Glad to see someone in this thread is informed.
Keith Olbermann lays waste to President Bush
- Thread starter kewlphucker
- Start date
Glad to see someone in this thread is informed.
Good to see someone is informed.
Two different times, two different objectives. The prior was to spread democracy/freedom (code for U.S. influence, code for U.S. investment), and the latter is for the fight against Terrorism (code for protection of U.S. interest, i.e. OIL).
You're being selective. Now I have heard, straight out of Bush's mouth, one of his objectives is to spread democracy among Muslim nations in the Middle East. Maybe I just miss heard.
Oil. Now I have heard, could be mistaken again though, that the whole idea of the invasion was oil -- which U.S. companies would extract from the soil of Iraq. Maybe thats not code for U.S. investment; maybe thats code of something else.
QueEx
Oil. Now I have heard, could be mistaken again though, that the whole idea of the invasion was oil -- which U.S. companies would extract from the soil of Iraq. Maybe thats not code for U.S. investment; maybe thats code of something else.
QueEx
A con-man's greatest defender is his fool, because a fool doesn't want to be proven as such.
Admit it, Bush has played you like church piano during the civil rights movement. Once you can come to terms with this, you can start learning how the world REALLY works.
I am going to assume that this is a real issue to you as it is to most American’s who want effective and sincere leadership from our elected officials. Therefore, I will not berate you as I often am for stating facts and not “opinions" in regards to this war and the selling of it. Therefore, I honestly want to know did you actually hear what Keith stated or does your “opinion” of him and those who question the legitimacy of this war immediately compel you to reject their credible assertions?
You claim that most of his points are not legitimate. Keith’s primary thesis is that Bush has no intentions on bringing the troops home soon. And that we will have a sustained (military) presence in Iraq. The President is being disingenuous as he trots out Petraeus this week only to bide more time to stay the course. Keith said President Bush said the following in the book:
"…. I‘m playing for October, November,” Mr. Bush said to Draper. That, evidently, is the time during which he thinks he can sell us the real plan, which is, to quote him, to get us in a position where the candidates will become comfortable about sustaining a presence. Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the president, stay longer. And there it is, sir. We‘ve caught you. Your goal is not to bring some troops home, maybe if we let you have your way now. Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal. You are, to use your own disrespectful tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you and take us into it with him as we stay in Iraq for another year and another and another and another. Everything you said about Iraq yesterday and everything you will say is a deception for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal, perpetuating this war indefinitely.
This Special Comment in question came on the 5th of September. On September 10th it was announced that we are building a new major base 4 miles from the Iranian border. This base will automatically commit “X” amount of troops for a “minimum” of two years. Mind you, this is even BEFORE the full Petraeus report was given. Please believe that his is not a coincidence. Does this article undermine Keith’s premise about Bush forcing US troops to “stay in Iraq for another year and another and another and another”? Did he make it up? Is it liberal bias or fact?
Report: U.S. plans base near Iraq-Iran border
Updated: 4:08 a.m. ET Sept 10, 2007
NEW YORK - The Pentagon is preparing to build a military base near the Iraq-Iran border to try to curtail the flow of advanced Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday in its online edition.
Quoting Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, the Journal said the Pentagon also plans to build fortified checkpoints on major highways leading from the Iranian border to Baghdad, and install X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at the only formal border crossing between the two countries.
The base will be located about four miles from the Iranian border and will be used for at least two years, according to the report. U.S. officials told the paper it is unclear whether it will be among the small number of facilities that would remain in Iraq after any future large-scale U.S. withdrawal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20687880/
More importantly, by Bush’s own mouth, in his speech the other night he said:
"I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq”.
Question: Were we not supposed to get an assessment of the surge/5-year campaign in Iraq with the report Petraeus gave this week? Does he not bide more time and extend troop deployment? Also from Bush’s speech:
"This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring * relationship with America".
Endure – verb
1 : to continue in the same state
2 : to remain firm under suffering or misfortune without yielding
We are staying in Iraq regardless. We Americans are going to "endure" the mounting deaths, disapproval polls, destruction of our political clout/credibility around the world, weakening of the armed forces, all-time high suicide/divorce rates of military personnel, and rising cost. Keith was more than accurate. I hope that you can get past biases to see that.
If it was all about oil, we have an enemy right in South America we could take out. So I hardly think its about oil.
Que u are showing your independent side. *chunks up the duece*
did I just say that Olbermann was a pussy?
yet you still bring up his argument?
I guess you are a pussy as well...
The Oil in South American is heavy grade and more costly to refine and extract. That is why Middle East Oil is preferable. Also, retaliation is harder across the distance from the Middle East than from Central and South America. Not to persuade just stating fact.
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
Related Links
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Graham Paterson
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
Related Links
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
If anyone haven't notice, you can actually write a novel about WHY we went into Iraq, yet it still don't justify still debating about it. The troops aren't coming home no time soon *even if Hilary gets in office*. We are there for the long haul. Bottomline...
Hmmm you did know that Iraq exports majority of their oil to Europe right?
An assist:
Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq’s Oil
Published March 17th, 2005 in Articles
By Greg Palast
Reporting for BBC Newsnight (London)
Why was Paul Wolfowitz pushed out of the Pentagon onto the World Bank — The answer lies in a 323-page document, secret until now, indicating that the allies of Big Oil in the Bush Administration have defeated neo-conservatives and their chief Wolfowitz. BBC Television Newsnight tells the true story of the fall of the neo-cons. An investigation conducted by BBC with Harper’s magazine will also reveal that the US State Department made detailed plans for war in Iraq — and for Iraq’s oil — within weeks of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq’s oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC’s Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq’s oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of “Big Oil” executives and US State Department “pragmatists.”
“Big Oil” appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began “within weeks” of Bush’s first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d’etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
The rest is at this site if you are interested: http://www.gregpalast.com/secret-us-plans-for-iraqs-oil/
Are you f-n Karl Rove?!?!?!? Got Damn! Everything you say is a direct f-n White House talking point.
You respond back to post so you obviously can read and write. Before you respond back to anything anyone says could you please be at least 50% accurate with your false assertions?!?!?
1. Why is Chavez an enemy? "the machine" told you so.
2. What has he really done to be billed an enemy? He won a democratic election, he sits on oil that is rumored be close to Saudi Arabia's potential, he is helping poor Latin American companies pay off their loans to the Regional International Monetary Fund early. Therefore, less control by us of South America.
3. Why have we not tried to take out our "enemy in South America" aka Chavez? We tired and failed in 2002. The internet is for more than porn Karl R-E-A-D!
Wikipedia:
2002: Coup and strike/lockout
Further information: Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002
Mass demonstration leading to the coup against Hugo Chavéz in 2002On April 9, 2002, CTV leader Carlos Ortega called for a two-day general strike. Hundreds of thousands[38] took to the streets on April 11, 2002 and marched towards the headquarters of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), in defense of its recently-fired management. The organisers decided to redirect the march to Miraflores, the presidential palace, where a pro-Chávez demonstration was taking place. Gunfire and violence erupted between two groups of demonstrators, Caracas' Metropolitan Police (under the control of the oppositionist mayor), and the Venezuelan national guard (under Chávez's command), and snipers were reported from the areas where both opposition and Chávez supporters were concentrated. Various civilians were shot and died in the incident.
The coup against the democratically-elected Venezuelan government was approved and supported by the government of the United States, acting through senior officials, including Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra figure and George W. Bush's "democracy 'tzar'" Elliott Abrams, who have long histories in the U.S.-backed "dirty wars" in Central America in the 1980s, and links to right-wing death squads working in Central America at that time.[39] Top coup plotters, including Pedro Carmona himself, began visits to the White House months before the coup and continued until weeks before the putsch. The plotters were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.[39] Television footage of pro-Chavez supporters returning fire on anti-Chavez police was spliced to make it look like they were firing on unarmed anti-Chavez opponents. When this was screened on US television, it helped increase public support for Bush's backing of the coup.
After Chávez resumed his presidency in April 2002, he claimed that a plane with U.S. registration numbers had visited and been berthed at Venezuela's Orchila Island airbase, where Chávez had been held captive. On May 14, 2002, Chávez alleged that he had definitive proof of U.S. military involvement in April's coup. He claimed that during the coup Venezuelan radar images had indicated the presence of U.S. naval vessels and aircraft in Venezuelan waters and airspace. The Guardian published a claim by former US intelligence officer Wayne Madsen alleging U.S. Navy involvement.[41]
These are FACTS. What do you have?
anybody who comes to OUR country, and diss OUR president *like him or not* would be a good indication that he really doesn't like our country. Whenever a man TAKES OVER private own businesses *oil fields, and media companies* chances are that he isn't the best of people.
Didn't Chavez won his election by 85 percent? Tell me what was the LAST president we had who won by that much?
*edits* its almost like you are happy that we "failed" with this situation. Are you happy because Bush failed, or because you like Chavez?
1. anybody who comes to OUR country, and diss OUR president *like him or not* would be a good indication that he really doesn't like our country. Whenever a man TAKES OVER private own businesses *oil fields, and media companies* chances are that he isn't the best of people.
* Last year, the Venezuelan president offered up to 8 million gallons to needy New Yorkers in the South Bronx. Only 1 million gallons were actually delivered because of delays in launch the program and a mild winter, but that program is now expanding to all five boroughs.
President Chavez visited a Harlem church Thursday to roll out what many are calling Part II of Chavez's oil gift.
This is your opinion - I asked for facts.
(to R-E-A-D the rest see: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_264060754.html)
2. Didn't Chavez won his election by 85 percent? Tell me what was the LAST president we had who won by that much?
a) I f-n showed you that I got my information from Wikipedia and you still write some bogus comeback?!?!?!?
NO, Karl Rove, he did not win by 85% of the vote. * "By May 1998, Chávez's support had risen to 30% in polls, and by August he was registering 39%. Chávez went on to win the 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56% of the votes.[13][23]
Re-election
* General elections were held on July 30, 2000. Chávez's coalition garnered two-thirds of seats in the National Assembly while Chávez was reelected with 60% of the votes.
3.*edits* its almost like you are happy that we "failed" with this situation. Are you happy because Bush failed, or because you like Chavez?[/QUOTE]
I won't even dignify this, except to say that this, again is your opinion. Which is, after reading all of your posts, is actually not your opinion, but what you suck from the tit of "the machine".
It's people like you who are the loudest, most convicted and the most wrong. You don't even feel bad or humble by the fact that you have no independent political thought of your own.
It's sad really. Somehow your emboldened by your ignorace?!?!? 
I have no idea how that works and I don't want to. I'm done with responding to you on this and any other board. Good bye. You are the weakest link.
What is your point i was talking about the quality of oil in the Middle East not where it ends up. We get most of our Middle East Oil from Saudia Arabia Jordon Qatar and Kuwait. We also get from other sources also minimal from Iran and Iraq.
Private companies broker deals for crude. Refine it, and ship to various countries. Venezula is a small player in the crude oil market compared to the other players. They will gain in prominence as the higher quality oil reserves become depleted.
Our policy is to use everyone else oil then our own. I see how you get your misnomer. Your deflection of a statement, which you thought was a rhetorical question, shows your lack of knowledge in this area.
Where's the proof that we get oil from IRAN right now?
Been away for a lil while, I'm going to have to take time to read thru and sort out truth from the utterly asinine, nomenclature... 
The United States began sanctions against Iran after U.S. diplomats were held hostage during the 1979 revolution and has ratcheted up sanctions in recent years due to Tehran’s alleged support of terrorism, as well as its efforts to enrich uranium -- efforts that the United States sees as a covert attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
Under U.S. sanctions, American gas and oil companies are severely limited in how much they can invest in Iran, and most other companies are banned from doing business in Iran. However, the United States has little control over foreign companies, and until very recently the U.S. government has chosen not to sanction foreign companies that deal with Iran.
But this has changed. The U.S. Treasury has stepped up pressure on European banks and the State Department has taken a harder line, warning foreign companies that operate in the United States to avoid business with Iran.
The economic consequences of sanctions are not Iran’s only motivation. The declining value of the dollar has also made the euro and yen attractive, if not for sales, than at least for saving.
“There is also another key issue that you are seeing, not just in Iran, but in other oil producers, especially Gulf oil producers, is given the depreciation of the dollar, it is better to hold their reserves at least in euros, it is a better store of wealth. Some of the other Gulf producers will accept payment in euros.
Like I said minimal imported from Iran. Mostly thru foreign companies. You do realize that the traditional Big Oil companies also create shell companies registered as business in foreign countries, that they hold majority stock in, and have members on their boards. Damn, do you have proof that we don't besides an embargo. You do know that there are ways around an embargo right. Example Corp A of Iraq sells to Corp B of Japan. Corp B of Japan sells to Corp C doing business in America. Wait, here is the kicker, Corp C is based outside of the US. No violation of embargo. No US companies involved.
Here endeth the lesson.
Last edited:
My point is, with all the bypassing, who says that majority of their *Iran* would even touch our shores. I would be foolish to say that NONE of Iran's oil comes to the US, however I do believe that there's a small amount we deal with by the method you just point out so vividly.
Here's an actual chart of the top countries who imports oil to the United States.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
0
What is your problem with debating a war because its still going on. How else are we suppose to do the right thing for our troops and the Iraq people. Following your logic one could never fix a mistake.
BTW Before you say it pointless to rehash why we are in Iraq I ask you to remember this. Bush and his underlings often reassert there reasons for going to Iraq has key reason why we cant leave. It then becomes necessary debunk the reasons all over again.
What makes a war a mistake? Political jabber? Unpopular president? What makes everyone so sure that if a democrat was in office, we wouldn't be in the same situation? I hear all this "Bush and his underlings" bs, however, people ALWAYS forget that Clinton planned for a regime change back in 1998. The point of debating all this becomes counter-productive. Think about it for a minute, if Iraq actually become like the Japan of the middle east, who will benefit the most as a foreign nation? Certainly not our enemies. The United States have its way to fix their wrong doings when all the smoke clears. So to make a long story short, people need to just have a little more patience about this situation. This thing might just end up being the best military move in our history *if done right*.
If the politics were taking out of the equation. When we let our generals, and troops fight this war. When both parties finally see the benefit of us winning this war. You know shit like that...
*edits* I thought I was on your ignore list for being too partisan...
