So it was about the oil

[Megster]

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.

its sophOmoric and I'm only 19.

 

[bsnyder]

So why haven't we taken over those oil fields yet? Did Wilkerson reveal the Evil Bush Cabal's timetable for that?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

its sophOmoric and I'm only 19.

Correcting typos I see and BTW what's the point of your Nazi quote below your signature?? Rather offensive.

 

[Teejay32]

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 ?

I think people were dismissing the reporter, or the OP, and whoever else is responsible for anything called "So Iraq Was About the Oil." But Wilkerson has apparently said "...the U.S. government now had no choice but to succeed in Iraq or face the necessity of conquering the Middle East within the next 10 years to ensure access to the region’s oil supplies," and we definitely need more than his bona fides to accept that one.

 

[WIcruizer]

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 ?

Yes, and isn't it interesting he was dead silent WHILE he was in office. Now that he's gone he's free to pratle on about his inane theories.

I'm well over 22, and I believe oil is certainly a factor in this war

You have the right to believe whatever you wish, but a war for oil makes zero sense. We have strolled through Iraq twice now and still don't own their oil fields. We could take over Kuwait, UAE, etc. within a few hours and seize their oil. Conspiracies are more fun than reality.

 

[DawnCt1]

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 ?

?

I find it interesting that you elevate those in the military when it serves your political purposes. Wesley Clark had "lots of credentials" and he wasn't well thought of in the military. There are bureacrats everywhere.

 

[Laura]

Correcting typos I see and BTW what's the point of your Nazi quote below your signature?? Rather offensive.

Obviously the point of that quote is over your head.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Which is a shame it apparently went over his head, because as the old proverb says, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

 

[wvrevy]

I find it interesting that you elevate those in the military when it serves your political purposes. Wesley Clark had "lots of credentials" and he wasn't well thought of in the military. There are bureacrats everywhere.

You mean, sort of the way you on the right praise the military to high heaven...unless they dare to say things that don't back up the administration's version of events ?

Again, this man has a better perspective of these events than ANYONE on this board. Why wouldn't anyone give his words more credibility ? What makes you more qualified to discuss the situation than him ?

If you don't agree with his theory...that's fine. You're perfectly within your rights to do so. But tearing him down personally, when all the man has done for his entire adult life is serve his country and follow a man whom he apparently greatly respected into public service after his service ? I realize that is the republican strategy these days (attack the messenger and people tend to forget the message), but come on...

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Which is a shame it apparently went over his head, because as the old proverb says, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

It's not over my head at all. If it's a slam at our current administraton then the quote is being used in a vile and disgusting manner. I don't take Nazi comparisons or quotes too lightly.

I know history quite well, thank you very much. Apparently, some people need to revisit history to realize how truly evil the Nazi's were before they throw ANY such quotes around. Remember the attempted genocide by killing millions of innocent Jews and also the death of millions of soldiers.

 

[WIcruizer]

Well it certainly went over my head. And if the poster is implying in any way, shape, or form that President Bush can be compared in any way to the Nazis that is truely disgusting and a new low on this board.

I realize that is the republican strategy these days (attack the messenger and people tend to forget the message)

Can you say with a straight face this hasn't been the Dems strategy for over 9 years now. Guys like Carville and Dick Morris openly admit that was exactly their strategy. The "scorched earth" approach was given that name by Dem strategists, it's not a secret. And the fact is, the Rebublican strategy is not to attack the messenger (as the Dems do.) They have flatly denied his assertions. Big difference in approach.

One more fact that's rather interesting. Dick Morris, one of Clinton's closest advisors, has publicly stated that Hussein and Iraq were frequent topics during their briefing meetings, and Clinton was convinced action would be needed soon. Clinton was convinced by the intelligence that Hussein was the biggest threat, and had WMDs, and was actively seeking more.

There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking and backpaddling. That's called cowardice. All these people would be taking credit for their votes and original support if the war was perceived as "going better." On that, I would hope we all agree.

 

[treesinger]

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.

Ok, read the article and I don't see what the big deal is. All it was was about how some decisions are made in the White House. Would I be wrong to believe that it is the Pres' prerogative to delagate some decision making? Being a leader doesnt' necessarily mean that he makes every single decision of every single thing. It also means delegating some decisions to people you trust. And I have no doubt that, right or wrong, Bush trusts his people.

 

[treesinger]

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 ?

IMO, it is hard to take any criticism from someone who comes out constantly against the President. I can take critiques from people who have the ability to add a positive comment now and then. But when all it is is negative negative negative with nary a positive comment about anything at all whatsoever, the person loses credibility with me.

That's why I'm not a big fan of Rush. He's much to soft. He criticizes, but not enough and not hard enough.
That's also why I like O'Reilly. If he doesn't like something in this administration (i.e. the border, Bush's stand AGAINST the Minutemen, something most Righties support) he'll rip him a new one.

 

[Mugg Mann]

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials, April 18, 1946

The parallels outlined in this strategy from almost 60 years ago to the strategy the Bush administrationed employed in selling the Iraq war to the public are eerily similar.

From Condi declaring that a mushroom cloud would be the smoking gun to Cheney selling that view on numerous news shows about a country that did not have the means to attack us here (for those of our logic-impared readers, that's the "all you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked" part) to "denouncing the pacificists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger" (Hundreds of quotes from right wing water-carriers Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity et al available on request).

No one here is suggesting that the Bush administration are Nazis. Any association is a product of your mind only, and speaks volumes to your paranoia that you perceive it that way. The quote is extremely prophetic because that's exactly what the Bush administration did in selling this unjust war against an enemy who never attacked us here in this country. It was morally wrong when the Nazis did it, and it's morally wrong when the Bush administration does it today. That is what that quote is all about! (IMHO)

I'm all for blowing Osama Bin Laden off the face of the earth, and it remains a disappointment that this administration no longer considers the person who actually masterminded the attack on Americans on American soil to be a priority. (Bush's words, not mine.)

 

[Mugg Mann]

IMO, it is hard to take any criticism from someone who comes out constantly against the President. I can take critiques from people who have the ability to add a positive comment now and then. But when all it is is negative negative negative with nary a positive comment about anything at all whatsoever, the person loses credibility with me.

That's why I'm not a big fan of Rush. He's much to soft. He criticizes, but not enough and not hard enough.
That's also why I like O'Reilly. If he doesn't like something in this administration (i.e. the border, Bush's stand AGAINST the Minutemen, something most Righties support) he'll rip him a new one.

O'Reilly lost credibility in this corner long before his deposition revealing his marital infidelity became public when he declared shortly after the Iraq war began that if WMD's were not discovered, he would never trust anything the Bush administration said again. O'Reilly has since reverted back to carrying water for the Bush adminstration, and WMDs still have never appeared.

 

[WIcruizer]

No one here is suggesting that the Bush administration are Nazis.

You say that, yet you just made a direct comparison.

That's fine Mugg Mann. You can protest and Monday morning quarterback. In the meantime, I'm thankful real leaders are LEADING. Tough decisions are best handled by leaders like President Bush,.

Sniveling liberals can pick apart volumes of speeches Bush, Cheney, and Condi made about Iraq prior to the war and find a couple statements out of context to try to prove their point.

If you didn't understand the reason for going to war, it's hardly Bush's fault. He explained it in detail, several times. He even used small words so you could understand. Hussein violated the UN for years, and after 9/11 we could no longer afford to sit back and wonder how close Hussein was to being able to pull off his own brand of terrorism. It was so clear Congress and the Senate were on board. All of them used the same intelligence- including President Clinton. Only Clinton didn't see the urgency. So why the urgency after 9/11? On that day it was crystal clear that terrorists and STATES THAT SUPPORT terrorists must be dealt with. Why Iraq first? Simple. Out of all the terrorist states, Hussein was clearly the one most likely to use whatever he could get his hands on. 9/11 was like a light bulb going off above his head. It CAN be done!

 

[Megster]

I'm sorry that a quote in my profile has offended people. Bush has done some things I agree with and many things that I certaintly do not agree with, but he and his administration are in no way Nazis. I certainly am not comparing his actions with the actions of those who were Nazis. I'm sorry that you can't see why I find this quote interesting and relevant in the society that we live in today.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That's fine Mugg Mann. You can protest and Monday morning quarterback. In the meantime, I'm thankful real leaders are LEADING. Tough decisions are best handled by leaders like President Bush,.

Sniveling liberals can pick apart volumes of speeches Bush, Cheney, and Condi made about Iraq prior to the war and find a couple statements out of context to try to prove their point.

If you didn't understand the reason for going to war, it's hardly Bush's fault. He explained it in detail, several times. He even used small words so you could understand. Hussein violated the UN for years, and after 9/11 we could no longer afford to sit back and wonder how close Hussein was to being able to pull off his own brand of terrorism. It was so clear Congress and the Senate were on board. All of them used the same intelligence- including President Clinton. Only Clinton didn't see the urgency. So why the urgency after 9/11? On that day it was crystal clear that terrorists and STATES THAT SUPPORT terrorists must be dealt with. Why Iraq first? Simple. Out of all the terrorist states, Hussein was clearly the one most likely to use whatever he could get his hands on. 9/11 was like a light bulb going off above his head. It CAN be done!

Please oh please oh please, all republicans, please keep up that very defense of the War in Iraq, the President, his Administration and the rest of the neocons in Washington. As support for the war in Iraq and the Neocons welcome continues to grow thin, I want all of you to make sure that you continue to shout your support from the rooftops. As a ever widening majority of Americans from both parties lose respect for the present Administration, it's very, very important for the 30% of you hard right wing Americans to continue to tell the 70% of us who have questions about the war that we're dumb and to remind us what a real leadership's all about. Hell, I'd say bring Clinton up some more to remind us all about how bad it was when he was President. To quote your favorite guy, you all need to "stay the course" and keep doing what your doing! It's really working and I think that President Bush just might be on the verge of an upswing of popularity!!

 

[wvrevy]

Couple things here:

1 - No, congress did NOT have "all" of the same intel that the white house did. The intel they were given was much the same as the stories that Bush fabricated for the American people, and that some non-critical thinkers continue to spout to this day. It painted Iraq as an imminent threat, when it was nothing of the sort. It did not include the MANY dissenting opinions throughout the intelligence community (such as the FACT that many of Bush's statements were based on discredited intel and forged documents). We were NOT told before the war that Iraq may, some day, become a threat. We were told, in so many words, that the smoking gun proving the threat posed could be a mushroom cloud. We were told we KNEW he had WMD's, and we knew where they were, despite the FACT that we obviously did not.

So, make your choice: Bush is either incompetant, or he's a liar. But don't try to pass his incompetance off as "leadership".

2 - The nazi quote being discussed is apt, like it or not. I could care less where it came from. The FACT is that Bushco did exactly what that quote suggested, and some people are either too stubborn to admit it or too ignorant to understand that they've been duped.

As for corwardice, Mr. WICruizer...I'd respond, but last I checked, personal attacks are forbidden on this board.

 

[What the Heck]

Ok, read the article and I don't see what the big deal is. All it was was about how some decisions are made in the White House. Would I be wrong to believe that it is the Pres' prerogative to delagate some decision making? Being a leader doesnt' necessarily mean that he makes every single decision of every single thing. It also means delegating some decisions to people you trust. And I have no doubt that, right or wrong, Bush trusts his people.

I agree. It looks like his major complaint is that this White House isn't doing what other White Houses do. The President always has the right to listen/not listen to whoever he wishes. It's been that way since Washington. Washington had 2 of the most powerful personalities on his cabinet that were mortal enemies. John Adams ignored his cabinet completely in favor of his wife. I can't remember which president it was that had the "kitchen cabinet" because he completely ignored his regular cabinet. The list goes on into today.

As for the quote, you are right wvrevy, it does pertain. It also pertained back in the 90's when someone else was president and was under investigation for his actions. It also pertained when other Presidents used it besides those 2. What is inexcusable is the way some from the very far left use statements like that and their personal hatred to claim that the Bush administration is nothing more than a new Nazi regime.

Of course, as Laugh O Grams might say, it does help the other side. President Bush's approval ratings is in the 30% range - guess what? When the polls open next year, the Republicans will still gain seats in the Sentate and in the House, even if they were to have the elections now. The far left is running the Democrats, there is no room for moderates there. During a time of peace, the Democratic positions often look better to the moderates, but during a time of war the free spending just doesn't appeal. It's not about the President, it's about the platform.

As far as the original subject, yes I'm sure the oil was part of the reason. Not the only reason, not the main reason, but a good part of it. It was part of the reason when we went to war for the other President Bush - we could not and cannot tolerate a madman who hates the United States to control 90% of the worlds oil. We cannot allow our entire economy to be threatened in that manner. Those who say "it's all about the oil" as if that is a bad thing don't consider that if we did allow the oil to be under the influence of a sworn enemy we may as well just shoot our elderly on fixed income - it would be kinder than allowing them to starve because they would not be able to afford things like food. Many of the poor have to choose now between food and drugs, and they need both. How are they going to afford it when the price of gas goes to and stays at $10 per gallon? How are they going to afford electricity when their electric bill goes to $500 a month? To paraphrase Paul Begola, yes it is about the economy stupid - and it's about taking care of our people. I don't have a problem with the "oil" word at all as a reason for the war.

Just my thoughts - getting down from my soapbox now.