It's the lying, stupid

[Tiger Al 0]

Seeds of defeat, terrible planning, shortsighted strategy? Yes, I agree. I would also add poor generalship, lack of aggressive prosecution of the war, weak executive branch performance, and the fact that those we are fighting to free are stupid, backwards, and just not worth American blood and treasure. They will not help themselves at all. All of this blod, time, and effort being wasted over natural resources. Our money would be better spent helping those at home. Our troops could be home soon and the world would go right on spinning. Agree?

Welcome to the Politically Speaking forum, TigerHeat.

I highlighted an interesting point that you raise. Like it or not, believe it or not, we are in Iraq, not to be confused with Afghanistan, because of oil. Some background is in order, though. From Wikipedia:

The Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil field to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It also shows how to calculate the point of maximum production in advance based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production. Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases due to the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the curve (post-peak), production declines due to resource depletion.

The Hubbert peak theory is based on the fundamental observation that the amount of oil under the ground is finite. The theory is named after American geophysicist Marion King Hubbert, who created a method of modeling known oil reserves and production rates. Hubbert's theory was initially greeted with skepticism by many in the oil industry, but oil companies now routinely use Hubbert's methods to predict future yields of existing oil fields.

Hubbert's peak can refer to the peaking of production of a particular area, which has now been observed for many fields and regions. "Peak Oil" as a proper noun, or Hubbert's peak applied more generally, refers to a singular event in history: the peak of the entire planet's oil production. After Peak Oil, according to the Hubbert Peak Theory, the rate of oil production on Earth will enter a terminal decline. Based on his theory, in a paper[1] he presented to the American Petroleum Institute in 1956, Hubbert correctly predicted that production of oil from conventional sources would peak in the continental United States around 1965-1970 (actual peak was 1970). Hubbert further predicted a worldwide peak at "about half a century" from publication.

Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International, said on October 26, 2006 that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, though cautions that further monitoring of production is required to determine if a peak has actually occurred. [7]

Chevron states that "oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries". [24] Other countries have also passed their individual oil production peaks.

Peak oil production is defined as the point at which at least half of a fields reachable oil has been extracted. After that, getting each barrel out requires more pressure, more expense, or both. It then requires more energy to extract the oil than what the oil is worth. Production then becomes uneconomic until the cost of oil rises or extraction costs drop.

There are several emerging industrial countries, the largest of which is China. They will have a great impact on the amount of oil used daily but the amount of oil available will not change. Alaskan fields peaked in 1988, former Soviet Union fields in 1985-1987, Canadian and Mexican during this decade and Saudi Arabian fields are believed to have already peaked, according to Simmons. Non-OPEC countries including US, Britain, Canada, Russia, Norway, Mexico and Angola might collectively peak around 2010. By 2025, OPEC might control a large portion of the remaining worldwide oil reserves.

Enter Iraq. It is estimated that Iraq holds the world's second largest oil reserves. While the other Gulf states have been producing oil for a relatively long period of time, Iraq has not, other than in the 1970's. This is due to many factors, primarily interruptions caused by the Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm, the economic sanctions that followed and now OIF.

As I said before, my belief is that we are in Iraq primarily because of that oil. Had UNMOVIC been able to declare Iraq fully in compliance with UN resolutions, and Iraq would've been in compliance, then the sanctions would've been lifted and Iraq would be free to export great amounts of oil. Contracts were in the works with Chinese, Russian and French oil companies to invest there. Referencing the peak oil scenarios that exist, the "oil dynamic" would've drastically shifted in Iraq's favor and they probably would've been unwilling to allow US or UK companies to invest there. This would not have been good for oil-addicted America.

But, neither is sending troops to secure, guard and maintain that supply of oil. As of September 29, 2006, over $379 billion has been allocated by the U.S. Congress for the Iraq war with a total projected cost of $700 billion. Imagine if on March 20, 2003, instead of Bush announcing the invasion of Iraq he had, instead, announced to the country a broad, comprehensive initiative to dramatically decrease the US' dependence on oil. What if he had given us a mission, similar in scope to Kennedy's 'race to the moon', to decrease our dependence in 10 years by 10, 25 or 50% and that the US government was going to make available hundreds of billions of dollars to new and existing companies, individuals or anyone else, regulated, of course, to develop technology to meet that goal? We would now be entering year four of that initiative and I can't help but believe that great progress would have already been made.

The sooner we get serious about reducing our oil consumption the more secure our future as a country will be. And that, rexbo, would be the basis of MY Middle East policy.

[Tigermike 3,040]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards."

I actually posted nothing of the sort. I posted a factual article about specific conduct of a specific department of our government.

Oh, don't be disingenuous, TT. I don't see you posting any articles about Democratic foulups, do I?

I've posted a few,

That must have been one of the days I missed.

Those posts don't fit your predetermined framework so they don't register.

Since you want to be that way, provide the links to prove your claim of posting any articles about Democratic foul-ups.

Do your own research since you don't pay attention at the time. I frankly don't care if you believe it or not. Obviously, the vast majority of my posts are about Republican policies/actions I take issue with. We have a Republican administration, and until recently, the Republicans controlled all the levers of power. But even throughout the time the government was run totally by Republicans, you and your drone buddy TIS, saw fit to post virtually nothing but anti-democrat screeds about a party that had no real power. You opposed virtually all attempts at oversight and favored a blank check for this administration. For you to criticize anyone for lacking balance in their posting is hilarious, especially on a forum dominated by people with views similar to yours to begin with.

In other words you make a claim that you can not prove. Once again your comprehension skills are lacking. I didn't criticize you. You made a statement and I asked for proof. Now as is usual you go off on a tirade, diatribe, screed (take your pick) about me. Typical.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I'm not the one that shot my mouth off and told everyone I had done something that everyone that reads this forum knows isn't true.

Most folks of your ilk don't read that well and aren't great arbiters of what is true.

Prove it then, smart guy. Show us all where you, the master debater, have shown a thimble full of balance in your posts.

I'll wait.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

I'm not the one that shot my mouth off and told everyone I had done something that everyone that reads this forum knows isn't true.

Most folks of your ilk don't read that well and aren't great arbiters of what is true.

Prove it then, smart guy. Show us all where you, the master debater, have shown a thimble full of balance in your posts.

I'll wait.

Since you lack research skills, I'll get you started. Now you're proven wrong. I won't hold my breath for you to admit it:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=250918

You'll notice, nobody replies when I post something negative about Democrats.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

You showed me, sir. 1 article from July of last year. Man, I have egg all over my face.

I hate to appear nitpicky but this 1 article doesn't quite make a thimble full.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

You showed me, sir. 1 article from July of last year. Man, I have egg all over my face.

Not quite a thimble full.

I made no grand claims. I said this: "I've posted a few, but we are under a Republican administration which is unusually brazen about expanding its executive power."

You and Tigermike said I claimed something that wasn't true-- essentially called me a liar and said everyone knows it isn't true. If you were a man, you'd apologize. I won't hold my breath.

BTW, I also criticized one of Pelosi's first decisions as Speaker:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=302034

You'll notice folks like you still got all pissy, so it really doesn't matter what I post, you respond the same way.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I stand corrected. You said you posted a few, and you have at least 2. That's at least 2.6% of your posts in this forum you can claim are fair and balanced.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

I stand corrected. You said you posted a few, and you have at least 2. That's at least 2.6% of your posts in this forum you can claim are fair and balanced.

Well as I said:

Obviously, the vast majority of my posts are about Republican policies/actions I take issue with. We have a Republican administration, and until recently, the Republicans controlled all the levers of power.

I'm not gonna lie on a post called "It's the lying, stupid"!

[Tiger Al 0]

I stand corrected. You said you posted a few, and you have at least 2. That's at least 2.6% of your posts in this forum you can claim are fair and balanced.

He wasn't responding to a claim of being fair and balanced. He was responding to Tigermike who said, "Since you want to be that way, provide the links to prove your claim of posting any articles about Democratic foul-ups."

He provided the links. Contribute to the thread or move on.

[Tigermike 3,040]

I stand corrected. You said you posted a few, and you have at least 2. That's at least 2.6% of your posts in this forum you can claim are fair and balanced.

He wasn't responding to a claim of being fair and balanced. He was responding to Tigermike who said, "Since you want to be that way, provide the links to prove your claim of posting any articles about Democratic foul-ups."

He provided the links. Contribute to the thread or move on.

He didn't provide links, he provided one link.

[AFTiger 282]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

Otter, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have learned to not argue with these guys because it is a useless excecise. I had better luck with my daughter when she was 14.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

He provided the links. Contribute to the thread or move on.

Screw off. This conversation didn't involve you so there was no need for you to butt in. If I want your opinion, I'll ask for it.

[otterinbham 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

Otter, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have learned to not argue with these guys because it is a useless excecise. I had better luck with my daughter when she was 14.

Sorry. It was tit-for-tat kind of stuff. And, to be honest, it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the total mindlessness of the debate.

[AFTiger 282]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

Otter, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have learned to not argue with these guys because it is a useless excecise. I had better luck with my daughter when she was 14.

Sorry. It was tit-for-tat kind of stuff. And, to be honest, it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the total mindlessness of the debate.

That is why I am drifting out of this forum. They all end up like this.

[Tiger Al 0]

Boy. Nothing like an enlightened debate.

Let's see. TexasTiger posts something that says, "You Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving amoral bastards." And he's right.

AFTiger, in a nice little riposte, says, "You Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of sleazy, conniving, amoral bastards." And he's right, too.

When are you guys going to realize that both the Democrats and Republicans are equally despicable bodies? I mean, does anybody with a 3-digit IQ seriously believe that either party stands for goodness and light? Somebody explain this childlike faith to me, because nothing in my experience supports it.

So what's the solution? Uncritical support of a single party is the hallmark of half-baked, lazy nitwits. So start voting out everybody with unclean hands, and start thrusting power into the hands who worry more about the welfare of the country, rather than the welfare of their particular clique of friends.

Otter, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have learned to not argue with these guys because it is a useless excecise. I had better luck with my daughter when she was 14.

Sorry. It was tit-for-tat kind of stuff. And, to be honest, it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the total mindlessness of the debate.

That is why I am drifting out of this forum. They all end up like this.

Bye, bye, then. Your valuable input will be sorely missed.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

I stand corrected. You said you posted a few, and you have at least 2. That's at least 2.6% of your posts in this forum you can claim are fair and balanced.

He wasn't responding to a claim of being fair and balanced. He was responding to Tigermike who said, "Since you want to be that way, provide the links to prove your claim of posting any articles about Democratic foul-ups."

He provided the links. Contribute to the thread or move on.

He didn't provide links, he provided one link.

Two-- twice as many than were needed to prove you wrong.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

He provided the links. Contribute to the thread or move on.

Screw off. This conversation didn't involve you so there was no need for you to butt in. If I want your opinion, I'll ask for it.

It didn't involve you until you chimed in. What's the difference?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I was replying to Tigermike initially. You drug me into the fracas. Your boyfriend Al shot his mouth off and I fired back. Did that upset you?

[TexasTiger 12,964]

I was replying to Tigermike initially. You drug me into the fracas. Your boyfriend Al shot his mouth off and I fired back. Did that upset you?

I drug you into it? Just more evidence that you're not a real conservative-- real conservatives take responsibility for their own actions. You are just a poor victim, drug into to the conversation by big mean TexasTiger...

[Tiger Al 0]

I was replying to Tigermike initially. You drug me into the fracas. Your boyfriend Al shot his mouth off and I fired back. Did that upset you?

Wrong!!!

I'd like to see those myself. I have no recollection of anti-democrat postings by the Texas kool-aid drinker.

This was your first post in the fracas.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

It was in response to what Tigermike had posted. Do you live near high voltage power lines or are you just naturally retarded?

How do you and Tex get together? Do you do the odd-even thing where you fly out to Texas on odd weekends and he comes to Millbrook on the even ones? I'm absolutely amazed that you aren't rabid Edwards people.

That's it for me. Goodnight, ladies.

[Tiger Al 0]

It was in response to what Tigermike had posted. Do you live near high voltage power lines or are you just naturally retarded?

How do you and Tex get together? Do you do the odd-even thing where you fly out to Texas on odd weekends and he comes to Millbrook on the even ones? I'm absolutely amazed that you aren't rabid Edwards people.

That's it for me. Goodnight, ladies.

TIS gets busted so he opts for the personal snipe and the 'homosexual' card. If we were black it would've been a trifecta!

Amazingly, you overlook the fact that we're outnumbered here by like 10:1. You guys cover for each other all the time. And, for the record, I don't think any of you are gay because of it.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

It was in response to what Tigermike had posted. Do you live near high voltage power lines or are you just naturally retarded?

How do you and Tex get together? Do you do the odd-even thing where you fly out to Texas on odd weekends and he comes to Millbrook on the even ones? I'm absolutely amazed that you aren't rabid Edwards people.

That's it for me. Goodnight, ladies.

Boy, you've really made a fool of yourself today, haven't you? Way to finish strong!!

[AFTiger 282]

Justice denied: as President Clinton has time after time made a mockery of his oath of office, his attorney general has followed suit - Janet Reno

National Review, Sept 1, 1998 by Robert H. Bork

In the history of the Republic, the names of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno will be forever linked, a prospect that ought to appall Miss Reno. That is entirely due to her efforts to preserve the President from his own follies, to use a polite word. Bill Clinton heads what is probably the most corrupt Administration ever, while Miss Reno has been called the worst of all Clinton's Cabinet appointments. From his point of view, of course, she may be the best, which comes to much the same thing.

Miss Reno's only visible qualifications for the post of attorney general were two: she is a woman and she had been a prosecutor. The first characteristic was indisputable, although, in any non-feminized era, it would have been irrelevant. The second seemed heartening, but it did not prepare her for Washington. Coming from obscurity, she must have been caught off guard by the rampant corruption into which she was thrust. So varied and unceasing have been this Administration's infractions of law that Miss Reno resembles a desperate tennis player, running from side to side of the court and from net to baseline in a frantic effort to hold down the score. Unfortunately for her White House coach, she is becoming winded and wobbly-legged.

She was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary's former law partner in Little Rock and Bill's man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis.

Scandal followed scandal. Clinton had hardly been sworn in when he fired the entire staff of the White House travel office. The object, it seems clear, was to divert business to friends of the Clintons. The firings were so obviously unsupportable that the FBI was told to issue a press release suggesting criminality in the travel office. The head of the office was indicted and tried, but acquitted almost instantly. An inquiry suggested that Hillary Clinton ordered the coup. Then it was discovered that the White House had asked for and received nine hundred raw FBI files on Republicans. Nobody knew who had issued the request or hired the unqualified security officer who carried it out. The evidence pointed to Hillary, but she denied responsibility. If her denials were false, she probably committed indictable offenses. Janet Reno sat on her hands until she got all these matters out of her bailiwick by handing them off to the independent counsel.

On the night of Vincent Foster's suicide, his notes and files disappeared. White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed the documents, reneging on his previous agreement to let Justice Department lawyers examine them. This prompted the deputy attorney general, Philip Heymann, who resigned shortly thereafter, to ask, "Bernie, are you hiding something?"

Janet Reno began to see the charms of having an independent counsel, to whom she could transfer politically embarrassing investigations. But she clearly seeks a counsel only when the President permits it. That led to his and her worst mistake: they got Ken Starr. Starr is a fair and judicious man; he assembled a staff of experienced prosecutors and went to work. Though the White House routinely complains that Starr has taken four years and spent $40 million, as if that time and money had been devoted to bringing down the President, Starr has compiled an impressive record: 14 convictions on pleas and verdicts. Now, judging from the White House's hysteria, Starr appears to be closing in on the President. There has indeed been an inordinate delay in Starr's proceedings. By now, his final indictments should have been handed up by the grand jury and his report on possible impeachable offenses should have been delivered to the House of Representatives. This delay is the responsibility of only one man: the President of the United States.

From the outset, the White House has repeatedly withheld subpoenaed documents until threatened with contempt. Administration personnel, when questioned, have displayed premature and highly selective Alzheimer's. The President's lawyers have asserted frivolous claims of privilege and litigated them to the end. The executive-privilege argument was doomed from the beginning. The relevant precedent, fittingly enough, was the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of Richard Nixon's claim. The idea that Secret Service agents, sworn law-enforcement officers, need not testify because of a hastily cobbled-up "protective-function privilege" was merely laughable. The argument that the President would be in mortal danger if the officers were not at his side suggests it was their duty to be in attendance in the room off the Oval Office when Bill and Monica were there. The conduct of the President throughout these investigations -- from the delays to the litigation of utterly specious privileges -- is the moral equivalent of taking the Fifth. It is Janet Reno's shame that she not only failed to defend Starr against the White House smears but repeatedly assisted the cover-up by actually opposing in court Starr's efforts to get at the truth.

When up against the professional criminals of the Democrat mafia, the Bush administration is unarmed as well as naive.

I said early in Clinton's reign that he would make Richard Nixon look like an amateur. Having gotten away with his crimes, they are set now to repeat and install a more corrupt administration. I fear a Clinton/Obama ticket and the fools that will vote for it. I fear for our Republic.

[CCTAU 3,335]

It was in response to what Tigermike had posted. Do you live near high voltage power lines or are you just naturally retarded?

How do you and Tex get together? Do you do the odd-even thing where you fly out to Texas on odd weekends and he comes to Millbrook on the even ones? I'm absolutely amazed that you aren't rabid Edwards people.

That's it for me. Goodnight, ladies.

TIS gets busted so he opts for the personal snipe and the 'homosexual' card. If we were black it would've been a trifecta!

Amazingly, you overlook the fact that we're outnumbered here by like 10:1. You guys cover for each other all the time. And, for the record, I don't think any of you are gay because of it.

You guys aren't black? Damn, by your politics, I would have sworn you were.

<note to self, the texas tulips aren't black>