay in the 80/20 range they will be good, fair deals.

    I believe you now, you really aren’t BSing. I’m sorry I read you wrong. You really think you presented an effective argument. I’m disappointed. I thought there was more cunning than thick -on this one.

    You give me very little to argue with. I lay out some facts, you deny them with no evidence. I lay out some more and you continue to deny the facts, so I eventually give up.

    Oh and did we have a dialogue about Bush and Chaney’s personal interest in this deal??? I don’t think I did Dave. I don’t know how to respond to that either.

    I just added that in as a bit of anticipation. Thought I should deal with it in advance since that’s the direction these irrational diatribes usually head.

    This is a stupid move on our part. This administration is committing us to a 30yr commitment of being looked at as schemers, killers and thieves. Whatever your position is, you must know that this is BAD PR for the United States.

    Probably true. But from what I can tell from sources inside Iraq the US role is entirely advisory and the decisions are being made 100% by the Iraqis. Plus, if the resulting terms are fair, any criticism based on the fact that US advisers were involved is pretty suspect.

    The best way to gain respectability would have been to invite an international entity (World Bank/IMF or whomever would be qualified) to go in and help Iraq formulate their oil contracts.

    When we get to the point of negotiation I imagine they’ll have competent advice, though I doubt it will come from the IMF or the World Bank. But once again, here’s the point you’re missing NO NEGOTIATIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE YET. You’re doing the same thing as so many others and claiming the negotiations are over when in fact they haven’t even begun. They cannot begin until the Iraqi parliament passes their hydrocarbon law which will set their minimum acceptable terms for the PSAs they will eventually negotiate.

    And again, there’s the issue of motive which I addressed earlier but which you have ignored. It is in the interests of the US to get the Iraqis a first-class deal for their Petroleum, because all we want out of the region is for them to increase production as soon as possible. We have no direct stake in their oil, we don’t have a state oil company like Saudi Arabia or Mexico do. All we want is for the oil to get produced. We don’t even care who ends up making the PSA deals with Iraq, because from our point of view they’re all the same. Even if they sign an exclusive deal wit the Chinese that still benefits us because it will reduce chinese demand. Remember, as I said before, oil is a fungible resource.

    Going for the greediest deal existing is not a way to quail those who say that we went into Iraq for monetary purposes and not humanitarian reasons.

    Again, there is no ‘greediest’ deal for the US because we are not involved in the deal at all. We’re a neutral party here. We have no stake in their oil production, except that the more money they make on oil the less we have to fund their government, and the more oil they produce the better our price for oil will be here at home. We’re essentially on the same side as Iraq. What benefits them benefits us.

    You clearly don’t understand the most basic concepts of the oil industry or business in general. But you have inspired me to write a new childrens book “How Did That Dinosaur Get in My Car”.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave:

    there is no ‘greediest’ deal for the US because we are not involved in the deal at all.

    Stop it!! & Grow up! You are exhausting me. Where is your world??? When was the last time that you had a new way of doing things or a new way of looking at a situation. I bet it doesn’t happen much does it. I really believe that you believe and that you are a nice person but geeez Dave. Bless you!!

    You think that in a the throws of a highly internationally political war, one that is inundated with enemies of different sorts from all angles, many whose sole aim is sabotaging anything that they can get their hands on, especially the oil reserves; you think that companies can just come in and out, dialogue freely with the Iraqi government, make deals that will be interpreted as Western intervention, without any coordination and collaboration with the administrations of the countries that they represent? All right Dave. I wonder why a French deal isn’t being brokered then… hmmmmm

    Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the discussion. We’ll just have to watch this unfold.

  • Emry

    How could anyone doubt that the US went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons after googling…cheney iraq oil…maps.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Wow, it’s like you’re involved in a whole different discussion, Zedd. Did you even read anything I wrote in that last comment?

    You think that in a the throws of a highly internationally political war, one that is inundated with enemies of different sorts from all angles, many whose sole aim is sabotaging anything that they can get their hands on, especially the oil reserves; you think that companies can just come in and out, dialogue freely with the Iraqi government, make deals that will be interpreted as Western intervention, without any coordination and collaboration with the administrations of the countries that they represent?

    I’m sure companies will have support and assistance from governments of friendly nations or from the governments that control them in the case of the nationalized companies. But there is no oil company that ‘represents’ the US – we are the only nation in the world where that is entirely true. And I’m sure the US as caretaker in Iraq will try to help make sure that negotiations are carried out safely and successfully, but what does that have to do with the actual specifics of the deals that will be struck?

    All right Dave. I wonder why a French deal isn’t being brokered then…

    There’s no reason why there won’t be a French deal. It just won’t be an exclusive deal like the one Saddam had. From what I’ve read Total/Fina intends to compete for the PSAs, and there has been no indication that they will not be considered along with everyone else.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    just stop!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    As in stop the real world, I want to get off?

    Why do you feel better believing the crazy theories of conspiracy nuts and extremists than simple logic and basic facts?

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Just quit. I’m not Moonraven. You are out of control. Your poor wife. I bet you make up anything and say she did it, to deflect, when you are in the wrong.

    I beat you on this one. Maybe next time.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Are you sure you’re not Moonraven? You’re getting almost as delusional. There’s no ‘beating’ anyone here. We had a debate, you chose not to address any of the facts and to try to slide by on vague denials. If that makes you feel like a ‘winner’ then be happy.

    Dave

  • tits mgee

    you got mad at that part? they’re over there partially to prevent corruption in the middle east. maybe thats not what the gov. sees it as but that’s part of it. me i hope that at the end of the day our troops are home middle east is safe and we can focus on problems here. i didnt read 1/16th of your article but im just saying my opinion. i just want the troops back as asoon as possible. its really confusing politics, yet im in 7th grade and im caught in the middle