It's Not About the Oil, It's Not About the Oil (keep repeating that)

Thanks for the link.

"Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force" doesn't have the same "ring" to it as an acronym "RDJTF" as The War Against Terrah does.

Bush won't leave Iraq until he gets that resolution passed by their government giving us all their oil revenues. This war will never end as long as an oilman is in office - or a Republican who has been bought and paid for by Big Oil.

Keep on the lookout for severe price of gasoline drop in October 2008.

waiting for the gas price to drop ... can we wait that long? or can we vote on that?

Impeachment of Bush ad Cheney, with the vote on the same day, sounds good to me

Thank you for continuing to help get the word out. There are still people out there who don't have a clue what we are talking about. Iran and Syria were, (are) in the cross hairs too. The plan was (is) to control ALL the Middle East oil. The planners just forgot that they would be dealing with beings who actually have a human spirit of their own, and actually have a right to have one.

DB10

Long ago in a galaxy far far away, I used to do this daily, Olga, but it gets old. So much corruption and greed, and I'm just one little guy..........., plus you generally have to suffer through someone telling you all the talking points they've memorized over the years, which gets into millions, I think. sigh........As for rights, judging from the damage to our own constitution, these aren't rights friendly guys in the first place, but that's another article.....

An excellent summary of the history and planning that lead to this disastrous venture.

This article deserves the widest circulation.

Indeed, Peter, it has always been about the OIL.

Well, there is that Neocon wet dream of a permanent land based aircraft carrier and base in the Middle East, though, as well..

There is no doubt it was about oil. WMD's was what justified the protection of it.

WMDs were just the LIE cooked up with shaky evidence, force-fed by a Secretary of State who had always seemed like an honorable man to a U.N. giving us more benefit of the doubt than we deserved, or will ever have again. Lies, lies, lies, and death. All at the feet of a president whose lapdogs line up to lick him.

Kris if you think that Bush cooked up the WMD story to lie then you are a member of the revisionist left wing sheep who claimed the same thing since Clinton was in office. Enjoy the koolaid.....

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17

The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02

Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden

By Vernon Loeb

Richard A. Clarke, the Clinton administration's senior counterterrorism official, provided new information in defense of President Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for Osama bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/
38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."

Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_092902.pdf

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record




"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

Wow donnyboy you cut and paste very well as jeffyboy.

Thanks Don:)

Oh my god, Don, is that you in ghetto garb?

Ron although I agree with you, accusing somebody of posting a pic of Edwards as being in "ghetto garb" is in bad taste and uncalled for....

A bunch of people trying to talk tough in the wake of 911 were everywhere, but it should be noted that when we entered Iraq, we found out that Saddam had folded WMD programs in late 90s so Clinton was justified in his comments, the rest working on cooked intel. Who conspired to cook it we now know, don't we?

How totally confusing, and diametrically opposed Dons should be, but Edwards in ghetto garb, I think not.

Ron that is what it is all about.......people wanted to talk tough after 9-11. Republicans by nature want to react to those instances with force and democrats by nature hold their finger to the wind. America wanted to go into Iraq and we did. Certain people want to pretend they didn't vote for the war, others regret they did. Unfortunately Americans don't have a third party.....


"" How totally confusing, and diametrically opposed Dons should be, but Edwards in ghetto garb, I think not.""

Well than I think you owe Don S. an appology....

"Unfortunately Americans don't have a third party....." One we can agree on, but I'm as close as you can get. I'm an independent, though it may not look like it, because I am convinced the devil himself might be the lesser of two evils when stood up beside Bush. At least the devil wouldn't continually screw up his evil agenda.

Ron as a former democrat and current conservative who leans republican, I see your point. Democrats have a lot of good points but their roots and finances come from an extreme element. For me they are the bigger of the 2 evils.....

Well, as a former Republican that now leans progressive, the republican party has been taken over by extreme elements from the right, and their financing comes from selling our government to the highest bidder, so I guess I consider that to be the greater of the two evils, at the moment.

Ron who has the democrats sold our government to?

Now if they went back to small government, but not stripping all protection from consumers and putting them at the mercy of the worst of capitalism, and fiscal restraint, and decided it was possible to play nice so government could work as well as it ever did (questionable at best), instead of concentrating on divisiveness, I might have a change of heart, but it looks dismal. The two greatest heros of republican lore (Reagan and Bush) are both some of the biggest deficit slackers in history. Since Gingrich they seem to spit when they talk to anyone else, and it has been bad for our country.

I'm not delusional, probably many and varied, but for gods sakes, not to the excesses of the last six years.

Ron what caused deficits under Reagan?( I make no excuses for Bush)

I'm tempted to say welfare, starwars and military spending, but my memory is in need of refreshing. Actually I'm beat and getting ready to pull the plug, not that this is boring, I'm just beat.

Ok sleep good. I'll elaborate tomorrow.... I am tired too.

cool

So they're blaming all this on Jimmy Carter.

I try not to get involved with politics, so instead Ron, I wish you and Buddy a

Boy, I must have really been tired if I didn't remember that Reagan's deficits were caused, first and foremost, by tax cuts, that he was the first real practitioner of starve the beast theory, where you spend so much and cut taxes so much, that social programs had to be cut to compensate, so the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Military spending, in the meantime, was raised enormously, housing subsidies and health care programs cut, which turned a lot of mental patients and others out on the street, creating, almost overnight, a serious homeless problem and additional crime, which he turned a blind eye to, and that through it all, he fostered the yuppie movement, from which I believe the selfish doctrine of the Neocon evolved. There was a mood of, I'm getting mine, screw you, and millions of yuppies found a kindred selfish cord. Yeah, I was exhausted if I couldn't remember this period, just goes to show how bad Bush two is, if it made me forget the guy that ran me out of the republican party in the first place. It was alright to be rich and shamelessly self centered, and we had a real problem by the time he was done. Bush one, to his credit, realized that taxes had to be raised to compensate, and lost his election because, in great part, he inherited Reagan's mess. Clinton then raised taxes more, and left office with a surplus, which, of course, was quickly squandered, at the hands of Bush two. God help us this time though, because the baby boomer problem is going to make just raising taxes again to compensate problematic, and the deficit under Bush, makes Reagan look like a spending neophyte.

"""oy, I must have really been tired if I didn't remember that Reagan's deficits were caused, first and foremost, by tax cuts, that he was the first real practitioner of starve the beast theory, where you spend so much and cut taxes so much, that social programs had to be cut to compensate, so the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. '''

I agree that spending was ridiculous but look at the GDP in 1980 and then in 1988. Look at the Federal tax receipts in 1980 and then in 1988. Yes it took a lot of pork to get democrats to sign Reaganomics into law but it was well worth it.

As far as the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..... Well Carter was saying that until he turned blue in the face in 1980. Reagan created the "Reagan democrat" demo. Democrats preferred Reagan over their own party members. Everybody knows that the poor don't get poorer they just stay poor compared to the overwhelming beneficiaries of Reaganomics. Clinton even admitted that Reaganomics was a good thing.

Either way, all benchmarks on our soaring economy get pointed towards the Reagan years as the last time we have seen such growth. Go figure.....

Don H. you are so much more intelligent sounding as Jeff.

Don S. Way to Prove me wrong jack ass.

You wish.

I think it's funny that Bush
actually said: 'America is addicted to oil'.

Yeah, like a crack ho
who's addicted to crack.

catching up on some of your older stuff......Hi there Ron!