Why is it ?
 

Under Bush and other republican presidents liberals say they gas prices go up because republicans are in bed with big oil.
Prices at all time high under Obummer the same liberals say
"goes to show the president has no controll over prices"

I disagree. Are you saying there were no posts here saying Obama wasn't responsible for the rise in gas prices (although not with the recent rises)?

Republicans pander to large corporations and the top 1% far more than democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Talking about the media not so much this board.




QUOTE=PaulS;952798]I disagree. Are you saying there were no posts here saying Obama wasn't responsible for the rise in gas prices (although not with the recent rises)?[/QUOTE]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Pres. really has the ability to influence gas prices. They can release oil from our reserves but shouldn't since that is suppose to be used in an emergency.

True, it's more myth than reality that the sitting president can do much about today's prices. Both sides distort that to score political points, neither side has a monopoly on that crap...

If by "pander to" you mean that republicans don't demonize and incessantly blame large corporations and the top 1% for everything that goes wrong, I agree.

nebs, you were one of the loudest voices on this board saying that bush, cheney were driving up prices to benefit their oil buddies

I'm with you on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think It is more likely that they pushed a war in Iraq to benefit their oil buddies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

100% correct.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is 100% true (an absolute for Spence's benefit) that Zimmy is 100% correct (an absolute postulated by a liberal who apparently has room for absolutes in his real world) that Zimmy "thinks" it is "more likely" (a typical progressive relative derived from a possibility or maybe) that "they" pushed for a war in Iraq to benefit their oil buddies.

Not sure how that works, but if so, who is pushing what now, to benefit their oil buddies? Oil prices are up, Obama is President . . . hmmm.

Do you guys remember the 'top secret' classified energy summit that happened at the whitehouse before or just as we invaded Iraq??

That summit's purpose was to plan who was going to get to control the oil fields.

When the plan to invade Iraq was voted on in the Senate, it was approved by the following senators: Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, edwards, Biden, Clinton...

Those are some very influential Democrats. They were all in the pocket of Big Oil?

President Bill Clinton said many times he was positive that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. What was Clinton's motive for saying that?

Eben, if all Bush cared about was Big Oil, why did he do such amazing work fighting AIDS in Africa? What profit margin was he after there?

I think it's certainly fair to say that oil was a significant motivator for the Iraq war, but it's more likely that the motivation was more strategic in terms of US regional influence than simple cronyism.

-spence

Considering the oil resources at play, I'd think it irresponsible to NOT have plans in place if you intended to destabilize the country.

That being said, it appears to be one of the few post-war items they paid any attention to at all.

-spence

It doesnt take half a brain to read between the lines with what happened back then. The sheep fell for the WMD bait and and switch. What I didn't see coming was that China was awarded first dibs with Iraq's oil... Just one more reason why they own us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I really love shutting down threads with facts. .. :hihi:

:uhuh::uhuh::uhuh:

um no

you don't have a cat?

It was shut down with the thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If we all lived in Germany in the early 1940's scott would definately fallen for the bait back then, and he falls for the bait now. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which facts? The fact that you linked to an article. The article doesn't present any "facts" that prove that Iraq was invaded to benefit Bush's oil buddies. It doesn't even imply it, but says that anti-war activists would try to make hay with the documents. Plus it's an old article that has been made pretty much moot with newer ones and with actual facts that imply the opposite of what you claim.

As you note, and didn't see coming, mostly other than American oil companies have been benefited. in the 2009 auction for contracts on oil extraction in Iraq, no U.S. based oil companies won a contract.

A Time Magazine article, 12/19/2009, stated "Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction . . ." It quotes Alex Munton, middle east oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie: "[This] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests. That has not been demonstrated by what happened this week."

A 1/18/2010 article in INVESTOPEDIA ends with "the perception that American oil companies would receive preferential treatment in a post war Iraq have been proven false so far, with only two U.S. based companies receiving contracts to develop iraqi oil fields, this is a sharp slap in the face to conspiracy theorists everwhere."

Andrei Kuzayev, president of Lukoil, one of the Russian oil companies that were awarded contracts in the 2009 auction said "The strategic interest of the U.S. is in new oil supplies arriving on the world market, to lower prices . . . it is not important that we did not take part in the coalition [to invade Iraq] . . .For America, the important thing is open access to reserves. And that is happening in Iraq." Mostly without access to oil by American companies.

Philip Frayne, U.S. Embassy Spokesman in Baghdad, said, after the 2009 auction round "The results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure oil for American companies." So far, I have not heard that Obama has had him removed.

The 2010 Wikileaks revealed a great deal of troublesome "facts" about U.S. government involvements, including the Iraq war, and the "secret" discussions by higherups regarding the reasons to go to war, but the leaks revealed NO plans to do so to profit Bush's "oil buddies."

nice touch:)

So what? Most things didn't go as the administration planned. The fact that we didn't receive preferential treatment years later, doesn't mean that it wasn't what drove Cheney to push Dub to war. Maybe it was just a family grudge. 9/11 just gave him the politcal weight to do it.

:uhuh::uhuh::uhuh:

That beard is way to nice for me. A good try, though :horse:

Oh, so now we switch to another pseudo-fact, the family grudge thing. The factual substance to your opinions are astounding.

I notice you skipped the quote by Obama's Embassy Spokesman in Iraq. Maybe Obama is in cahoots with Bush's plan. He's certainly in step with most of his other plans. The circle of conspiracy widens. And I guess the quote by the pesident of one of the Russian companies is another "fact" that is of no interest.

there is so much irony there :)

The only thing I said as fact was that US companies didn't get preferential treatment. Maybe one of the ways to keep these threads from going to the dogs is for everyone not to make up stuff and present it as what someone else said.

great point......in terms of this thread.....you could begin with you :)

I think that when someone offers facts, which you so often demand and/or claim to be in command of, to you and you declare "so what" followed by a littany of wild speculation(which we know must surely be the result of learned analysis and meticulous research that "the masses" or most folks here aren't likely equipped to engage in or probably even understand) you are effectively illustrating one of the aspersions that you frequently cast at others from on high :1poke:

waaaait......are you doing this on purpose?....you clever, clever guy

And your point (still) is?

Keep believing this Eben, sure it was a bait & switch.

If you are going to go low enough to (mildly) attack someone with the TinFoilHat, please have the decency to use JPG images to save people the trouble.

My point is this.. The number one reason we invaded Iraq was about oil. All the other reasons were simply exaggerated truths and half lies to justify doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I apologize profusely, i was going to switch it up but thought the suspense of a couple of mouse clicks might be more exciting :)

I will refrain from saying what you are. Maybe I should post a picture instead.

It s strange that in your complaint about everyone (me?) making up stuff and presenting it as what someone else said, you quote yourself in exactly the way I quoted you. I did quote, exactly your words, it is "more likely" in my first response to Nebe's claim that you were "100% correct." And pointed out that it was a relative term derived from a possibillity or maybe. How you get that I was saying you presented the possibility as a fact is puzzling--I was clearly saying the opposite.

And about the family grudge thing that you switched to, I said it was a PSEUDO-fact, not that you presented it as a fact. Again, quite the opposite, implied by my following ironic observation on the "factual" substance of your "opinions."

The whole "fact" stuff in my posts was ironical retort to Nebe's really loving shutting down threads with "facts," neither of which he nor you, as you admit, actually presented in support of your claim that the Iraq invasion was "more likely" that they pushed a war in Iraq to benefit oil buddies. On the other hand, "maybe" you consider the Chinese, Russian, French, et. al., as Bush's oil buddies.

At any rate, as you say, the only thing you "said as fact" that U.S. oil companies didn't get preferential treatment, contradicts your opinion that "maybe" the invasion was to benefit "oil buddies," not withstanding, as Scottw points out, that you responded to my list of "facts" with a "So what?" and a "littany of wild speculation."

I don't know how you arrive at the order of importance to support your "point" (opinion?) that the "number one reason" for the invasion was "about oil." Even if that were true, it's a far more vague and encompassing statement than that it was about profitting oil buddies. Even Spence thinks it was more about strategic influence than simple cronyism. Besides, oil is Iraq's economic connection to the world and its economic life's blood. Letting a dictator usurp that blood for his own purpose instead of benefitting both the world at large and specifically the well being of Iraq and its people makes oil a more complex commodity than profit for oil buddies.

just make sure it's a .jpg and not a .bmp :uhuh::rotf2: