Laugh at Liberals

58 Responses to “OIL TRUTH: IT’S JUST BUSINESS”

1. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 2:26 am

   Buck,
   I don’t think that you actually read the background research that Savinar presented. You can dismiss his claims, but you should at least contact the evidence. Don’t give into the temptation to be shallow.

2. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 2:27 am

   Additionally, His book doesn’t claim to provide a “sky proof umbrella at all.” You didn’t read it.

3. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 2:29 am

   Conservatives use the phrase “junk science” to excuse intellectual laziness.

4. K. Marx Says: February 17th, 2005 at 4:22 am

   buck (admin?);
   Good review. I especially liked the reference to Chicken Little. Excellent point that it is pointless to dismiss everything and offer no solutions. I haven’t read it all, so I’ll have to check it out.

5. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 12:19 pm

   K.Marx. The point of the Peak oil argument is not that there are no solutions period, just that the oil party is over and we needed to start looking intensively at alternative fuel sources 30 years ago. Right now, there just isn’t another viable energy source that even comes close to oil in terms of bang for the buck. My best friend is head of the international project for a fusion reactor for the DOE and he largely agrees with the OilTruth story. My brother-in-law is an executive for a major power company. He agrees with the oiltruth case too. If you know of a solution, please let the energy experts know because they think its a crisis.

6. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 12:37 pm

   Buck, Actually Mark is not a “lawyer by trade” since he never practiced law.

7. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 2:27 pm

   I just want to reiterate, Savinar did not suggest that there is “no hope for mankind”, just that the oil age is rapidly drawing to a close. The reason I started down this path was to show that Cheney and Bush as acutely aware of the dwindling oil supply and the underlying reason for the invasion of Iraq was to attempt to install a government in the region that would be friendly to the US and keep the oil flowing. Iraq was an ideal target. Fabricated WMD evidence and al qaeda/Saddam links provided the perfect cover, and revisionist history provides relief from a guilty conscience. That’s my theory. I invite you to point me to the evidence that falsifies it. Furthermore, Buck, if you want Chicken Little, what about Bush and his crew telling us that Iraq was going to nuke us if we didn’t attack them immediately (and kill 10s of thousands of innocent people in the process). Bush supporters have absolutely no basis to criticize anyone ever again about using phoney scare tactics about anything. Bush owns that game.

8. buck Says: February 17th, 2005 at 5:18 pm

   Julian,
   You are correct that I did not read Savinar’s book. I wouldn’t want to waste the money.

   Let me address your comments in post #7

   Julian said “I just want to reiterate, Savinar did not suggest that there is “no hope for mankind”, just that the oil age is rapidly drawing to a close.”

   I never said that either, but he did say, “Civilization, as we know it, is coming to an end soon…” That’s a quote.

   Julian said: “The reason I started down this path was to show that Cheney and Bush as acutely aware of the dwindling oil supply and the underlying reason for the invasion of Iraq was to attempt to install a government in the region that would be friendly to the US and keep the oil flowing.” That is your opinion, but the logic is flawed. If its about oil and money, as the libs always say, do the math. The cost in real dollars and political capital do conduct a war for oil far out weighs the cost of just buying it.

   Julian said: “Fabricated WMD evidence and al qaeda/Saddam links provided the perfect cover, and revisionist history provides relief from a guilty conscience. That’s my theory. I invite you to point me to the evidence that falsifies it.”

   Who is revising history here? The WMD assertions were world opinion since the first Gulf War. It was the invasion of Iraq that proved otherwise. I don’t get your logic. Bush didn’t make up WMD, it was on the table before he was even in public office, and if he knew it was a lie, and was using it as cover to “invade for oil” why would he expose his own cover as a lie. I don’t get the logic of your argument.

   Julian said: Furthermore, Buck, if you want Chicken Little, what about Bush and his crew telling us that Iraq was going to nuke us if we didn’t attack them immediately (and kill 10s of thousands of innocent people in the process). Bush supporters have absolutely no basis to criticize anyone ever again about using phoney scare tactics about anything. Bush owns that game.”

   Where did Bush or anybody in his administration ever say that Iraq was going to nuke us if we didn’t attack them immediately. What they did say was they didn’t know exactly what Iraq’s nuclear capabilities were, because Iraq was preventing UN sanctioned inspections. The problem with not knowing is, once the missle is flying, it’s too late. Who killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process? The U.S. Soldiers you say you support? Where does that “fact” come from?

   The only game Bush owns is doing exactly what he said he would do and kicking the liberal appeasers in this country right out of power. At a political campaign someone yelled at Harry S. Truman, “Give ‘em Hell, Harry!” His response was, “I don’t give “em Hell. I just tell the truth, and they think its Hell.”

   Give ‘em Hell, W.

9. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 6:31 pm

   Buck,
   I want to explore each of your points exhaustively and then hear what you have to say about them. Right now I have a meeting to attend. But, as for the quote from Buck “The cost in real dollars and political capital do conduct a war for oil far out weighs the cost of just buying it.” The Bush administration estimated the original cost of the war was going to be $1.7 billion. The access to $1 per barrel Iraqi oil (that’s what it costs to pump a barrel of oil in Iraq, at prewar prices) would have made the 1.7 billion investment quite a bargain. I know for a fact that Bush did not anticipate the catastrophic aspect of his success in Iraq or that it was going to cost over $200 billion (so far, expect it to cost a trillion by the time we finally leave), which I am sure has Bush et al. kicking themselves behind closed doors. But would you really expect them to admit the failure of their primary mission or to cover up their failure with their fallback to the “liberty is on the march” rhetoric? Go back through all of the pre-war transcripts and you won’t find their current take on the Iraq story mentioned at all. Much more to say on this when I have 5 minutes. See the following story for the $1.7 billion reference.

   http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html

10. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 7:32 pm

    Buck, I hate to say because I don’t want to offend you, but you are really very sloppy in your approach to analyzing what people say. You may not be aware of the ways in which you are sloppy, but I assure you that you are and I think that this gets you tangled up in the various disorganized threads running through your thoughts. I’m going to try to undo the knot when I have a moment.

11. buck Says: February 17th, 2005 at 7:41 pm

    Julian,
    You make me laugh.

12. Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 7:54 pm

    Buck, But you’re crying inside.

13. K. Marx Says: February 18th, 2005 at 10:18 am

    Is it the duty of the United States president to run the country, or run “liberal appeasers” out of power? I would assume the president knows well enough that regardless of someone’s political views, they are as much entitled to be in office as much as any other elected official.
    Is it not a representative democracy? Do not the people decide who is run out of power, not the president?–Who, in fact, only has power because the people put him there? The president did not put himself in power, the people did. The voters, as the majority, have the power.
    The president is an elected official, set in by a majority vote. Is it his duty to be worshipped or to fulfill his role that is only a small part in the U.S. governing system?
    In response to the comments about the WMD’s: We have to be careful not to be Monday morning quarterbacks. After all, hindsight is perfect. You can only judge the reasonableness of an action (such as invading Iraq) on the knowledge present at the time the decision was made. Whether WMD’s were there or not is of no consequence; that is something that was found out after the fact. Other sound arguments could be made, to be sure, regarding the matter. But, the argument that since we found no WMD’s, we should not have invaded Iraq is the fallacy of hindsight.
    Further, I trust that the United States defense system could withstand a missile attack from the Middle East. Shouldn’t any missile possibly aimed at the U.S. be shot down before anyone was the wiser? Is it a risk worth taking; whether the U.S. defense systems are superior to Iraq’s weapons? That I do not know. One should hope that the Defense Department takes care of the defense of domestic grounds before spending the budget on foreign affairs.

14. Bob Says: February 18th, 2005 at 1:04 pm

    Don’t fool yourself, the invasion was for oil. You are not seeing the complete picture. The looming oil crisis will have a REAL effect on our standard of living. The cost of not committing to action is a cost that many people do not understand. When you consider the cost of going to Iraq, also consider the enormous cost of NOT having cheap oil in the future. It is an investment and you could make a convincing argument that it is neccasary. I’ll never forget a quote that Bush let slip before the Iraq war: “I will not let a thug control 1/3 the world’s oil supply.” That sums it up.

15. Julian Says: February 18th, 2005 at 1:29 pm

    Reply to Buck in preparation. Be patient please.

16. Julian Says: February 18th, 2005 at 8:32 pm

    Buck, Here is a brief start on my analysis of your comment in post 8, Oiltruth. Don’t have time right now to be thorough. First, would you not agree that civilization, as we know it, is oil-dependent? If so, then, Savinar is correct in saying that civilization, as we know it, is coming to an end as oil resources are depleted.

    Buck said, “The cost in real dollars and political capital do conduct a war for oil far out weighs the cost of just buying it.” That would have been true if Bush’s expectation that troops would “be greeted by Iraqis with flowers in the streets” had come to pass.
    Ken Adelman, an advisor to Donald Rumsfeld (2/13/2002) said, “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps.” So the war didn’t turn out to be the bargain Bush hoped for.

    Concerning the fabricated of WMD evidence: Let me summarize a few points from the Carnegie Endowment report entitled WMD in Iraq: evidence and implications. “It is very likely that intelligence officials were pressured by senior administration officials to conform their threat assessments to preexisting policies,” It concedes that Iraq’s WMD programs could have resumed and might have posed a long-term threat that could not be ignored. But, the authors wrote, “they did not pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region or to global security.”

    “Despite Vice President Dick Cheney’s insistence early last year that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, the Carnegie report concludes there was “no convincing evidence” that it had done so, and that this should have been known to US intelligence.”

    “ Similarly, with respect to Baghdad’s chemical weapons, US intelligence should have known that all facilities for producing them had been effectively destroyed and that existing stockpiles had lost their potency already by 1991.”

    “Uncertainties regarding Iraq’s biological weapons program were greater, the report concludes. Dual-use equipment and facilities, however, made it theoretically possible for some limited production of both chemical and biological weapons to occur.”

    “As of the beginning of 2002, according to the report, the intelligence community appears to have overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, but had a generally accurate picture of both the nuclear and missile programs. But in 2002 the community appears to have made a “dramatic shift” in its analyses. The fact that this change coincided with the creation of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the Pentagon – a still-mysterious group of intelligence analysts and consultants hired by prominent hawks to assess the community’s reporting – “suggests that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers’ views some time in 2002,” the report states. Hummm??

    But beyond the failures of the intelligence community, “administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs” in several ways, it adds.

    They treated the three different kinds of WMD as a single threat when they represented very different threats; insisted without evidence that Saddam would give whatever WMD he had to terrorists; and routinely omitted “caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from (their) public statements.”
    In addition, the administration misrepresented findings by UN inspectors “in ways that turned threats from minor to dire.” http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp?from=pubdate

    Why would he expose himself? Foot-in-the-door technique. Bush knows that American generally lack curiosity and that people like Buck will support him no matter what. Amnesia also plays a role in citizens lack of responsibility when it comes to requiring Bush to be honest.

    How many innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion? A team from the John’s Hopkins School of Public Health reported that a conservative estimate of the number of non-combatants who have died as a result of the invasion exceed 100,000 in Iraq (Lancet, Oct 2004; also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm). The most conservative estimates are in the neighborhood of 16,000 dead civilians. Of the first 100 missiles launched, none hit their targets. That’s zero for 100, slim! Many hit innocent women and children and blew their innocent faces, arms, and legs off. I have pictures if you want me to post them.

    Do I support the troops? I do support the troops. Many of them think that they are protecting our country from foreign enemies. I believe that I am trying to protect our country from domestic enemies, Bush being our country’s chief enemy presently. Intellectually lazy people are second on the list.

    Finally, Savinar’s book is free at many public libraries and his website FREELY GIVES you all you need to evaluate his case. BTW, do you make any money selling ads on your website?

17. buck Says: February 18th, 2005 at 10:02 pm

    Julian,
    You have derided my logic on previous posts and yet you make this giant leaps in logic to support your conclusions. For the sake of argument, let’s say I do agree that civilization as we know it is oil-dependent. You can’t logically jump to the second half of your statement unless you accept the entire premise of Savinar’s argument, namely that A. Oil reserves will be depleted, B. Nothing we can do will solve the problem. That’s the part I have a problem with.

    YOur second rebuttal makes no sense either. The cost in political capital was enormous for Bush. It was true! There is hardship. It is difficult. It would have been easier just to stay home and write checks!

    Finally, all of your arguments about WMD are so tired and, as usual, ignore one basic fact. EVERYBODY THOUGHT SADDAM HAD WMD…EVERYBODY!

18. julian Says: February 18th, 2005 at 10:42 pm

    Buck, I will reply when I finish my workout at the gym. I had to write the previous comment during a meeting on my laptop and didn’t have time to organize it well. Hans Blix didn’t think Saddam had WMDs.

19. julian Says: February 18th, 2005 at 11:28 pm

    buck, I am between exercises but indulge me. Everyone who thought Saddam had WMDs thought that because the Bush administration was cooking intelligence reports and spreading propaganda to make EVERYONE think it. Read the Carnegie report. Bush fudged the info he got. One of my main points is that his administration intentionally mislead the world. Again, read the Carnegie report.

20. buck Says: February 19th, 2005 at 12:37 am

    Julian, I read your post about the article in USA Today. (Posting long links like that screws up the page set up, so I deleted it.)

    It was, of course written after the fact. Rebut the following…PLEASE!

    ‘Based on what we knew and believed about the Iraqi threat, it was merited,’ Hillary Clinton as quoted in the Washington Post 9/24/2003 talking about her vote to go to war. She went on to say she personally consulted others widely before that vote and found that U.S. intelligence ‘from Bush I to her hubby Bill Clinton to Bush II was “consistent in concluding that there was a continuing presence of biological and chemical weapons programs in Iraq and that the Iraqis were seeking to develop a nuclear capacity.” –Washington Post, 9/24/03

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” Rep. Dick Gephardt in a seech on the Senate floor, October, 10, 2002

    REP. GEPHARDT ON MEET THE PRESS: Tim, I didn’t just take the president’s word for this. I went out to the CIA three times. I talked to George Tenet personally. I talked to his top people. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration in their security effort. And I became convinced, from that, all of that, that he either had weapons of mass destruction or he had components of weapons or he had the ability to quickly make a lot of them and pass them to terrorists. Rep. Dick Gephardt, 9/28/03

    “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY

    There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. SEN EDWARD KENNEDY.

    “If Saddam’s regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.” — SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY.

    ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE QUOTES FROM A SPEECH HE MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR OCTOBER 4, 2002

    The Democrats wanted President Clinton to launch a pre-emptive strike five years ago. Why? Read the text of the letter sent by these leaders to BILL CLINTON IN…..WAIT FOR IT…. October 9, 1998

    Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq’s actions and urging the President, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. …

    [From the letter]

    “We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.
    “In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

    Sincerely,

    Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D’Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

    YES, JULIAN, EVERYBODY THOUGHT HE HAD WMD. You can ignore the facts, but it makes your arguments seem weak and petty.

21. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 12:47 am

    What the article said, for those of you who didn’t get a chance to read it, was that prior to the war UN inspectors did not think that Iraq had WMDs. After the invasion, their position on the matter was confirmed. And the Carnegie report provides definitive evidence that Bush cooked Iraq intelligence for propaganda purposes. The rest of you piece is irrelevant Buck.

22. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 12:56 am

    Buck, I agree that the Bush administration fooled virtually everyone by pressuring intelligence agencies to produce evidence favoring their policy and plans. The UN inspectors, the only ones in any position to actually know what was going on in Iraq, of course, did not fall for Bush’s trick.

23. buck Says: February 19th, 2005 at 1:03 am

    Julian,
    You are amazing! The quotes that you dismissed as “irrelevant” refute everything you say. So the if the Bush administration “fooled everyone” about WMD, what did Clinton do. That letter in my previous post was written to BILL CLINTON, long before George Bush was ever in the White House. It explicitly states that they beleive Saddam had WMD. Is Bush so cunning that he was able to influence intelligence, PRIOR TO BECOMING PRESIDENT.

    Again, Julian, when you completely ignore facts that refute your arguments, you look like a sore loser. That’s why I just have to laugh at liberals, like you.

24. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 1:27 am

    They don’t refute what I said, they support my position strongly. Did you notice that Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. Now I am no fan of Clinton’s (or any other Democrat for that matter), but when it came to telling whoppers, he was a distance second to W.

25. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 1:37 am

    Anyone read the Carnegie report yet?

26. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 1:47 am

    You know who did believe that Iraq had WMDs? I did. Know why? Cause Bush’s crew kept saying it. I don’t hold anyone else responsible for misleading me but them. Clinton, congress, CIA, - none of them convinced me that the Iraq matter was urgent. But I did listen to Bush and I believed him. Remember the old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? Don’t let him keep doing it to you.

27. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 2:31 am

    Buck, Want to hear something really strange? The odds are that many (perhaps most) of your readers, Buck, still believe that Iraq had WMDs and ties to al-qaeda. You should be asking yourself why, in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary, many conservatives still believe.

28. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 3:30 am

    Buck do you seriously believe that Clinton tried to convince the world that we should attack Iraq because they had WMDs? That’s getting pretty detached.

29. Suzanne Says: February 19th, 2005 at 1:24 pm

    In theory both Buck and Mark Savinar are correct.
    The one artical in reference, is actually quite true, but as to the end of the world for countries depending upon oil, this is not true.
    I doubt that we as humans will allow our way of life to come to a dead hault without a fight.

    There are some statements made by Mark Savinar in the artical in question which are very correct, though some which are implied as to being correct when they are only assumed.
    So, even though I stated under Iraq and Oil that this artical was “somewhat that which I was trying to say” does not imply I totaly agreed with the entire artical.

    Just as there are truths in some of that which we read does not mean all of it is the truth. I know when I asked some of you to research the oil thing, I also added that in your research you must seperate the truth from the not so true. You must use your own mind to come to any conclusion.
    Somewhere out there is the real truth, but where I don’t know. Lets be reasonable, this is not a end of the world or not end of the world final finished over thing. If it is true that in 30 years there will be no more oil, would not someone have started doing something?

    Already, I hear somone writing, Suzanne, you are going against what you wrote before. So, before you write that, No I am not.
    I wrote before that none of you knew the truth about the oil problem, and you still do not know.
    Neither does Mark Savinar, nor do I, nor does Buck. On the other hand all of us have some grasp on the problem.

    What is the solution, I don’t have it, and instead of fighting back and forth, why go about finding the solution.

    It is my understanding that the oil reserves of the World, though becoming less each day, will last for about 100 years, give or take. Even this statement is not exact nor provable. I don’t know of anyway that we can correctly tell how much oil is left until there is no more left. Unless someone can see into the depth of the earth all at one time, there is not way we can predict when there will not be any oil left nor can we predict how much is left. This is impossible!
    Unless there is a worm organization and all the worms go about checking the oil reserves.
    Just a little humor on Laugh at Liberals.

    Suzanne

30. Suzanne Says: February 19th, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    In regards to this is a Fact or something which is fact.
    Do any of you know what was written about the future of the computer in the 1950’s?
    I think all of you might be surprised. Be careful of what you take to heart to be a FACT.
    That which may be a fact today will not be a fact tomorrow.

    In the 1950’s it was written by a well known Science Magazine that the future of the computer was “No Future”. It was the concluding opinion of several Scientist that to be effective and to keep up with the amount of data, the computer would need to take up such a large area and weigh so much it would be unrealistic and outdated within less than one year.
    Now, that was a fact in the late 1950’s, is that a fact today?

    Watch what you call facts as time and invention change facts.

    Same as the computer facts, same as to oil facts.

    Suzanne

31. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 1:39 pm

    Buck, It’s no defense of Bush to say, “Hey other people were wrong too.” When you have your finger on the trigger, you have to make absolutely sure you’re right. Once you bomb children, you can’t go back and unbomb them. You don’t get to make mistakes that bad but once, in my book. You look at what he has done as president and just ask yourself, “what the hell does a guy have to do to get fired from that job?”

32. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 4:02 pm

    On a previous topic: You will see in the news that the Shiites are now saying that they will not accept a Kurd veto. Sistani has sent a warning to the UN. The Shiites won a clear majority in the election, to correct Buck’s previous erroneous post on the topic, and now the TAL is in jeopardy. See the Financal Times for details.

33. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 4:35 pm

    So Bush’s poor choice of words, “Axis of Evil”, is biting us all in the rear. North Korea has built an arsenal of nukes under W’s watch and is giving us the finger. Chalk up another catastrophic success for Bush.

34. Emory Says: February 19th, 2005 at 5:03 pm

    Julian, it may be that “Axis of Evil” was a poor choice of words, even though the analogy seems accurate. The foundation for North Korea’s nuclear capability was laid under the Clinton administration.

35. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    Suzanne, it is important to note that Savinar argued that a 3% reduction in oil supply would trigger a global crisis because the economy, as it is currently arranged, depends on a steadily increasing supply of oil. China, Russia, and many other countries are adding to the problem because they plan to massively increase their oil use in the near future. As for alternatives, nothing is even close to being ready to fill the gap. I am a research scientist and let me assure you, you don’t want to have to count of making a last minute breakthrough to save the day. BTW, Reagan massively cut alternative energy research and the funding has never been restored. He set us back 20 years in this respect.

36. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 6:04 pm

    Emory,
    Clinton is so yesterday, who cares about Clinton?

37. Emory Says: February 19th, 2005 at 6:25 pm

    Umm… I suppose anyone who might be the recipient of a North Korean nuke?

38. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 6:30 pm

    For those who are really interested in the energy situation, here is a very thorough, non-profit, bipartisan report. It is well-worth the read. The title is “Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges” It is easy to find on the web.

39. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 7:49 pm

    Emory, Would you not agree that Bush and company suck at diplomacy?

40. Julian Says: February 19th, 2005 at 8:08 pm

    Emory,
    If you go to the factsheet on North Korea at http://www.armscontrol.org you will notice, as you review the chronology, that the situation with North Korea went rapidly downhill after Jan 29, 2002.

41. Emory Says: February 19th, 2005 at 10:46 pm

    Julian, it takes a lot long than a few years to develop a nuclear weapon.

42. Emory Says: February 19th, 2005 at 10:49 pm

    Diplomacy… So it’s good diplomacy to have made a deal with a dictator which we kept, but the dictator did not?

43. Julian Says: February 20th, 2005 at 2:13 am

    Emory,
    Do you really think that the situation with North Korea is better today than it was before January 29, 2002? It seems to me that Bush’s strategy has been all stick and no carrot. You can understand what Colin Powell meant when he said to Jack Straw that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Pearl were “Fuc*ing crazies” when you look at the foreign policy they have generated. The Bush administration has made threats that Kim Jong Il is daring them to follow through on and failing to building strong diplomatic alliances with countries that have some pull with North Korea. Good diplomacy involves building strong negotiating partners that prevent shots from ever being fired. Now if somebody doesn’t hurry up and zip Condi’s pie hole she is going to start a nuclear war. That will be the mushroom cloud that she kept warning us about before the Iraq invasion. You also seem to want me to defend Clinton. You can stop trying. I won’t defend any politician. They should have to defend themselves on their own. Our duty is to challenge them, one and all. This is especially true now since corporate journalists won’t do their jobs. The obligation of all journalists is to challenge all elected officials 24/7/365 and require them to be honest with us and explain, in no uncertain terms, the bases of their actions. They should leave no stone unturned and pester elected officials relentlessly. If journalists don’t do it, elected officials won’t volunteer to tell the truth. Networks and media personalities that serve as cheerleaders for elected officials make a mockery of journalism and media responsibility in a democratic society. This administration, by producing fake news and planting phony journalists in among the Whitehouse press corps, is taking political fraud to new heights. Karl Rove, Fox News, and partisan political radio talk shows, in my opinion, are turning our democracy into a farce.

44. Julian Says: February 20th, 2005 at 2:32 am

    LAL poll: Question 1. Do you think that Saddam had WMDs? Question 2. Do you think that Saddam had ties to al-qaeda?

45. Julian Says: February 20th, 2005 at 2:50 am

    War’s a game, which, were their subjects wise, Kings would not play at. ~William Cowper

46. K. Marx Says: February 20th, 2005 at 12:44 pm

    Surely, the media should be, in a perfect world, the Fourth Estate in a democratic society. Does that mean they’re going to be perfect? There’s a point in time where a journalist must think it’s not worth chancing getting fired over a great story. Is everyone willing to do that with their career? It’s a gamble I wouldn’t be willing to take. Perhaps that’s why I would make a terrible journalist?
    It’s very easy to hold the media to this impossible ideal. We should demand perfection, but let’s not be surprized when we don’t get it. Sure, there are bad apples in every industry. Armstrong Williams is just one out of how many thousands of journalists in the world?
    Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, etc. These are examples of media figures that have an obvious agenda. An obvious bias. They set out (and some are better/less biased than others, no doubt) to provide an angle on something and they do it. They make lots of money doing it. Can you blame someone for taking a stand in something when it is what puts food (read: lobster and steak) on their table?
    I don’t like spin any more than the next person, but would you want journalists (who know nothing about your profession) coming into your place of work and telling you how to conduct your business?

47. Julian Says: February 20th, 2005 at 6:28 pm

    K.Marx, Here’s a radical proposal. Since Bush and Cheney won’t take questions from journalists who have ever asked them a tough one, and because we now know that they are not above planting fake journalists in press conferences (e.g., Jeff Gannon) why should we continue to allow the White House to choose who gets to attend press conferences and who gets to ask questions? The people, not the government, it seems to me, should make those decisions. Since they punish reporters who challenge them, the Bush administration, I contend, does not deserve to control how our agents (i.e., our journalists) interrogate them.

48. Julian Says: February 20th, 2005 at 11:33 pm

    Emory, I just read an article in the Jan-Feb 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs. The title of the article is “Did North Korea Cheat”. The author, Selig Harrison claims that “A review of the facts shows that the Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the data - while ignoring the one real threat North Korea actually poses.” You may find the article informative. It should be available at most public or university libraries. Cheers.

49. Emory Says: February 21st, 2005 at 3:26 am

    Thanks, Julian. I’m actually more fascinated with how previous administrations sat back and allowed North Korea and others to begin these nuclear weapons programs without confronting them.

50. Julian Says: February 21st, 2005 at 5:27 am

    Emory, So the fact that North Korea did not violate the agreement that they made with the world during the Clinton administration but then went on to purchase weapons grade fissile material from Pakistan after jan 29,2002, in reponse to the Bush administration’s policies toward N. Korea (”axis of evil” declaration of war) is what you are interested in?

51. K. Marx Says: February 23rd, 2005 at 5:42 am

    Julian;
    Your radical proposal is more rational than radical, but we can not forget: He who has the gold rules. You would be asking those in power to give up much of their power. How would the nation go about making such demands?

52. Julian Says: February 26th, 2005 at 3:30 am

    Last week Buck wrote “I didn’t catch that in USA Today. Maybe if Fox & Friends covers it, the word will get out there. But seriously folks…” with respect to the peak oil issue. What you did miss is that many, perhaps most, of the top energy experts in the world believe the peak oil problem is quite serious, whether the corporate media grasps the problem or not. You insatiably curious readers may want to read an article entitled “Nobel laureate rings energy alarm bell” that appeared on the c/net news site today.

53. Julian Says: February 26th, 2005 at 4:18 am

    A non-profit clearling house on information about the peak oil issue.

54. Julian Says: March 23rd, 2005 at 2:33 am

    I just read a commentary that I judge to be a very insightful analysis of the relationship between the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US and the oil problem. It can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/ and it adds nicely to the running commentary accumulating behind Buck’s analysis of the issue.

55. Julian Says: April 3rd, 2005 at 5:26 am

    What do you guys make of this AP story? Forecast Leads to Oil Price Jump - On the heels of a Goldman-Sachs forecast that oil prices could pass $100 per barrel, oil prices reached record levels Friday. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, light sweet crude futures for May delivery closed at $57.27 a barrel, topping the March 18 prior high of $56.72 (which had topped the St. Patrick’s Day high of $57.60). Oil prices are up 67 percent in the past year. Could it be related to the Peak Oil issue that we have discussed? See comment 53 for references to more resources.

56. Julian Says: April 5th, 2005 at 4:45 am

    Please consider writing your congressional representatives and ask them to attend a presentation in congress by Republican Rep. Bartlett who will be giving another Peak Oil related presentation to the US Congress this month. The most likely times are in the evening of Monday April 11th or Thursday April 14th. The exact time may be known on Friday.

57. Lefty Says: August 11th, 2005 at 8:04 pm

    This commentary on the Peak Oil crisis is timely. Anyone want to revisit this issue? Oil was relatively cheap back in February when Buck penned this one.

58. Lefty Says: September 20th, 2005 at 3:46 am

    A fascinating article in today’s Christian Science Monitor entitled ‘Before the Oil Runs Out: How will this era end?’ It is the first of a 3 -part series running in the CSM and it can be found at the following address.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0920/p01s03-usec.html

Leave a Reply