Democrats & Liberals Archives

How Bush Is Controlling Oil Prices.

I mentioned to a friend the other day that I blame the Republicans for current gas prices, which are now at the highest level ever (even taking into account inflation since the 1982 spike). He laughed at me, saying he didn’t see how it could possibly be in their best interests to be irritating the general public to this extent. So I laid down some arguments showing just how much the current situation fits with the Republican agenda.

1.Arctic drilling. This has been a mainstay of Republican policy for years. Bills to open up the wildlife reserves to the big oil companies have been repeatedly defeated: but the longer gas prices stay high, the more willing the public will be to accept such a measure. Even though drilling there has been widely condemned for environmental reasons, such concerns have never swayed Republicans. (Think Gale Norton and her 'free-market' environmentalism, essentially a code-term for letting the business lobby do exactly as they pleased with our natural resources without fear of Federal regulation.)

2.The Saudi factor. George Bush and Prince Bandar of the House of Saud, ambassador to the USA for many years and now National Security Chief in his home country, are best of friends. Bush used to call him 'Bandar Bush' and he was a frequent visitor to Crawford. Now, we all know that OPEC operates as a cartel, and that the Saudi oilfields only account for around 10% of world oil production, or 30% within OPEC. However, within that cartel Saudi Arabia has been operating rather strangely. While most of the other members have been increasing production, the Saudis have reduced by 8% their total output.

The interesting thing here is that overall OPEC oil revenues have increased from $128 billion in 1998 to $522 billion in 2006. Meanwhile, Saudi revenues have gone from $36.9 billion to $159.1 billion over the same period.

Conclusion? Saudi Arabia is earning more money – a LOT more money – by cutting production. As the country's biggest customer, you might think that the USA had more sway over crude oil prices (remember, we're talking OPEC revenues and crude oil, not refineries). And especially considering Bush's close relationship with the House of Saud. In particular, given that oil accounts for a third of the budget deficit, you might also think that the party of 'fiscal responsibility' might be putting huge pressure on the Saudis to rein in prices and profits.

3.Political instability. The Bush regime has systematically alienated friend and foe alike. (To alienate a foe may seem an odd statement; but consider the legacy of Reagan, the Republicans' most revered figure of recent history, who managed to make a friend of the biggest foe of all.)

We are seen as arrogant, warmongering, nation-builders. We are seen as a nation of zealots. Our allies have deserted our cause in Iraq (remember Poland?) and we find ourselves shunned and reprimanded by millions upon millions of Muslims, who feel that our war is against their faith, and not against the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban.

The Bushies have mismanaged foreign policy in a breathtaking fashion. Our relations with Russia are at the lowest ebb since the Cold War, we've antagonized Iran, bullied Venezuela and failed to support Nigeria. Interesting that those four countries are massive oil producers, isn't it? Creating instability in these areas leaves plenty of room for the Sauds to clean up on the back of restricted oil supply.

I'm not saying that those countries aren't antagonistic themselves – but with better management, our relations with them could have been significantly eased.

4. Money. Pure and simple. In the last six election cycles, the oil and gas lobby has contributed $119,477,000 to the Republican Party. In the same period, the Democrats have benefited by $31,428,000. That $80 million difference must have looked pretty darned good to the Republicans. The top 20 recipients of money from the oil and gas industry were all Republican. ... and this will surely have 'inspired' their domestic and foreign policies on oil.

In conclusion, the blanket statement that Bush is controlling oil prices is dismissed easily. But the underlying trends in the ever-spiraling price of gas can be traced definitively to Republican policy, and the extraordinary influence of the oil lobby and the Saudis on Bush and his chums.

Posted by Jon Rice at May 22, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #221022


Great!! Now I know that oil price increases have nothing to do with war in the middle east, or increased demand caused by China etc. It is simply a way for George Bush to make money.

Increased demand of a product war and instability have nothing to do with a commodities price.

Also, this argument coming from the lest side of the table is of course unbiased. Bush hatred has nothing to do with it!! In fact you voted for Bush last time.

Sorry for the sarcasm. Bush is reponsible for a good deal of the higher cost of oil, but it’s indirect. He is the one who “pushed the button” to start the war in Iraq. War in the middle east has always caused the price of oil to spike.



Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 22, 2007 12:27 PM
Comment #221024

Craig - I’m not suggesting by any means that these are the only reasons for the price surge. (I use the term advisedly.) I am suggesting that these are some of the less obvious reasons for the price of gas - of course, war and reduced supply in Iraq, coupled with Chinese growth, have a strong impact. I merely wished to point out some of the other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

Posted by: Jon Rice at May 22, 2007 12:40 PM
Comment #221025

The top 20 recipients of money from the oil and gas industry were all Republican. … and this will surely have ‘inspired’ their domestic and foreign policies on oil.

Interesting that 4 of the top 5 Republicans all lost their re-election bid in the last election. I wonder if the lobbyists get a refund? :)

Posted by: Steve K at May 22, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #221029

Interesting article, Jon. You’ve got the motivation right, of course: It’s money. But the problem is pure, unregulated capitalism.

Supposedly, there’s plenty of oil in the system and gasoline prices are high because of limited refining capacity.

But, if you look at the refinery business, you find that the oil companies are shutting them down. (Here’s more about this strategy)

Even worse, the remaining refineries are breaking down more often because the oil companies are neglecting routine maintenance even while making record profits. Congress just started looking into it (Yay Dems!).

It’s all about supply and demand. If oil companies can keep the gasoline supply tight (through maintenance failures, if not outright refinery closings), they can charge a premium.

That, of course, begs the question: What can be done about it? Does the government step in and regulate maintenance of private industry? Or outright nationalize the oil industry, like Chavez is doing in Venezuela? Maybe we should just wait and hope that high gasoline prices and growing demand encourage oil companies to re-open their refineries?

Or should we — as Bush, Cheney & I did — just invest heavily in the oil industry and enjoy the ride in tax-payer subsidized transportation (or a new Prius, in my case)?

It’s a tough call, but I think the best answer is to either skew existing regulations so they favor independent refineries or break up the oil monopolies. Again.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #221032

I remmember the democrats, led by Mr. Reid, telling us that if we elected them, gas prices would go down imediatley. What happened to that promise? I want my money back already. All talk, no action is all i have seen so far.
More importantly, why is the press giving the democrats a free pass on that promise?

Posted by: john at May 22, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment #221035

I’m sorry Jon, to take this off subject, but it won’t be long before this whole site is full of nasty, disgusted and discouraged critiquing from a whole mess of people…….and that will only be the Democrats.
Looks like we have caved in on the troop funding bill and there will never be enough explaning done to justify it. If anyone feels like venting, or whatever, give this number a call. You’ll actually get a liver operator who will send you to the appropriate line to voice your feelings. 202-224-3121,,,,that is Pelosi’s line….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 22, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #221036


Maybe you’re right and maybe not. But I say, forget about oil and start thinking of other sustainable energy sources. We need to actively promote energy independence, not only to not be beholden to Saudi Arabia but to reduce CO2 emissions.

Reducing CO2 emissions should be priority 1 for all Americans.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 22, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #221038

The best example of an exaggerlie I’ve read today. (EXAGGERLIE: An exaggeration that contains some truth but is mostly fiction.)

Posted by: Lloyd at May 22, 2007 3:59 PM
Comment #221039

john, Mr. Reid said no such thing, the closest thing I could find were this and this.
These were only requests for the President to do something or attempts to change energy policy in 2006 when Republicans had a majority.

In any case, the President already vetoed one of the Democratic Party’s proposals that would bring prices down.

Posted by: Warren P at May 22, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #221040

I am a repub. The person who promises they WILL lower oil prices will have my vote.

Posted by: DAVID at May 22, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #221041

David - I find your email address extremely offensive. No wonder you didn’t want to publish it. I’ll spare my other readers your nasty, bigoted vehemence.

Posted by: Jon Rice at May 22, 2007 4:36 PM
Comment #221042

Thank you Mr Rice.

Posted by: DAVID at May 22, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #221047


Your title should be “Why Bush is Controlling …”, not “How …”

Bush and his buddies are oil men; that’s how they think. Earlier in the administration, the administration put out its Energy Plan that heavily pushed ANWR drilling and paid barely more than lip service to energy efficiency/renewable fuels. But I’ve seen no good evidence of Bush and company outright manipulating oil prices. (Indeed, I would be surprised if such evidence existed, but I’ve been surprised before.) And why should there be? Even if there is criminal collusion among oil companies to help Republican interests, why would they have to be told to do so? Regardless, I need evidence; motive is not enough. And, frankly, I think oil prices are cheap; if we really want to boost renewables, we need to make more of them cost competitive, and that’s difficult in the short term with oil prices being where they are.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 22, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #221057

We hear of the refineries being closed yet has anyone in any part of the Country seen a gas station with a sign that they did not have gas in their pumps? I have recently been in Simi Valley/Los Angeles, Reno NV, Denver Colorado and Portland Or and have not seen nor heard of any station that could not get gas. I thought a lack of gas would be a prerequisite for a gas shortage.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 22, 2007 9:16 PM
Comment #221062


Craig - I’m not suggesting by any means that these are the only reasons for the price surge. (I use the term advisedly.) I am suggesting that these are some of the less obvious reasons for the price of gas - of course, war and reduced supply in Iraq, coupled with Chinese growth, have a strong impact. I merely wished to point out some of the other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

I think you are on much stronger ground by making a clear point that middle east tension increases oil prices. (Hate to argue for the left). It is true (from the left’s standpoint) that “Bush’s” war in Iraq is costing billions in higher oil costs. There is not doubt in my mind.

Also China and increasing demand has a bit. But look at history. The 70’s with the war in Israel, and war between Iraq and Iran, then the first persian gulf war. Middle east instability causes oil prices to go up, period.

We can argue forever on clock and dagger type of stuff. It is all speculation. The war in Iraq is fact.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 22, 2007 10:01 PM
Comment #221063

I could never be elected to anything. I like the high prices of gas. High prices encourage conservation and alternatives. American gas prices are too low. I am thinking $4-5 a gallon is a good target price for now.

The conspiracy I worry about is the one to LOWER prices. This happened in the 1990s, when the low price of oil destroyed investments in alternatives and made conservation seem silly.

So hurrah for high gas prices, may they continue to rise and never be so low that it makes sense to buy an SUV.

BTW - I would prefer to have the prices high through taxes with the revenue used to offset other taxes and/or given as EIC, but I will take what is available.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #221070


So an unintended positive of the war in Iraq is higher fuel cost which encourages alternative fuels?

So the conspiracy that Bush is raising the price of oil is a left wing consiracy designed to help global warming. Al Gore and Bush are working together. I’m confused if Bush is good or bad here. Left is for higher costs because it is better for the environment, but Bush is still bad so higher fuel costs are certain that he is evil.

This all makes my head hurt.

Anyway, one thing for sure, Bush is evil. So if Bush is causing fuel costs to go up, and thus increase the odds of alternative fuels doing well, then alternative fuels are evil as well. There must be evil in alternative fuels, we just haven’t looked hard enough.

And another thing.

Drivers cut back — a 1st in 26 years Price of gas only one of the reasons By Paul Overberg and Larry Copeland USA TODAY

The average American motorist is driving substantially fewer miles for the first time in 26 years because of high gas prices and demographic shifts, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal highway data.

The growth in miles driven has leveled off dramatically in the past 18 months after 25 years of steady climbs despite the addition of more than 1 million drivers to the nation’s streets and highways since 2005. Miles driven in February declined 1.9% from February 2006 before rebounding slightly for a 0.3% year-over-year gain in March, data from the Federal Highway Administration show. That’s in sharp contrast to the average annual growth rate of 2.7% recorded from 1980 through 2005.

This is Bush’s fault as well.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 22, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #221100
Left is for higher costs because it is better for the environment

No we’re not. Higher gas prices hurt the middle class. They’re bad, bad, bad.

Jack the Republican likes higher gas prices. They make rich oil magnates richer.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2007 2:15 AM
Comment #221108


I like higher price because they achieve goals such as conservation & helping alternatives to oil. Many so-called environmentalists love to talk about the dire consequences of not taking these actions, but they do not want to accept the consequences of taking them.

Oil is the low cost alternative. Other things cost more, at least in the development stages. If we stop using the least expensive alternative, we will have to pay more.

These Apollo project deams are not going to pan out because they are not addressing the proper problem. We have a mix of alternatives, which include not only actual energy, but also thinks like conservation and even urban planning. We have chosen a car based, carbon fueled, spread out alternative. We can choose a different one, but there are costs (and benefits) involved in every decision.

One thing that makes oil so cheap is low labor and land costs. No matter how efficiently other things run, they still will require more inputs of labor and/or space. This is the bottom line why you cannot expect an Apollo program to come up with a solution as cheap as oil is today.

If we tax carbon (then the rich magnates do not get richer) and drive up the price, our society will adjust to the new paradigm. In the end, we will probably pay as much for energy as we do today, but we will be using different sources and using it differently.

I own a hybrid. Right now I “save” money. I envision a time when almost everyone has fuel efficient cars, BUT the price of fuel is higher and we end up spending about what we do now.

If you want to see magic, go to the Harry Potter movie. If you want to address environmental concerns, you will need to make compromises, trade offs and live style changes. The Apollo program got us to the moon and back, but we still do not have that many moon rocks.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2007 8:10 AM
Comment #221112

JAck, the devil is in the details. People throw out the word “Apollo” because it’s dramatic. I would not favor selecting one alternative fuel and pining all of our hopes (and money) on that, but I do favor continued and increased research into the range of alternatives, including, as you suggest, energy efficiency and conservation. We are doing that now, of course, and I believe wisely, but relatively speaking, we have not made it much of a priority.The percentage of the DOE budget actually addressing energy efficiency and renewables, for example, is a tiny fraction of the whole budget. (DOE spends far, far more on maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile.)

I favor a carbon tax or similar scheme, and would like some percentage of revenue dedicated to funding of cleaner practices and technologies. The programs run by the EERE on these issues are done in partnership with industry, and focus on not only promising technologies but high-risk ones that industry by itself may not yet be able to justify. That’s as it should be. A similar strategy gave Japan a huge head start and edge in hybrid technology.

I also must take exception with the claim that the Apollo program was a waste of money. IT greatly accelerated technological development in this country in many areas, including computers and medicine.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 23, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #221125

Jack, your strategy is only valid for elective driving. Your strategy says people curtail consumption and find alternatives if the price is higher. That is only true for elective consumption. For those whose jobs, children’s education, and medical needs depend upon consumption, their will be no curtailing of consumption, nor switching to alternatives that don’t yet exist or which are more expensive.

AP, is right, only so far as non-discretionary fuel consumption is concerned, it hurts the average American dependent upon non-discretionary driving. If you want a strategy that will be accepted, you have to get more complex than black and white theoretical higher price reduces demand thinking.

You have to address the concerns of those whose choice to consume less due to higher prices would result in the loss of employment, health, and good parenting options.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #221127

Jack - although I applaud your sentiment regarding high gas prices reducing the number of SUV’s on the road, I feel I must point out that your suggestion that higher taxes would make up a larger portion of that price is an extremely regressive tax. Let’s face it - the wealthy couldn’t give a damn about high gas prices, because they represent a small proportion of their income. The poor, paying exactly the same tax, are discriminated against by virtue of the tax representing a much larger portion of their income.

Is it really a fair and equitable way to raise money for the government?

Posted by: Jon Rice at May 23, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #221128

You guys are forgetting that nearly all fertilizers, plastics, and insecticides are petroleum based.
Virtually everything that an American touches on a daily basis exists because of petroleum.

This isn’t just about changing our driving habits.

This is about shifting the entire American economy.

Posted by: Rocky at May 23, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #221137

I would not mind paying more for gas if it was to benefit the environment but I don’t like it when I feel that the money is going into the pockets of the oil companies. Anyone who thinks that Bush and gang are not in bed with the oil companies is not paying attention. Anybody read Greg Palast. I am sure someone here will say that he has conspiracy on the brain but sounds like good reporting to me.

Posted by: Carolina at May 23, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #221142

How again is Bush controlling the price of gas?
I don’t remember him ordering any refineries closed. I don’t remember him stopping any new refineries from being built. Oh yeah!!! That was the ENVIROMENTALISTS that put a stop to them wasn,t it.

I find it kind of funny that on one hand Bush is too dumb to comb his own hair and on the other hand he is smart enough to pull the wool over all the dems eyes with Iraq and smart enough to manipulate the gas and oil industry.


Posted by: tomd at May 23, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #221148


Apollo program was not a waste of money. Spending money on energy development could be. Remember synfuels? The good thing about going to the moon was that it did not require big choices on earth. An energy program will have to favor some forms over others. If too much government money goes into it, that means bureaucrats and established special interests will do the choosing under the guise of science. Government has the resources to follow bad alternatives long after the private sector would go bankrupt. We can already see this happening with ethanol from corn. It looked like a good idea a couple years ago, but experience is proving it is not. Yet it will get subsidized and we will end up with a QWERTY situation.


Everybody has choices. People may need to start with small decisions, but they can grow their power. I do not believe anybody is down to the absolute minimum driving. They can consolidate trips, carpool etc. I have also advocated earned income credits, to compensate the poor, but no matter how poor someone is, you cannot just let him make pollution BECAUSE he is poor. The atmosphere does not make an exception based on poverty.


What do you consider wealthy? I am in the top 20% and I care about the price of gas. I just do not like to waste money. The high price reminds me. I do not know about the hereditary rich, but the relatively well off I know are very price sensitive. That one of the reasons they got to be relatively well off.

Re the poor, I advocate expanding the EIC. You can make the net taxes paid by the lowest 20% the same, you can even lower them by using EIC, what I care about it getting people to use less carbon fuels.


If we use less in fuel, we will have more for those other purposes.


I am going off on the tangent of carbon tax. You are right that the original proposition that Bush is raising the price of oil is past silly.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #221151


“If we use less in fuel, we will have more for those other purposes.”

You say you own a Prius.

I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but when was the last time you saw a plow hooked up behind a Prius?
A Prius delivering your Diet Coke to the market?
How about a Prius delivering another Prius to the dealership?

Like I said before, there is nothing that we touch daily that isn’t affected by the price of petroleum.

Posted by: Rocky at May 23, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #221153

I think we have to get rid of the idea that getting off an oil economy can be done painlessly. We can take steps to alleviate the pain for some, but until other alternatives are cheaper than oil, we’re going to stick with oil. If we believe the environmental consequences of our oil-based economy will be severe, then we have to suck it up. I lean more to the left than to the right, but we’re talking massive disruptions in our climate. History will judge us by our actions now.

Jack, I support continued and increased R&D, not mandating any particular approach. Perhaps you’re right about governmental meddling, but given the seriousness of the issue, it would be the height of folly for the federal government not to engage in energy efficiency/renewables R&D. In the 2008 DOE budget request, $1.2 billion is dedicated to energy efficiency and renewable energy (in another budget item, another $500 million or so is dedicated to nuclear energy). Compare that to how much DOE spends on nuclear security — $9.8 billion. The DOE spends more on R&D for fossil and nuclear energy than it does for biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, etc. fuel AND energy efficiency R&D. $1.2 billion is a lot of money, but relatively speaking, out of a budget of $2 trillion, it’s peanuts. Hell, compare it to the money we’ve wasted in Iraq. I think we need to at least quadruple energy efficiency and renewables R&D — that would still make the federal commitment only about a quarter of one percent of the federal budget. One would think that if we’re serious we could consider spending that much even if it doesn’t pay off, which I seriously doubt given the extremely low numbers and given the general longterm benefits of R&D.

Posted by: Gerrold at May 23, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #221157


A Honda Civvic. We can make all the engines more efficient. Prices will make that happen.


I just think that higher prices will be enough to stimulate research and conservation. Think of it this way, a dollar a gallon extra is like a dollar subsidy if you figure out how not to pay it.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #221159


We can “do” a lot of things.
We’ve been saying that we will do this and we will do that for decades.
When all is said, and done much more gets said than done.

Posted by: Rocky at May 23, 2007 11:33 PM
Comment #221179

I just got back from a 3 day road trip in a full size van that took me about 1000 miles.

I haven’t done my expenses yet, but who do you think is going to pay for the extra gas? (hint) It WON’T be me.

Posted by: tomd at May 24, 2007 5:25 AM
Comment #221185

I agree with Jack.
I like higher gas prices as well. If you don’t like them, find a way to reduce your travel - there are lots of ways.
I don’t even mind the oil companies profits - as public entities we have a chance to share in them. The oil rich countries raking in piles of money is a problem.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 24, 2007 9:53 AM
Comment #221195
you don’t like them, find a way to reduce your travel - there are lots of ways.

Let’s see… The vast majority of my driving is to and from work. I guess I should just quit my job. Thanks, Schwamp. For nothing.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #221203


“If you don’t like them, find a way to reduce your travel - there are lots of ways.”

Have you ever tried to get a ladder on a bus?

Posted by: Rocky at May 24, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #221212

I see you don’t dislike the gas prices enough to carpool, bike, mass transit, or move closer to work. Just enough to complain.
As for getting a ladder on a bus; that’s business and business costs get passed along.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 24, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #221214

I see, Schwamp. I bet you loved Jimmy Carter and thought wearing a cardigan sweater and driving 55 were a great ideas.

The fact is, gas prices are artificially high and there’s no viable alternative available. If pointing that out is complaining, then so be it.

BTW, I traded in my SUV for a Pruis. It’s bigger than I thought it was at first glance and gets 50+ MPG.

So, no, gas prices aren’t bothering me right now. I’m lucky enough to afford a new car. Most people I know can’t

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #221215


“As for getting a ladder on a bus; that’s business and business costs get passed along.”

Business costs can only get “passed along” to the extent that the customer will pay them.
One of my customers took a 10 million dollar loss in the first quarter of this year, and are now counting pennies.

So, oh wise one, do I jettison a customer that can’t/won’t accept a price increase, or do I bite the bullet and take the loss myself?

Posted by: Rocky at May 24, 2007 1:15 PM
Comment #221226
I see, Schwamp. I bet you loved Jimmy Carter and thought wearing a cardigan sweater and driving 55 were a great ideas.
I see no reason to belittle conservation. Is oil dependency for the next 100 years a good thing? That’s exactly the indirect result of what you want. Rocky, the business climate is generally favorable. If your friend lost that much due to gas prices he must own an airline. Posted by: Schwamp at May 24, 2007 3:48 PM
Comment #221232


“If your friend lost that much due to gas prices he must own an airline.”

I didn’t say it was a friend, I said it was a customer.
This customer, which will remain nameless, is my bread and butter, and has been one of the most successful businesses on the planet.
They have put a moratorium on accepting price increases, and because I want to keep them as a customer, I have to accept that.

Therefore, as a business, I have to take it in the shorts.
My company doesn’t deal with the public. I depend on other businesses for my work.
I can only assume that there are many small businesses out there that will also have to bite it in order to stay in business themselves, and it is they that will bear the brunt of these price increases.
Just because I can’t charge more money doesn’t mean that the costs of goods and services to me is going to stay the same.

Posted by: Rocky at May 24, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #221255

My name is DAVID- I have been on this site for some

time an I am a Democrat- Since some other Rep’

is using the same name I will change to DAVID W.

not that I am noted in this venue mind you, I

dislike no-one an most generally make no ignorant

comment’s, like the one I have just posted!

Posted by: DAVID at May 24, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #221397

This may be sort of on the conspiracy theory side, and I’m not sure there’s any evidence for it, but if you go to the web site of investigative journalist Greg Palast, he had an article in which he claims to know the real reason for Iraq. Bush didn’t bungle Iraq…
Many people think that Bush was after Iraq’s oil, for his oil buddies to have access to and sell it. He’s saying however these people have it all wrong, that the purpose was to limit or halt Iraqi oil production. This would of course, because of supply and demand, drive up oil prices and people like Bush and Cheney would profit from it. I don’t know if it’s true, but I think a good thing to keep in mind is there’s a risk in thinking Bush is purely incompetent, which of course causes people to underestimate what him and his administration’s capable of. Whether in fact he’s incompetent determines what he (or whoever put him in office) is trying to accomplish. From our perspective, that is, if he’s trying to carry out his oath of office, solve this country’s problems, and hopefully leave America a better place, he’s probably the worst president in history. However, if you’re a billionaire who only cares about greed,no mater who it hurts, Bush is the best president ever. He’s certainly made a lot of people many times richer.

Posted by: thom at May 27, 2007 1:06 AM
Comment #221433

thom- I would like to suggest that there are more

billionires doing good things in the world, than those who you are describing. Motivation
sometimes works in strange directions.


Posted by: -DAVID- at May 28, 2007 12:18 AM
Comment #237741

So, those of you who like higher gas prices, probably would enjoy higher prices to eat. After all, how do you think all those groceries get to the market place? The cost of the extra gas will get passed on to the consumer, and of course you need to eat, so this increase will be paid. Unfortunely, you’ll have to eventually get used to eating “welfare burgers” (to quote Eddie Murfey), government cheese, crackers, and water. Oh, wait a minute, higher gas prices are putting farmers out of business, so cut out the burgers, cheese, and crackers. Oh well, there’s allways soylent green:)

Posted by: Thomas at November 6, 2007 9:08 PM
Post a comment