# 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2008)

[SIZE=+2]*'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

*[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Washington Post Story[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Excerpt:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17
[/SIZE]
Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
(((END EXCERPT)))
substantiated by intelligence information...


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

Ah yes, that same high quality, up to date, and reliable "intelligence" that has shown us where those WMD are, helped us to eliminate Osama,  quickly allowed us to recover unharmed countless hostages like Eugene Armstrong and Nick Berg.

Great intellegence there Donny.    I wouldn't trust these morons to tell me the way to Walmart if we were standing in the Walmart parking lot, next to a sign that said "Walmart 10 feet" andd a big ****ing arrow pointing in the direction of said same Walmart.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 10, 2008)

Actually, we did have reliable intellegnce that Iraq at _one point had_ WMDs. The problem is, we knew they had them in the early 90's. We didn't know if they still had them, and if so, what and how much. How do we know they had them? Two reasons:
1, We GAVE THEM WMDS!!!!!
2, We WATCHED them USE them against the Kurds in the north of there own country and against Iran.


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

Even I know you don't plan a trip cross country using 20 year old maps. I would certainly hope that those who plan for war, would use more recent information. Maybe something from the last few months maybe.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 10, 2008)

The problem is that the war really had nothing to do with WMDs. It had nothing to do with a dictorial state. In my Gov. class the teacher mentioned some source (I cann't remember if it was from the CIA World Fact Book or something associated with the UN), it ranked countries by degree of Democracy v Dictorial-ness. Pre-war was not the biggest, or the baddest. That would be Mynamar or North Korea (they were in a tie). North Korea is making nukes. And they admitted it too! Keep in mind a WMD includes more then nukes. It includes biological and chemical weapons, and a few other things. We gave Hussien various chemical agents and nerve gases. 
So, the justification we used to invade Iraq is obviously bunk, right? So, why invade? Simple, Oil. Iraq sits on a lot of oil, and we have a justification to invade. We also had a bigger justifcation to invade Saudi Arabi (7 of the 9/11 terrorists were from there, and we're pretty sure a good deal of funding came from there also). Well, we could use the fact that they _had_ WMDs as a justifaction to invade. And by saying "we have reasonable intellgence" they can get away with saying (in reality) "we know they did have them, we think they might still have one or two, besides, why else wouldn't they let us in?"


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

Thank you. :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2008)

Bester said:


> Even I know you don't plan a trip cross country using 20 year old maps. I would certainly hope that those who plan for war, would use more recent information. Maybe something from the last few months maybe.


Uh, you do realize part of the Cease Fire agreement after Saddam's forces were kicked out of Kuwait was that He (Saddam) would allow UN inspectors to verify he had no more chemical and biological weapons, and that for over a decade he defied that, expelling the inspectors, etc, and THAT is one reason among many stated that he had to be removed from power.


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

Uh huh. I seem to recall reading that the UN inspectors said he was clean at the time just prior to the invasion. 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
> This article concerns the Iraqi government's use, possession, and alleged intention of acquiring more types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. During his reign of several decades, he was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against civilians and in the Iran-Iraq War. Following the 1991 Gulf War he also engaged in a decade-long confrontation with the United Nations and its weapons inspectors, which ended in the 2003 invasion by the United States.
> 
> The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability. The United States and the UK, along with other countries and intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections by the U.N. restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[1] but hadn't turned up any evidence of actual WMDs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.
> ...


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> The problem is that the war really had nothing to do with WMDs. It had nothing to do with a dictorial state. In my Gov. class the teacher mentioned some source (I cann't remember if it was from the CIA World Fact Book or something associated with the UN), it ranked countries by degree of Democracy v Dictorial-ness. Pre-war was not the biggest, or the baddest. That would be Mynamar or North Korea (they were in a tie). North Korea is making nukes. And they admitted it too! Keep in mind a WMD includes more then nukes. It includes biological and chemical weapons, and a few other things. We gave Hussien various chemical agents and nerve gases.


 Sold, not gave





> So, the justification we used to invade Iraq is obviously bunk, right? So, why invade? Simple, Oil. Iraq sits on a lot of oil, and we have a justification to invade.


 Um, why then aren't we taking any of that oil if that is what we invaded for?





> We also had a bigger justifcation to invade Saudi Arabi (7 of the 9/11 terrorists were from there, and we're pretty sure a good deal of funding came from there also).


 Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi, but, don't let that interrupt your display of ignorance





> Well, we could use the fact that they _had_ WMDs as a justifaction to invade. And by saying "we have reasonable intellgence" they can get away with saying (in reality) "we know they did have them, we think they might still have one or two, besides, why else wouldn't they let us in?"


Did you read the link in the OP? EVERY ASSERTION MADE by the Bush administration was 





> Substantiated by intelligence information.


.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2008)

faulty intellegence?


----------



## jlhummel (Jun 10, 2008)

What if bush wasnt lied to but lead by the nose to do what the inteligence community and others wanted him to do?  What if he was given and lead to do what others knew he would do if he was given the information and the needed reasons for invading Iraq?   The comittees that over see the information given to the president have both republicans and democrats on them.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> So, the justification we used to invade Iraq is obviously bunk, right? So, why invade? Simple, Oil. Iraq sits on a lot of oil, and we have a justification to invade.




oh please tell me you are not trotting out THAT one.

Listen up.

Saddam told the UN he had the WMD's and would use them if we invaded

Interviews with Saddams Military have proven that Saddam told THEM he had WMD's and would use them if we invaded

when someone tells the police he has a gun, the police act as if he does.

think about it for a second, son..........


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2008)

Big Don said:


> EVERY ASSERTION MADE by the Bush administration was .


 
Yeah, but all that intelligence was "qualified." USed words like "likelihood." Was even, at times, negatively qualified, as in "We doubt it." He and his fellows used it and asserted it as truth, knowing that it might not be. Legally, that's _lying_, and constitutes fraud. Of course, had Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as everyone was _guessing, assuming, taking for granted_, the point would be moot. As it is, since no WMD's were found, those assertions proved to be unfounded, and based on information that should not have been asserted as truth-whatever the whole world believed. In short, Bush and Co. had reason to believe that what they were saying _might_ be true, and maybe even most likely was true, but they also had reason-in the form of that same intelligence-to believe that it might not be. To present it as fact, when in fact they did not know it to be fact, is, and always was, _lying_.

It's *that* simple.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2008)

no, it isnt

you want it to be, you DREAM of it being that simple, but it isnt.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 10, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Um, why then aren't we taking any of that oil if that is what we invaded for?


 
Actually, we are getting it. The price of crude is rising slower then the price of refined. Which means, there is somehting called 'price gouging' going on. Which explains why in '06 a U.S. oil company made more profits then any other U.S. company after expenses. It also explain why U.S. feul companys made record profits for the last few years (yes Don that does mean AFTER expenes).


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

At the time of the US invasion, a number of respectable individual who were in the know were calling bunk on the "Official" reasons. Those people were shouted down by the WarHawks. They are now being slowly vindicated as "reason" after "reason" is destroyed.  The "Blind Patrots" are being shown to be the unthinking fools we've always known them to be.


----------



## Kreth (Jun 10, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Actually, we are getting it. The price of crude is rising slower then the price of refined. Which means, there is somehting called 'price gouging' going on. Which explains why in '06 a U.S. oil company made more profits then any other U.S. company after expenses. It also explain why U.S. feul companys made record profits for the last few years (yes Don that does mean AFTER expenes).


I heard a piece on NPR a few weeks ago which stated that futures trading has a lot to do with the spike in gas prices. The rate of increase for gas prices is far outpacing the rate of increase for crude.
And to the OP, DUH! What's your next thread gonna be, Paris Hilton is an untalented skank? :lol:


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 10, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, but all that intelligence was "qualified." USed words like "likelihood." Was even, at times, negatively qualified, as in "We doubt it." He and his fellows used it and asserted it as truth, knowing that it might not be. Legally, that's _lying_, and constitutes fraud. Of course, had Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as everyone was _guessing, assuming, taking for granted_, the point would be moot. As it is, since no WMD's were found, those assertions proved to be unfounded, and based on information that should not have been asserted as truth-whatever the whole world believed. In short, Bush and Co. had reason to believe that what they were saying _might_ be true, and maybe even most likely was true, but they also had reason-in the form of that same intelligence-to believe that it might not be. To present it as fact, when in fact they did not know it to be fact, is, and always was, _lying_.
> 
> It's *that* simple.


 
Let's not rewrite history based on people's views of Bush now. There was an overwhelming belief by the worlds best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The Israelis, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country.  As a reminder, the US Senate (that had the same intel that Bush had and looked at) voted 77-23 in favor of going to war with Iraq--including Hillary Clinton

There are also satellite photos of convoys at weapons facilities that matched the SAME convoys used to transport WMD that the gov't lost track of and don't know where they went.  It wasn't until months later that the "inspection team" was allowed to check those sites and THEN conclude there were no WMD there.  How hard is it to have a year to hide something?  How hard is it to believe that is a possibility when there are audio tapes of Hussein talking about his WMD and how he knew where inspectors would be to hide them and avoid them?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> Let's not rewrite history based on people's views of Bush now. There was an overwhelming belief by the worlds best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The Israelis, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country. As a reminder, the US Senate (that had the same intel that Bush had and looked at) voted 77-23 in favor of going to war with Iraq--including Hillary Clinton
> 
> There are also satellite photos of convoys at weapons facilities that matched the SAME convoys used to transport WMD that the gov't lost track of and don't know where they went. It wasn't until months later that the "inspection team" was allowed to check those sites and THEN conclude there were no WMD there. How hard is it to have a year to hide something? How hard is it to believe that is a possibility when there are audio tapes of Hussein talking about his WMD and how he knew where inspectors would be to hide them and avoid them?


 
Not rewrtiting history-Mr. George "Slam Dink" Tenet qualified some of the intel himself-it's the statements that Mr. Bush made that didn't use those quallifications-he didn't say "We think," or even "we have reason to believe." He said "We've learned," or "we have evidence" or simply stated some fo those things as fact. 

As for the satellite photos of convoys, and the weapons facilities, most of those were possible "dual use" facilities-insecticide does not necessarily equal nerve gas, though it could. That was known then-the logical assumption was that this was WMD activity. That it wasn't, and that Bush asserted that it was are what constitute lying. Not even saying that he didn't believe himself to be telling the truth, just that for it to legally be lying, he had to also have reason to believe that it might not be, and he did.


----------



## thardey (Jun 10, 2008)

Oil was part of it, WMD was part of it, intelligence was part of it, and pride was a large part of it, on both sides.

Yes, Saddam was taunting us - even though treaties said such-and-such, and Saddam agreed to this-and-that, he couldn't lose face in front of his people. If he showed weakness by agreeing to be good without a fight, he would have been eaten alive by his own people.

It wasn't so bad with Clinton, because Clinton had nothing to prove by taunting Saddam. Like a powerless disruption in a classroom, Clinton could afford to largely ignore/dismiss Saddam's taunts. But when the son of George Bush got into office, there was a score to settle.

W. was fighting for his family honor. His father was being taunted, provoked, and ridiculed by Saddam by his refusal to "respect" that be had been beaten once, and could be again. I'm not going to say that this attitude is true of all Texans, but it is certainly true of nearly all of my relatives who live in Texas. W. felt the need to respond to those taunts. He took it personally. 

But he couldn't use that as a justification for the nation to declare war. He needed something else. For the businessmen, the thought of cheaper oil got their attention, for the peacekeepers, the fear of WMD was enough to keep them quiet, for the religious, the "Evil" of Saddam had to be removed, but in reality, it was a personal vendetta.

That's why, for Bush, the "Mission Accomplished" claim was true. His mission was accomplished. His personal fight with Saddam was won. Now the rest of us who allowed ourselves to get drawn into it are basically on our own, as far as getting out. Since we had a different value placed on what the "mission" is, we don't have a clear picture of how to know when it's finished. For Bush, it is done, the rest is for other people to clean up.

If you want to blame Bush, or faulty intelligence, or the media, or whatever makes you feel better, fine. But I believe that it's our fault for letting this happen, as much as anybody's. Sure, by the time it actually happened, it was too late to stop it, but we had set the precedent, and the policies leading up to this, and we have to take the time to look real hard at what our present actions will teach our children to do in the next generation.

------------
All the above is just my opinion, take it or leave it!


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

I dont think Bush intentionally lied on the whole matter, but he hasn't shown he has the intellegence to see past those lies either.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 10, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Not rewrtiting history-Mr. George "Slam Dink" Tenet qualified some of the intel himself-it's the statements that Mr. Bush made that didn't use those quallifications-he didn't say "We think," or even "we have reason to believe." He said "We've learned," or "we have evidence" or simply stated some fo those things as fact.
> 
> As for the satellite photos of convoys, and the weapons facilities, most of those were possible "dual use" facilities-insecticide does not necessarily equal nerve gas, though it could. That was known then-the logical assumption was that this was WMD activity. That it wasn't, and that Bush asserted that it was are what constitute lying. Not even saying that he didn't believe himself to be telling the truth, just that for it to legally be lying, he had to also have reason to believe that it might not be, and he did.


 
Again, the senate and the rest of the world looked at that evidence and came to the same conclusion from those reports.  It doesn't matter WHAT Bush said.  The senate still looked at the reports and came to the same conclusion.  "Dual Use" is a nice euphimism in Iraq.  Almost all of their storage facilities were that because they were being monitored.  It still doesn't change Hussein being on tape talking about hiding the WMD's and eluding the UN.

It is not "legally lying" if you believe something to be true and later it turns out false.  If I am under oath and testify that I saw a blue car, and I think it is a blue car.  Then I am asked could it have been a green car, and I say "well maybe" and it turns out it was a green car.  I still testified truthfully to the best of my knowledge.  Even in a court of law there are "rules of evidence", one of them is along the lines of "most favorable in light of the prosecution".  That is if there are two stories for a piece of evidence, it is looked at in the most favorable way for the prosecutor to be interpreted.  

This is what people are blaming Bush for.  He was given intelligence, he read the intelligence and came to a conclusion, and the same conclusion as 77 other senate members came to when looking at the report.  Bush made the mistake of not padding his comments and do proper "CYA" when he talked, you are NEVER dealing in certainties in the intelligence community so you will NEVER get a straight answer.  Also, in the intelligence community you have to know how "fresh" the info is.  By the time the info was acted on months had gone by.

Hindsight is always 20/20, what we think we know now is not what we knew back then.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> It doesn't matter WHAT Bush said.
> 
> It is not "legally lying" if you believe something to be true and later it turns out false. .


 
I beg to differ.



> FALSE/FRAUDULENT STATEMENT - A statement related to a material fact and known to be untrue or made with _reckless indifference as to its truth or falsity._ A statement or representation may also be "false" or "fraudulent" when it *constitutes a half truth, or effectively conceals a material fact. *


 
seen here 

The material fact, and concealment thereof, took place when Bush&Co. neglected to inform of the qualification statements made in intel reports with regards to the intel and its sources. Doesn't matter what conclusions they chose, or what they believed to be true: they concealed the fact that they had been told that it might not be true, and asserted a "strong proabability" to be *fact*, and that *is*, _legally_, lying.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2008)

thardey said:


> W. was fighting for his family honor. His father was being taunted, provoked, and ridiculed by Saddam by his refusal to "respect" that be had been beaten once, and could be again. I'm not going to say that this attitude is true of all Texans, but it is certainly true of nearly all of my relatives who live in Texas. W. felt the need to respond to those taunts. He took it personally.
> 
> But he couldn't use that as a justification for the nation to declare war. He needed something else. For the businessmen, the thought of cheaper oil got their attention, for the peacekeepers, the fear of WMD was enough to keep them quiet, for the religious, the "Evil" of Saddam had to be removed, but in reality, it was a personal vendetta.



ya got anything even remotely resembling proof on this, or is it just a gut feeling?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 10, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> ya got anything even remotely resembling proof on this, or is it just a gut feeling?



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/


----------



## thardey (Jun 10, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> ya got anything even remotely resembling proof on this, or is it just a gut feeling?



To quote myself:



> All the above is just my opinion, take it or leave it!



You think Bush is going to formally promote a personal agenda? Or leave proof behind? The "simple" matter is that all of us do what we believe will ultimately benefit ourselves. What other benefit would Bush get?

He had already gotten the "victorious war hero/avenger" label from Afghanistan, and for the most part, the media isn't complaining about that. He could have left it alone and reaped the popularity. Instead he took that political capital to apply it to his defense of the family honor.

The cultures of Both the Middle East, and the South hold honor, especially family honor, as highly important. Saddam began to get more outspoken when W. came into office, since he represented the family that defeated him before. W. was drawn into the fight, since he felt personally attacked, and the memory of his Father's victory was being challenged.

It's not an attack against Bush, it was simply inevitable. Once we put Bush in office, of course it was going to back Saddam into a corner. His only way to "save face" and keep his power in his own land was to challenge the family of the man who humiliated him. I don't think he actually expected Bush to get the approval to attack. Bush couldn't let this guy get away with challenging the treaty, and getting away with openly defying us like that, or else others would be bolder about doing it as well. According to his thinking, Saddam's challenge had to be answered. But you can't get the support of this nation by putting it that way, you have to make it about something else before you can get approval.

I saw it at the time, and I still say it. Nope, no proof, just conjecture, take it or leave it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2008)

Then there is those couple of years worth of deleted emails from the white house, where you havve to wondere just how damning all that was.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2008)

uh Bob?
how often do you delete YOUR email?

I do mine daily


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 10, 2008)

'Official' mail is rather different, *TF*.  

It's supposed to be logged as, in these electronic days, the e-mail (with it's associated data trail) is as binding as the more venerable written word.  Also, such things are rather ephemeral and 'sub rosa' activities that much more easy.

Even the stuff I deal with has to be recorded and given a correspondance number and that's just 'business official' rather than 'political'.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> uh Bob?
> how often do you delete YOUR email?
> 
> I do mine daily


 
My deleted email at work goes into a special, recoverable file-it's not "deleted" at all.....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 10, 2008)

Given the apparent sensitivity of what you do, *Elder*, I can't say that I'm surprised :tup:.

About those 'deleted' White House e-mails that *Bob* mentioned, can someone fill me in on the background?  

I ponder because I know that data recovery is a lot more sophisticated than most people think and unless you physically destroy the platters of the drive it is normally possible to reconstruct a high percentage of what has supposedly been erased.  Even repeated formatting and magnetic 'blanking' does not guarantee deletion.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Given the apparent sensitivity of what you do, *Elder*, I can't say that I'm surprised :tup:.
> 
> About those 'deleted' White House e-mails that *Bob* mentioned, can someone fill me in on the background?
> 
> I ponder because I know that data recovery is a lot more sophisticated than most people think and unless you physically destroy the platters of the drive it is normally possible to reconstruct a high percentage of what has supposedly been erased.  Even repeated formatting and magnetic 'blanking' does not guarantee deletion.


My email goes back to the mid 1990's.  I also have copies of -every- PM I've received on 10 different forums, 6 dial up BBS's, and all IM conversations.

Businesses and government agencies are required to retain theirs for varying periods of time. I recently quoted out a mail server for a financial broker who has to keep his for 10 years due to some rules with his industry.  In the case of the White House, they are required by federal law to archive all emails.

As to the couple million missing ones, see here for a start.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 10, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Even repeated formatting and magnetic 'blanking' does not guarantee deletion.



Forensic data recovery is a very interesting field.  They can apparently use Scanning Electron Microscopy to physically image the location of the magnetic drive particles, which will allow recovery even after multiple over-writes.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Given the apparent sensitivity of what you do, *Elder*, I can't say that I'm surprised :tup:.
> 
> .


 

Oh, no-_that_ email goes through a completely different server, with different software.

"Delete" isn't even an option. :lol:

I was talking about more mundane, day-to-day e mail.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Actually, we are getting it. The price of crude is rising slower then the price of refined. Which means, there is somehting called 'price gouging' going on. Which explains why in '06 a U.S. oil company made more profits then any other U.S. company after expenses. It also explain why U.S. feul companys made record profits for the last few years (yes Don that does mean AFTER expenes).


Oil companies made about a 10% profit. Banks and lenders made a 25% profit, 10 is much smaller than 25, last time I checked.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 10, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Oil companies made about a 10% profit. Banks and lenders made a 25% profit, 10 is much smaller than 25, last time I checked.


 
Doesn't change the fact that in '06 Exxon Mobile made profits then any other company in the U.S.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Doesn't change the fact that in '06 Exxon Mobile made profits then any other company in the U.S.


Nor does it change the fact that since the environmentalist pandering democrats took control of the house and senate in november of 06, gas prices have DOUBLED. Gee, but, aren't the republicans the ones who are supposedly in the pocket of the oil companies?
Nor does it change the FACT that state and federal governments collect more from gas sales than oil companies.
Did you miss this?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Nor does it change the fact that since the environmentalist pandering democrats took control of the house and senate in november of 06, gas prices have DOUBLED. Gee, but, aren't the republicans the ones who are supposedly in the pocket of the oil companies?
> Nor does it change the FACT that state and federal governments collect more from gas sales than oil companies.
> Did you miss this?



Gas prices have more than doubled since the Dems took control of Congress. - Thats 1 right.
But, I think you're wrong on the distribution of wealth.
Taxes are 15%, Oil Company costs and profits are 17% as of 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/

Also, you're saying that limits on drilling are the cause of recent record highs, and not uncontrolled and unregulated speculation?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

Complaining about the price of gas while simultaneously blocking any attempt to expand the supply, which, would lower the cost, strikes me as hypocritical to say the least.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

But the supply isn't the problem. There's plenty available.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Gas prices have more than doubled since the Dems took control of Congress. - Thats 1 right.
> But, I think you're wrong on the distribution of wealth.
> Taxes are 15%, Oil Company costs and profits are 17% as of 2007.
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/
> ...


You, as a business owner, should recognize that any costs incurred by the business are passed on to the consumer, by way of higher prices. The proposed "Windfall Profits taxes" can only raise the cost of fuel.
Lets shut down the stock markets! That will make the prices of everything cheaper, since no one will be able to profit from speculation, right?
WRONG. 
Speculation is another word for investing, anyone who buys a share of "Fictional Company One" is SPECULATING that their shares of "Fictional Company One" will, in the future, increase in value.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

The difference between the Stock market and Oil Speculation is, if a stock is trading at $130, I need to come up with $130.  If oil is trading at $130, I only need to come up with $8.  Big difference.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But the supply isn't the problem. There's plenty available.


Except, we aren't allowed to get at the vast majority of ours. Not allowing exploration for new oil fields, or exploitation of known oil reserves may not make prices go up, but, allowing the drilling for and refining of domestic sources of oil would certainly bring the price DOWN.
Supply IS the problem. We haven't built a new refinery in THIRTY years. Has our use not increased exponentially since 1978?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

Domestic demand is down.
The existing refineries are running at 85% of capacity, at last report.

Also, the US oil companies stated years ago that Domestic Oil wasn't worth going after until gas went past $4 a gallon. Now they are demanding access to that oil. It's not a coincidence.

I repeat, theres plenty of oil there.


> How much conventional oil is there left in the ground? Close to 2 trillion barrels, according to Don Paul, Chevron's chief technology officer.
> 
> The "geological endowment" of conventional oil--that is, the amount of oil in the Earth--once totaled about 3 trillion barrels, he said during a presentation at the Dow Jones Alternative Energy Innovations conference here. We've used about 1.1 trillion. Oil companies with current technologies can't get it all out of the ground, so maybe there is a trillion barrels left for human consumption.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9803819-7.html


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

lift the heavy tariff on flex fuel imports
mandate flex fuel vehicles
build 3 refineries and open drilling everywhere there is oil
tell the saudis to suck it

problem solved


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

You cannot legislate innovation. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> lift the heavy tariff on flex fuel imports
> mandate flex fuel vehicles
> build 3 refineries and open drilling everywhere there is oil
> tell the saudis to suck it
> ...


Concerns are if taxes are lowered or dropped that it wouldn't translate to lower consumer prices.

Building new refineries IS needed, but wouldn't effect prices or supply for 3-4 years.

As to telling the Saudi's to suck it, I agree.  Problem is, they aren''t where we get the bulk of our oil from. 

The top sources of US crude oil imports for March 2008 were Canada (1.795 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.535 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.232 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.154 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (0.858 million barrels per day).
Source-US Government


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

oh Bob, i know, but it would be very nice to finally be able to tell the WHOLE middle east "screw you guys, we have tried to help, you clearly dont want it.
From now on? we are leaving you alone. Dont mess with us."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

Remember, the Saudi embassy is the only one I'm aware of that is protected by the SS. Wonder why....


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

I can think of two reasons.

1. Saudi oil, and thier good will is a national security concern. At least untill we can tell them to suck it

2. we give them special attention so they can try to pull some of thew heat off israel.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

How about : The Bush family has -extensive- business dealings with them.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> How about : The Bush family has -extensive- business dealings with them.


 

I also recall (though not necessarily correctly) that a Saudi prince was Andover, class of 1964, same as George W.


----------



## Bester (Jun 11, 2008)

Wade through enough stuff, it's an interesting web.

Here. It's old, but a start.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b99415.html


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

americanprogress?

yeah, they are sure to be un-biased


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 11, 2008)

Take a source, toss away the biases, and see what's left that sticks.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 11, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Doesn't change the fact that in '06 Exxon Mobile made profits then any other company in the U.S.


 
Gas companies make their profit through volume, not the individual price of a gallon of gasoline.

The U.S. used about 510 billion litres (138 billion gallons) of gasoline in 2006, of which 5.6% was mid-grade and 9.5% was premium grade.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Usage_and_pricing

if you figure a simple 17% profit on gasoline alone, that would be a profit of $23,450,000,000.  That does not include diesel, gasoline fuel mixtures, government sales for such things as the military, natural gas, the use of oil for machinery and manufacturing, and the countless other things that crude oil is distilled into.


----------

