Senator Worried About Cutoff of Venezuelan Oil

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wants to know what contingency plans the United States has in place to counter a disruption in crude oil and petroleum product imports from Venezuela.

Venezuela is the fourth-biggest petroleum exporter to the United States, even though the State Department has said the OPEC (news - web sites) member is not a reliable supplier.

There is continuing political unrest in Venezuela and a workers' strike several years ago severely disrupted oil shipments to the U.S. market for months.

Sen. Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana, who heads the foreign relations panel, asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate what the United States can do to handle a cutoff in Venezuelan oil supplies.
...
Lugar also wants to know if there are any significant oil installations in Venezuela that could be targeted for attack by opponents to the country's controversial president, Hugo Chavez.
"In today's climate of high oil prices, the politics and conditions of the U.S.'s fourth largest oil exporter are of critical importance to our country," Lugar said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20050113/pl_nm/energy_congress_venezuela_dc

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Why don't they tell Chavez that we'll give him a carpet of gold if they

cooperate or a carpet of bombs if they don't. It worked so well with the Taliban.

:eyes:

[tekriter]

2. Venezuela's not that far away...

"Lugar also wants to know if there are any significant oil installations in Venezuela that could be targeted for attack by opponents to the country's controversial president, Hugo Chavez. "

Or that we could grab if we need to...

[IndianaGreen]

7. The US has been raping Latin America for centuries

No one has complained about our illegal attack on Panama when its President Noriega failed to follow our orders, and Lugar did not say a word about the CIA's failed coup to topple Chavez. The US was also involved in the removal of President Aristide of Haiti, replacing him with narco-traffickers and torturers that were more amenable to Washington's dictates.

The fact that Lugar is asking this stupid question leads me to believe that he has been briefed about a new coup attempt by the CIA, or perhaps Bush is confident that no Democrat will oppose him if he decides for outright invasion of Venezuela under the pretext of protecting American lives.

[Robbien]

10. The Chavez Opposition is us. Lugar wants to know if we are going to

attack oil installations?

What game is Lugar playing here?

[IndianaGreen]

12. He is probably setting the PR stage for a US invasion of Venezuela

Capitalism is in crisis! Chavez switched to euros and he now threatens to confiscate the land owned by a British royal. Outrage!

[leesa]

25. Not only that. He signed an exclusive contract with China for oil.

So they try to overthrow him 2 or 3 times in the last couple of years and then expect him to trade with them???

[reprobate]

69. With what army?

A huge percentage of our military is tied up in iraq and Afghanistan. And don't forget his plans for Syria and Iran. Not to leave our north Korea.

And there is a beginning unification of south America against the yankee dictator *. I can see no successful outcome of a US invasion of Venezuela. Even our attempted coups failed because he is so popular at home.

It's a helluva thing to say, but there's this little voice inside me that keeps hoping that *someone* will protect us from this fascist regime. But then I'm an optimistic cynic.

[Massachusetts]

3. Chinas 120,000 barrell a month deal with Venezuala

will probably grow much more, putting U.S. imports at risk.

Thats the story behind the story.

[CarpeVeritas]

79. maybe China oughta read the monroe doctrine.

This is our hemisphere, dammit!

those South American "leaders" are cute- the way they think they can do whatever they want with our rightful resources that just happen to be located temporarily within their borders...
:eyes:

[arcos]

87. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[w4rma]

4. They can try BUYING oil from Venezuela, instead of trying to take it. (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

8. Our plans to take Iraq's oil are in hiatus right now...

those damned Iraqis refuse to let us rape and pillage them in the proper imperialist fashion.

[Benhurst]

14. How ungrateful! Why can't they just thank us for all we've done?

I guess they don't understand the bomblove concept, which grew out of Toughlove. We only bomb the ones we love. If we aren't bombing you, we don't love you.

[IndianaGreen]

16. What more do they want as we screw them? Vaseline?

Ungrateful bastards. They should be worshiping us for we are the agents of Jesus who, according to Bush, talks to him everyday telling him what to do.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. "There is continuing political unrest in Venezuela?"

Bullshit. The conspirators went back into smokey room planning mode after the recall. The absence of news of unrest from Venezuela says it all. Or do you think the "liberal" media would let it pass if there was anything even remotely bad going on?

[sam sarrha]

6. looks like we are the source of most of it..!!

[VegasWolf]

9. The world starting to put the squeeze on it's newest evil dictator,

georgie.

[Robbien]

11. Christopher Dodd, Lincoln Chafee and Bill Nelson just visited with

Chavez this past Monday. They said they urged Chavez "to reach out and bring in all points of view." To the press they said they had high hopes for improved relations.

The Senators promptly left the Chavez meeting and went to meet with with representatives of Sumate, the Opposition movement funded by NED.

If they truly wanted better relations with Venezuela would they be meeting with the Opposition? I think not!

[Rose Siding]

52. Did they really?

That's so disappointing. I was glad to read about their visit- two dems and a rino.

snip>
"We know there have been problems between the two countries, but today is a new year, a new page, and we are here to find out if we can begin a new relationship," Dodd said at a news conference.

Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island, agreed and added, "It's got to be a two-sided approach to improving relations."
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBD4P6NT3E.html

Do you have a link about them meeting with the opposition? I'd be interested in reading that. thanks

[daleo]

13. A new version of pre-emptive war

"Lugar also wants to know if there are any significant oil installations in Venezuela that could be targeted for attack by opponents to the country's controversial president, Hugo Chavez."

I read this as Lugar implying "we have to invade Venezuela to help protect their oil installations from attack by Chavez's opponents". Which is absurdly circular reasoning, since Lugar and his crowd are Chavez's main opponents.

[0007]

15. Venezuela exports 16% of the oil we use, if Venezuela is the

forth biggest, I wonder who is the fifth biggest? Is Canada the biggest? Where does Kuwait and Saudi and Mexico and Nigeria
come in, and what are we sucking out of Iraq?

[Bono71]

18. I always thought that Mexico was numero uno and that

Venezuela, numero dos.

[Minstrel Boy]

23. Canada is the biggest.

And I'm not just saying that. ;)

[Wisc Badger]

17. Some of you seem to think

that a major disruption of oil into the US would be a good thing.

A major disruption of the economy and ability to transport goods, heat homes etc a good thing???

I think that Venezuela should be able as a country to get as high a price for it's commodity (oil) as they can in an open market. China's purchase of oil all over the world should be a wake up call for the US and our blind energy policy no doubt about it.

But hoping for bad things for the nation???

This what gives progressives a bad rap. And those who are moving in that direction such as me (a recovering Republican) a military vet pause.

Maybe toning down the anti-US all the time talk (although some criticism is justified, just use some common sense) should be considered.:toast:

[Bono71]

19. Agree 100%. n/t

[Nostradammit]

61. Surprise, Suprise!

.

[TankLV]

68. I'm not surprised you chimed in here!

[IndianaGreen]

20. Let us not badmouth the criminal enterprise that the US happens to be

Let us not shake the American people from the delusion that America's prosperity is the result of hard work on their part rather than a byproduct of the exploitation of the resources and peoples from other nations.

How often have we heard Americans use the phrase "our oil" when referring to another nation's oil resources. Imperialism is alive and well!

[superconnected]

21. crumb, walmart is america

I always thought we were mcdonalds but we are clearly walmart.

[Bono71]

22. Say wha? Criminal enterprise? With respect to Iraq,

I'll give you that...but you seem to think all of America's prosperity is based on criminal activity...this is overbroad, no?

See you at the next politburo meeting.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Oil makes U.S. raise military stakes in Colombia

Just one small example of how we murder and displace people in order to take their resources to keep our SUVs running with cheap gas. Paid in blood!

Did you think that Clinton's Plan Colombia, and his keeping the torture and assassin School of the Americas humming along at Fort Benning under a new name, had anything to do with freedom or democracy?

Oil makes U.S. raise military stakes in Colombia

by Bill Weinberg
Bill Weinberg, author of "Homage to Chiapas: The New Indigenous Movements in Mexico" (Verso, 2000), is currently working on a book on Plan Colombia.

November 26, 2004

President George W. Bush's quick stop in Colombia on his return from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Chile on Monday brought this forgotten front in Washington's war on terrorism briefly into the headlines. Bush promised Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe - his closest South American ally - to boost aid for his military campaign against leftist guerillas.

Just two weeks earlier, 100 unarmed peasants were killed in a massacre reportedly by rightist paramilitary troops in Colombia's southern jungle province of Putumayo. Unlike the Bush visit, this failed to make headlines here.

Colombia has received $3.3 billion in U.S. aid since 2000 - making it the top recipient after the Middle East. In October, Congress approved doubling the Pentagon's troop presence in Colombia to 800 - although they are officially barred from combat.

The Iraq war may have knocked Colombia off the front page, but Mideast chaos has made South America's energy resources more strategic to the United States. Colombia itself is among the top 15 global suppliers to the United States, and Uribe hopes to privatize the country's oil industry as part of his push to join President Bush's Free Trade Area of the Americas. Venezuela, bordering Colombia, is the fourth-largest U.S. supplier after Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Canada. Venezuela's populist leader Hugo Chavez is himself a White House target for Western hemisphere "regime change" - as seen by the current push for sanctions.

http://www.prensarural.org/bill20041126.htm

[Bridget Burke]

26. The USA backed the unsuccessful coup against Chavez.

That's not the right way to foster friendly relations.

[Bono71]

28. Agree with you there, 100%. n/t

[spotbird]

37. I'm sort of in a camp that we haven't made any friends in the ME

lately either.There is a price to be paid for international contempt as foreign policy, all Americans will have to pay it unfortunately.

Speaking for myself, this is a predictable result of US foreign policy. That policy scares me to the core, I take no joy in the fact that absolutely foreseeable consequences came to be. I'd have much rather been safe and prosperous individually and as a country, then right that we are headed for disaster.

[leesa]

30. We tried to OVERTHROW a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader at least

twice over the last couple years in Venezuela. What the hell do you call that??

You should learn your facts before you moralize.

[Bono71]

33. Chill out...I agree we aren't saints...and I didn't "moralize"

I simply stated that calling all wealth creted by Americans as being gained in a "criminal fashion" is a little overbroad...if you don't agree, that is your problem, but I don't think you are immoral, just uninformed.

[sarahlee]

58. Read

Eduardo Galeano's "Memory of Fire" Trilogy. Look for the translation by Cedric Belfrage.

[aikido15]

83. You are correct...

Has this person heard of El Salvador or Colombia or Peru or how about what we are doing in Iraq...criminal means...you bet!

[TankLV]

71. And we can look forward to seeing you at the next Nazi rally!

You and your brownshirt buddies in the repuke party.

That is a more likely outcome.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

88. Slavery? Robber barons? Fascism? CIA de-stabilizing countries?

War-profiteering to build up Hitler?
War-profiteering by dominating the Europe he shattered?
Sweat shop wage-slave labor in Central and South America?
War-profiteering by building up Saddam?
War-profiteering by arming the world?
Stoking the Iran/Iraq war on both sides?
Invading most countries on the planet atleast once?
GAAT? WTO? Trilateral Commission?
Apartheid in the US?

What is the 'good' part of a balanced view of this country's relation to the world?

I'm trying to think of something...Frisbees?

[leesa]

27. Bush made his bed and now we all have to lie in it.

Get off your flippin' anti-American BS. Bush is the anti-American. Blame the right people.

[Bono71]

29. I agree that * is responsible...but what I think he was

referring to was the sense that some seem to rejoice in the poor performance of the economy and our looming energy crisis.

[leesa]

31. And some people like to pretend we aren't at fault.

[Bono71]

32. The looming energy crisis certainly isn't

all of our "fault." Granted, our energy policy stinks (our fault), but their is little we can do to stop China from growing and needing more oil (other than bombing the hell out of them, or hoping they return to a system of government that stagnates growth, ie, communism)...moreover, last I checked, there is a limited supply of oil...that doesn't mean we should illegally invade countries (Iraq) or work to overthrow elected governments (Venezuela), but it certainly means a tougher economy...

His point was, why cheer the fact that transportation and other fundamental costs are about to skyrocket...this is good for no one.

[Old and In the Way]

38. No, it's the fault of those who should have seen the geopolitical picture

25 years ago but opted to continue a US foreign policy that promoted their vision of a US energy policy that, in turn, made them rich and politically powerful.

The mess we are in today didn't start happening yesterday. This has been in the works for 25 years. And with the exception of Clinton's tenure, this has been the work of Republican Roilists.

[w4rma]

39. Royalists. (nt)

[Old and In the Way]

41. No, Roilists

as in rOILists, they are the political royalty in this country today.

[Bono71]

40. Again, I agree our policy stinks (or if you like, has stunk for

25+ years)...

However, nothing we do can stop the Chinese (or India) from wanting more oil as a result of their blossoming economies...given a limited supply, prices will conitue to increase over the rate of inflation, regardless of our geopolitical strategy.

For what it's worth...I agree, the last 25 years have been wasted.

[ashmanonar]

56. mmhmmm

the past 25 years HAVE been wasted...we could have begun research on new fuel sources in the late 70's, or on non-fossil fuel power (nuclear comes to mind, but of course there are environmental concerns...actually, we're beginning to get wind power in marquette, michigan, it's pretty amazing)...so that now, we wouldn't be looking at oil wars and problems...

but that would preclude the neocons coming to power, so that never happened...and we have imperialists to contend with, instead of progressive and visionary politicians...:eyes:

how many chances have been wasted in these past 2 and a half decades?

[NEOBuckeye]

60. Maybe if the Kennedys hadn't been assassinated?

Both John and Bobby seemed to be on the path that would have taken the US down a very different path, had they been allowed to do so. Bobby, in particular, may have become the true spiritual heir to Franklin Roosevelt in many, many ways. He was before my time, but all that I've read about him suggested that he was going through quite an "awakening" near the end of his life.

Sadly, the right wing realized the threat he posed to their existence and murdered him for it.

So, instead of higher mind, purpose and vision for the United States and the world, we got Nixon, who eventually gave way to Reagan, and then those dirty bastards, the Bushes. All of them tools of Big Oil and Eisenhower's infamous Military-Industrial complex (e.g. Carlyle). Short sighted men, all of them, who pissed away our future for their own, personal, short term gain.

Fucking bastards.

[ashmanonar]

62. you've probably got the right idea...

the kennedys, despite some personal problems (politicians are like that anyways), did seem to have the right idea...and besides, the warren commission never did seem to make sense...i'd say that according to occam's razor and the concept of motivation and MO, the right wing is more than likely culpable for the kennedys' assassinations.

*holds tinfoil on head firmly, to avoid it being blown off in a storm of hot air as i am flamed* :7

[rockedthevoteinMA]

64. I would say I agree...

have you read this one?
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

tinfoil might be needed. LOL.

[ashmanonar]

73. that link is amazing.

the sad fact is that everything that the author enumerates in the article is true...or at least fairly well established...

i'm beginning to think the crazy people are the only normal ones out there...

[Old and In the Way]

80. Nixon was Prescott Bush's handpicked protege.

And Nixon brought Bush Sr. into the government to run CIA. From there, Bush weaseled his way into the VP slot, where he controled US energy policy ($) and covert actions to help his RW reactionary friends in SA.

See how the family works?

[AP]

63. Ugh. The opportunity cost of our oligopoly has been immense.

[oneighty]

42. 1,300,000,000 Chinese

300,000,000 Americans.

The day is rapidly approaching when bombs will not be enough.

I bet.

180

[Bono71]

44. We are already there. n/t

[CarpeVeritas]

78. how are they going to get here?

if that's what you're implying, that is...

invading the u.s. would be no easy proposition, and the insurgency the american people would put up on nay "liberators" would put the iraqi's to shame with it's ferocity.

[eridani]

75. Actually, it's pretty good for us.

May just give us the impetus we need to cut out the imperial bullshit and invent our way into the next energy economy. Get used to it--there is a finite amount of oil. We'll have that tough economy one way or another, and I'd like to see us move toward where we have to be technologically while it's still comparatively easy.

[Old and In the Way]

81. This is where Kerry blew it, IMHO.

He had the makings of a great vision. Reinvent our energy economy and recreate new jobs to make it happen. He had the basic ideas down, but he should have made it the centerpiece of his campaign. Not only would it have shown the US that there was a viable alternative to oil which could make our current national security issues in the ME become moot, but it would have given America a new "man on the moon in 10 years" type program to make it happen.

Of course, this would have been a whole hell of a lot easier before Dimson gave the money away to the 2% in taxbreaks...making structural changes in our economy impossible. I think it was a pre-emptive strike to keep us energy dependent on oil.

Kerry/Edwards should have pounded this theme:

Republicans = Oil = Wars = Dead End
Democrats = Alternative Energy = Jobs = Real Future

[Old and In the Way]

35. No one here is rooting for America's demise.

If you were on the board back before the invasion of Iraq, you'd know that most here stated a simple fact. It was always in our best interests not to invade Iraq to try and steal their oil. In retrospect, that view was precisely correct. We've spent $200BB of taxpayer money and what have we gotten? A higher market price for oil and a major hit on our international reputation and no end to a quagmire draining American blood and treasure.

We also know that this administration has been working to destabilize Chavez in Venezuala, precisely because he wants to nationalize their oil for the benefit of the people of Venezuala. He's won his election and recall referendum because the overwhelming number of Venezualans support him. I guess that means democracy is alive and well there.

IMHO, Republican foreign policy that started with Reagan/Bush in 1980 is responsible for the mess we are in today. They set us up to be oil dependent at a time when Carter was making an effort to wean us off oil (remember OPEC?)and do things like invest in alternative/renewable energy and practice conservation. They brokered cheap oil deals back then...we got "Morning in America", but the bill has come due and we're now seeing the logical progression into "Evening in America".

So, as a former Republican, you ought not to question our love of this country, but understand that we believe there has been a 25 year progression of Republican leaders who have sold out this country to line their pockets, maintain political power, and boost the profits of their #1 benefactor: US Big Oil. In the process, the ME country, Saudi Arabia- where 15/19 hijackers originated, is vested in our country to the tune of Trillions of US dollars. That's a real nationalsecurity issue.....and it was the Bush family who have allowed this to happen. That's treason in my book.

[Toucano]

36. Not one post said or implied that

major disruption would be a good thing. Not a single one.

This is what gives recovering Republicans like you a bad rap: you seem unwilling to recognize the difference between criticizing the US and criticizing the asshole fucks who run the US.

The actions taken by our leaders - on both sides of the aisle - don't reflect the best interests of the population. It is those actions that people are criticizing. Those actions are not the US or it's people.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

65. Wisc Badger, I tend to feel the same, but there have been

many things I have read over the past year or so that have opened my eyes. I was a politically apathetic 20 something two years ago... till the war started. If you have the chance, there is a book you must read.
It paints a pretty bleak picture, but gives you the general idea of what's going on now in the world. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast. It covers it all. From the 2000 selection to Venezuela, to the Mideast, World Bank, IMF, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452283914/002-8120921-8069660?v=glance

[TankLV]

70. Who's hoping for bad things for the nation?

Name one example.

We are concerned about the survival of a democratically elected leadership - Chavez's - BIG DIFFERENCE!

Of course, you and your (2) supporters here conveniently forget that the US has tried THREE TIMES in the past couple years TO OVERTHROW THIS OVERWHELMNGLY POPULAR PRESIDENT!

[reprobate]

74. You really should learn some history on our involvement in central america

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html


Between 1890 and 2004 we invaded the following countries 52 times.

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Cuba
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Haiti
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
Puerto Rico
Venezuela

Almost all of these were to either ensure a regime favorable to our commercial interests, or to bail those commercial interests out of trouble.

Can you cite any other nation that has invaded or interceded militarily in other nations anywhere approaching this number?

"Some criticism"?

I think NONE of us wishes for bad things for our nation. But most of us realize that 'what goes around comes around', the principle of 'as you sow, so shall you reap'.

Remember that none of us on this board were responsible for any of these invasions. They were formulated and planned by those we tend to call the power structure. And they, as well as we, will suffer for it.

This is not a wish, just a prediction.

[aikido15]

84. Gee, makes ya proud to be an American...

:eyes:

[Quakerfriend]

34. Part of the problem is that Chavez

announced last week that he plans to sell his oil for Euros and not dollars.

[eridani]

76. Oopsie. Last guy to do that was Saddam n/t

[Selatius]

77. That's the price the US government pays

For trying to destroy a democratically elected leader and government of a sovereign nation.

[aikido15]

85. Can anyone blame him?

As many times as we have invaded South America? He also made a deal with Cuba that will help the people in both of their countries...you know like health care and education? Fucking US needs to get a clue!

[David__77]

43. "Controversial president?" That would be Bush as well.

If the US progressives used the same tactics as the Venezuelan oligarchy, there'd be much worse repression here than there was there.

Chavez and the revolutionary forces there must be totally on guard against subversion. There will surely be more fascist coup attempts by the old forces. I believe that they have learned the lessons of Indonesia 1965 and Chile 1973: never rely on the old state powers, arm the masses of people and build parrellel political power in every arena, and build revolutionary leadership at all levels throughout the country.

[Robbien]

46. The controversy wouldn't even exist if it were not for US funding

and corporate elites. The corporate elites of Venezuela want to keep the status quo, all the riches for them and scraps for everyone else. Middle Class? We don't need no stinkin' middle class say the Venezuelian corporate elite.

[David__77]

47. It's a small point, but...

...the Venezuelan "middle class" is under the sway of fascism. But in that country, the majority are the working classes, not the shopkeepers and little businesspeople. Developing a middle class shouldn't be a progressive goal--raising the material level of the working class should be.

[Bono71]

48. Why would you not want to develop a middle class???? n/t

[David__77]

55. Because it implies that there must be a "lower class."

The point is the raise the bottom, not divide up the working people into potentially antagonistic blocs, which is what the right wants. The living standards must be raised without increasing further polarization.

[w4rma]

49. No. You want folks to have control over their own lives.

"Working class" implies that they will always be employees, rather than employers. You want as many employers (or single-person buisnesses) as possible.

[David__77]

54. No, not me. Not in the sense you mean.

I don't want that at all, unless you mean "self-employed" in the sense of the working people as a whole having ownership of the economy as a whole. There is a lot of disagreement on this matter.

[Ouabache]

59. historically, raising the material level of the working class creates a

LARGER middle class, does it not? Or maybe I do not understand your definition of 'material level'. Then again one of the problems of increasing the material level of the masses has been the underlying resultant that often the working class consciousness has decreased as their material level has risen. Odd that. Of course any perceptual differences of all this may be a problem with our varying definitions of terms. (?)

[AP]

72. Developing a large, strong middle class by rewarding work with

wealth, should be a progressive goal.

Now, Chomsky would say the term "middle class" is bunk and has been contrived to make people who work for a living think that they have class loyalites that lie with people who don't make their money from working for a living.

Chomsky is right. If you lose your job and starve, then you're working class, regardless of whether you're a doctor, lawyer or factory worker, and you all have an interest in an economy which delivers most of its wealth to people who work to earn it, and therefore, has a large, wealthy middle class.

[coreystone]

45. The Oil Belongs to Venezuela.....

and, if they want to trade with China, then, that is their right. If the USA feels as though as Chavez is a security risk to the United States because we fail to secure ourselves diplomatically with Venezuela, or any other country, then so be it. Obviously, we don't know how to make friends without establishing the fear of a CIA "coup d'etat".

Lugar's comments seem to be most "un-CHRIST" like. I know that historically this country originated from disobeying the 8th Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal". This country lives on the land that was stolen, and, now wants to extend the European Imperialist notions.

coreystone shakes head!!

[AndyTiedye]

50. Venezuela is Only Unstable Because

Boosh**co has continually been destabilizing them.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

67. mother jones had a chilling article last issue about the U.S.

and what we did in Haiti and Venezuela.

"But did the rebellion really spring from nowhere? Maybe not. Several leaders of the demonstrations -- some of whom also had links to the armed rebels -- had been getting organizational help and training from a U.S. government-financed organization. The group, the International Republican Institute (IRI), is supposed to focus on nonpartisan, grassroots democratization efforts overseas. But in Haiti and other countries, such as Venezuela and Cambodia, the institute -- which, though not formally affiliated with the GOP, is run by prominent Republicans and staffed by party insiders -- has increasingly sided with groups seeking the overthrow of elected but flawed leaders who are disliked in Washington."
more...
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/11/11_401.html

[trekbiker]

51. oil should be $5 gallon..

a smart energy policy would allow us to transition to other more efficient technologies. Instead Reagan, Bush 1 and bush 2 and thier allies in the auto, energy and oil industries have guaranteed many Wars in our future over OIL. When there's not enough vital resources to go around, that's what people usually fight about...

the 200 billion $$ and counting squandered in Iraq could have been used to cover South Dakota in advanced wind generation including the transmission lines to distribute energy to metropolitan centers. There is enough wind energy in South Dakota to power the eastern half of the US (and South Dakota is already an eyesore so who cares about a couple hundred thousand windmills right??)

The Toyota Prius gets 50+ mpg. It is a brilliant design. Why the hell are we pushing that technology with everything we've got??? Should be a 1960's "moonshot" type program to raise the average US fleet MPG from 24 mpg to 50mpg. that's how you reduce oil import requirements.. drilling in Alaska as an energy policy is absurd. I'm not against the big SUV's but at $5 per gallon you can have your SUV but you can also PAY FOR IT.

there is no energy policy in the US.. and wont be until it's too late and we go thru severe economic crisis and a few more wars. maybe with China??

but it's not all bad. there's a hell of a lot of money to be made in the next few years. Crises are always times of opportunity. I may hate Bush but that wont stop me from personally profiting from his insane policies.. BTW, I'm loving his 15% dividend tax rate. but Fuck him all the same...

[coreystone]

53. If We Had Made the Commitment to Energy Independent...

thirty to forty years ago, I feel as though the technology could have solved the problem of "storage". This is not my field, but, it only took us less than a decade to have a Earthling walk on the moon. It would SEEM that if the everyday citizen had the independence to have "stored" energy from the sun, wind, etc., then the oil corporations wouldn't have the little card to "suck" the American people from their money on a regular basis. This was never a Utopian idea in the 60's. It is the direction that this country, as leader in technology, should have been committed.

[TankLV]

57. Then stop pissing them off by trying to overthrow their democratically

government, you asswipe!

[genieroze]

66. to counter a disruption in crude oil?

When do we invade?

[Old and In the Way]

82. Nominated for front page....good collection of posts.

[aikido15]

86. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins...

Should be required reading for every American. This guy is a big time whistle blower on US foreign economic policies, he's been there and done that..GREAT BOOK, brand new release on it's 3rd or 4th printing...took me forever to get it! But well worth the wait.

Amazing...:wow: