RE: RE: Energy policy, wherefore art thou?
Steve Brenneis responds to Behethland B. Clark:
So we invaded Iraq so that oil would be more expensive?
Let's see. Expensive oil is likely to sink whichever political party is in power, especially so with the occupant of the White House.
Also, expensive oil tends to suppress consumption, something the left has wanted to happen for quite some time.
So, the left is unhappy about Iraq because it will probably end up removing the Republicans from power and because it will accomplish something the left has been trying to do for years. Furthermore, it is the contention of the left that Bush/Rove did this on purpose. What am I missing here? I'm no fan of George Bush, but I suspect he and Karl Rove are just a wee bit smarter than that.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 3:40 PM
1 Comments:
Do you have any evidence to support the theory that Bush's "big business oil-cronies" had this in mind, or are you just going on the paranoid rantings of people like Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich? And who are these big business oil-cronies? Do they have names, or are they just the same "someones" who seem to form the basis of every conspiracy theory?
Let me point out just a couple of the concrete facts that make most of that theory go up in a puff of smoke. In order for an American business to get control of those oil fields, one of two things would be necessary. Either we would have to colonize Iraq and make it part of US soil or we would have to impose some kind of puppet government to turn a blind eye to the presence of an American corporation operating with impunity on their sovereign soil. Obviously, we have not annexed Iraq, so the first possibility is out. I hardly think holding free elections, especially when the outcome was completely in doubt, is the best way to go about installing a puppet government. Once again, I think the Bush political team is a little smarter than that. On top of all this is the fact that the Administration knew going in that Hussein's people would destroy the oil fields right off the bat. Part of the infrastructure repair estimates made before Iraq was even invaded included three to eight years of work to restore the oil fields. The overall plan had Iraq regaining its sovereignty well before that ever happened. Finally, proponents of this somewhat crackpot theory also neglect to account for the fact that if we took direct control of the Iraqi oil fields, the entire rest of OPEC would quit selling us oil immediately. Given that we obtain less oil in a month from Iraq than we burn in a day, the economies of the theory just don't hold water.
You say it was all about the money. What money? The $180 billion we had to spend in the endeavor? The same $180 billion expenditure that has Bush's current approval ratings in the crapper? That seems to be a favorite saying of leftists, but the sayer never quite makes it clear what money it is all about. I'm not really sure what you folks from the left find so evil about money that you would make it a motive for everything with which you disagree, but I guess that's for another thread.
As for assuring a GOP victory in 2004, two entities can claim nearly complete credit for that: Al Qaeda and the Democrat Party. After 9/11, if Bush had done nothing more than some Clinton-esque posturing, maybe bomb a baby food factory in Afghanistan, a GOP victory in 2004 was almost assured. Americans will not change the CinC when our security is threatened. The fact that the Democrats selected John Kerry to run was just icing on the cake. Whatever possessed the Democrats to run a pompous, condescending, hypocritical political chameleon at a time when people were looking for a modicum of honesty and integrity it beyond me. John Kerry was a charicature of himself. Throw in Hollyweird, the lunatics from MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and Dan Rather and I'm surprised Kerry did as well as he did. The only thing they could have done to seal their fate more permanently was to nominate Howard Dean. Of course they seem to be on the verge of rectifying that oversight any day. As a matter of fact, one of the worst moves Bush could have made politically was to march into the swamp that was Iraq. I suspect the only reason Bush didn't top Reagan's landslide was the war in Iraq. Sorry, the line of thinking that the Iraq war was for political gain is nearly as silly as the theory that it was to make a profit on oil.
Of all the things the invasion of Iraq was about, money and oil are not among them. Now if you had said it was about nation-building, pride, and power and that it was hypocritical, I would have agreed. Of course we would have had to apply those brush strokes to Bush's predecessor so I doubt you would go there. If you had opposed it on the grounds that it was a rank violation of constitutional federalism, I would have agreed as well, but I doubt you'll be going there.
Post a Comment
<< Home