Jump to content

Bush, et. al., caught lying to us again


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
This oil profit thing is hilarious.

Suppose that we let Iran control all ME oil and they decide to boost the price of oil way up.  What happens to oil profits?  In the short term, oil profits will increase (selling gas today at prices that allow the purchase of tomorrow's oil).  The profits stay about the same unless supply exceeds demand.  Losing access to Iraqi oil will increase demand and give the oil companies greater leverage in charging high prices.  The only thing that could stop it would be government price controls, which would further shrink supply.

President Bush relied on the same intelligence information that President Clinton relied on, and Clinton supported the Iraq War (until he changed his mind about it last week in order to claim that he had always opposed it).

http://www.sentinelsource.com/main.asp?Sec...rticleID=172603

Clinton's still spinning, though.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us..._-q_CZT1VBX40_Q

Buchanan disagrees with Bush on most things.  But while you're busy gassing you might as well provide a link to Buchanan saying Bush lied.

What do the retired generals think is the correct course of action?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ionsbox1⊂=AR

Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...09/wiran109.xml

Hmmm.  Bushitler has apparently pulled a coup in the U.K.  Comments?

76942[/snapback]

WTF? Still going on and on and on and on and on about Clinton? Who cares what Clinton thinks, he hasn't been pres. for years. This is GW's mess no matter how much you want to blame everything on Clinton. Maybe in light of the recent CIA debacle, we'll finally get some of the SOB's charged with war crimes and have at least some accountability in this admistration. I still say to you, Bryan. Sign up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This oil profit thing is hilarious.

Suppose that we let Iran control all ME oil and they decide to boost the price of oil way up.  What happens to oil profits?  In the short term, oil profits will increase (selling gas today at prices that allow the purchase of tomorrow's oil).  The profits stay about the same unless supply exceeds demand.  Losing access to Iraqi oil will increase demand and give the oil companies greater leverage in charging high prices.  The only thing that could stop it would be government price controls, which would further shrink supply.

President Bush relied on the same intelligence information that President Clinton relied on, and Clinton supported the Iraq War (until he changed his mind about it last week in order to claim that he had always opposed it).

http://www.sentinelsource.com/main.asp?Sec...rticleID=172603

Clinton's still spinning, though.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us..._-q_CZT1VBX40_Q

Buchanan disagrees with Bush on most things.  But while you're busy gassing you might as well provide a link to Buchanan saying Bush lied.

What do the retired generals think is the correct course of action?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ionsbox1⊂=AR

Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...09/wiran109.xml

Hmmm.  Bushitler has apparently pulled a coup in the U.K.  Comments?

76942[/snapback]

But Bryan, Exxon isn't interested in the amount of oil profits alone. It's interested in whether or not it is making them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NIE report is a crock, there must be some Loony Lefties on the board.

  I'll explain this so even the Kool-aiders will get it. Iran is sitting on an ocean of

  oil, energy is really not a major concern of theirs for the next thousand years.

  With that in mind, why then the thousands of centrifuges if not to produce

  weapons grade uranium. Bush is absolutely right to be skeptical of any report

  that dismisses this huge buildup of uranium processing.

    Interesting how Paul is always so eager to accuse Bush of covering up "the

  truth".  He's part of the "blame america first" wing of the defeatocratic party,

  a real american hero.

76549[/snapback]

Ah yes..............let's cherry pick some more intelligence, after all, it got one needless war of choice started, we want MORE! MORE! MORE!..........

Have another sip of FOOL-Aid, WANKER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Bush relied on the same intelligence information that President Clinton relied on, and Clinton supported the Iraq War (until he changed his mind about it 

The same intelligence? That DOES explain a lot of the misleaderrship of this administration, using intel that is at best 7 years old is not really a good idea. Situations change over time, as in the time between Bush calling for plans in Iraq and 9/11. Too bad for the country he's so much of a tunnel-visioned, pig-headed ideologue to back-off, look at TODAY'S situation and act accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF? Still going on and on and on and on and on about Clinton? Who cares what Clinton thinks, he hasn't been pres. for years.

There's a real chance that he'll be back in the White House in a couple of years. He's in the news because his comments show the type of integrity you can expect from the Clintons.

This is GW's mess no matter how much you want to blame everything on Clinton.

The real mess occurs if cut & run Democrats get their way. The Clintons haven't always been cut and run Democrats ... but at least one of the Clintons is known for leading wherever the people wish to go.

Maybe in light of the recent CIA debacle, we'll finally get some of the SOB's charged with war crimes and have at least some accountability in this admistration. I still say to you, Bryan. Sign up or shut up.

76975[/snapback]

Heh. Like I've been saying, the only way you can address the argument is by having me removed from the stage.

You're such a jellyfish, Keith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
There's a real chance that he'll be back in the White House in a couple of years.  He's in the news because his comments show the type of integrity you can expect from the Clintons.

The real mess occurs if cut & run Democrats get their way.  The Clintons haven't always been cut and run Democrats ... but at least one of the Clintons is known for leading wherever the people wish to go.

Heh.  Like I've been saying, the only way you can address the argument is by having me removed from the stage.

You're such a jellyfish, Keith.

77032[/snapback]

Removed from the stage? Soldiers in Iraq have internet access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Sixteen (16) separate Intelligence components from the CIA to the Pentagon, in this administation, with Cheney trying to stall the report for almost a year comes out with the NIE Report saying Iran's not attempting to build a nuclear bomb and they're from the loony left?

who's drinking the koolaide now 2dim.

76802[/snapback]

I can understand your conviction that Iran wants to play nice, after all, you feel

safe in the security of hiding under your bed. Would you feel secure living in Israel

knowing the nut job Iranian President has vowed to wipe Israel from the map

and knowing he has thousands of centrifuges spinning away producing bomb-

grade uranium. Bush is right to be skeptical, better to err on the side of caution.

Keep in mind, if Iran attacks Israel, we're coming to Israel's aid. Don't you

think it's prudent to keep the pressure on Iran so that doesn't happen ?? (This

may be too complicated for many Kool-aiders).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same intelligence?  That DOES explain a lot of the misleaderrship of this administration, using intel that is at best 7 years old is not really a good idea.  Situations change over time, as in the time between Bush calling for plans in Iraq and 9/11.  Too bad for the country he's so much of a tunnel-visioned, pig-headed ideologue to back-off, look at TODAY'S situation and act accordingly.

77030[/snapback]

You may want to check your math. Iraq was invaded in 2003. Clinton was still in office as late as 2001. For most people that doesn't add up to seven years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bryan, Exxon isn't interested in the amount of oil profits alone. It's interested in whether or not it is making them.

77020[/snapback]

Duh. The value of Exxon's oil wherever it is produced goes up with an embargo. Profits go way up without price controls.

How much oil do you think Exxon has in Iran and Iraq combined?

After you figure that one out, review the concept of the global market. Also review how oil company profits were relatively flat during the 90s when the price of oil stayed low. The rising price creates the bonanza for oil companies. Losing in Iraq will make for handsome oil company profits. Making the ME stable so that supply can more easily meet demand keeps the price low. Don't take my word for it--look at history.

On the other hand, the immediate result of OPEC's move was to boost sales and profits at all the oil majors. Mobil Oil's sales nearly tripled between 1973 and 1977 to $32 billion, and 1974 profits hit record highs, prompting a barrage of congressional and media criticism that was answered by Mobil Oil's own public relations department.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/histor...orporation.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duh.  The value of Exxon's oil wherever it is produced goes up with an embargo.  Profits go way up without price controls.

How much oil do you think Exxon has in Iran and Iraq combined?

After you figure that one out, review the concept of the global market.  Also review how oil company profits were relatively flat during the 90s when the price of oil stayed low.  The rising price creates the bonanza for oil companies.  Losing in Iraq will make for handsome oil company profits.  Making the ME stable so that supply can more easily meet demand keeps the price low.  Don't take my word for it--look at history.

On the other hand, the immediate result of OPEC's move was to boost sales and profits at all the oil majors. Mobil Oil's sales nearly tripled between 1973 and 1977 to $32 billion, and 1974 profits hit record highs, prompting a barrage of congressional and media criticism that was answered by Mobil Oil's own public relations department.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/histor...orporation.html

77117[/snapback]

If the Iranians control it, there's no guarantee to Exxon that their control will last. Exxon wants the situation in the hands of the politicians who are in their back pockets.

Duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may want to check your math.  Iraq was invaded in 2003.  Clinton was still in office as late as 2001.  For most people that doesn't add up to seven years.

77116[/snapback]

How about the 6-7 months or so between the time Dubya requested Iraq plans from his staff and 9/11? It's obvious he didn't bother to reassess the situation after 9/11. using intel even 6 months old is the height of stupidity in a constantly changing world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand your conviction that Iran wants to play nice, after all, you feel

  safe in the security of hiding under your bed. Would you feel secure living in Israel

  knowing the nut job Iranian President has vowed to wipe Israel from the map

  and knowing he has thousands of centrifuges spinning away producing bomb-

  grade uranium. Bush is right to be skeptical, better to err on the side of caution.

Of course, erring on the side of caution would have been a stupid idea when it came to not touching Iraq unless we were 100% sure there were WMD's there, right? Doublethinking buffoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand your conviction that Iran wants to play nice, after all, you feel

  safe in the security of hiding under your bed. Would you feel secure living in Israel

  knowing the nut job Iranian President has vowed to wipe Israel from the map

  and knowing he has thousands of centrifuges spinning away producing bomb-

  grade uranium. Bush is right to be skeptical, better to err on the side of caution.

  Keep in mind, if Iran attacks Israel, we're coming to Israel's aid. Don't you

  think it's prudent to keep the pressure on Iran so that doesn't happen ?? (This

  may be too complicated for many Kool-aiders).

77090[/snapback]

Israel has nukes. Seems to me they are plenty capable of taking care of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Oh, well then you can answer the argument without suggesting that I leave.

:)

Proceed, then.

77153[/snapback]

I'm just saying that you would still be able to post here even while serving in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
But Bryan, Exxon isn't interested in the amount of oil profits alone. It's interested in whether or not it is making them.

77020[/snapback]

What is it with Loony Lefties which makes them think they can speak intelligently

on the marketing strategies of Exxon. Maybe he has a bug in the board office ??

More likely it's the Kool-aid effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with Loony Lefties which makes them think they can speak intelligently 

on the  marketing strategies of Exxon. Maybe he has a bug in the board office ??

  More likely it's the Kool-aid effect.

77182[/snapback]

What makes a FOOL-Aid swilling wanker like you think you can speak intelligently about ANYTHING? Drugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with Loony Lefties which makes them think they can speak intelligently 

on the  marketing strategies of Exxon. Maybe he has a bug in the board office ??

  More likely it's the Kool-aid effect.

77182[/snapback]

The statement was "Exxon isn't interested in the amount of oil profits alone. It's interested in whether or not it is making them."

Let me put it in language 2dim might be able to understand. Exxon wants the profits for itself. You don't need a degree in marketing to know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, erring on the side of caution would have been a stupid idea when it came to not touching Iraq unless we were 100% sure there were WMD's there, right? Doublethinking buffoon.

77164[/snapback]

Thank God for GWB, he's draining the swamp of Islamic terrorists and keeping

us safe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank God for GWB, he's draining the swamp of Islamic terrorists and keeping

  us safe!

77223[/snapback]

Just proof of the old adage

You can fool SOME of the people all of the time.......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...