The Chávez Democrats

[Tigermike 3,054]

The Chávez Democrats

March 10, 2008; Page A14

What is it about Democrats and Hugo Chávez? Even as the Venezuelan strongman was threatening war last week against Colombia, Congress was threatening to hand him a huge strategic victory by spurning Colombia's free trade overtures to the U.S.

This isn't the first time Democrats have come to Mr. Chávez's aid, but it would be the most destructive. The Venezuelan is engaged in a high-stakes competition over the political and economic direction of Latin America. He wants the region to follow his path of ever greater state control of the economy, while assisting U.S. enemies wherever he can. He's already won converts in Bolivia and Ecuador, and he came far too close for American comfort in Mexico's election last year.

Meanwhile, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe is embracing greater economic and political freedom. He has bravely assisted the U.S fight against narco-traffickers, and he now wants to link his country more closely to America with a free-trade accord. As a strategic matter, to reject Colombia's offer now would tell everyone in Latin America that it is far more dangerous to trust America than it is to trash it.

Yet Democrats on Capitol Hill are doing their best to help Mr. Chávez prevail against Mr. Uribe. Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that "they don't have the votes for it, it's not going to come on the floor," adding that "what they [the White House] don't understand it's not the facts on the ground, it's the politics that's in the air."

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don't want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue.

Our guess is that Messrs. Baucus and Rangel understand the stakes and privately favor the accord. The bottleneck is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is refusing to allow a vote under pressure from her left-wing Members. These Democrats deride any link between Hugo Chávez and trade as a "scare tactic," as if greater economic prosperity had no political consequences. "President Bush's recent fear-mongering on trade shows just how desperate he is to deliver one final victory for multinational corporations," declared Illinois Democrat Phil Hare, who is one of Ms. Pelosi's main trade policy deputies.

These are the same Democrats who preach the virtues of "soft power" and diplomacy, while deriding Mr. Bush for being too quick to use military force. But trade is a classic form of soft power that would expand U.S. and Latin ties in a web of commercial interests. More than 8,000 U.S. companies currently export to Colombia, nearly 85% of which are small and medium-sized firms. Colombia is already the largest South American market for U.S. farm products, and the pact would open Colombia to new competition and entrepreneurship.

Which brings us back to Mr. Chávez and his many Democratic friends. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez's August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela's oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own Presidential qualities, they'd be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.

Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect "trade unionists." In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is whether they're going to choose Colombia -- or Hugo Chávez.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

link

[arnaldoabru 11]

The Chávez Democrats

March 10, 2008; Page A14

What is it about Democrats and Hugo Chávez? Even as the Venezuelan strongman was threatening war last week against Colombia, Congress was threatening to hand him a huge strategic victory by spurning Colombia's free trade overtures to the U.S.

This isn't the first time Democrats have come to Mr. Chávez's aid, but it would be the most destructive. The Venezuelan is engaged in a high-stakes competition over the political and economic direction of Latin America. He wants the region to follow his path of ever greater state control of the economy, while assisting U.S. enemies wherever he can. He's already won converts in Bolivia and Ecuador, and he came far too close for American comfort in Mexico's election last year.

Meanwhile, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe is embracing greater economic and political freedom. He has bravely assisted the U.S fight against narco-traffickers, and he now wants to link his country more closely to America with a free-trade accord. As a strategic matter, to reject Colombia's offer now would tell everyone in Latin America that it is far more dangerous to trust America than it is to trash it.

Yet Democrats on Capitol Hill are doing their best to help Mr. Chávez prevail against Mr. Uribe. Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that "they don't have the votes for it, it's not going to come on the floor," adding that "what they [the White House] don't understand it's not the facts on the ground, it's the politics that's in the air."

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don't want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue.

Our guess is that Messrs. Baucus and Rangel understand the stakes and privately favor the accord. The bottleneck is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is refusing to allow a vote under pressure from her left-wing Members. These Democrats deride any link between Hugo Chávez and trade as a "scare tactic," as if greater economic prosperity had no political consequences. "President Bush's recent fear-mongering on trade shows just how desperate he is to deliver one final victory for multinational corporations," declared Illinois Democrat Phil Hare, who is one of Ms. Pelosi's main trade policy deputies.

These are the same Democrats who preach the virtues of "soft power" and diplomacy, while deriding Mr. Bush for being too quick to use military force. But trade is a classic form of soft power that would expand U.S. and Latin ties in a web of commercial interests. More than 8,000 U.S. companies currently export to Colombia, nearly 85% of which are small and medium-sized firms. Colombia is already the largest South American market for U.S. farm products, and the pact would open Colombia to new competition and entrepreneurship.

Which brings us back to Mr. Chávez and his many Democratic friends. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez's August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela's oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own Presidential qualities, they'd be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.

Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect "trade unionists." In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is whether they're going to choose Colombia -- or Hugo Chávez.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

link

How come the article doen't mention the Bush family's very cozy oil ties to Saudia Arabia?

[AFTiger 282]

Because it is about the Democrat cozy ties to Hugo Chavez and to South American Communists?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Because it is about the Democrat cozy ties to Hugo Chavez and to South American Communists?

I thougth we were already trading with Chavez?

[Tigermike 3,054]

The Chávez Democrats

March 10, 2008; Page A14

What is it about Democrats and Hugo Chávez? Even as the Venezuelan strongman was threatening war last week against Colombia, Congress was threatening to hand him a huge strategic victory by spurning Colombia's free trade overtures to the U.S.

This isn't the first time Democrats have come to Mr. Chávez's aid, but it would be the most destructive. The Venezuelan is engaged in a high-stakes competition over the political and economic direction of Latin America. He wants the region to follow his path of ever greater state control of the economy, while assisting U.S. enemies wherever he can. He's already won converts in Bolivia and Ecuador, and he came far too close for American comfort in Mexico's election last year.

Meanwhile, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe is embracing greater economic and political freedom. He has bravely assisted the U.S fight against narco-traffickers, and he now wants to link his country more closely to America with a free-trade accord. As a strategic matter, to reject Colombia's offer now would tell everyone in Latin America that it is far more dangerous to trust America than it is to trash it.

Yet Democrats on Capitol Hill are doing their best to help Mr. Chávez prevail against Mr. Uribe. Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that "they don't have the votes for it, it's not going to come on the floor," adding that "what they [the White House] don't understand it's not the facts on the ground, it's the politics that's in the air."

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don't want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue.

Our guess is that Messrs. Baucus and Rangel understand the stakes and privately favor the accord. The bottleneck is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is refusing to allow a vote under pressure from her left-wing Members. These Democrats deride any link between Hugo Chávez and trade as a "scare tactic," as if greater economic prosperity had no political consequences. "President Bush's recent fear-mongering on trade shows just how desperate he is to deliver one final victory for multinational corporations," declared Illinois Democrat Phil Hare, who is one of Ms. Pelosi's main trade policy deputies.

These are the same Democrats who preach the virtues of "soft power" and diplomacy, while deriding Mr. Bush for being too quick to use military force. But trade is a classic form of soft power that would expand U.S. and Latin ties in a web of commercial interests. More than 8,000 U.S. companies currently export to Colombia, nearly 85% of which are small and medium-sized firms. Colombia is already the largest South American market for U.S. farm products, and the pact would open Colombia to new competition and entrepreneurship.

Which brings us back to Mr. Chávez and his many Democratic friends. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez's August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela's oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own Presidential qualities, they'd be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.

Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect "trade unionists." In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is whether they're going to choose Colombia -- or Hugo Chávez.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

link

How come the article doen't mention the Bush family's very cozy oil ties to Saudia Arabia?

Why don't you just one time comment on what is in an article?

[AFTiger 282]

Because it is about the Democrat cozy ties to Hugo Chavez and to South American Communists?

I thougth we were already trading with Chavez?

Not before the Democrats put him in office.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Correct me if I'm wrong,but don't we buy oil from him?

[AFTiger 282]

Correct me if I'm wrong,but don't we buy oil from him?

We buy oil from everybody. But we did not buy oil from Chavez until your guys put him in office.

[arnaldoabru 11]

So we only started buying oil from Chavez when the Democrats took control in the Congress?

[AFTiger 282]

So we only started buying oil from Chavez when the Democrats took control in the Congress?

I know this is a difficult concept for you. We were buying oil from Venezuela before Chavez took over. Jimmy Carter (D) certified a corrupt election and Chris Dodd (D) blocked any attempt to correct it. Chavez nationalized the oil industry of Venezuela and that is when we wound up buying oil from Chavez.

What is it about Democrats love of communists?

[arnaldoabru 11]

So we should put our foot down and not buy his oil!Let's fine American company's that do business with him.Let's also not send American procucts over for them to buy.(if there is anything made here anymore)

[arnaldoabru 11]

So we only started buying oil from Chavez when the Democrats took control in the Congress?

I know this is a difficult concept for you. We were buying oil from Venezuela before Chavez took over. Jimmy Carter (D) certified a corrupt election and Chris Dodd (D) blocked any attempt to correct it. Chavez nationalized the oil industry of Venezuela and that is when we wound up buying oil from Chavez.

What is it about Democrats love of communists?

Maybe we should just invade.

[AFTiger 282]

So we only started buying oil from Chavez when the Democrats took control in the Congress?

I know this is a difficult concept for you. We were buying oil from Venezuela before Chavez took over. Jimmy Carter (D) certified a corrupt election and Chris Dodd (D) blocked any attempt to correct it. Chavez nationalized the oil industry of Venezuela and that is when we wound up buying oil from Chavez.

What is it about Democrats love of communists?

Maybe we should just invade.

Or hold a legitimate election.

[autiger4life 3]

Or hold a legitimate election.

YEA, LETS MAKE THEM HOLD A LEGIT ELECTION!!!! Oh wait, instead of worrying about a Communist who says some bad things about the US. You know what, we're the freaking USA we need to be telling every country what to say, who to have as their leader, and who and what to trade. Its amazing how we focus on this and none of the genocide that goes on in Africa. I know I know, oh the liberal with Darfur, how stupid to care more about kids getting limbs chopped off than a guy who isn't a fan of Bush.

This is such a double standard. NO republicans care about other dictators that Bush is buddy buddy with, or that the republicans put in office, BUT CHAVEZ!!!!! NOW THAT IS BAD. C'mon AFT, get over yourself.

[TigerHeat 9]

So we should put our foot down and not buy his oil!Let's fine American company's that do business with him.Let's also not send American procucts over for them to buy.(if there is anything made here anymore)

Do you have any idea what's been going on in Venezuela? US companies built the Venezuelan oil infrastructure that was supplying Citgo and several other US companies (as well as other countries around the world) with oil. When Chavez seized power (seized, not won....check out all his "constitutional reforms" that limit elections, speech, freedom of association, and extended his "term of office") he NATIONALIZED all the oil poduction assets that belonged to the US companies that were leaseholders. That means they lost their shirts. He stole every piece of equipment other than the tankers (they are leased from a handful of companies worldwide). Since that has happened, the oil production and export has fallen sharply. Now he has to find a way to keep everyone's mind occupied so they don't see the sharp downturn in their economy. Voila! Those pesky Colombians are trying to steal our land again! Rally up, boys, we're going to war for the Fatherland! Hopefully this will buy me enough time to figure out what to do next as I spend up the billions I stole from the treasury....

This crap is right out of the communist playbook. It's like they follow a script. And all the American left can do is gripe about Bush driving up the price of oil to get his cronies rich. Nevermind the OPEN ORDERS at the pits (where the prices are set by independent traders and not the boards of directors).

In the last few years, the oil markets have been affected by:

-war in Iraq Iraqi production and export up from Hussein era, but market is radically different (no Soviet bloc)

-Iranian production different due to strained ties with China, Europe (still buying, but everyone involved is uneasy...uncertainty of supply equals a price premium)

-Africa unrest across Africa continues. Nigeria is in a state of near civil war due to massive Sharia surge, other west coast nations in turmoil for various reasons that have zero to do with Bush (C'ote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, and Ghana all playing shenanigans on western oil companies that do all their explorations and set ups (read about Vaalco's political risks in western Africa for a snapshot of what these people face)

-Mexico a shambles. racist, feudalistic society exporting their workforce instead of their oil.

-Venezuela formerly successful rising economy, now headed south due to "nationalization" of oil production assets

-Saudi Arabia now at odds with US companies that made up the old Saudi-Aramco. Far fewer westerners are willing to live there now, and the Europeans want to replace the Americans in all the technical aspects.

-United States oil production has fallen, and few new exploitable fields are being developed due to environmental regulations that do not exist in other countries (why on earth are we not drilling off of Florida? how about Alaska?)

-China huge growth in their demand for oil means they have made big inroads in oil exploration and production worldwide. they have made huge gains in south america and africa. they generally don't have a problem with radical muslims because of the way they've handled those situtions in their own dealings with their Afghani neighbors (the Uighurs or something like that)

[AFTiger 282]

Or hold a legitimate election.

YEA, LETS MAKE THEM HOLD A LEGIT ELECTION!!!! Oh wait, instead of worrying about a Communist who says some bad things about the US. You know what, we're the freaking USA we need to be telling every country what to say, who to have as their leader, and who and what to trade. Its amazing how we focus on this and none of the genocide that goes on in Africa. I know I know, oh the liberal with Darfur, how stupid to care more about kids getting limbs chopped off than a guy who isn't a fan of Bush.

This is such a double standard. NO republicans care about other dictators that Bush is buddy buddy with, or that the republicans put in office, BUT CHAVEZ!!!!! NOW THAT IS BAD. C'mon AFT, get over yourself.

What a disjointed and uninformed statement that was. Republicans support the the genocide in Darfur?!?!

As Columbia is discovering, Chavez is a bit more than a loud mouth. Do you consider the FARC the good guys? We had the chance to prevent a dictatorship in Venezuela but thank you Jimmy Carter.

[arnaldoabru 11]

So we should put our foot down and not buy his oil!Let's fine American company's that do business with him.Let's also not send American procucts over for them to buy.(if there is anything made here anymore)

Do you have any idea what's been going on in Venezuela? US companies built the Venezuelan oil infrastructure that was supplying Citgo and several other US companies (as well as other countries around the world) with oil. When Chavez seized power (seized, not won....check out all his "constitutional reforms" that limit elections, speech, freedom of association, and extended his "term of office") he NATIONALIZED all the oil poduction assets that belonged to the US companies that were leaseholders. That means they lost their shirts. He stole every piece of equipment other than the tankers (they are leased from a handful of companies worldwide). Since that has happened, the oil production and export has fallen sharply. Now he has to find a way to keep everyone's mind occupied so they don't see the sharp downturn in their economy. Voila! Those pesky Colombians are trying to steal our land again! Rally up, boys, we're going to war for the Fatherland! Hopefully this will buy me enough time to figure out what to do next as I spend up the billions I stole from the treasury....

This crap is right out of the communist playbook. It's like they follow a script. And all the American left can do is gripe about Bush driving up the price of oil to get his cronies rich. Nevermind the OPEN ORDERS at the pits (where the prices are set by independent traders and not the boards of directors).

In the last few years, the oil markets have been affected by:

-war in Iraq Iraqi production and export up from Hussein era, but market is radically different (no Soviet bloc)

-Iranian production different due to strained ties with China, Europe (still buying, but everyone involved is uneasy...uncertainty of supply equals a price premium)

-Africa unrest across Africa continues. Nigeria is in a state of near civil war due to massive Sharia surge, other west coast nations in turmoil for various reasons that have zero to do with Bush (C'ote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, and Ghana all playing shenanigans on western oil companies that do all their explorations and set ups (read about Vaalco's political risks in western Africa for a snapshot of what these people face)

-Mexico a shambles. racist, feudalistic society exporting their workforce instead of their oil.

-Venezuela formerly successful rising economy, now headed south due to "nationalization" of oil production assets

-Saudi Arabia now at odds with US companies that made up the old Saudi-Aramco. Far fewer westerners are willing to live there now, and the Europeans want to replace the Americans in all the technical aspects.

-United States oil production has fallen, and few new exploitable fields are being developed due to environmental regulations that do not exist in other countries (why on earth are we not drilling off of Florida? how about Alaska?)

-China huge growth in their demand for oil means they have made big inroads in oil exploration and production worldwide. they have made huge gains in south america and africa. they generally don't have a problem with radical muslims because of the way they've handled those situtions in their own dealings with their Afghani neighbors (the Uighurs or something like that)

Limiting civil liberties

A failing economy

Invading other countries.... Sounds real familiar to me too.

[TigerHeat 9]

So we should put our foot down and not buy his oil!Let's fine American company's that do business with him.Let's also not send American procucts over for them to buy.(if there is anything made here anymore)

Do you have any idea what's been going on in Venezuela? US companies built the Venezuelan oil infrastructure that was supplying Citgo and several other US companies (as well as other countries around the world) with oil. When Chavez seized power (seized, not won....check out all his "constitutional reforms" that limit elections, speech, freedom of association, and extended his "term of office") he NATIONALIZED all the oil poduction assets that belonged to the US companies that were leaseholders. That means they lost their shirts. He stole every piece of equipment other than the tankers (they are leased from a handful of companies worldwide). Since that has happened, the oil production and export has fallen sharply. Now he has to find a way to keep everyone's mind occupied so they don't see the sharp downturn in their economy. Voila! Those pesky Colombians are trying to steal our land again! Rally up, boys, we're going to war for the Fatherland! Hopefully this will buy me enough time to figure out what to do next as I spend up the billions I stole from the treasury....

This crap is right out of the communist playbook. It's like they follow a script. And all the American left can do is gripe about Bush driving up the price of oil to get his cronies rich. Nevermind the OPEN ORDERS at the pits (where the prices are set by independent traders and not the boards of directors).

In the last few years, the oil markets have been affected by:

-war in Iraq Iraqi production and export up from Hussein era, but market is radically different (no Soviet bloc)

-Iranian production different due to strained ties with China, Europe (still buying, but everyone involved is uneasy...uncertainty of supply equals a price premium)

-Africa unrest across Africa continues. Nigeria is in a state of near civil war due to massive Sharia surge, other west coast nations in turmoil for various reasons that have zero to do with Bush (C'ote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, and Ghana all playing shenanigans on western oil companies that do all their explorations and set ups (read about Vaalco's political risks in western Africa for a snapshot of what these people face)

-Mexico a shambles. racist, feudalistic society exporting their workforce instead of their oil.

-Venezuela formerly successful rising economy, now headed south due to "nationalization" of oil production assets

-Saudi Arabia now at odds with US companies that made up the old Saudi-Aramco. Far fewer westerners are willing to live there now, and the Europeans want to replace the Americans in all the technical aspects.

-United States oil production has fallen, and few new exploitable fields are being developed due to environmental regulations that do not exist in other countries (why on earth are we not drilling off of Florida? how about Alaska?)

-China huge growth in their demand for oil means they have made big inroads in oil exploration and production worldwide. they have made huge gains in south america and africa. they generally don't have a problem with radical muslims because of the way they've handled those situtions in their own dealings with their Afghani neighbors (the Uighurs or something like that)

Limiting civil liberties

A failing economy

Invading other countries.... Sounds real familiar to me too.

Which civil liberties have been limited? Exactly? If you say anything about "warrantless wiretaps" I'll call you a clown, because it takes MONTHS to get a domestic wiretap. Weeks, if you're in a hurry. And the policy currently in use is a WRITTEN and publicly acknowledged version of the procedures the Clinton administration used everyday.

Failing economy? How so? the Dow is up 50% over the last 5 years, unemployment is at a very low level even with the flood of illegals in the workforce, American goods are attractively priced in the world market for the first time in years, mortgage rates are at historic low ranges, and we haven't yet entered a recession....nor is it apparent that we will. What is apparent is that EVERY election cycle the press starts talking down the economy because people that know nothing of economics will flock to the Dems' populist rhetoric.

Invading other countries....which would you have go back to their pre-9/11 status? We are winning overwhelmingly in Iraq now (AQI is in their last redoubt in Mosul of all places...damned Turks). The 19 year old US GI has turned the tide with candy and clean drinking water despite the American Left's dogged determination to undermine anything that occurs under a Republican administration. Afghanistan is in a state of incredible peace despite the horror stories that crop up from time to time in the outlying areas in the northeast.

If you really want to talk about some political failures look at US cities. Huge homicide rates, grinding generational poverty, epidemic illiteracy, collapsing infrastructure, etc. Maybe you could do something local to fix these things instead of fantasizing about the evil bushitlerchimp's evil misdeeds with his halliburton cronies. Pessimism and defeatism rules the left.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I can show figures,statistics on the ecomomy that shows the exact opposite of what you are saying.

As far as Afganistan and Iraq if you actually believe the bs that you said then there is nothing I could that would bring you out of that dream state.

You have not only drank the kool-aide,you've been opening the pack and snorting.

[arnaldoabru 11]

"The 19 year old US GI has turned the tide with candy"

12 American deaths over the past 4 days.

Must be handdin out sour apple drops

and when are the Iraqi's going to have that parade that Rumsfield of Cheney said they were going to have

[Tigermike 3,054]

I can show figures,statistics on the ecomomy that shows the exact opposite of what you are saying.

As far as Afganistan and Iraq if you actually believe the bs that you said then there is nothing I could that would bring you out of that dream state.

You have not only drank the kool-aide,you've been opening the pack and snorting.

Please do show those figures and statistics you are talking about.

The only thing being snorted here is the socialist BS from KOS, moveon & dim underground. Or is that ducks unlimited?

Since you are saying we are not winning in Iraq now, show proof of that. Show proof that the terrorist you admire so much are winning.

[GaCoach 0]

So we should put our foot down and not buy his oil!Let's fine American company's that do business with him.Let's also not send American procucts over for them to buy.(if there is anything made here anymore)

Do you have any idea what's been going on in Venezuela? US companies built the Venezuelan oil infrastructure that was supplying Citgo and several other US companies (as well as other countries around the world) with oil. When Chavez seized power (seized, not won....check out all his "constitutional reforms" that limit elections, speech, freedom of association, and extended his "term of office") he NATIONALIZED all the oil poduction assets that belonged to the US companies that were leaseholders. That means they lost their shirts. He stole every piece of equipment other than the tankers (they are leased from a handful of companies worldwide). Since that has happened, the oil production and export has fallen sharply. Now he has to find a way to keep everyone's mind occupied so they don't see the sharp downturn in their economy. Voila! Those pesky Colombians are trying to steal our land again! Rally up, boys, we're going to war for the Fatherland! Hopefully this will buy me enough time to figure out what to do next as I spend up the billions I stole from the treasury....

This crap is right out of the communist playbook. It's like they follow a script. And all the American left can do is gripe about Bush driving up the price of oil to get his cronies rich. Nevermind the OPEN ORDERS at the pits (where the prices are set by independent traders and not the boards of directors).

In the last few years, the oil markets have been affected by:

-war in Iraq Iraqi production and export up from Hussein era, but market is radically different (no Soviet bloc)

-Iranian production different due to strained ties with China, Europe (still buying, but everyone involved is uneasy...uncertainty of supply equals a price premium)

-Africa unrest across Africa continues. Nigeria is in a state of near civil war due to massive Sharia surge, other west coast nations in turmoil for various reasons that have zero to do with Bush (C'ote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, and Ghana all playing shenanigans on western oil companies that do all their explorations and set ups (read about Vaalco's political risks in western Africa for a snapshot of what these people face)

-Mexico a shambles. racist, feudalistic society exporting their workforce instead of their oil.

-Venezuela formerly successful rising economy, now headed south due to "nationalization" of oil production assets

-Saudi Arabia now at odds with US companies that made up the old Saudi-Aramco. Far fewer westerners are willing to live there now, and the Europeans want to replace the Americans in all the technical aspects.

-United States oil production has fallen, and few new exploitable fields are being developed due to environmental regulations that do not exist in other countries (why on earth are we not drilling off of Florida? how about Alaska?)

-China huge growth in their demand for oil means they have made big inroads in oil exploration and production worldwide. they have made huge gains in south america and africa. they generally don't have a problem with radical muslims because of the way they've handled those situtions in their own dealings with their Afghani neighbors (the Uighurs or something like that)

Limiting civil liberties

A failing economy

Invading other countries.... Sounds real familiar to me too.

Which civil liberties have been limited? Exactly? If you say anything about "warrantless wiretaps" I'll call you a clown, because it takes MONTHS to get a domestic wiretap. Weeks, if you're in a hurry. And the policy currently in use is a WRITTEN and publicly acknowledged version of the procedures the Clinton administration used everyday.

Failing economy? How so? the Dow is up 50% over the last 5 years, unemployment is at a very low level even with the flood of illegals in the workforce, American goods are attractively priced in the world market for the first time in years, mortgage rates are at historic low ranges, and we haven't yet entered a recession....nor is it apparent that we will. What is apparent is that EVERY election cycle the press starts talking down the economy because people that know nothing of economics will flock to the Dems' populist rhetoric.

Invading other countries....which would you have go back to their pre-9/11 status? We are winning overwhelmingly in Iraq now (AQI is in their last redoubt in Mosul of all places...damned Turks). The 19 year old US GI has turned the tide with candy and clean drinking water despite the American Left's dogged determination to undermine anything that occurs under a Republican administration. Afghanistan is in a state of incredible peace despite the horror stories that crop up from time to time in the outlying areas in the northeast.

If you really want to talk about some political failures look at US cities. Huge homicide rates, grinding generational poverty, epidemic illiteracy, collapsing infrastructure, etc. Maybe you could do something local to fix these things instead of fantasizing about the evil bushitlerchimp's evil misdeeds with his halliburton cronies. Pessimism and defeatism rules the left.

You can't say we're not in a recession because 'arnaldoabru' believes that since Warren Buffett and what he calls 'experts' are SAYING otherwise. I've already showed him the facts that state otherwise on another thread.

[autiger4life 3]

What a disjointed and uninformed statement that was.

DISJOINTED?!?!? Yea, I was still getting over the flu so I can agree it was disjointed. Uninformed is the wrong word for it since it was more of an opinion then facts presented so it is difficult for it to an uninformed statement.

My point was that on both sides we ignore situations that one respective side created or certainly has not made real steps to stop and focus on other, often less serious situations. I personally am more concerned about Darfur then I am the oil and Chavez. But that is just me.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I can show figures,statistics on the ecomomy that shows the exact opposite of what you are saying.

As far as Afganistan and Iraq if you actually believe the bs that you said then there is nothing I could that would bring you out of that dream state.

You have not only drank the kool-aide,you've been opening the pack and snorting.

Please do show those figures and statistics you are talking about.

The only thing being snorted here is the socialist BS from KOS, moveon & dim underground. Or is that ducks unlimited?

Since you are saying we are not winning in Iraq now, show proof of that. Show proof that the terrorist you admire so much are winning.

Before we get into the winning part,tell me again the reasons WHY we in are in Iraq.You can use the Administrations or your own.

[TigerHeat 9]

What a disjointed and uninformed statement that was.

DISJOINTED?!?!? Yea, I was still getting over the flu so I can agree it was disjointed. Uninformed is the wrong word for it since it was more of an opinion then facts presented so it is difficult for it to an uninformed statement.

My point was that on both sides we ignore situations that one respective side created or certainly has not made real steps to stop and focus on other, often less serious situations. I personally am more concerned about Darfur then I am the oil and Chavez. But that is just me.

What do we do about Darfur? Negotiate? Bribe? Build roads? Kill the badguys? The left cries over things like this, but they have NO stomach for a fight. This is an identical situation to Somalia and Mohammed Farah Aidid. The only national interest we have there is stemming the tide of radical Islam's march across Africa. Of course, that's plenty for me, but the Left will not finish a fight any more, and they will only start ones where they believe no one will get killed (e.g., cruise missiles hitting factories at 0400) or where we have no clear national interest. You can't use Bosnia as a good example because that was the last set-piece battle perhaps ever. That was easy to bomb formations from 15,000 feet and relative safety from AA fire. Besides, we bombed the wrong freakin' side

If you want to invade, kill the Sunnis, and set up a new pro-west government I'm down with that. Anything short is just librul nuthuggery. A total waste of time. Islam and the 3rd world only understands one thing: the aggressive use of force. Everything else is a vacuum, and vacuums don't tend to exist for long.