Does Kerry not know OIL was a motive for the war,or is he just such a liar

[RichM]

that he abjectly cooperates in keeping this point safely out of the public's attention?

I watched some of the 1971 version of Kerry on the 'Dick Cavett Show' replay last night. Back then, he seemed to be passionate about making the truth known - even when it would be disagreeable to the powerful. (Of course, it could be argued, this was 3+ years after the Tet Offensive, by which time opposition to the war had become fairly respectable in the US mainstream.)

What happened to this guy, to turn him into his own opposite, in the span of a few decades? Obviously, he is bright enough to know that oil had plenty to do with the Iraq invasion. Just as obviously, he hasn't even PRONOUNCED the words "oil" & "Iraq" in the same sentence since October 2002. Instead, he's unquestioningly submitted to the Bushite "explanatory framework:" that last year's unpleasantness with Iraq was motivated simply by concern about Saddam's "weapons."

So, my question: Does Kerry not realize that oil was part of it? Does he not BELIEVE that oil was part of it? Or is he just a liar?

[AndyTiedye]

1. Most People (even Kerry's Constituants) Believed Bush*'s Lies At the Time

Or at least gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Most DU'ers know better, of course.

[meow2u3]

87. I second that

Kerry did believe Bush's lies because the Bushies, especially Rove, are such masterful con men that only the most cynical among us wouldn't fall for them.

[cyclezealot]

111. Not me.

I read the foreign media daily thanks to the internet. I knew Bush's war was a scam..Many Democrats in Congress knew it was a scam.Recall a majority of Democrats in the House voted Bush's war down.
I called Kerry's office calling this a scam saying if he voted for the war, I would never vote for him.(Probably will have to eat my words.) .....Recall, the Powell presentation at the UN during October. It was found out his so called 'British white paper,' was fabricated, recycled from some masters' thesis.
Recall, the opinions of Hans Blix...Plenty of foder at the time for those with minds that question.Then there is the Guardian internet edition for those with questioning minds. Easy to find alternative news to Rove's pablem, should you want to.

[ScreamingMeemie]

107. Sorry, I just can't get behind that theory. I still think it's better to

own up to making a huge mistake instead of trying to rationalize it in that manner. I wish we could all move off of this.

[cyclezealot]

112. Hell, I am not convinced Kerry

does not think the war to be a foolish endeavor to this day..Just a little oversight we will all have to overlook..
It better we do not pose such questions outside of Democratic circles.

[Cocoa]

2. his position is more nuanced than any of your choices

and thankfully so.

[RichM]

6. If it's "nuanced," in what way has he challenged the "WMD" explanation?

Go ahead and name ONE possible motive he has pointed to for the invasion, other than the official-stated one.

Your use of the word "nuanced" shows you've confused my question with the issue of THE CONDITIONS under which war was to be started. That is a separate matter. Here, we're just talking about why the whole conflict existed in the first place. And Kerry hasn't challenged the Bushite explanatory framework in any way.

[Cocoa]

he said the first Gulf War was about oil

and he talks now about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, so our soldiers don't have to fight in the Middle East.

So he's aware of the role of oil, and talks about it, but he doesn't reduce the Iraq war to that single issue.

[RichM]

108. So why won't he say the SECOND Gulf War is about oil?

And why is he only talking about our dependence on foreign oil as a GENERAL ABSTRACT CONCEPT, instead of pointing a finger & saying that THAT (among other things) is what the current Iraq occupation is all about?

[RichM]

3. Don't be shy! Step right up & post your alternative theories, if you've

got 'em!

So far, 2 brave souls have chosen "Other." Come on now - Share nicely with the rest of us! :-)

[onehandle]

4. My Theory.

He's running for President. There are a lot of things that we discuss that he will never mention.

Bush cried WMD, not OIL. That's what Congress paid attention to.

What "lie" are you talking about when you imply that he "may" be a liar?

[ChompySnack]

5. Hey dude, back off

Why call Kerry a liar? Are you some sort of "mole" trying to demoralize Democrats?

The question could better be asked:
Is he trying to get elected? Yes.
Do the people care that we are at war? Yes.
Do people care that Bush's reasons were to get oil? No.

It is a loosing issue, one that is important to us but not the population in general. Bush's character (lack thereof actually) is the issue. The economy is the issue. Jobs are the issue.

Why Bush started an illegal war is a footnote for the history books and a damnation of his character, not relevant campaign plank.

[sangh0]

7. Don't sweat it

Right now, Bush* is getting hammered over how the invasion of Iraq distracted from the War on Terror, and some people just hate that so instead of celebrating a successful battle, they have to find something else to distract and complain about.

The left's circular firing squad never sleeps, and nothing pisses them off like seeing Kerry take on the Bush* admin

[IndianaGreen]

9. If one is on every side of every issue

one could not possibly be liar.

Even Lieberman faulted Kerry for his flip-flops.

[sangh0]

10. Now there's a first!

IG citing Lieberman as an authority on something. Will wonders ever cease?

[Cocoa]

13. IG also seems to be citing Karl Rove

I always wondered who would fall for the "flip flop" nonsense, now I know.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Look up the definition of "denial"

denial // Psychology

An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

http://www.homoexcelsior.com/omega.db/datum/psychology/denial/5654

[Cocoa]

18. you spouted GOP propaganda verbatim

what's next, Kerry looks French?

[IndianaGreen]

55. Nice smear, unbecoming of a liberal

I am saying what was said by many Democratic candidates during the primaries, and still being said by my candidate Dennis Kucinich (who is still running).

The GOP is the party of the lockstep... or used to have a monopoly.

[sangh0]

57. IG repeats GOP prpoganda

and then accuses others of being in denial. I knew wonders would never cease!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Wow....heal thyself!

An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

Gosh, IG...let's see here:

PAINFUL REALITY # 1

A socialist candidate cannot win the general election in America.

PAINFUL REALITY # 2

BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER IN US HISTORY

PAINFUL REALITY # 3

JOHN KERRY IS THE BEST SHOT WE HAVE AT GETTING RID OF BUSH!

so thanks for advising us all on the matter of painful realities and how one operates when they are in DENIAL regarding PAINFUL realities.

[IndianaGreen]

53. I believe the debate was about flip-flopping on the issues

Why hasn't Kerry spoken out in favor of Dick Clarke? What is he waiting for? The polls?

One issue Kerry has not flip-flopped: Venezuela.

Kerry is clearly on the side of the oligarchs.

[sangh0]

58. You believed wrong

Try reading the initial post. Sometimes, it helps.

Try re-reading the thread also. You were the one who raised the "flip-flop" issue. That is, you raised it after the GOP did.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. More proof that your Kerry hatred is uninformed and propagandistic

CBS/AP) John Kerry said the White House is committing character assassination with its treatment of former counter-terror chief Richard Clarke to avoid responding to questions about national security that Clarke raised.

"I don't think people want questions about character; I think they want questions about our security to be answered," Kerry said Saturday. "That's what this is about."

http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1742302&nav=4QcHLqwt

Kerry urges Rice to testify publicly to 9/11 panel

28.03.2004
12.00pm
KANSAS CITY - Prospective Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry challenged key White House adviser Condoleezza Rice on Saturday to testify publicly and under oath before a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Kerry accused President Bush's White House of stonewalling the commission by keeping Rice off its public witness list, and of attempting "character assassination" against its own former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3557373&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/8293403.htm

Kerry's statement on Venezuela was for Chavez not to interfere with thee referendum. I don't think he said anything about overthrowing him via a coup.

BTW..YOUR POST was about denial and since we are now also including flip-flopping, let's talk about those posts by you that were PRO EDWARDS who was REALLY PRO WAR, after you took Kerry to task for his IWR vote. If you have a problem with flip-flopping, I suggest one eliminates FLIP FLOPPING as a societal ill once they begin to work on their own proposensity towards it.

[sangh0]

61. So she made more than one mistake due to her denial

She claimed the thread was about Kerry's flip-flopping. The truth is, she introduced that in this thread

She also claimed Kerry hadn't spoken out in defense of Clarke. Wrong again

Oh, the things one must deny in order to repeat the GOP propoganda. Thank God denial makes it's easy

[IrateCitizen]

66. Is the pile-on really necessary?

C'mon, sangha -- while you are certainly entitled to post your response to IG by responding to IG, this pattern of responding in agreement with those who would detract those with whom you disagree by simply adding on more points grows a bit tiresome.

I say this as someone who, while in agreement with both you and Teena in this instance, finds such tactics to be extremely off-putting and sharing much in common with the playground behavior of children who is currently being picked on for some reason or another.

In short, it is possible to make your points in a manner that does not paint you in a negative light, even with those who agree with you in this instance.

[sangh0]

67. It's strictly optional

and how it affects what people think of me is irrelevant AFAIC. I don't do this for personal glory, and I think moral suasion is appropriate. It's the only thing the authoritarian left understands. Logic certainly doesn't work with them

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. typo..meant to say propensity (last sentence)

[emulatorloo]

64. Check threads yesterday, Kerry has spoken in support of Clarke

On Edit - grammar

[RichM]

11. Allow me to demolish this argument.

Suppose you're right that "Bush's character (lack thereof actually) is the issue." What could possibly demonstrate his lack of character more devastatingly than establishing that he took the country to war based on deliberate cynical lies?

Why call Kerry a liar? Because he's playing along with the charade, and has been ever since the IWR vote.

Do people care that Bush's reasons were to get oil? Yes, it's OBVIOUS that people care terribly much - and that Bush himself knows it - otherwise he wouldn't have felt it necessary to try to conceal the role oil plays in the whole affair. And Kerry is concealing it too - ALSO because he knows it's explosive, and that people would care tremendously about it.

[sangh0]

14. Bait and switch

In RichM's first post, he was concerned about Kerry not saying that this war is about oil. Now he complains about Kerry not saying that Bush* lied about WMD's. And then he jumps back to the "War for oil" argument.

RichM is having trouble keeping his arguments straight. If RichM wants to destroy Bush*'s character, the only issue that needs to be promoted is that Bush* lied about the WMD's. There's no need to push the "War for oil" argument. RichM is just pissed that Kerry isn't making RichM's issues his own.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

47. That would be another painful reality

[seaglass]

12. I'm not so sure that the American public, considering gas

prices right now, wouldn't think that getting cheap oil was a benefit.

Stupid poll.

[truthspeaker]

8. other: he's on the take

He now buys the proposition that the US has to be an imperial power to maintain our standard of living and military readiness. Also explains his anti-Chavez stance.

[RichM]

15. Yes, I agree with this. (It's actually better than the option I voted for.

It's sort of the same as "not wanting to offend the wrong people," but with the noteworthy distinction that he's come to be a "believer" himself. Good point!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. In several speeches, he has made reference to our dependence

on foreign oil being at the root of what is going on in Iraq and in our tenuous relationship with the Saudi's. I don't have time to look up a link, but yes, I think he realizes oil plays a BIG part is the reason why we are there.

But you forgot, WATER is also a big reason for this war. The Tigres and Euphrates river are a source for MUCH of the Middle East and Bush also wanted to Enronize water.

I do not feel he has been turned into his own opposite. What happened to you as a liberal, that you would use a medium such as DU ( a widely read forum) in order to undermine the single best chance of getting rid of Bush?

I know we are here to debate topics and the like and always felt we had more in common than not. I am just not willing to bite my nose to spite my face. But your posts regarding Kerry indicate you seem to be willing to do so.

Is it your hope that Kerry loses?

Is that the end you are trying to accomplish?

I can't think of another reason why your every post would be FAR more critical of Kerry than of Bush. And don't tell me it's principles. It's PROPAGANDA plain and simple.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Oh and on the "what happened to this guy?" part

Read this article:

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

Specifically the Drugs to money laudering section. I suspect that after coming up with SO MUCH damning information and being bounced back by higher ups in his own party, he elected to lay low and then move towards the presidency as the ONLY place where one could truly address many of these issues.

He can't get there without the bully pulpit. He can't get the bully pulpit if he campaigns to the wishes of the smallest percentage of voters. I am not saying that as one who TAKES a centrist position but as a REALIST.

[RichM]

44. I agree that water was an important motivation. (I didn't claim it was

ONLY a matter of oil - just that oil was an important part of it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.)

As for the rest of your remarks: Unlike most at DU, I am not wholly dominated by the simple question of who wins the election. I prefer that Bush loses, but I don't see that as the overriding issue. The greater issue, to me, is the betrayal of the population by the 2-party system. The system is a monster, and society will never be able to improve while such a system is in place.

Encouraging blind faith in the Democratic Party is a hindrance, not a help. It strengthens the 2-party system's monopoly on power. It gives people the delusion that they have a party to defend their interests, when they really don't.

(The Kerry nomination is a case in point. He NEVER should have been the nominee. The primaries were skillfully manipulated by the media & Dem Party heavyweights. Most Democratic voters opposed the war, yet the candidates that did best all voted Yes on IWR, & had only limited criticisms of the war, focusing on HOW it was done rather than on THE FACT that it was done. And now, the disease of party loyalty is causing people to avert their eyes from this; to pretend that it's really no big deal.)

Here is the type of attitude I think is now most appropriate: People should be saying, "Kerry stinks, and the Dem Party stinks. They've betrayed us once again by giving us a nominee that is more the defender of elite interests than of ours. However, because Bush is so extraordinary a gangster, even the two-faced Kerry is preferable. So, this one last time, we'll hold our nose and vote for the lesser evil."

I can live with that kind of attitude. Not with people averting their eyes from the disgraceful process that led to Kerry's nomination.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. I used to read your posts and think they were intellectually reasoned

Anymore I think they are actually rather infantile. Your issue isn't with the Democratic party so much as reality itself.
No you aren't dominated by a blind loyalty to the Democratic party, you are dominated by a blind loyalty to what you think and anyone who doesn't think what you think is now worthy of contempt.

All respect I had for your positions is now gone. I can handle ideology when there is an ounce of practicality inherent in that ideology..if there isn't...then it truly isn't an ideal but a warm enema....

I'm sorry you feel Kerry SHOULDN'T be the nominee...I personally feel they should serve ice water in hell. I also feel Kerry was the MOST qualified and BEST experienced nominee for the job, barring of course Bob Graham's failed run. We habe different litmus tests.


The primaries were NOT skillfully MANIPULATED to hand it off the Kerry, they were front loaded as a response to the fact that George Bush threatened a 200 million dollar re-select campaign and this was Mac Auliffe's response to THAT reality. While I think there were SOME mistakes in doing it that way because it leaves SO many states unenthused about their LATE primaries and thereby does little to KEEP people inspired...I can't fault it when acknowledging the FINANCIAL realities.

Here is the type of attitude I think is now most appropriate: People should be saying

And this confirms what I have told you in the past. You don't advocate freedom for people...in essence you favor a LEFTIST authoritarian dictatorship as opposed to a rightist one.

[Hav]

56. So well said...

:thumbsup:

[sangh0]

62. You left out the "I can live with that kind of attitude."

Another sign of Rich's leftist authoritarian tendencies is his inability to "live with" certain attitudes. What people do and say is not enough for Rich. They also have to have the right 'tude

[mobuto]

19. Earth to RichM, Earth to RichM

"No young American in uniform should ever be held hostage to America's dependence on oil in the Middle East. " - John Kerry

Just what do you think he was referring to there, RichM?

You and the rest of the Kerry-haters need to come up with a new schtick. Fast.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Rich admires Chomsky. He should follow his advice re: Kerry

Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result.

http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mobuto]

26. I'm actually disappointed

I haven't found any mention of myself being a fascist lackey of John Kerry's. Clearly I'm not doing my job.

[JohnLocke]

30. Likewise.

I want to be a 'mindless minion,' 'DLCer,' 'Likudist,' 'conservative,' and 'Israeli-apologist,' too. It's not fair that others get bashed while I don't!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

33. I like that quote!

Nice avatar, too!

:yourock: :yourock:

[IrateCitizen]

35. Aside from your support of "progressive internationalism"...

I accept your accolades. ;-)

If you know anything about Arundhati Roy, you know that she's not too big a fan of imperialism, no matter what color the shawls used to dress it.

[JohnLocke]

37. Hmm...

Progressive internationalism does not = imperalism at all.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004

[IrateCitizen]

41. I'm well aware of the PPI paper on "progressive internationalism"

But until it actually advocates a reduction of the "empire of bases" (as described by Chalmers Johnson) maintained by the US in order to project a military "footprint" to every corner of the globe, I will not hesitate to call it for what it is, which is just a different shade of imperialism.

FWIW, I would highly suggest you read the book The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson in order to fully grasp what I am talking about here.

78. Thank you for bringing up imperialism

Nothing that is being done in US foreign policy can be understood as anything but Imperialism. If you support any shade of it whether it be the soft imperialism of the dems or the hard imperialism of the repubs (a distinction that has more to do with perceptions, as the deaths under dem imperialism are just as brutal as under repub) you're still supporting imperialism.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. It's a disappointment to see the thread starter behaving so petty

when he holds himself out as in intellect...otherwise the behavior from most of the rest is par for the course.

[JohnLocke]

40. Apparently...

Some consider themselves 'ideologically and intellectual' pure...
and therefore, better than practically everyone else at DU.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. OK except Skinner specifically requested that we NOT do what

you are doing in this thread.

[Forkboy]

48. In some cases

it's hard not to be better :shrug:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Rich, as much as I enjoy discussing non-electoral matters w/you...

Your seething hatred of John Kerry is really becoming a turn-off.

First, you say you don't like him because he's not telling the truth by saying he's on one side of an issue. Then, you say you don't like him because he's on both sides of an issue. It's all quite fascinating -- because you end up commiting the very rhetorical gymnastics for which you express your constant displeasure with John Kerry.

You'd be much better off if you were to adopt the stance taken by Noam Chomsky vis a vis this election. Activists continue on with their work at the same pace, regardless of which faction of the business party is in power. Elections are a distraction that come around every four years, but an distraction that cannot be ignored, nonetheless.

What I hear coming from you is that the state of politics is so poor that it cannot address any of our fundamental issues (which, to a large extent, I agree with). But you then go on to disclaim the Democratic nominee in the next breath for not acting sufficiently to fix it.

The impetus to fix the rotten political system in the US falls not just to John Kerry, but more so to all of us. While John Kerry could most certainly help our efforts by using the bully pulpit once elected to advocate reform, that is an uncertainty that will only be seen in the future. What IS certain is that John Kerry, right now, represents the option of the two that could actually be elected who would propose the LESSER impediment to the reformation of the American political system.

While such a lesser-of-two-evils scenario may not be acceptable to you, it is for me only because it HAS to be, for it is the reality of the situation in which we currently find ourselves.

I would expect someone who has read Chalmers Johnson, as you have, to recognize the difference.

[RichM]

65. I'm OK with the lesser-of-two-evils scenario. I just want it clearly

understood, that this is exactly what we have before us. There's an unfortunate tendency here - which I oppose - to avert the eyes from this important recognition.

I explained my thinking about the election itself in post #44 to NSMA. You could take a look there, if you're curious about how I see it. In essence, I don't want people to believe in the 2-party system anymore, and I don't want them to continue trusting in the Democratic Party to defend their interests. The role of the party in the political system is a very treacherous one, in my considered opinion. It hasn't earned trust, & the Kerry nomination is just one of many good illustrations of that.

Re: "a real turn-off" - I come here to discuss things I'm interested in, & to exchange ideas vigorously. Sometimes I even learn from it (though not as much as used to be the case.) But I don't come here to please others, or to be pressured towards positions I don't agree with. Kerry cheerleading threads make me ill; I won't try to hide that.

I could equally well cite some things you've written here lately as "real turn-offs." For example, there was a thread last week titled "Who else besides Dems have antiwar Lefties betrayed?" I found the very existence of such a thread on DU to be shameful - a bit of McCarthyite bullsh*t infecting the pages of a supposedly liberal website. You were in this thread, yet you didn't stand up to oppose its tone, & the dangerous sort of lefty witchhunting that it expressed. For someone who admires Eugene Debs & Howard Zinn, this seems deserving of a second thought.

When I saw Kerry on the Cavett replay last night, I was very struck by his straight-talking, his intensity & earnestness. I was equally struck by the extent to which those qualities are missing in the 2004 candidate. I think I should be allowed to express this observation, even if it's not popular.

Re: Chomsky - I believe I understand his position quite well, and I think I'm basically in line with it, too. I tried to explain my interpretation of this to you last week, but you blithely assumed that your understanding of his position was far superior to mine. Far be it from me to try to dissuade you.

[IrateCitizen]

69. What a shame...

I'll start off my response with your closing statement which, unfortunately, lays out in plain view one of your least endearing qualities:

Re: Chomsky - I believe I understand his position quite well, and I think I'm basically in line with it, too. I tried to explain my interpretation of this to you last week, but you blithely assumed that your understanding of his position was far superior to mine. Far be it from me to try to dissuade you.

Whatever. This doesn't deserve a response.

I explained my thinking about the election itself in post #44 to NSMA. You could take a look there, if you're curious about how I see it. In essence, I don't want people to believe in the 2-party system anymore, and I don't want them to continue trusting in the Democratic Party to defend their interests. The role of the party in the political system is a very treacherous one, in my considered opinion. It hasn't earned trust, & the Kerry nomination is just one of many good illustrations of that.

I will take a look at that post. I, also, do not have a considerable amount of faith in the two-party system -- outside of the idea of it presenting two rather unpalatable alternatives, making the choice boil down to the one of the two which presents a lesser impediment to the eventual realization of reform. However, I am also aware that these miniscule differences can have very large consequences for certain segments of the populace, and therefore should not be taken lightly.

I could equally well cite some things you've written here lately as "real turn-offs." For example, there was a thread last week titled "Who else besides Dems have antiwar Lefties betrayed?" I found the very existence of such a thread on DU to be shameful - a bit of McCarthyite bullsh*t infecting the pages of a supposedly liberal website. You were in this thread, yet you didn't stand up to oppose its tone, & the dangerous sort of lefty witchhunting that it expressed. For someone who admires Eugene Debs & Howard Zinn, this seems deserving of a second thought.

My response on that thread, Rich, was an attempt toward maintaining intellectual honesty. When it comes to discussing issues and ideas, I have no interest in lining up on any "side" in the spirit of dogmatic ideology. Rather, my interest lies in the debate itself. For someone who lambastes the current political process for not addressing real issues, you are in this instance demonstrating the same kind of desire to line up opposite your ideological rivals that leads to the complete inability of the current political system to address issues. The only difference being, of course, that rather than right vs. left it is far-left vs. center-left.

Are you going to honestly tell me that most fair-trade, anti-war, etc. activists are NOT primarily from middle class backgrounds? Denying this reality and the wedge that it often drives between these groups and working poor interests will NOT make it go away, nor will it give these movements more credibility.

I do not come on this board to earn points with others, and to be quite honest, if my latest posts do not measure up to your yardstick of progressive ideals (much as CWebster has recently chided me for), I could care little. It does tell me, however, that I might be on to something, if I have detractors on both the far-left AND center-left on a consistent basis, because that tells me that I am challenging ideologies.

When I saw Kerry on the Cavett replay last night, I was very struck by his straight-talking, his intensity & earnestness. I was equally struck by the extent to which those qualities are missing in the 2004 candidate. I think I should be allowed to express this observation, even if it's not popular.

The problem was not in your observation, Rich. The problem lies in the manner in which you present it. It goes beyond an observation to projection of belief. You took the observation that Kerry had "moderated" over time and projected onto that observation the idea that he either endorsed or didn't care that the whole invasion of Iraq was about oil.

The observation itself is quite valid, as it demonstrates how success in politics quite often leads to "moderation" of views. Of course, such "moderation" may also now be an attempt to move to the center RHETORICALLY in order to capture votes. Remember, GW Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000.

Regardless of whether or not you or I like it, political posturing IS a reality right now. Demanding that everything be spoken in clear truths from this day forward will not make it a reality.

[RichM]

83. So, we're miffed at my "least endearing qualities," are we?

Why don't you check your PM's in about 5 minutes.

[IrateCitizen]

109. Replied, to your PM inbox. (nt)

[The Magistrate]

29. Several Points, Mr. M

Whatever many of us might feel about the proposition, "war for oil" is not a particularly unpopular thing among the people. It is not much spoken of openly, because it is considered unseemly to strip naked today the sort of things the old Victorians would reveal without a blush, but it is so obvious an underpinning that it may safely be assumed most people in the country understood this venture as aimed in part at securing them cheap gasoline, and that this accounted for a fair proportion of the support the venture enjoyed. Thus, denouncing "war for oil" would have very little useful impact on the electorate, many of whom would greet the charge with some version of "you say that like it's a bad thing."

Viewed as a war for oil, from the point of view of the people, the venture has not paid off very well, nor does it promise to pay off well anytime soon. Gasoline prices are higher, and going higher still. Iraqi oil remains off the market, as sabotage continues to prevent any signifigant export of the stuff. Nor is there any reason to believe that will change in the near future; indeed, there is a sufficient promise of further and increased turmoil in Iraq in coming months to lead most to suspect it will never change. This disappointed expectation the invasion would bring them some measureable benefit is one reason, though an unstated one, of course, for the declining public support for the occupation of Iraq among the people. A promising political line, in fact, would be a cry that "You didn't even get cheap gas out of this, guy! It just jacked the pump price for you!"

From the point of view of the oil industrialists behind the criminals of the '00 Coup, of course, this was the precise result desired. It takes a great deal of naivite to imagine a concentration of market power is ever used for any other purpose but to jack the price. The removal of any Iraqi oil from the world market, and the prospect of continued and increasing turmoil in the Persian Gulf, acts to support and even to raise the price of oil from the region, and from all other venues as well. This, too, opens a promising line for radical agitation, to drive home the great difference between the interests of the leading reactionaries, and the people they manage to secure mass voting strength from: "They didn't do this to get you cheap gas! They did it so they could jack the price on you! What you're paying now is just what they invaded the damn place for!"

"All the great secrets are open secrets known to all."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. One other point, Mag

As long as we live in an OIL BASED economy, wars will be over oil. When we live in a gummy bear based economy, wars will be for gummy bears.

[The Magistrate]

46. That Is True, Ma'am

They used to be over specie and slaves and cropland and grazing land; there was a brief period where they were over spices and sugar, and another where coal and iron were a motive.

"They say war is an art, but it's not. It mostly consists of outwitting people, robbing widows and orphans, and inflicting suffering on the helpless for one's own ends, and that's not art: that's business."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

60. Of Course Not, Captain

My attitude towards electoral matters is purely that of a pragmatic strategist. Only what can actually be accomplished strikes me as worthy of effort; effort is not to be wasted, there is too little of it about.

Sen. Kerry is hardly my vision of a perfect candidate, or a perfect man. He does strike me, however, as the candidate among those seriously in the running with the best chance of success in evicting the criminals of the '00 Coup from office. Therefore, he receives my unflagging support, as evicting those reptiles from the office they have usurped strikes me as the most pressing need just now of our people and our country. It does not bother me to uphold charcoal grey against midnight black; to me, even small improvements are worth fighting for, particularly when my judgement of the situation indicates to me that no paler shade has much chance to prevail.

What draws my ire, Sir, and will continue to draw it, is splinter factionalism aimed at subtracting weight from the effective effort against the worst elements of reaction in our polity. It is essential that these be defeated, and persons who place some other thing above that need in their scale of values, to the degree that their efforts have any effect, work to the benefit of the worst elements of reaction, regardless of what their motives may be, and even if that is not their intention.

My policy is Popular Front: seperate fingers are easily snapped; closed in a fist they can deliver a powerful blow. Our good Mr. M has above proposed a formulation for voting for Sen. Kerry: it is not wholly agreeable to me, but if that is the line required for him to join in the fist, that is fine by me, and there would be no purpose served in complaining of it, or trying to press him into a more favorable view. If the line required to get some centerist, or even center-rightist, to vote for Sen. Kerry is that he is better suited to manage the quagmire we have been placed into in Iraq by the incompetent greed of the criminals of the '00 Coup, that will be my line towards such a person, and it does not seem to me any useful purpose would be served by pressing on, say, to insist on assent to the proposition that imperialism is a wrong and a crime.

"Revolution is not a tea party."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RichM]

68. I agree with all of these points.

Though your post is focused on other (interesting) issues, I also think it's crucial to note that the public dialogue has "tactfully skirted" this entire matter of oil - and that this is (to put it mildly) one hell of an omission!

It may be for Victorian reasons, as you suggest. Perhaps the people quietly assumed that the war would bring them cheap gasoline. Perhaps the oil industrialists silently intended it just to jack the prices. But in any case, we have the very guts of the venture NOT BEING DISCUSSED, and this avoidance of the heart of the matter is being facilitated by BOTH PARTIES.

I was never a Dean supporter, but destroying him and replacing him with Kerry was part of the effort to keep direct & frontal discussion of this issue out of the coming campaign. It's the fact that they've already succeeded in eliminating it from the campaign, that has so disgusted me with the process. Now all the campaign talk will be reduced to lesser chit-chat, such as whether we should share the loot with France and Germany or not. The central crime is completely off the table. It won't be examined in the campaign, and you can't have even a semblance of an honest process with such mammoth crimes going unexamined.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. Dean destroyed himself. This victim mentality has to go.

Dean FAILED to win Iowas which was HIS TO LOSE. He was the frontrunner. Yes ads may have hurt him but he spent MILLIONS advertising there and didn't do so effectively. His campaign was managed by a bunch of amatuers who didn't want highfalutin folks telling them what to do. He gave a speech in IOWA PAINTING himself as the underdog after one SMALL LOSS and then since he had blown his piggy bank due to management missteps he had to forego the next several states where he COULD have been competitive.

And PLEASE..NOT BEING discussed? There were fucking RIGHT WING bumper stickers following 9/11 that said "BOMB THEIR ASS AND TAKE THEIR OIL"

Again Kerry HAS cited our dependency on foreign oil as a source of unrest and HAS pledged to commit to RENEWABLE resources.

[RichM]

72. Look at the difference between the following 2 statements -

Your remark that Kerry HAS cited our dependency on foreign oil as a source of unrest and HAS pledged to commit to RENEWABLE resources,

and any explicit acknowledgement that Iraq was precisely the use of US military power, to gain control over oil, water, & geostrategic advantage.

The first statement is safe, general & uncontroversial. Even Bush might say such a thing (though he wouldn't set a timetable). The second, said many times by DK during the primaries, is very different. It places in plain view the essential criminal nature of what the US has done - the initiative coming from the neocons, and the complicity being generously supplied by leading Democrats.

Your comment about RW bumper stickers: you actually help make my point. What we have is a massive charade, where even bumper stickers know exactly what's going on, while the candidates of both parties (& hence the media covering them) pretend it's no such thing.

Re Dean - I was never a Deanie, so I don't know who supposedly has the "victim mentality" you are referring to. Objectively, the media did him in, and Kerry helped by attacking him from the right.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. In order the reach the point where one acknowledges that a war

was fought for reasons other than the stated reasons, one must first do DAMAGE to the stated reasons:

The reasons for the war as set forth by Bush et al were Iraq has WMD's. Turned out to be false. Then the reason was it is critical to the war on terror that we bomb Iraq...the reasoning is NOW falling out from under that one via Clarke.

If you bothered to read the article I had linked above, then you would know Kerry has already been burned ONCE by plausible deniability in a very high profile way ( in the contra drug story)....I don't fault him for learning the lessons of political reality, and I don't consider it cynically political that he learned that lesson.

He STILL got an offshore banking bill passed to spite those profiting off the sales of illicit drugs even after being discredited on the contra drug sales allegations.


On the bumper sticker issue, those stickers were out prior to the war and prior to PUBLIC plans to invade Iraq..they came out immediately post 9/11..so I don't quite get the point you're making except that you will twist any fact to fit your point it seems.

I don't see how Kerry could attack Dean from the right when ideologically, Kerry is to the left of Dean...

[IrateCitizen]

71. Then how do you reconcile the Kerry quote...

... in which he says that he does not want to see another single US service member die for Middle East oil?

The sad truth is that the vast majority of the American public doesn't care that the war was for control of oil -- so long as it guarantees cheap gas prices for them.

I'm completely with you on the need to address this problem, but sadly the way in which our political system is set up an election is not the time to do so. Of course, you will respond with the inevitable, "If we can't talk about it now, when can we talk about it?"

To which I would respond, "By all means you should talk about it. And I will talk about it, and hopefully everyone here will. We all need to talk about it and spread the word, along with the proposition of workable alternatives. Just don't expect John F. Kerry to talk about it while in the midst of a Presidential campaign, outside of the need to wean ourselves off of it."

[The Magistrate]

75. You Broach Some Interesting Points, Mr. M

One of the leading reasons the thing is not widely discussed is that there is a wide consensus among the people that there is not much wrong with going to war to secure resources they feel essential to their prosperity and way of life. They do not feel particularly good about it, mind you, but the discomfort is more a mild embarrassment than a conviction of wrong-doing. People in this state do not want to hear they are doing something wrong, and will react with angry rejection to anyone who tries to tell them they are doing something wrong. They feel they are doing something necessary, more necessary than wrong, and will be impervious to claims the reverse is so. People do not like attempts at their moral improvement, particularly from strangers. Not only will any existing political party that tries to do this find it gains nothing by the attempt, but any political tendency that seeks to embody itself as a powerful force among the people by doing so will certainly fail to find any foothold among them by the doing.

It seems also worth pointing out that the invasion of Iraq, and the wide popular support it received, arose from a mixture of motives, not a singular one. There is pure princely pique; the desire to undo the failure of a father, and show the father up, animating retainers of the failure, and the ner-do-well son. There was political calculation, the hope to distract the populace from its economic problems, and to be able to claim all criticism is anti-patriotic, in the run up to the Congressional elections of '02, and in setting the stage for the election this year. Among the people, too, there was, and remains, an indiscriminate desire for revenge, in which just about any Arab will do for a corpse, providing the pile is large enough. All of these are factors are as important as the desire for profit.

If Gov. Dean ever claimed in so many words that Iraq was invaded solely for the promise of greater profits to Texas oil men associated with the current administration, it escaped my notice. It does not seem to me that the silence on this matter owes much to Gov. Dean's defeat in the Democratic Party primaries. The reason the matter will be discussed in terms of whether invading Iraq worked against the destruction of the Islamic fundamentalists who took it on themselves to levy war against the United States, or whether the NATO powers will need payment if they are to be expected to step and, by "internationalizing" the occupation of Iraq under U.N. auspices, pull our chestnuts out of the fire for us, is that these are solid questions of policy that people are willing to hear discussed. They do want to discuss whether their country committed a mammoth crime: they are disinclined to believe it did, because they love their country, and identify with it, so that to say their country has committed a crime is to tell them they are criminals. They will not thank you for telling them that is the case.

"Play it as it lays."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RichM]

85. I agree with most of these points, too. The only thing I could add would

be the suggestion that the mammoth crime need not be presented to the people as being "their" crime. This is because the crime was not primarily perpetrated by the people (though it could well be argued, as per your first paragraph, that they too have a certain tacit complicity).

Rather, primary responsibility should be presented as resting with dishonest leaders -- those who stole the 2000 election -- & with the media (which is controlled by the same social forces). Presenting it to "the people" in this way could be "Lesson #1." It would be very jolting for them to hear, no doubt. After they've absorbed the shock of that lesson, one might try to proceed to explain the "finer points" - for example, presentation of the idea that our entire social system is in a sense responsible for the criminal invasion of Iraq.

If, in some sequence of measured steps, we come to have public dialogue beginning to resemble the truth, in this way, the end result must necessarily be preferable to the current system, in which the most important things remain unutterable.

[The Magistrate]

89. That Is A Most Sensible Proposal, Sir

A fair amount of the ground-work for it has already been laid. A great many people are already convinced they were lied to, one way or another, concerning the Iraq invasion, and there is already a considerable, and traditional, distrust of the news organizations. The first is sufficiently mainstream that it can be counted on to emerge clearly from Sen. Kerry's campaign in the coming months as a major theme.

It will require, from an activist's perspective perhaps, Sir, a little adjustment to the mode of expression employed, if the desired effect is to be achieved. That is one of the things that has long struck me as a major element in the predicament of the left in our country: it is not so much that people disagree with what is expressed, but with how it is expressed. Many people do hear the criticisms of the leaders and exploiters as criticisms of the country and themselves, regardless of how they are intended, and feel it is they themselves being hectored and upbraided. It is beyond me to make any concrete suggestions, really, on how to achieve this, beyond some study of how a-political people express themselves on questions that you wish to approach them on, and learning to talk their language, so to speak.

"Political action is the art of getting people to think your thoughts, and to think them their own as they do. In electoral politics, the side to which the most people respond with "Hey, that's just what I think!" wins."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IrateCitizen]

110. Perhaps we should provide "questions" rather than "answers"

After all, when one looks at revolutions in thought in virtually any field throughout history, those discoveries came not through providing different answers, but rather started by asking different questions.

It is by the questions we ask that we form our perceptions of the world around us. For me, personally, the one I always come back to in realms of public policy and political theory is, "Who benefits, and how?" This is immediately followed by, "Who bears the costs, and what are they?"

Perhaps more than upbraiding "the masses" for supporting what we, as leftists, perceive as injustice, we should instead be gently encouraging them to begin asking different basic questions. Perhaps through such a process, more and more people would begin challenging the basic precepts upon which our system is built, and actually work to reform it into a more equitable and just framework?

Just throwing it out there for consideration....

[Scoopie]

39. I chose "other"

because I think Kerry realizes that oil wasn't the singular motive.
The far-right neo-conservative movement is made up of two diverse groups of Republicans who have become very adept at using one another to reach the goals they both crave.
One portion of this group are the "richies." They don't care about morality or deficits or spending or making America productive. They only care about money, how to make more money, how to keep from spending more money and how money will benefit them. In this administration, these people are represented by Cheney and Rove. They aren't particularly religious and they aren't particularly concerned with who sees them inflict their moral bankruptcy on the American population: to them it's "win at any cost" so they can keep racking up millions in salary, oil contracts, take-overs, etc.
The other portion of the group are the Religious Right - like Wolfowitz and Perle. They only care about inflicting hellfire and brimstone upon the masses if they don't cowtow to their warped thinking of Biblical prophecy. The sad thing is that they're willing to take us nearly to Armaggedon with their flaming of Islam and shamless promotion of the Jewish state of Israel to the detriment of EVERYONE surrounding that country, including Christians, Muslims and even Jews (for example, supporting a Sharon leadership in Israel only incites Palestinians - Sharon fights, the Palestinians fight back and innocent Jews, Christians and Muslims are killed). In other words, they stir up trouble so we're all too scared of a wrathful God that will reign down Holy hell to do anything much about their attempts to thwart our Constitutional rights.
George W. Bush? Well, he's just the combined-effort frontman for this motley assortment of selfish toads.
That said, I think Kerry sees that oil wasn't just the motive. That might have been Halliburton's motive, but you can beat your sweet bippy that Pat Robertson's motive was to "beat up on those Muslim infidels!"

[Dr Fate]

54. Perhaps somone is lying, but it's not Kerry.

...Kerry has a job to do, and he may not need every DU talking point we come up with to do it...

Kerry has voiced his commitment to alternate energy sources.Did you find that in your google search? Or did you "forget" to research this?

He has also said that troops dont need to die due to our dependnece on oil... I saw him say this in a speech, in person, before I shook his hand.

So Kerry is not lying- he has made this connection.

Next time, try "Google" before you smear the Democratic Nominee as a "liar".....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. It's a push poll...there is no interest in honest discourse

this poll was intended to inflame Kerry supporters for the amusement of Kerry haters, so that elsewhere on the net a gratuitous gossipfest about Du'ers could be satiated..plain and simple.

It isn't about debating anymore for the threadstarter...it is about antagonizing since he didn't like the outcome of the primaries.

It's CRYBABYISM masquerading as intellectual superiority.

[Redleg]

100. Well stated. Someone's trying to stir up some shit in here.

I just wonder why.

[Andromeda]

105. It's true NSMA...

"this poll was intended to inflame Kerry supporters for the amusement of Kerry haters, so that elsewhere on the net a gratuitous gossipfest about Du'ers could be satiated..plain and simple."

They call it commiserating. :D

[zonmoy]

74. kerry is part of the same cabals as all other polititions

thus has to tow the same line.

[Dr Fate]

76. A general statement, with nothing to support it.

What "cabal" would this be- Skull & Bones, perhaps?

MORE CRAP - the old "Democrats are the same as republicans" Lie.

How about the fact that Kerry supports alternate energy sources, and has said that American troops should not die for oil- what "cabal" holds this position, other than Kerry & the Democratic party?

[Robb]

79. "Democrats are the same as Republicans".

...An idea embraced by the infrared and ultraviolet of the political spectrum, who interestingly still think they share no views in common. :)

[gate of the sun]

80. has he made a declaration that the troops are now dying for oil?

I haven't heard it but if he did say it and stated that we invaded Iraq for oil then."MORE CRAP - the old "Democrats are the same as republicans" Lie." would hold some value.

I think the poster was suggesting Kerry is in the hands of the corporists. What ever the name you want to give them.....it's basically ,follow the money and then you have the reason for what a politician is doing.

[Dr Fate]

88. Oh I see- Your support of Kerry is matter of SEMANTICS...

Here is what my post said, and I stand by it:

"How about the fact that Kerry supports alternate energy sources, and has said that American troops should not die for oil- what "cabal" holds this position, other than Kerry & the Democratic party?"

Saw him say it in person. Google it, baby.

[gate of the sun]

94. I never said I supported Kerry, I will vote for him though.

I googled it and the only thing I came up with was some right wing article at least i think it is giving the site it was found on. I couldn't find the speech even using the dates march 2003 and october 2003. anyway this is the link I found it on:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/printtj20040317.shtml
snip:
In October, he vowed: "I bring to this fight the clear and absolute concept that our party needs to stand up and make it clear, on behalf of future generations, on behalf of common sense, that no young American in uniform, man or woman, ought to ever, ever be held hostage to America's dependency on fossil fuel oil from the Middle East."

If this is what you are refering to I can't say it really backs up your argument. First of all he's referring future generations and I think that makes a lot of difference in regards to the present time statement about" our troops should not die for oil ". I think you gave it a pretty large interpretation. I would say this would have been a great paragraph had Kerry used this in regards to the present time situation in Iraq.
I could be wrong and this could've been taken out of context given I can't find the speech. If you can link it for me I'll read it. by the way the article is kindof interesting. Tell me what you think.

[Dr Fate]

95. EXACTLY - you found it...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/printtj20040317.shtm...
snip:

In October, he vowed: "I bring to this fight the clear and absolute concept that our party needs to stand up and make it clear, on behalf of future generations, on behalf of common sense, that no young American in uniform, man or woman, ought to ever, ever be held hostage to America's dependency on fossil fuel oil from the Middle East."

WOW! Strong statement from Kerry- pretty much the opposite of what the DEM bashers on this thread are assuming he thinks...

I'm not sure what semantics game you want me to play with his statement- he has said variations of it- I saw him say it in person...

...Does he really qualify this as being about the future,but not about now, like you say? I think you are splitting hairs...

I prove that Kerry has indeed adressed this, but people still want to argue semantics and attack the guy...

[hedgetrimmer]

101. Can you say SPIN-CITY!

Semantics?

You have re-interpreted his statement to mean and or imply something other than his actual words. It's like bible study where the religious zealots tell what a passage of the bible means and thats gospel. Hallelujah Amen etc.

Why does Kerry want to be President?

"I bring to this fight (which fight?) the clear and absolute concept that our party needs to stand up and make it clear (two clears but whats the concept?), on behalf of future generations (OK future generations), on behalf of common sense (relative), that no young American in uniform (oh, does that mean Military?), man or woman, ought to ever, ever be held hostage to America's dependency on fossil fuel oil from the Middle East."(where should they be held hostage to, Alaska? Venezuela? Mars?)

[Dr Fate]

114. Yep, you know how to spin what Democrats say.

I saw Kerry say somthing similar in person- sorry, I have no exact quote for you to break-down and find somthing wrong with.

It's offical- Kerry can do nothing right, no matter what he says or how he says it.

His statement is clear, and in clear contridiction to what people in this thread are suggesting.

[WitchWay]

81. Other.

Other. There wasn't language in the poll strong enough to express how my anger at Kerry, because I do think he is prevaricating on this issue, and not taking responsibility for his war support.

Kerry is a politician. I hope he is not so ignorant as to do research, and consider others' motivations. He has aides, can do research, ought to understand foreign policy and what backs it -- that's his job, and has been his job for almost his entire life.

Kerry knows damn well that it is all about Oil. Just another issue where he, just like Bush, wants to help out oil interests.

Kerry has no excuse for this vote. He either supported an unjust war, knowing full well what it is about, or he is a complete Dupe for Bush's lies, and fell for questionable "intelligence" that he ought to have researched more. That's his job. Even Kucinich knew it was a war based on lies, why didn't Kerry consider that? Besides, doensn't take a genius to figure it ought, remember the war protests? Did you write your congressman demanding to oppose this war? I did, and he wrote back the same lies Bush told and implied an imminent threat. BTW, my congressman was a DEMOCRAT -- and I was so angry that I wrote back right away that this was untrue...of course, I got the same damn condescending letter back.

I think that Bush and Kerry will agree not to really discuss the war they both seem to agree on. You can bet that they have an unspoken agreement on that.

Kerry can only rectify the situation with an immediate exit plan. He should admit his IWR vote was wrong, and commit to oppose this unjust nightmare of a war that will only get worse and more deeply entrenched, while the war puts our national security at increased risk.

I don't hate Kerry, I just think Kerry is a died-in-the-wool politician, the type who needs public pressure if the public want real representation. I want Kerry to do the right thing. I will not vote for him unless he does.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. The poll is dishonest, disruptive flamebait.

[Forkboy]

84. lol...a little late now

:shrug:

[mitchum]

86. Flamebait bullshit posted in this "bad old place"...

I believe those were the words you used to describe DU, weren't they?

[JohnLocke]

90. You are correct.

[Forkboy]

91. Boy,after everyone made you feel so welcome

:silly:

[JohnLocke]

92. What do you mean?

[My2cents]

93. why not Venezuala?

If the war in Iraq was about oil then why didn't we just go into Venezuala? They have just as much oil and a pushover of an army. that would have been a better choice IF the war was about oil.

BTW, I thought the Bosnian war over the same thing as the Iraq war....removing a tyrant. Bill didn't have UN approval and barely had NATO support.

Writing letters to Amnesty International didn't rescue hundreds of thousands of people that were tortured and raped. Kicking the sh1t out of Saddam's goons did. Sorry, but I'm with Lieberman...the war was the right thing to do.

[Redleg]

98. Should we then go to war to remove Bush?

Many people think Bush is a tyrant- should they revolt?

[WitchWay]

102. In Venezuela , "coups" are the "in" thing at the moment

VYou're right. Venezuela is different. In Venezuela, so far, they've been more apt to use CIA coup attempts (or try to get black box voting machines in) there. Yep, and that's about oil, too. By the way, I'd knock on wood, if I were you. I wouldn't doubt that should another "coup" attempt not work in Venezuela, that there may be military repercussions for their lack of "cooperation" with the U.S.

Bosnia? MINING RICHES, by the way. Here are some interesting articles that offer a different POV than we heard during the bombing campaign, and all of these mention George Soros, out of curiosity.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2000/6.html
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely/szamuely50.html
http://www.iacenter.org/kosovo_mines2.htm
http://globalresistance.com/articles/Johnstone/howitis.htm
http://www.balkanpeace.org/rs/archive/mar01/rs125.shtml

I'd like to hear if anyone has more info about this subject, BTW.

By the way, Soros was a partner in Carlyle, according to this article (I don't know if he still is or not):
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/CGposesSEQ.html

Yep, they can make all sorts of excuses, or find convenient "tyrants" to go to war against. But in the end, America becomes the biggest tyrant and the real interest lies in looting the natural resources of foreign countries.

[The Magistrate]

106. You Know, Ma'am

Calling something the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans is rather like calling something the most valuable purple property on a Monopoly board. There is not much of anything valuable in the Balkans; that is one of the basic problems there. The mines a few seek to make so much of have been worked for several thousand years. This means, put simply, all the easy stuff has been gotten out long ago, and what remains is barely worth the costs of recovery, which are high. It is not much of a prize, and would be desireable only on speculation of some future technical breakthrough that might greatly reduce recovery costs. Persons looking for sinister motives for the overthrow of Butcher Slobo will have to do a lot better than that. Notional dreams of pipelines will not suffice, either. It would be hard to find a less efficient route for piping out Caspian petroleum and gas resources than overland through the Balkans.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dr Fate]

96. READ KERRYS OWN WORDS (linked, unlike your smear)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/printtj20040317.shtm ...

snip:

In October, he vowed: "I bring to this fight the clear and absolute concept that our party needs to stand up and make it clear, on behalf of future generations, on behalf of common sense, that no young American in uniform, man or woman, ought to ever, ever be held hostage to America's dependency on fossil fuel oil from the Middle East."

[Redleg]

97. I never trust people when they offer me only two choices.

I suppose you'll be voting for Nader.

[redsoxliberal]

99. Oil was not involved.

It was all about re-election and *'s anger towards Hussein for an attempt on daddy.


* is/was an oil man. He knows as well as anyone that Texas stands still with easy oil.

[WitchWay]

103. sorry..

Sorry I've I don't get it -- but you are being sarcastic, aren't you?

[necso]

104. Has anyone here heard about the State Department report...

on the state of the Iraqi oil fields, which was completed and available before the "war". I had a link to a nice summary of it, but it has since been removed. (It may be the only piece of intelligence that the bushies didn't corrupt --- because they were too stupid to understand its value to the antiwar crowd.)

In short, while Iraqi oil is cheap to extract currently, the fields are in horrible shape. (They were actually pumping crude back into the fields to preserve production and may yet be doing this.) It is possible that total recoveries will be in the arena of 7 - 15% (as opposed to the usual figures of 35 - 65%). To "repair" the fields and raise production will take a massive investment and whether normal total extractive levels can be achieved is, at best, uncertain.

Any reasonable analysis of the ROI on seizing Iraqi oil, done previous to the war or done now would show it to be a real loser. While I am no big fan of Kerry, I believe that he can do simple math.

(The way I ran the data, with varyingly optimistic estimates (like no sabotage and we took all oil revenues), it would be 5 years, 10 years or more likely, never, before we just broke even.)

Had we been able to communicate this message the "Kick their asses, take their oil" BS would have been shown as the total nonsense that it was/is.

There were/are lots better ROI's for seizing oil out there.

And, yes, the companies that are making the money are not footing the bill for the war, but that is about *'s and his cronys' ROI on graft, corruption and pork, not the ROI on seizing Iraqi oil.

Geeze, if our own think Kerry is a total sellout, we are completely fucked. It's * that is the total sellout, folks. (And a total fucking moron.) Kerry, he's a pretty smart guy... he would have invaded some place with a good ROI (just kidding).

[Snivi Yllom]

113. Kerry is the wrong candidate to make this argument

Dean or Kucinish would have been the right candidate to argue the real reason, OIL.

[Dying Eagle]

115. I think

He is saving some ammo. If he starts playing all his cards now, everyone will be sick to death of hearing it by Oct. Thats what i think anyway.

[oasis]

116. When did Kerry stop beating his wife?

:eyes: