BushCo on Iraq: It's all about the OIL

[sabra]

Collection of statements from BushCo over the past few months...

Cheney:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060910.html

<snip>

Think where we would be if he was still there. He would be sitting on top of a big pile of cash because he would have $65 and $70 oil.

Bush:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html

<snip>

Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic, but they could be -- they could not be more wrong. If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable -- and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies -- Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al Qaeda terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban. They would have a new sanctuary to recruit and train terrorists at the heart of the Middle East, with huge oil riches to fund their ambitions. And we know exactly where those ambitions lead. If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities.

Lieberman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/nyregion/23lieberman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

<snip>

Mr. Lieberman also reiterated his belief that the war against terrorists could drag on for several years, and that pulling troops out of Iraq would allow the Iranian government to move in and would increase the price of oil.

“If we walk away, then the Iranians will — as sure as I am talking to you — surge into Iraq, certainly take over the south and the oil that’s there,” he said. “We’ll be paying six or seven bucks a gallon. And that’ll just be the tip of it. I mean, there’ll be instability and war throughout the Middle East. We’ve got to wake up to this. It is the test, unfortunately, of not just this generation of American leaders, but of the next generation as well, because this enemy ain’t going away.”

Snow:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060809-1.html

<snip>

The second consequence would be, it would create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East with the second largest oil reserves in the world. Now if you think about what happened in Afghanistan, Afghanistan, a nation with far fewer resources, when it was able to serve as a terrorist training and staging ground, was able to do considerable violence to the United States and pose a threat to the rest of the world.

[neoblues]

1. Unpleasant as it is...

They do have a point. It doesn't exactly make it right for us to try to horn in on that oil by means of military might under guise of (insert whatever current or former excuse for invasion here).

Iran or the taliban or an anti-U.S. Iraq controlling, in unison with Iran, all of the oil shared between Iraq/Iran will make them the effective 'superpowers' (perhaps a new term "Oil Superpower" is appropriate here). They support terrorism and radical expansion of Islam and generally oppose the United States (not that we don't deserve considerable opposition; or, for that matter, deserve what we'll get--depending on what that turns out to be).

So, what to do? That's an extremely difficult question--and depending on your ideology, willingness to steal or oppress, or whatever in pursuit of one's national interests, has widely differing answers. All I do know is that I don't like their answers and would like to have better alternative answers available.

[sabra]

2. Well Bush said, that he plans to kick the addiction to foreign oil

so all is good :sarcasm:

[wuushew]

3. Who cares, its not like oil will last forever anyway

50 years max as affordable levels. Wouldn't it be better to transition to a sustainable economic model now while we only have 300 million people in this country?

Cheap energy just enables an ever increasing ponzi scheme that delays inevitable socialism and hard choices that politicians and the sheeple alike do not relish dealing with.

I would not worry too much a menacing "Islamic" superpower since absent the same oil revenues that region of the world has few enduring natural or cultural advantages to sustain global hegemony relative to any other competitor for the title. Besides isn't the 21st century supposed to be the Chinese century?

[damntexdem]

4. Oh, well that must certainly justify a war:

that a foreign leader might have control over his own country's oil wealth.

But of course this could never be used as an argument about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela.

Impeach the oilmen!