Silenced

well, i'm just disillusioned and demoralized as all hell if i can't rely on pelosi anymore. shit. maybe feinstein's not so hot anymore either.
 
Gonz said:
as the Republicans proved since 2000, they couldn't get it right anyway. When they had power, the Dems used procedures to stop everything & the (R)s buckled.
Click to expand...

Revisionist history. The republican congress was acting as a rubber stamp for Bush, not doing their job as a check on Executive power, and spending like there was no tomorrow.
 
169641696_350x350_Front.jpg



But perhaps the most ironic fact of the 2008 election cycle is this: John McCain will win the 2008 election because the war in Iraq was not a war for oil.

The war in Iraq was never about oil, of course. And that simple fact, ironically enough, spells doom for Democrats. With oil prices ridiculously high, Americans are demanding that Congress open domestic territory to oil exploration -- and Democrats are stonewalling. House Republicans are demanding that Congress allow drilling; Democrats are denying an up-or-down vote. And Americans don't like it at all.

If the war in Iraq had been about oil, Democrats would be sitting in the catbird seat right now. The price of gasoline would be less than half its current price; Americans would be willing to countenance the Luddite idiocy of the no-drilling Dems. Instead, Americans are steaming over high gasoline prices, and they are rightfully blaming the left.

All of which makes Barack Obama's candidacy look increasingly tenuous. When Obama was nominated, his two major policy selling points were opposition to the war in Iraq and hard-core environmentalism. At the time, those policies looked like a road to success in the general election.

For Obama, his biggest strength -- opposition to the war in Iraq on both security grounds and on grounds that it was a war for oil -- now constitutes his biggest weakness. His biggest problem is that the war in Iraq wasn't about oil. If it had been, perhaps he'd still be leading in the polls.http://townhall.com/Columnists/BenS...s_big_problem_the_war_in_iraq_wasnt_about_oil
Click to expand...
 
Enlighten me - how exactly would the Iraq war being 'for oil' have reduced the price of oil exactly?
 
Kind of a ridiculous premise to a silly article huh?

Opposition to the Iraq occupation is a good selling point because approximately 70% of US citizens oppose it.
 
If I recall correctly there was a time when it was suggested that we went to Iraq specifically to suck the oil out of the country.
jitcrunch.aspx



I see. Now it's ridiculous. Back then it was the mantra.

Are you admitting the dems were wrong with that premise?
 
and what a great job we've done at recovering the trillion dollars we've spent on trying to civilize their sorry asses.

fuck that. and fuck my tax bracket. and fuck anyone who's willing to go along and vote for chumps that are ready to flush our/my money down the toilet.

/cheese, out/
 
Cerise said:
I see. Now it's ridiculous. Back then it was the mantra.

Are you admitting the dems were wrong with that premise?
Click to expand...

The war was about oil. Why would that make the price go down?

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” Alan Greenspan

Were you thinking it was about WMDs?
 
spike said:
Where you thinkig it was about WMDs?
Click to expand...

no, it's about more than that.

it's about

ALL THOSE BADGUYS that threated our petty existences.

so we need to pay, out the ass, to silver spoons that will somehow redeem us.

my check is in the mail.

jebus, er, dik cheney, please save me from those bad people! holy shit i kan't think for myself please protect me.
 
spike said:
The republican congress was acting as a rubber stamp for Bush,
Click to expand...

Aside from the tax cuts, what has GW needed a rubber stamp for? He's done nothing of value domestically. In fact, a real Republican Congress would have made the tax cuts permanent.
 
Gonz said:
Aside from the tax cuts, what has GW needed a rubber stamp for?
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding. Large scale corruption and misconduct, approval of corrupt individuals appointed to office, unparalleled spending pork and favors, removal of rights, broadening of executive power.

Where have you been?

You realize that the issue the Republicans shut the lights off over was a little assault on our freedoms called the Patriot Act?
 
spike said:
The war was about oil. Why would that make the price go down?

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” Alan Greenspan

Were you thinking it was about WMDs?
Click to expand...

Did you ever hear that Greenspan elaborated on his original comment?

...Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that "the Iraq War is largely about oil," said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something."

But Greenspan's main support for Saddam's ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.

"My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through," Greenspan said.

Given that, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential." he said.

He added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070917/greenspan-oil-war_all.htm
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top