So it was about the oil

[Wish I lived in Fl]

http://consortiumnews.com/2005/110705.html

 

[Wish I lived in Fl]

More Gloom & Doom-
Reading "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy."

 

[Disney Doll]

You know, despite ourselves the world seems to go on, even with all the gloom and doom stuff that happens.

Amazing isn't it???

 

[WIcruizer]

Propaganda crap. If the war was for oil, why don't we own those oilfields today??? We're the USA, we could go into any country in the Middle East and take over their oil fields if that was the agenda.

There were conversations about the oilfields, and they centered on what to do with the fields TEMPORARILY while the war was being waged to protect them, and how to officiallly handle the flow of Iraqi oil.

To suggest this is a war for oil is such a sophmoric argument, I can't believe anyone over 22 believes it. And frankly, it's extremely disrespectful to those fighting for us every day.

 

[Wish I lived in Fl]

[QUOTEl]You know, despite ourselves the world seems to go on, even with all the gloom and doom stuff that happens.

Amazing isn't it???[/QUOTE]

I guess i'm not whistling loud enough.

 

[Wish I lived in Fl]

To suggest this is a war for oil is such a sophmoric argument, I can't believe anyone over 22 believes it. And frankly, it's extremely disrespectful to those fighting for us every day.

When i was younger i thought the people who attributed our interest in the Middle East to oil were too cynical. Not anymore.

The article quotes Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to General Colin Powell. He is older than 22.

As for being respectful for those who fight for our country- I value their lives more than i feel entitled to cheap oil.

 

[WIcruizer]

I read his quotes in the article. He's simply pontificating, offering his opinion. There is no evidence that any of this is true. In fact, this issue has been settled after a bi-partisan committee looked into the reasons for going to war.

If the Dems had even a shred of evidence to run with, don't you think they would jump at the chance? Just because someone with a political axe to grind makes "war for oil" comments, doesn't make it true.

 

[WDWHound]

Here is a selection of headlines from the source the OP linked to:

Bush's Rewriting of History
State Power & Conservative Ideology
Surveillance Society
So Iraq Was About the Oil
Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was Stolen
Libby & Nuclear Secrets to China
Bush's Rule of Law
Worst U.S. War Criminals Escape Justice
Is Impeachment the Answer?
Letting the White House Walk?
'Plame-gate' & Myth of the Renegade Aide
Iraq War Critics Emerge Too Late
On Syria, the NYT Still Doesn't Get It
Bush Crisis Proves Need for Honest Media (I just love irony)
Bush's Latest Iraq War Lies
Bush's Terrifying Terror Speech
How Rotten Are These Guys?
What to Do About the Bush Problem
Is Bush al-Qaeda's 'Useful Idiot'?
(Thats only about half of them, but the rest are all more of the same)

Gee, you think these folks might have an agenda?

This is propaganda, pure and simple. Neither side is innocent of it, but it scares me when I see people from either side taking it seriously.

 

[WIcruizer]

Exactly. I'm conservative but get my news from all sides. Whenever I see an online news source with outrageous news "stories" like this, I keep moving. I didn't vote for Clinton, but I liked some of the things he accomplished. I did vote for Bush, but don't agree with everything he has done (or NOT done.) Whenever someone is so ultra-partisan they are blinded by ideoligy.

 

[TXTink]

Exactly. I'm conservative but get my news from all sides. Whenever I see an online news source with outrageous news "stories" like this, I keep moving. I didn't vote for Clinton, but I liked some of the things he accomplished. I did vote for Bush, but don't agree with everything he has done (or NOT done.) Whenever someone is so ultra-partisan they are blinded by ideoligy.

Great post.... I agree!

 

[DawnCt1]

Propaganda crap. If the war was for oil, why don't we own those oilfields today??? We're the USA, we could go into any country in the Middle East and take over their oil fields if that was the agenda.

There were conversations about the oilfields, and they centered on what to do with the fields TEMPORARILY while the war was being waged to protect them, and how to officiallly handle the flow of Iraqi oil.

To suggest this is a war for oil is such a sophmoric argument, I can't believe anyone over 22 believes it. And frankly, it's extremely disrespectful to those fighting for us every day.

Absolutely. Wilkerson is about as trustworthy as Joe Wilson! Wilkerson was the one whining about how the Bush Administration, Bush and Cheney specifically usurped FOREIGN POLICY!!! Can you imagine? Who was elected to determine foreign policy? Wilkerson? If it were about oil we would invade Mexico and Argentina. They are a lot closer to home and not in such a volitile area of the world.

 

[DawnCt1]

When i was younger i thought the people who attributed our interest in the Middle East to oil were too cynical. Not anymore.

The article quotes Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to General Colin Powell. He is older than 22.

.

The State Dept. and the CIA are rife with people whose only concern is to hold power. Their alligience is to themselves and they suffer from an exagerated sense of their own importance. Wilkerson easily fits that description.

 

[wvrevy]

Ah...It's always enjoyable watching Republicans eat their own.

Wonder how vehemently some would have responded had one of the liberal posters here typed those words while the man was still in office, assisting Colin Powell ?

 

[DawnCt1]

Ah...It's always enjoyable watching Republicans eat their own.

Wonder how vehemently some would have responded had one of the liberal posters here typed those words while the man was still in office, assisting Colin Powell ?

There are no party requirements for life time positions at the State Dept. He had a salaried position that he no longer has and is attempting to "cash in".

 

[wvrevy]

Lol...A little about the man that the right is so gleefully tearing apart:

-----------------------------------------
Lawrence B. Wilkerson
Chief of Staff,
Term of Appointment: 08/01/2002 to 01/26/2005


Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired) Larry Wilkerson joined General Colin L. Powell in March 1989 at the U.S. Army’s Forces Command in Atlanta, Georgia as his Deputy Executive Officer. He followed the General to his next position as Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving as his special assistant. Upon Powell's retirement from active service in 1993, Colonel Wilkerson served as the Deputy Director and Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia. Upon Wilkerson’s retirement from active service in 1997, he began working for General Powell in a private capacity as a consultant and advisor.

In December 2000, Secretary of State-designate Powell asked Wilkerson to join him in the Transition Office at the U.S. State Department and, later, upon his confirmation as Secretary of State, Secretary Powell moved Wilkerson to his Policy Planning Staff with responsibilities for East Asia and the Pacific, and legislative and political-military affairs. In June of 2002, the Director for Policy Planning, Ambassador Richard Haass, made Wilkerson the associate director. In August of 2002, Secretary Powell moved Wilkerson to the position of Chief of Staff of the Department.

Wilkerson is a veteran of the Vietnam war as well as a U.S. Army “Pacific hand,” having served in Korea, Japan, and Hawaii and participated in military exercises throughout the Pacific. Moreover, Wilkerson was Executive Assistant to US Navy Admiral Stewart A. Ring, Director for Strategy and Policy (J5) USCINCPAC, from 1984-87. Wilkerson also served on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College at Newport, RI and holds two advanced degrees, one in International Relations and the other in National Security Studies. He has written extensively on military and national security affairs–especially for college-level curricula--and been published in a number of professional journals, including the Naval Institute’s Proceedings, The Naval War College Review, Military Review, and Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ).
----------------------------

Source: The US State Department

Yeah...Guy seems like he's nothing more than a power-hungry middle manager to me.

 

[wvrevy]

And just in case anyone would care to read Wilkerson's actual comments, rather than the left or right's distortion of them, you can read a column he wrote for the LA Times here: The White House Cabal

He is nowhere near the loon that some would have you believe.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Propaganda crap. If the war was for oil, why don't we own those oilfields today??? We're the USA, we could go into any country in the Middle East and take over their oil fields if that was the agenda.

There were conversations about the oilfields, and they centered on what to do with the fields TEMPORARILY while the war was being waged to protect them, and how to officiallly handle the flow of Iraqi oil.

To suggest this is a war for oil is such a sophmoric argument, I can't believe anyone over 22 believes it. And frankly, it's extremely disrespectful to those fighting for us every day.

ITA. Very well said! I too am tired of the sophmoric arguments from "the war was about oil" crowd.

 

[Teejay32]

Wilkerson's words sound familiar and an article lists him as a "senior administration official." I think we've found a leaker!

Iraq was a reliable source of oil for us before we invaded it...

 

[wvrevy]

ITA. Very well said! I too am tired of the sophmoric arguments from "the war was about oil" crowd.

Again, Joe, I stated the author's credentials (aside from being chief of staff to the secretary of state, he was also a retired Colonel from the military). Given his bonafides, and given his detractors...why should anyone believe those of you with none of his information, experience, or access ?

And just for the record, I don't happen to believe that the war was all about the oil, though I think it probably had a bit to do with the overall reasoning (if you can call a few billion dollars a "bit" part), such as it was. But I'm also willing to admit that this man has a lot more information about the situation than I do...so, why are you and other Bush supporters so quick to dismiss anyone who disagrees with the party line, regardless of how much better qualified they are to comment than you are ?

 

[NHAnn]

To suggest this is a war for oil is such a sophmoric argument, I can't believe anyone over 22 believes it. And frankly, it's extremely disrespectful to those fighting for us every day.

I'm well over 22, and I believe oil is certainly a factor in this war, and I have utmost respect for the individuals serving in our armed forces.

He's simply pontificating, offering his opinion.

Sorry, but the same could be said about your statements!