Kerry: "troops risking their lives to protect pipelines around the world"

[welshTerrier2]

the following excerpt (see below) is from a speech made last month by John Kerry ... on the surface, it doesn't appear that there's much new here ... we see the usual objection, and very rightly so, to the energy bill's corporate welfare giveaway to Big Oil ... more than $14 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars were given away to an industry swimming in record profits ...

Kerry also called for greater energy independence ... it's one of the most critical issues facing the country ... nothing new there either but still very important to stay focussed on it ...

but tucked away in a list of those who will suffer from the recent corporate welfare energy bill came this somewhat unusual acknowledgment: "troops risking their lives to protect pipelines around the world" ... it's not that anyone should necessarily be surprised that we are using American troops to guard privately owned oil pipelines ...

what's most disturbing here is that there has never been any sort of national dialog about whether US troops should be used for such purposes ... in a world that will see greater and greater competition for the rapidly dwindling supplies of oil, we really need to decide as a nation whether we will intervene in sovereign nations to "procure and protect" our sources of oil ...

and if one accepts the idea of "protecting" privately owned oil pipelines, just what would that "protection" entail? many pipelines are hundreds of miles long ... it seems unlikely that the US would take a passive approach and "merely post a few guards" along their length ... the reality, and what better example is there than Iraq, is that the US will seek to overthrow sovereign governments to ensure they grant the US whatever military presence they seek to do whatever they want to do to protect privately owned oil sources ...

Democrats need to bring issues relating to the use of the American military to "protect and procure" oil before the national consciousness ... are we, as a nation, willing to engage in perpetual warfare to obtain the oil we critically need? ... if Americans do not come to understand that this may become a necessary option to sustain our society unless we rapidly make major changes in our energy policy, we are going to continue to dig ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole ... with each day that goes by, our options are becoming more and more unpalatable ...

Comments?

source: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=243483

“America’s energy problems are serious, and the president’s energy policy will do almost nothing to solve them. It is another missed opportunity, when politics beats out good policy.

“Instead of reducing our dangerous dependence on oil, protecting our environment and strengthening our economy, this policy gives billions of dollars to the oil, gas and nuclear industries.

“Americans will be able to judge the real world success of this energy policy every day at the pump. They won’t be fooled. Washington failed the American people on this one. Whether it’s consumers at the pump, troops risking their lives to protect pipelines around the world, businesses struggling to survive or kids breathing dirty air, nearly everyone got the short end of the stick.

[Wilms]

1. Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service

Published on Friday, October 8, 2004 by TomDispatch.com

Oil Wars

Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service

by Michael T. Klare

It has been argued that our oil-protection role is a peculiar feature of the war in Iraq, where petroleum installations are strewn about and the national economy is largely dependent on oil revenues. But Iraq is hardly the only country where American troops are risking their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, U.S. personnel are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission. American sailors are now on oil-protection patrol in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea routes that deliver oil to the United States and its allies. In fact, the American military is increasingly being converted into a global oil-protection service.

The situation in the Republic of Georgia is a perfect example of this trend. Ever since the Soviet Union broke apart in 1992, American oil companies and government officials have sought to gain access to the huge oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea basin -- especially in Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Some experts believe that as many as 200 billion barrels of untapped oil lie ready to be discovered in the Caspian area, about seven times the amount left in the United States. But the Caspian itself is landlocked and so the only way to transport its oil to market in the West is by pipelines crossing the Caucasus region -- the area encompassing Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the war-torn Russian republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia.

-snip-

Or take embattled Colombia, where U.S. forces are increasingly assuming responsibility for the protection of that country's vulnerable oil pipelines. These vital conduits carry crude petroleum from fields in the interior, where a guerrilla war boils, to ports on the Caribbean coast from which it can be shipped to buyers in the United States and elsewhere. For years, left-wing guerrillas have sabotaged the pipelines -- portraying them as concrete expressions of foreign exploitation and elitist rule in Bogota, the capital -- to deprive the Colombian government of desperately needed income. Seeking to prop up the government and enhance its capacity to fight the guerrillas, Washington is already spending hundreds of millions of dollars to enhance oil-infrastructure security, beginning with the Cano-Limon pipeline, the sole conduit connecting Occidental Petroleum's prolific fields in Arauca province with the Caribbean coast. As part of this effort, U.S. Army Special Forces personnel from Fort Bragg, North Carolina are now helping to train, equip, and guide a new contingent of Colombian forces whose sole mission will be to guard the pipeline and fight the guerrillas along its 480-mile route.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1008-23.htm

[welshTerrier2]

4. US kicked out of Uzbekistan

great article, Wilms !!! thanks for posting it ...

the following lyrics come to mind:

"there's battle lines being drawn
nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

we are approaching a global confrontation over oil and most Americans are unaware of the risks we face as a society ... calling for a better energy policy is NOT enough ... Democrats need to alert Americans to the dangers we face; it's the only hope left to get the country to change course ... it may already be too late ...

check out this article from today's "Globe and Mail" ... notice the unity being developed between many other countries to resist US domination ... we must not continue to allow the greedy profit-seekers to define our national energy policy and our foreign policy ... the future of the country hangs in the balance ...

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050910.wxcover10/BNStory/Front/

A few days before Katrina struck, for example, tiny Uzbekistan requested that the United States close its military base in the former Soviet republic and remove its troops within six months. This came just a month after a body called the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO) asked for a timeline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Central Asia.

[Imagevision]

70. Well get real, would you prefer to having pipelines going Boom

all around the world. I don't get this thread?? are you saying that perhaps the oil companies should protect their own interests??

[RallyInDC]

2. Hmmm Kerry said this in July?

Well I've been talking to alot of republican friends, and they have really had it with Cheney. Cheney is using everything as a business opportunity.

One said that the oil pipelines in the caspian sea, were the only reason the troops are over there protecting anything or staying. EXXON needs that oil to drive up its inflation, and build one of the largest drills in the states.

EXXON is planning on drilling the Gulf dry using a huge drill, if it can't get enough oil out of the states or get into Alaska. There's also some kind of plan to mine coal I heard too, from reading around.

Our energy dependence has gotten us into a real mess....They said Cheney should be fired and tried, but didn't say much of Bush. Other then he shouldn't have followed Cheney's policy bill and should resign....

[welshTerrier2]

5. BIG OIL: their interests are not American interests

welcome to DU, RallyInDC !! ... nice post ...

the US has been a predator nation for more than 100 years ... the oil companies have been able to both cause and exploit the US dependency on oil ... BIG OIL defines our energy policy and our foreign policy ... the industry has totally infested and corrupted our government ...

not only are our troops in Iraq for oil, but that was the reason we went into Afghanistan as well ... it was all about building a pipeline for Unocal ...

[RallyInDC]

9. He said as much too.

He said that he regretted not listening to Kerry, and sticking his foot in his mouth. The afghanistan war allowed UNICOL to get its pipeline, the taliban may not even exist, and he actually said the terrorist threats in afghanistan were made up.

That was crazy stuff!!

[kerrygoddess]

31. Well... I hate to break this to you and everyone else...

But Kerry was also saying this during the election.

[blm]

42. Pathetic what the media keeps us from hearing while they say Dems never

speak out against Bush or never offer any alternatives, when many Dems DO, but the media won't let the public HEAR IT.

Even here at DU, poor welsh had to go SEARCHING for this, because few actually really read the posted threads about the real actions and efforts of our Dems and those threads are doomed to the archives so quickly.

[welshTerrier2]

44. but it's more than just the media ...

i don't disagree that the media stifles our message ... i sometimes wonder whether this really is politically motivated or whether most issues are just not "sexy" enough ... perhaps the motivation is more profit than politics ... i wouldn't rule out either ...

but the problem goes beyond the media ... i just went back through a bunch of Kerry's emails that i regularly receive from him ... energy policy? nothing that i could find ... global oil wars? nothing again ...

Kerry and all "inner circle" Democrats need to make this a central plank of the Party's message ... they do appear on the Sunday morning shows ... Obama was on today ... Landrieu was on today ... maybe others ... i didn't hear anything about the coming oil wars ... i understand New Orleans will still be the major focus ... but Democrats do have opportunities to elevate the importance of this issue and they need to do a better job making the case ...

if the media refuse to let us get our message out, we either need to find alternative ways to do so or we might as well just stop fighting ...

[longship]

3. Does Kerry still say "we can't cut and run"?

If he does not stand for pull-out of Iraq, he is taking a totally inconsistent position.

I'm not saying he isn't for pull-out, but I certainly have not heard that he is for pulling out. I also have a problem with the fact that he has not recanted on his pre-election position that he would have still voted for authorization even knowing what he knew, that WMD's did not exist, lying into war, etc. As long as Kerry does not recitify either one of these discrepencies, he is a man I *cannot* support for President.

on edit: clarification

[paulk]

18. if you're really interested here is an article that deconstructs

the RW spin on Kerry's Iraq position.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105096/

It's from William Salaten, who is not particularily a fan of Kerry's.

I believe your understanding of Kerry's remarks vis a vis "authorization" are shaded by the right wing spin machine, and this article may help clear things up.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. Gee whiz

No reply regarding your article. Maybe they weren't as interested in Kerry's actual positions as they claimed? Imagine that.

[longship]

48. Well, I like DU, but I don't always have the time to respond.

So put your snide remark aside and get the chip off your shoulder.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. I'm sorry

I see lots of hit and run posters, but I shouldn't have assumed that you would be the same way. I apologize for judging you.

[longship]

47. Thank you very much.

I will read this today. I'm always willing to modify my opinion.

The one thing that sticks in my craw are Kerry words at the Grand Canyon before the election. I cannot help but think that it was a chance for him to make a "defining moment" for his campaign. Like many Kerry supporters I was severly disappointed. He lost many votes on that. If he wanted to be non-commital he should have just said that Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and let it go at that instead of getting into the complex game of "would he have supported the authorization knowing what he knew after the fact?" I know that that would have been a dodge, but it would not have pissed off his base and many swing voters who were soured on the war and looking for a reason to vote for Kerry. He didn't give them one.

[Mass]

49. Does somebody have the Newsweek piece explaining the circumstances

of the interview?

They explained that in the wind, Kerry did not hear the question, particularly the part about what he knew after the fact, and answered in fact to a different question.

Certainly, they should have come back and issued a rectification, but I guess they did not realize the importance of the mistake or were afraid of being called flip-flopper once again.

In the meantime Kerry has made numerous statements that he would never have gone to war had he been president at that time, including the famous "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and the "America should never go to war because it wants it, but because he needs it", but I guess the Grand Canyon is what sticked, thanks to our great MSM.

[longship]

55. I'm a bit confused on this.

The campaign should have issued a clarification. It didn't. They sat on their hands and let the media clobber them on it. Even then they did nothing to rectify the problem. Meanwhile Kerry was into his nuanced plans for Iraq and, even to me, the whole affair looked like Kerry was dropping the ball on Iraq. I can't count the times I would yell at Kerry on C-SPAN, "Would you have gone into Iraq knowing what you know now?" I knew what was happening and nothing was done to fix it.

I know it's nearly useless to rehash these things, but the next nominee must understand that this was not a trivial matter. It was a serious strategic faux pas.

[longship]

52. Okay. I've read the article.

I really cannot tell precisely what Kerry's position is because it is so nuanced. He really never comes out and commits to any particular position in "so many words". I see clearly that if he had been president in 2000-2004 we would *not* be in Iraq today. But that wasn't the issue in 2004.

The issue in 2004 was two things:

1. Would he have still voted for authorization knowing what he knew then about WMD's, etc? (a very good question, IMHO)

2. Did he have a plan to fix the Iraq problem other than some variation of "stay the course"?

The only definitive thing I heard on the former was his words at the Grand Canyon where he answered "Yes" to that question, a very wrong answer IMHO. The second question was never responded to in so many words. Kerry spoke of many plans for Iraq, but none of them were it's time to consider whether we should be pulling out--by itself not a fatal position IMHO.

He needed to come right out and say that it was wrong to go into Iraq. Period! Then, his more nuanced plan for Iraq's future would have had some legs in the campaign. The RW struck on his nuance as flip-flopping. He left himself wide open for that attack and no amount of additional nuance was going to fix it. He missed so many opportunities to set it straight. He never did. He still hasn't.

on edit: I still like Kerry as a Senator. He does good work. I often am cheering him on when he takes strong positions on an issue. I am equally sad when he doesn't. I could support him for President again, but not before the nomination is resolved. Then, I would again be a very strong supporter. If that happens I hope that his campaign manager takes him by his lapel and reads him the riot act about nuanced positions.

[paulk]

56. the problem with the "Would he have still voted for authorization"

question is that it's not a good question, IMO. It's a classic MSM "gotcha" question. The reasons Kerry voted for it were still valid - as he said. He felt that any President needed the authorization to use force in that situation. How could he have known the President was lying about the WMD? Also - the IWR did get the arms inspectors back in - which was Kerry's goal. It was Bush who didn't let them finish their job.

It's a pointless question to ask - what's done is done, and I would like to think Kerry was more focused on solving the problem rather than worrying about things that he couldn't change.

The Grand Canyon moment was not one of his better ones, obviously. But the press saw it as a chink in the armor and went after it relentlessly, while giving Bush's numerous gaffes a nod and a wink.


---------




Kerry was very clear in that if he were president, he would have waited for the arms inspections to run their course - and if they had we would have known there were no WMDs and consequently there would have been no invasion.

-------------

Could he have been more clear in saying the war was a mistake? Remember at the time of the election, most Americans still thought the war was a good idea. Could a candidate win an election during a shooting war where American troops are dying by saying the war is a mistake, especially when most Americans still support that war?



--------------


I don't find nuanced positions to nuanced problems a bad thing - but it definitely is a problem in today's world of soundbite politics...
It's a sad comment on the American electorate. An even sadder comment is that an idiot like George Bush, a man who can barely string a coherent sentence together, has been able to use that soundbite world to gain the White House - not once, but twice.



ed for sp.

[longship]

59. You are oh so correct.

And other than his answer to that specific question, Kerry was pretty good. However, Kerry often let the media frame the issues when he could have taken the lead. He let some opportunities slip away to set this issue right.

For instance, "The issue is *not* what I would've done but what I am going to do when I'm in the White House. This is what I will do.... blah, blah, blah."

Or better yet, "Look. Congressional votes for authorization was based on the deceptions of the Bush administration. Now we have to worry about eliminating the mess in Iraq. We're going to have to do many things differently than the President is proposing. This is what I'm going to do when I get into the White House. blah, blah, blah..."

He needed to kill a lot of the nuanced stuff, because in spite of the fact that some people pick up on it, the people who he wanted to go into the polls to vote for him, generally do not. It's a matter of targetting the message and framing it in terms of the target. Nuance is good in a major policy speech, but on the stump, it's a sure killer of votes.

Well, this is a very interesting discussion. I imagine that we could go over these points until the cows come home. When all is said and done Bush is still in the White House. We both hope that this comes to an end.

I'm willing to concede some of your points, though. I.E., that Kerry did address things and part of the problem was media twist and spin. It is very apparent that that happened.

If only, eh? Thanks for the respectful dialog.

[AnnieBW]

6. Protecting Our Way of Life

How dare you! Those troops are protecting our freedom and way of life! (driving gas-guzzlers up to the corner store) ;)

[leesa]

7. Yes. And you want to put more of their lives at risk. Go figure?!

[welshTerrier2]

8. i do ??

am i missing something here ??

[robbedvoter]

10. John dear, you voted for it and would have done it again in 2004

So, your point is?

[welshTerrier2]

11. it always mystifies me ...

the topic in this thread is hardly John Kerry ... criticizing him, where appropriate, is fine with me but the thread is about a very significant danger we are facing and the almost total failure of the Democratic Party to place this issue before the American people in the proper context ... it's one thing to call for a major change in energy policy but Americans are unlikely to demand change if they don't come to understand the risks we're facing ... and thus far, Democrats seem far too shy about spelling out all the risks ... perhaps they fear the "shoot the messenger syndrome" ...

if we are going to be so blinded by politics and candidates that we don't discuss issues like the one raised in the BP, we have little or no hope of solving them ...

[paulk]

19. it's not a mystery, really

there is a group of posters here at DU, a large group, actually, who upon seeing Kerry's name, in any context, feel an overpowering need to to jump into the thread and shit all over it.

It's an excellent way for people with an agenda to distract and shift the debate.

[welshTerrier2]

20. the mystery is ...

how to get people to look at ISSUES beyond their feelings about PERSONALITIES ...

not exactly the same situation but i've had discussions that went like this:
Me: so what is your position on this issue?
Them: i disagree with you and i agree with Candidate X's position.
Me: so if Candidate X changed his position tomorrow and agreed with my position, would you then agree with my position?
Them: yes

where are we at if people allow their candidates to do their thinking for them? and conversely, where are we at if people automatically oppose any idea from someone they don't respect? shouldn't each and every idea be evaluated on its own merits?

anyway, paulk, i agree with what you wrote ... clearly a case of shoot first and ask questions later ... or worse yet, don't ask any questions at all ...

[paineinthearse]

21. how to get people to look at ISSUES beyond their feelings about PERSONALIT

One way is to increase exposure.

3rd nomination, can we have 2 more?

[welshTerrier2]

27. thanks, Paine ...

as they say, "vote early and often" ...

[paineinthearse]

29. Another suggestion: more participation in the Editorials & Articles forum

It contains so many well-written gems that the great unwashed masses ignore.

I'd like to see every DU'er spend 15 minutes a day going through the more recent works.

Result could even be a shift from the cult of personalities to reasoned, critical thinking.

[Lecky]

53. Fantastic point...well said! n/t

[zann725]

12. I thought I read that Kerry was back in Iraq in the last few days?

n/t

[welshTerrier2]

13. he returned last Friday (9/2/05)

at least that's what i was told by one of his supporters ...

i'm not aware whether he's made any statements about Iraq since returning ...

[robbedvoter]

14. Mmmm...I thought the topic was NOT John Kerry

I guess it's OK to discuss his schedule as long as you don't touch his credibility.
Nu? What was he wearing when he returned from Iraq?

[welshTerrier2]

16. you think i'm defending Kerry's credibility ???

you've got it wrong, my friend ...

i made no comment about Kerry's credibility ... in fact, i made no pro-or-con comment about Kerry at all ...

instead of licking your wounds and lashing out, why not make a few comments about the topic raised in the BP ?? your intelligent input is requested ...

[robbedvoter]

40. More like...his travelocity

[kerrygoddess]

32. He'll be making a report soon...

He stated this at a Corzine rally today in NJ, so I am told by another Kerry supporter.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=496#comment-3118

[dR. O]

15. i am sure

eventually they will just put up videocamera equipped machine guns to guard all the pipelines that way they won't have to risk any lives

[welshTerrier2]

17. here comes "SCO"

welcome to DU, dR. O !!

everyone knows the acronym "OPEC"; well, here comes "SCO" ...

if you read the following article, i think you'll see that videocameras probably won't get the job done ...

tomorrow, i'm going to write about "choosing up teams" for the Great Oil Wars ... this is getting scarey in a hurry ...

check this out: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050910.wxcover10/BNStory/Front

[TayTay]

24. Events in Iraq and here are overtaking some of these positions

Juan Cole on his blog Informed Comment quoted from a story in the Minneapolis StarTribune that the US has ceded Najaf to an Iraqi faction: http://www.juancole.com/

The US military has withdrawn from the Shiite holy city of Najaf, seat of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Although the Lt. Col. James Oliver maintained that the Iraqi army is operating successfully throughout the region, it is more likely the case that the Badr Corps is providing what security there is. The Badr Corps is the paramilitary of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the party that rules Najaf Province (population: about 800,000). We see here the beginnings of the Bush administration exit strategy for Iraq, which is that the south will be turned over to SCIRI and Badr. The US military must be convinced that Badr can now handle the Mahdi Army and can protect Grand Ayatollah Sistani from assassination (both are tall orders).

I think the Bush Admin is planning on slowly withdrawing from Iraq well before next year's elections. Most of the criticism and demands for withdrawal have had dates that range from two years to next Dec. I don't think the Bush Admin can be there that long.

I think the Dems need to rethink their positions. Things are moving beyond the control of the US in Iraq. It is becoming clearer and clearer that we do not have the power to affect things the way the Bush Admin thought at first. I am waiting for the next shoe to drop in Congress. I really think that something is up with a few key members and that there is also a lot of soul-searching going on. (Hey, some of it is being done because of comments by Sen. Hagel, a Repub.)

And we haven't even gotten into the Constitutional crisis yet. Sigh!

[welshTerrier2]

26. "Things are moving beyond the control of the US"

nice post, TayTay ...

your observations about the republicans moving towards a withdrawal strategy are very interesting ...

one the one hand, it's the "politic" thing to do ... it's clear the republicans don't want this issue on the table during next year's midterms ...

but on the other hand, i just can't believe Big Oil is just going to let it go ... they've got their greedy clenched fists all over the Iraqi oil fields ... it's hard to imagine they'll just "write it off" ...

so i'm not really sure that the republicans have much of a plan ...

and as for the Democrats coming around, who knows ... some have speculated that Kerry, after he sees how bad things have gotten in Iraq and how little progress has been made, will finally come around to calling for us to get out ...

so far, all the other plans have some flavor of "we have to achieve x, y or z" before we can leave ... but if your statement that "Things are moving beyond the control of the US" is correct, and i think we're way past that point, the only thing we should be achieving is a safe exit from Iraq ...

anyway, just to shift gears back to the BP, let's keep the focus on more than just Iraq policy ...

[TayTay]

41. Once again, it's the corruption and that will affect Iraq going forward

The US might be able to gradually leave and cede territory to those are are going to control their areas anyway, no matter what we do. But Iraq will be an unstable region for a long time to come. Unstable regions are very vulnerable to corruption and to dirty money being passed around by special interests. I don't think Big Oil or the Rethug cabal that has it's tentacles into everything is going to abandon Iraq and their plans for Iraq's oil fields. I think they will do and end run around it. It is what the US has been doing for decades. If plan A fails, then go to plan B.

And, in my only Kerry-related comment, the most interesting thing Sen. Kerry said about IRaq, to me, this year was way back in Jan when he went on Meet The Press. He was asked about the situation there and about the US withdrawal plan: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new government, as soon as it's possible, begins to negotiate some modality like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they even asked us to leave in some way over a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately, behind closed doors, asked them to ask us to leave. I think there are plenty of ways to skin this cat.

I think all the Dems know this. They all know we are screwed in Iraq. The Rethugs are desperately trying to find a way to bail out and still pretend that they have liberated Iraq and made a democratic republic sprout in the desert. Again, the control of the oil fields will just have to go through Plan B. (See history of US foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1950's.) It won't be over, it will just mutate.

[blm]

45. I remember someone posting that Kerry and Hagel were in intense talks

last week after he returned from Iraq - You think Kerry is going to get Hagel to join him in a plan for Iraq?

[TayTay]

68. I'm not sure there is a 'plan' at this point

There are numerous answers to that question. One of them is very political and a possibility in this case. There is a case to be made that the one consistent thread running through the Bush Admin is that it is corrupt to the core. They can't manage or govern, but they can get contracts to their friends. They can't follow through on a plan, whether in Iraq or in an emergency here in the States, but they can make private companies very much richer by giving them sweetheart 'no-bid' contracts. There might be the actual development of a consistent line of attack that goes after the Bush Admin and all it's numerous friends with the single corruption charge. Having the US guard private oil pipelines is not what we went there for and it is a symptom of complete corruption.

I'm not sure there is or can be a 'plan' for Iraq. All options are bad. We will eventually leave and we will leave under bad circumstances and we will not have the government in place in Iraq that we said we were fighting for. I honestly think that Sens Kerry and Hagel and some of the others know this, know it is too late for any redemptive measures that might have done something two years ago, but not now. And I honestly think that events will be decided long before the two years are up that would meet Sen. Feingold's date for a withdrawal. I can't get a read on what else is up, but the slight switch to saying that troops are guarding the private pipelines is interesting.

This also comes back to Cindy Sheehan's peircing question about why we are in Iraq and what are we dying for over there? Is it for pipelines? Because most Americans didn't sign up for that and consider it a bait-and-switch. Those are reasons you use to get out, not reasons you use to figure out ways to re-invent the occupation.

[blm]

69. I awkwardly said plan, but I should have used re-assessment of Iraq and

what exactly CAN be done now, given the circumstances on the ground that he has witnessed firsthand.

[paulk]

22. it's a debate that's not happening

what is the role of our military in today's world? What are our national interests? Is it really the job of our military to protect private interests?

Kerry has one of the best records in the Senate on environmental issues - and the impact of energy policy on the environment. It's one of the main reasons I supported him.

The Bush administration's policies are so far away from what we should be doing in these areas that there can't even be a discussion. They're speaking a different language. The only hope is to get them out of office, along with the Republican majorities in Congress.

Bush has set a horrible precedent with his pre-emptive unilateral invasion of Iraq. Also, blowing up Afghanistan and then walking away is guaranteed to have blowback.

Democrats have talked about the use of the military to protect and procure oil - Kerry talked about the need to develop alternative energy to avoid just that in the debates.

[welshTerrier2]

25. "The only hope is to get them out of office"

i'll have to go back and look at the debate transcripts ... i have no recollection of Kerry talking about the impropriety of using the military to protect and procure oil ... if he did, i'm really glad to hear he raised the issue ...

my view is that "leading" Democrats have not been making the necessary case on energy policy ... perhaps i just haven't read enough ... for example, it's one thing to call for energy independence (increases budget deficits, hurts balance of trade and balance of payments) but it seems to me the REAL problems are: peak oil, global competition leading to war and global warming ... it's not enough to layout a good program; Democrats also have to make the case for that program but telling the truth about the risks if the program is not implemented soon ...

the truth is that our government, its domestic and foreign policies and more specifically our energy policy are being written for and by the oil industry ... and they are raking in profits in the billions ... record profits ... of course, if we made them pay for the use of OUR military, they wouldn't be ... the American people pay for their security and they rake in the bucks ... nice work if you can get it ...

anyway, the only way, if there even is a way, to change the policy is NOT just to elect Democrats ... the exploitation of the American military for corporate gain has been going on for more than a hundred years regardless of which party was in power ... it will take MORE than just a change in parties to battle against the entrenched power structure ... it will take a well-informed American public that demands change because they fully understand what the future holds for them if they don't force change ...

it is incumbent on those of us who understand this to demand that our candidates stop playing it safe and begin the education campaign and the truth telling immediately ... if we don't trust Americans to do the right thing, we don't deserve their votes ... and without a mandate from the public ON THESE ISSUES, we may win a few electoral battles but we will surely lose the war for our country's future ...

we have got to make our candidates understand this ... if they refuse, we will have no choice but to look elsewhere ...

[paulk]

30. actually, it's not in the debates...

I just went over them. I think he talked about it in some of his stump speeches - more along the lines of needing to reduce our dependancy on mideast oil so that we wouldn't need to have our troops over there... don't remember really, and I'm to tired to look it up right now. I have to sleep.

reading over the transcripts was interesting. I was really struck by what a lying sack of shit George Bush is. The hardest thing to argue against is a bald faced lie... especially when the media won't tell the American people that it is a lie they're hearing.

With three major polls now showing Bush's approval below 40%, one can hope that the American people are finally figuring it out for themselves.


On your post - how do you get a well informed american public when the media is actively participating in lying to them?
and -

Electing Democrats is a start. At least with democrats in control you can have a dialogue. With the Bush cabal in charge, like I said upthread, they're not even talking the same language.

And where else are you going to look?
Honestly?
are system isn't going to allow a third party to come to power.
not in our lifetimes, anyway.

It's already going to take a generation to undo the damage Bush has done, if it's not already too late.

[Usrename]

34. The media is a huge problem. I know that since the Katrina disaster

many folks have emplored them to do their duty and get the truth. Lives were at stake. Some are not monsters and have responded. The big problem, I think, is the Brian Williams syndrome. He was the first that I heard express it.

He said, fearing being labled biased, that his hate mail was 50-50. Therefore he was right down the middle. It makes no difference to him if the right-wing spin is all lies. He gives it equal time so as not to upset the balance in his hate mail. They are for the most part whores and stupid asses that have no clue of the part they play in the disaster of this administration.

[Porcupine]

23. An Army Warrant Officer on leave from Iraq said the same...

thing to me last tuesday. I say his pilots wings and asked if he knew anyone doing evacuation work for Katrina. He went off on a tangent on Iraq and detailed to me for half an hour how: 1) We were losing the war. 2) It was worse than Vietnam. 3) The insurgents were mostly Iraqi's who had lost family members. 4) Bush was killing his men to guard pipelines and oil facilities.

I never asked the guy about Iraq!!

[RallyInDC]

28. they couldn't procure the caspian sea....

had to protect those oil pipelines......you know how them terrarists are and all that bullshit.

[Lecky]

35. I haven't heard one politician admit to this...good for Kerry.

Hell...no one ever talks about this in the mainstream.

I guess it might put a damper on all the propaganda BS "fighting for our freedom".

I have a feeling that the neocons really don't want to have this discussion. :)

[lateo]

36. How did Kerry vote on that Energy Bill? nt

Hopefully he voted against it.

[welshTerrier2]

38. i strongly encourage you to read this ...

i just read Kerry's speech he made from the Senate floor regarding the energy bill ... regardless of what you think of Kerry, and i am by no means a "Kerry supporter", i very strongly endorse his comments ... they told it like it is ...

here's the link: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=116292

[TayTay]

43. Here's who voted against that piggish bill that came back

from the conference committee:
NAYs ---26
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR

Wait, it's not that easy. This is who voted against the original bill before it was raped in conference committee:

Coburn (R-OK)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sununu (R-NH)

So, Senator Kery voted for it when it was a middling good bill and gave more emphasis to renewables, gave a small incentive to setting gas mileage incentives and so forth. Then, when all the energy protections were removed by Rethugs in a closed door conference committee session, the resulting bill was such a friggin give-away to special interests that lots of members voted against it. A lot of Senators voted 'for it before they voted against it.'

And there you go, that's how middling fair legislation gets turned into very bag legislation.

[Q]

37. We already know the answers to many of the questions...

...you're asking. It's just that we can't quite accept the full truth as of yet. We know that Bush is using the military to secure and protect energy resources around the world and that the DLC dominated leadership is protecting the Bushies.

America is in a state of denial. We don't want to believe what we're seeing with our own eyes.

And this: if Kerry is acknowledging that our military is protecting pipelines...why the hell doesn't he say something about it in public and oppose it as a matter of policy?

[welshTerrier2]

39. "oppose it as a matter of policy"

two things ...

first, please read Kerry's speech ... he made some very strong statements critical of the US energy policy because it was a gift to the Saudis and to "big oil" ... he deserves credit for this speech ... more Democrats need to make this a core part of their talking points ...

here's the link: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=116292

and second, i agree with you that Kerry should oppose the policy of using American troops to "procure" oil ... this is a huge issue that needs to be put before the American people ... i could not find statements from Kerry where he opposed the use of the American military to procure oil ... he seems to be saying that doing so is a "necessary evil" until we become more energy independent ...

i disagree with that ... we have to be a nation that honors international sovereignty ... it will be devastating to this country if we are not able to procure the oil we need ... but continued use of our military to achieve this objective only further enables the policy of not seeking energy independence ... Americans will never come to understand the risks we face and will never condemn the current short-sighted energy policies if we allow them to believe that all is well ...

perhaps i am wrong and the American people will ultimately condone the use of force to "grab whatever we need" ... but either way, the policy we currently have is being chosen without the participation of the electorate and "leaders" in our country are doing anything but leading ... so, after all that, i agree with you that Kerry should clearly state that the use of our military to procure oil is unacceptable ...

[Lecky]

54. I hope you are not wrong

"perhaps i am wrong and the American people will ultimately condone the use of force to "grab whatever we need"

If so, then this country is not even worth fighting for... :(

Although, I have a feeling that BushCo would have had a really hard time selling the Iraq war to the general public if they were truthful about why we were really there.

[Dr Fate]

62. He needs to go on TV and talk about it then. n/t

n/t

[Mass]

46. This is an excellent analysis of how our society is dependant on oil

and the consequences it has to nearly all our policies.

Besides the implication in foreign polices (that you could think would be obvious by now), you can also find the implications when it comes to energy and environmental policies, all of them issues that have huge implications in the development of this country.

It is extremely frustrating that no democrat to my knowledge is using that as his central theme and is proposing a vision that would bring us far from there towards a third millenary society. (on a side note, I am unfortunately dubious that the democratic power would let it do that as it would probably go against the perceived interest of a part of the working class).

[dansolo]

50. That is what Blackwater should be doing

Protecting pipelines should be the job of private security firms. Instead everything is backwards, where we have US soldiers guarding private assets, and contracted mercenaries, being paid with US taxpayer dollars, acting as US armed forces in combat zones. The oil companies should be the ones paying for their own security, but instead they are being subsidized by the US government.

[blm]

51. You are 100% right in that. If that was what Blackwater was doing, then

I wouldn't give a crap that they exist as long as they weren't acting on our national banner and with OUR tax dollars and merely protecting assets as their job description as opposed to the BULLSHIT the public is being fed about Iraqi freedom.

[populistdriven]

57. My boss fought with SO in SA to protect oil for years during Reagan

Our military has been built with one primary goal: to protect and acquire oil.

[AntiCoup2K4]

58. You're about a year late with that speech, John Boy

Why didn't he pull this one out when it could have done him (and us) some good, and these quotes would have been repeated all week long on the news?

[blm]

61. You never heard him say troops should never be sent to war because of oil?

He said something like that in just about every speech he made.

But, then, too many folks relied upon the corporate media's spin of Kerry's campaign.

[IndyJones]

60. How many years has this been going on? Is it something that started

under Bush?

[leanin_green]

64. What, your suprised about this use of the military? Pleeeease!

This has been the way the military has always been used throughout history. The procurement of economic and natural resources for the use of the invading party. Every war has been about land grabs for economic or natural resource means. All the ideaological talk that accompanies such actions are just a means to get the populace behind it. Now, for possibly the first time, American actions are unmasked and seen for the naked aggression that it is. As much as they try to make it about the War on Terror, or any other grand idea they choose to attach to it to appease the masses, it's still the same old game.

[welshTerrier2]

65. What, you didn't read the post? Pleeeease!

I wrote, in the BP, "it's not that anyone should necessarily be surprised that we are using American troops to guard privately owned oil pipelines ..."

now why would you suggest i was "suprised"??

[leanin_green]

67. Ah Terrier, couldn't you tell I was being facitious? ;o>

[sunnystarr]

66. I'm wondering how much the US is getting paid to

provide security services for private companies and oil producing nations. Our tax dollars are paying for security in Iraq and other places from private firms. Why don't those companies and countries hire private security firms? Either we're getting paid boucoup bucks for providing this security or it's another rape on the American taxpayer who funds the military.

[Imagevision]

71. Has it occured to anyone that we are flat out running out of oil?

The 1896 killed + 14362 maimed US. troops and sacrificed over this bogus war should be realized by at least securing what it was we went there for initially, the bloody OIL!

Flame me whatever, but dumbo Bush had no way of telling us the truth because it was a despicable thought/plan, but realizing the state of affairs this country is headed in, It took a bozo like Bush to pull this off because someone had to do it and Bush could easily pass as the "dummy" to pull it off/blame etc.

Even if the Dems take control of the House & Senate in 06 and Hillary is the prez? the power-plan has already been put in motion and she'll have to merely "undo all the bad the "previous administration" caused but; "it's going to take a long time" This is Amerika, how old do you have to be to get it? - they're hoping you never will.