James Carville: "It's shaping up to be a Carter-esque disaster..."
BTMarino
Phlip
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
>
> cue the music
>
Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
liberal
> BTMarino wrote:
> >http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...
>
> > cue the music
>
> Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
Health care, not as I recall. Energy independence, yes.
OTOH, Obama doesn't seem to be doing either.
Phlip
Besides Cash-for-Clunkers* and Public Option...
*yes yes yes that won't stop our addiction to Saudi crude. it's just the opening
salvo
Back to the theme: And Obama took down the solar panels off the roof of the
White House, too! I can't imagine how they "offended" him, but they did...
Catfish Hunter
> BTMarino wrote:
> >http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...
>
>
> Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
In the 80 campaign, both Carter and Kennedy, pushed for guaranteed
healthcare for everyone.
GLOBALIST
tell the Republicans to fuck off. I don't think that Obama will have
that problem. He knows their tactics and pettiness. You fuckheads
dumped 8 years of Bush's shit in his lap and he is doing a great job
of turning things around...Your asshole president was not even invited
to your own National Convention...How fucking sad is that?
edi...@netpath.net
> Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
Carter sure did emphasize energy independence; I remember those years.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Werner
How embarrassing Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during
his term.
Straightarrow
> On Nov 20, 3:25 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
>
> Carter sure did emphasize energy independence; I remember those years.
>
Sure did !! Gas rationing. Long lines at the gas stations. $3 a
gallon gas (when you could find it). Ahhh yessss. Those were the good
old days !!
> http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/is
> the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
>
> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Phlip
> On Nov 20, 3:25 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
>
> Carter sure did emphasize energy independence; I remember those years.
And Carter sure appeased those terrorists! Not like Reagan, huh?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 20, 3:05 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 3:25 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
>>
>> Carter sure did emphasize energy independence; I remember those years.
>>
>>
> Sure did !! Gas rationing. Long lines at the gas stations. $3 a
> gallon gas (when you could find it). Ahhh yessss. Those were the good
> old days !!
Oh, look! It's another dumb-as-shit right winger trying to blame Carter
by putting the cart before the horse.
The oil crisis was already over by the time Carter took office, and he
was determined that America wouldn't get caught flat-footed like that
again.
Galen Hekhuis
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 3:05�pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 3:25�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
>>
>> Carter sure did emphasize energy independence; I remember those years.
>>
>
> Sure did !! Gas rationing. Long lines at the gas stations. $3 a
>gallon gas (when you could find it). Ahhh yessss. Those were the good
>old days !!
I remember the gas rationing (I worked at a Sunoco station back then)
but I don't recall $3 gas. Where were you?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
>
> cue the music
For some reason, whenever I see the word "Rasmussen", the song "Elephant
March" comes to mind...
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> BTMarino wrote:
>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
>>
>> cue the music
>>
> Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
Energy independence certainly.
GLOBALIST
Republicans do not have one gawdamned leader that anyone even
respects. All they have is a bunch of idiot talk show hosts, who they
bow down and obey.
jls
> http://www.rasmussenreportsblahblahblah honk honk honk.
Your title is deceitful. You must be a Fox Noise operative.
GFY.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
A pity he didn't get the chance to follow up on it. We would all be
so much better off now.
Instead, we elected Reagan, and wrecked the country.
Pavor Nocturnus
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:18:42 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
>
$3 a gallon? I worked at a gas station in those days (in Toronto).
No line ups, and it was about $.77 a gallon, a bigger gallon than a US
gallon.
And in those days, the Canadian $ was par with the US$. In fact, in
'77, the C$ was $1.05 to the US.
Now, take inflation into account and $.77 a gallon equals $2.56. So
he's not far off.
Pavor Nocturnus
> >http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...
>
> > cue the music
>
> Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
Well, if Nixon had his way. There would have been affordable health
insurance for all.
But lets not go there. It upsets them.
By many accounts, Eisenhower and Nixon's policies would have been
criticized as "leftist" by today's version of the GOP.
Phlip
> $3 a gallon? I worked at a gas station in those days (in Toronto).
>
> No line ups, and it was about $.77 a gallon, a bigger gallon than a US
> gallon.
>
> And in those days, the Canadian $ was par with the US$. In fact, in
> '77, the C$ was $1.05 to the US.
>
> Now, take inflation into account and $.77 a gallon equals $2.56. So
> he's not far off.
I do believe you are discussing the Carter Administration.
The high gas cost and long lines happened during the reign of his predecessor,
John Kennedy...
Steve
What's really funny is even if the infamous public option does make
it, and the odds are long on that, the "benefit side won't be
available for years... can dregs like Jamieson hold out that long?
Pavor Nocturnus
Actually, the long line ups happened during the administration of
Nixon in the early 1970's.
The OPEC embargo in 1973. Gas prices were still very high throughout
the Ford administration and into the Carter administration.
Pavor Nocturnus
Phlip
>> I do believe you are discussing the Carter Administration.
>>
>> The high gas cost and long lines happened during the reign of his predecessor,
>> John Kennedy...
>
> Actually, the long line ups happened during the administration of
> Nixon in the early 1970's.
That was my joke. This thread arc happened when some idiot blamed the oil
embargo, long lines, and high gas prices on Carter.
> The OPEC embargo in 1973. Gas prices were still very high throughout
> the Ford administration and into the Carter administration.
And when Clinton left office, gas was USD$ 1.50 per gallon.
Gee, peace sucks, huh?
pyjamarama
Zepp is probably just a donut or two away from a massive coronary
(will gluttony be covered under the public option?) and Roselles is
now 70, a heavy drinker and a former "miner". If cirrhosis doesn't
get him black lung will.
Gandolf is just a spam program, not even a real person, and I think
Trebor died of a crystal meth overdose.
It was either that or massive anal bleeding.
At least they'll all be spared from going before an ObamaCare death
panel.
Pavor Nocturnus
Bush always said that he knew the oil business. :)
Heck! He was completely unaware of the Alberta (Canada) oil sands
until about 2002.
And that's a wild story. In a water shed that has precious little
water, it takes 6 times the amount of water and multiple times the
amount of natural gas (in energy) to produce the energy equivalent of
a barrel of oil.
Otherwise, it's an immense waste of energy to produce usable oil.
The land pollution aside, it is a total waste of time.
Can you imagine if someone came to you and said "I can make a barrel
of oil from sand if you allow me to burn several times the energy in
natural gas!"
I would say "Why not make better use of natural gas?"
I also have friends who are making a massive amount of money working
in Fort Mac in skilled trades. $200k plus.
And they agree that it's just silly.
Harold Burton
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Adjust for inflation.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
And what has inflation done in the last 9 years?
Phlip
But they didn't exactly control the CIA...
Straightarrow
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:18:42 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
>
Louisiana. It would be more like $5 a gallon in todays dollars.
Straightarrow
Yeah,"peace" at any price.
Galen Hekhuis
He didn't say $3 (adjusted for inflation) gas, he said $3. I just
asked where. I remember the lines, the odd-even stuff with license
plates, things like that. I don't recall who was president and I
don't recall $3 gas either. I do remember that once you got out of
the larger metropolitan areas the lines and shortages virtually
disappeared. The drivers of our fuel supply trucks told us that there
was plenty of gas at the depots, but deliveries were being held back
nonetheless. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of the oil
markets, but I do know that people can get pretty ugly when they're in
line for gas.
Foxtrot
I don't see Serpent Head (his wife's nickname) Carville mentioned in
the article.
Foxtrot
>Carter was an excellent president ,
HAHAHAHAHAAHHAAAA
Peanut Brain Carter's disastrous presidency:
* Double digit inflation
* Gas lines
* Gave away the Panama Canal
* Mariel boat lift
* Cowered to Iranians during hostage crisis
* Gave Israel and Egypt billions each year that we're still paying
* Department of Education
* Department of Energy
* Consulted his nine year old daughter about nukes
* Malaise
* Had hissy fit and yanked us from the 1980 Olympics
That moron did one great thing: He put Reagan in office.
>tell the Republicans to fuck off. I don't think that Obama will have
>that problem. He knows their tactics and pettiness.
He may cause Dems to take big loses in congress next year. Then
he'll bow down to John Boehner like he does to foreigners.
>You fuckheads
>dumped 8 years of Bush's shit in his lap and he is doing a great job
>of turning things around...Your asshole president was not even invited
>to your own National Convention...How fucking sad is that?
Nothing new. BJ wasn't allowed to campaign for Al Grrrr. Jean Kerr�e
was seldom seen in public with him either.
Foxtrot
>You are right about Rasmussen. I think what is so sad is that the
>Republicans do not have one gawdamned leader that anyone even
Rasmussen has Bow Down Obama at 47%, Gallup has him at 49%.
Feel better?
>respects. All they have is a bunch of idiot talk show hosts, who they
>bow down and obey.
Are you sure you want to mention bowing down, GloBullshit?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
Yeah. Let's talk about that, bubbles. Tell us something Limbaugh said
that you disagreed with.
Let's see if you can do it.
Dave Heil
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:18:42 -0800, Straightarrow wrote:
>
>> On Nov 20, 3:05 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 20, 3:25 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
>>> Carter sure did emphasize energy independence; I remember those years.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure did !! Gas rationing. Long lines at the gas stations. $3 a
>> gallon gas (when you could find it). Ahhh yessss. Those were the good
>> old days !!
>
> by putting the cart before the horse.
The Carter was the back end of the horse. I love it when an irrelevant
Canadian shows his stupidity and begins to chastise someone who is correct.
> The oil crisis was already over by the time Carter took office, and he
> was determined that America wouldn't get caught flat-footed like that
> again.
Are you telling us that Jimmy Carter didn't take office until 1980? The
oil crisis did not begin until April, 1979 and prices rose for a full year.
Dave Heil
Good for you. I've never heard of "Elephant March".
Dave Heil
He talked about it. He did nothing except talk to Americans (but not
Canadians), telling us to turn our thermostats down and to wear a sweater.
Dave Heil
> Instead, we elected Reagan, and wrecked the country.
We? How the hell were you, a Canadian with no vote, involved?
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> GLOBALIST <free....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are right about Rasmussen. I think what is so sad is that the
>>>Republicans do not have one gawdamned leader that anyone even
>>
>> Rasmussen has Bow Down Obama at 47%, Gallup has him at 49%. Feel better?
>>
>>>respects. All they have is a bunch of idiot talk show hosts, who they
>>>bow down and obey.
>>
>> Are you sure you want to mention bowing down, GloBullshit?
>
>Yeah. Let's talk about that, bubbles. Tell us something Limbaugh said
>that you disagreed with.
How the hell would I know? You think I study transcripts of what he
says every day then pass judgment on them?
You're obsessed with him and Fox News, just like your buds at
mediamorons and dailykooks.
>Let's see if you can do it.
Last I heard he was still supportive of the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. As you know, I'm not. BFD I'm not his spokesman.
zzpat
Did you support the wars when Bush was in office...that the real
question...I'm betting you did.
It has hard to be against war when the rest of the country was beating
the drums of war. I was against the war from day one because I knew it
was based on lies.
If Bush's intelligence was so good, why couldn't the UN inspectors
verify every word of it within days? Ah....because he was lying his
ass off.
Gandalf Grey
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:4trgg5trett7rjsfq...@4ax.com...
> "5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>>> GLOBALIST <free....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are right about Rasmussen. I think what is so sad is that the
>>>>Republicans do not have one gawdamned leader that anyone even
>>>
>>> Rasmussen has Bow Down Obama at 47%, Gallup has him at 49%. Feel better?
>>>
>>>>respects. All they have is a bunch of idiot talk show hosts, who they
>>>>bow down and obey.
>>>
>>> Are you sure you want to mention bowing down, GloBullshit?
>>
>>Yeah. Let's talk about that, bubbles. Tell us something Limbaugh said
>>that you disagreed with.
>
> How the hell would I know?
Of course you wouldn't. Since you're a card carrying right wing asskisser,
you don't disagree with ANYTHING Limbaugh ever said, Trots.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> Last I heard he was still supportive of the wars in Afghanistan and
>> Iraq. As you know, I'm not. BFD I'm not his spokesman.
>
>Did you support the wars when Bush was in office...that the real
>question...I'm betting you did.
>
>It has hard to be against war when the rest of the country was beating
>the drums of war. I was against the war from day one because I knew it
>was based on lies.
You mean Saddam actually complied with the 1991 ceasefire agreement
and allowed inspections between 1998 and 2002? Because that's what
it was based on.
I've been against our occupation there for several years. After it was
established that they're not a serious threat to us.
>If Bush's intelligence was so good, why couldn't the UN inspectors
>verify every word of it within days? Ah....because he was lying his
>ass off.
They couldn't verify anything one way or the other between 1998 and
2002 because they weren't given access. You see, when a nation
doesn't comply with a ceasefire agreement, the war is still on.
Galen Hekhuis
As a matter of fact the UN weapons inspectors were given pretty much
free (and surprise) access to virtually anywhere shortly before we
invaded. At the time I had to admit that Bush had handled things
rather well, in that he had succeeded in getting many concessions all
without firing a shot. Then he invaded...
Harold Burton
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:15:03 -0500, Harold Burton
> <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <i62eg59bscailr5o7...@4ax.com>,
> > Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:18:42 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
> >> <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Nov 20, 3:05�pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 20, 3:25�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Carter pushed for "free" health care and energy independence?
> >> >>
> >> >> Carter sure did emphasize energy independence; I remember those years.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sure did !! Gas rationing. Long lines at the gas stations. $3 a
> >> >gallon gas (when you could find it). Ahhh yessss. Those were the good
> >> >old days !!
> >>
> >> I remember the gas rationing (I worked at a Sunoco station back then)
> >> but I don't recall $3 gas. Where were you?
> >
> >
> >Adjust for inflation.
> >
> >
> >Snicker.
>
> He didn't say $3 (adjusted for inflation) gas, he said $3.
His mistake was assuming you were smarter than you're proving to be.
Snicker.
Gandalf Grey
"Harold Turdton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-A78D...@news.newsguy.com...
Yes, we all know you're a moron, Turdboy.
Harold Burton
"Gandalf Grey" <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His mistake was assuming I was smarter than I'm proving to be.
Indeed.
Snicker.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
>>zzpat <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>If Bush's intelligence was so good, why couldn't the UN inspectors
>>>verify every word of it within days? Ah....because he was lying his
>>>ass off.
>>
>>They couldn't verify anything one way or the other between 1998 and
>>2002 because they weren't given access. You see, when a nation
>>doesn't comply with a ceasefire agreement, the war is still on.
>
>As a matter of fact the UN weapons inspectors were given pretty much
>free (and surprise) access to virtually anywhere shortly before we
>invaded.
Yes, shortly before we invaded. That was the game Hussein played.
He defied inspections for years until he saw tens of thousands of our
troops stacking up on his border. He saw that Bush meant business
after years of idle blustering by his and the Clinton administrations.
>At the time I had to admit that Bush had handled things
>rather well, in that he had succeeded in getting many concessions all
>without firing a shot. Then he invaded...
For all those years Hussein got away with defying inspectors so he
kept doing it. Nobody respects leaders who make idle threats. You have
to smash some heads eventually or they'll no longer fear nor respect
you. Especially in that part of the world.
Gandalf Grey
Galen Hekhuis
>Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>
>>>zzpat <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>If Bush's intelligence was so good, why couldn't the UN inspectors
>>>>verify every word of it within days? Ah....because he was lying his
>>>>ass off.
>>>
>>>They couldn't verify anything one way or the other between 1998 and
>>>2002 because they weren't given access. You see, when a nation
>>>doesn't comply with a ceasefire agreement, the war is still on.
>>
>>As a matter of fact the UN weapons inspectors were given pretty much
>>free (and surprise) access to virtually anywhere shortly before we
>>invaded.
>
>Yes, shortly before we invaded. That was the game Hussein played.
>He defied inspections for years until he saw tens of thousands of our
>troops stacking up on his border. He saw that Bush meant business
>after years of idle blustering by his and the Clinton administrations.
Whatever. The fact remains that Bush had achieved a lot by simply
massing troops at the border. He didn't have to drop a single bomb
and he had already gotten major concessions.
>>At the time I had to admit that Bush had handled things
>>rather well, in that he had succeeded in getting many concessions all
>>without firing a shot. Then he invaded...
>
>For all those years Hussein got away with defying inspectors so he
>kept doing it. Nobody respects leaders who make idle threats. You have
>to smash some heads eventually or they'll no longer fear nor respect
>you. Especially in that part of the world.
Bush sure proved that idea (well, not the smashing heads part) when
all he had to do was threaten (backed up by the US military). It was
no idle threat. He won that round without any bloodshed. It's made a
bunch of folks speculate as to why he went on in to invade.
john whine
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...
>
> cue the music
you're point being?
ask yerself:
are you better off tnan you were a year ago?
ANYBODY is better than bush.
(i know that is faint praise...but
what can i say.)
i don't care about yer fukking polls.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
>>Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>As a matter of fact the UN weapons inspectors were given pretty much
>>>free (and surprise) access to virtually anywhere shortly before we
>>>invaded.
>>
>>Yes, shortly before we invaded. That was the game Hussein played.
>>He defied inspections for years until he saw tens of thousands of our
>>troops stacking up on his border. He saw that Bush meant business
>>after years of idle blustering by his and the Clinton administrations.
>
>Whatever. The fact remains that Bush had achieved a lot by simply
>massing troops at the border. He didn't have to drop a single bomb
>and he had already gotten major concessions.
If Bush removed the troops when Hussein began allowing inspections,
he'd have thrown them out as soon as the troops left. He knew it was a
huge task for us to prepare for battle. Every time he kicked us out would
give him another year or so for us to regroup.
>>>At the time I had to admit that Bush had handled things
>>>rather well, in that he had succeeded in getting many concessions all
>>>without firing a shot. Then he invaded...
>>
>>For all those years Hussein got away with defying inspectors so he
>>kept doing it. Nobody respects leaders who make idle threats. You have
>>to smash some heads eventually or they'll no longer fear nor respect
>>you. Especially in that part of the world.
>
>Bush sure proved that idea (well, not the smashing heads part) when
>all he had to do was threaten (backed up by the US military). It was
>no idle threat. He won that round without any bloodshed. It's made a
>bunch of folks speculate as to why he went on in to invade.
See above.
To me the speculation is why Hussein didn't cooperate all along since
he had nothing to hide. The best guess I've heard is that he wanted
to look strong to his foes.
Galen Hekhuis
>Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>>As a matter of fact the UN weapons inspectors were given pretty much
>>>>free (and surprise) access to virtually anywhere shortly before we
>>>>invaded.
>>>
>>>Yes, shortly before we invaded. That was the game Hussein played.
>>>He defied inspections for years until he saw tens of thousands of our
>>>troops stacking up on his border. He saw that Bush meant business
>>>after years of idle blustering by his and the Clinton administrations.
>>
>>Whatever. The fact remains that Bush had achieved a lot by simply
>>massing troops at the border. He didn't have to drop a single bomb
>>and he had already gotten major concessions.
>
>If Bush removed the troops when Hussein began allowing inspections,
>he'd have thrown them out as soon as the troops left. He knew it was a
>huge task for us to prepare for battle. Every time he kicked us out would
>give him another year or so for us to regroup.
Saddam was no dummy. He knew that it was very expensive to mobilize
troops for invasion. He knew that it was no idle threat, not simply
harsh words. That's probably why he allowed the weapons inspectors
unfettered access, even at the risk of losing some status in that part
of the world. There was nothing to prevent intelligence agents from
telling weapons inspectors exactly where these WMD were. It has even
been alleged that the CIA was working with some of these inspectors.
Given that Bush had done all that, his subsequent invasion and
occupation of Iraq is baffling.
>>>>At the time I had to admit that Bush had handled things
>>>>rather well, in that he had succeeded in getting many concessions all
>>>>without firing a shot. Then he invaded...
>>>
>>>For all those years Hussein got away with defying inspectors so he
>>>kept doing it. Nobody respects leaders who make idle threats. You have
>>>to smash some heads eventually or they'll no longer fear nor respect
>>>you. Especially in that part of the world.
>>
>>Bush sure proved that idea (well, not the smashing heads part) when
>>all he had to do was threaten (backed up by the US military). It was
>>no idle threat. He won that round without any bloodshed. It's made a
>>bunch of folks speculate as to why he went on in to invade.
>
>See above.
>
>To me the speculation is why Hussein didn't cooperate all along since
>he had nothing to hide. The best guess I've heard is that he wanted
>to look strong to his foes.
Possibly. But the point is Bush forced him to begin cooperating
before any invasion or "war." It's like Bush had already won the
checker game but overturned the checkerboard anyway.
Galen Hekhuis
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <e5iig59804shqsr41...@4ax.com>,
> Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Given that Bush had done all that, his subsequent invasion and
>> occupation of Iraq is baffling.
>
>No, it's not puzzling. When the inspections were complete, it would've led to
>lifting the oil embargo. China was already making deals to reopen the oil
>industry and ship the oil to China. The invasion had two purposes:
>
>- Control Iraq's oil and prevent it from going to China. This purpose failed.
>
>- Demonstrate the military power of the US to intimidate neighbouring countries
>to control their oil. This purpose failed.
>
>It was a war to control the oil in that part of the world. It failed completely.
>Rather than deal with cognitive dissonance of so much blood and treasure thrown
>away in failed war for oil, Republicans deluded themselves that it was about
>self-defence and democracy.
I've heard that and other economic theories, along with the
psychological stuff about conflicts with his dad, fetal alcohol
syndrome, you name it. The point remains that it wasn't in the
world's best interests, and certainly not the best interests of the
United States.