Free Dating Site    

Liberals still want us to believe that we went into Iraq for oil. We didn't go to Iraq for oil. Iraq has nothing to do with oil, other than making sure the Iraqi oil fields remain functioning and don't end up in the hands of terrorists. But we went there on the basis of national security and defeating terrorism. We went to Iraq as part of the war on terror. We didn't go there for oil.

Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.

"I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point.

No, no, no, Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.

- Alan Greenspan
The Age of Turbulence
(last quotes from Woodward interview discussing it )

Biden later asked, "Since when does this administration think that if you sit down, you have to eliminate the word 'no' from your vocabulary?"

Doubts about Obama with Jewish Americans were stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of Hamas.

Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist group that controls the Palestinian territory of Gaza.

Obama last week called the Hamas allegation a "smear" and lashed out Thursday at Bush's speech in Israel.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign.

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said.

To think that this was not directed at Obama is foolish. And to think that this was not to do a little more fearmongering while he's out of town is also foolish.

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finnish courts to prosecute the aggressors in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as: [2][3][4]

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

Fadel Gheit, Oil Analyst at Oppenheimer & Co's New York Office reports:

A select group of oil company executives met with Bush administration energy officials in the spring of 2001 for secret high level discussions regarding Iraq's oil reserves.[13]

Iraq is nestled in the heart of an area of heaviest oil concentration in the world with easy accessibility - no permafrost, no deep water, just giant pools of oil right beneath the warm ground. Iraq has vast quantities of untapped and easily accessible oil, almost untouched.

"Think of Iraq as virgin territory .... This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently .... It is the superstar of the future," says Gheit, "That's why Iraq becomes the most sought-after real estate on the face of the earth."

Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil was not a major factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Gheit compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame."

Iraq, however, was defenceless and utterly lacking in weapons of mass destruction [ironically] thus making it a particularly easy target. And its location nestled between Saudi Arabia and Iran, makes Iraq an ideal location for an ongoing US military presence from which the US will control the entire Gulf region.

Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

Although the Bush administration vociferously objected, another Task Force sourced document was released under court order, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields". The "Foreign Suitors" document identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies the particular Iraqi oil fields each company was interested in and the status of relevant negotiations with Saddam Hussein's regime on their exploitation. Royal Dutch/Shell, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total/Elf Aquitaine, were all identified as potential developers in the fabulous, 25-billion-barrrel Majnoon oil field. Baghdad had "agreed in principle" to the French company's plans to develop this major oil holding in Iraq, however Cheney's Energy Task Force could not allow plans for French exploitation of the Iraqi fields to proceed.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_War

Of course he's right. He looked authoritative. He looked more authoritative than McCain does. He looked more authoritative than Obama does. What is going on here is that the Democratic party is trying to create a false issue. Bush with an unprecedented political attack from foreign soil. They're trying to create a false issue.

He spent time in the Muslim world, and his middle name is Hussein,

there's a lot in this quote to trouble you and to bother you.

if you can show me anywhere in the text of that speech that Bush mentions names I will side with you.

Or if President Bush really was alluding to Obama what difference does it make?

Though the Bush Administration has claimed they were only aiming at Carter, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder contradicts such a notion with quotes from two well-respected Washington reporters, both of whom cited anonymous Administration officials who admitted Bush's comments were a jab at Obama.

both of whom cited anonymous Administration officials who admitted Bush's comments were a jab at Obama.

without explicit UN support of such an act

Bush started a war of aggression in Iraq, without explicit UN support of such an act

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] ”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

people seem to think the US isnt attempting diplomacy with Iran. We are, they arent taking it. Its been on the table for years now, let international inspectors see what you are up to with your nuclear ambitions, you can join us in the international community rather than being segrigated from it. They dont want any of it. No amount of wit is going to change their mind.

Bush made this speech in front of a bunch of Israeli dignitaries. People who are from a country Iran has sworn they wish to destroy.

I thought he was talking about Carter

aww, did the little 42 year old lawyer feel dissed by a sitting president with two successful elections to his credit, one by a landslide? the leader of the free world? what a crybaby. what a little girl. not exactly presidential timbre, eh?

To those of you who've received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done, and to the C students... I say, you to can be President of the United States.

- President George Bush Jr.
Monday, May 21, 2001
Speech ,Yale University

I remind people that, like when I’m with, Condi, I say she’s the Ph.D. and I’m the C student and just look at who’s the president and who’s the adviser.

President Bush
Sep 20th, 2007

not exactly presidential timbre, eh?