Bush in 2004

“Blood, Oil, and Tears - and the 2004 Bush Campaign Strategy
by Thom Hartmann

The two words we never hear in the corporate media's discussion of Iraq are "oil" and "nationalism." Yet these are the keys to understanding why we got into Iraq, why we only want "limited" involvement from the U.N., why we won't succeed in stopping attacks against us in Iraq, and why George W. Bush's crony capitalism and aircraft-carrier-landing phony-warrior drama have so terribly harmed our nation and set up a disaster for our children's generation.

If we stay, we'll continue to control ten percent of the world's oil (and perhaps as much as twenty percent - Iraq still has vast unexplored areas that Cheney was dividing up in his pre-9/11 Energy Task Force meetings with Halliburton and Enron). Maintaining control of Iraq's oil will keep OPEC off balance, and will keep faith with Rupert Murdoch's advice to George W. Bush before the war that cheap oil resulting from seizing Iraq's oil fields would help the American economy more than any tax cuts.

(Actually, we should stop calling our invasion of Iraq a "war" - we'd already crippled the nation with 12 years of attacks and sanctions, and then sent the UN in to verify that they were helpless. It's like beating somebody senseless on the street, breaking both their legs with a baseball bat, blindfolding them, and then challenging them to fight. This was an invasion, not a war.)

Thus, keeping control of Iraq's oil will help us keep our SUVs and keep faith with Poppy Bush's famous dictum that "the American lifestyle is not negotiable." And transferring the money from Iraq's oil to large corporations that heavily support Republican candidates has obvious benefits to those currently in control of the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court.

But let's consider the future. Our occupation troops are mostly European-, Hispanic-, and African-American-ancestry Christians in an Arab Muslim land that suffered during the Crusades. Thus, we will continue to draw thousands of Jehadists who find it infinitely easier to travel to Iraq than New York, and our presence will continue to inflame nationalists passions just as the British did in their failed venture in Iraq nearly a century ago. And George W. Bush will probably lose the 2004 election, unless he can divert our attention by ginning up a war somewhere else within 13 months.

On the other hand, if we declare victory and leave Iraq to its warlords and zealots (as we've done in almost all of Afghanistan except the city of Kabul), we'll lose access to all that oil, re-empower OPEC, further drive up domestic gasoline prices, and leave Iraq either as a warlord-dominated state like Afghanistan, a cleric-dominated state like Iran, or a strongman-dominated state like...well...Iraq was before we arrived. And it'll cost Arnold more to run his Hummer.

Adding insult to injury, every tinpot dictator in the world will figure there's little downside in thumbing his nose at the United States, and, unless he can gin up a war somewhere else within 13 months (or once again fail to prevent another 9/11-type attack, God forbid), George W. Bush will probably lose the 2004 election.

August of 2003 brought two milestones that flow directly from the invasion: the U.S. national deficit reached an all time high, surpassing for the first time in history the previous all-time record held by President G.H.W. Bush; and the price of gasoline hit an all-time high, surpassing the previous record held by President G.W. Bush.

A small part of the deficit is related to the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation, and roughly 70 percent of the positive uptick in the last quarter's economic activity was from payments to defense contractors for the invasion itself (private for-profit Republican-supporting companies get about a third of all the money we're spending every month in Iraq). Profits from the occupation help Halliburton, but don't create many jobs in Peoria.

Similarly, while the price of gasoline is high in part because we've been slow to pump Iraq's oil (mostly because of looting and sabotage), it'll go even higher if we turn the administration of the oil over to a UN consortium. Every other industrialized nation in the world is aggressively working to cut reliance on oil and is ready for higher crude oil prices; the US under the Bush administration and their corporate cronies has put forth, instead, an energy policy that requires increasing amounts of foreign oil imports and will be a disaster to our nation in the face of sustained high oil prices or oil shortages.

At least Bush/Cheney knew where they'd get the oil to fuel their National Energy Policy. Documents pried by a Judicial Watch lawsuit against the Cheney energy task force meetings (at http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml) show that Cheney and his buddies from Enron and other energy companies had drawn up maps of Iraq's oil fields and made lists of potential corporate purchasers of Iraqi oil - all months before 9/11/01.

These former oil industry executives know their priorities. When George W. Bush spoke on national television to announce the start of "war" against Iraq, he looked into the camera and asked to speak directly to the Iraqi people. He could have appealed to their nationalism, and asked them to join our soldiers (or at least not shoot at them) in toppling Saddam. He could have appealed to their knowledge of the peaceful side of Islam and asked them to go to their mosques, which we would protect from bombing, and pray for a quick resolution of the conflict. He could have apologized in advance for the death and destruction he was about to unleash on their land, that would kill many times more innocent civilians than died in the World Trade Center, and promise that the US would do our best to make it good after the war.

But these were not the things on Bush's mind. Instead, he said, "And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells..."

Corporations that contribute heavily to Republican campaign coffers are now firmly in control of Iraq's oil and have started taking payment for reconstruction and supply that will amount to billions of US tax dollars.

It's unlikely these multinational corporations (many of them allowed by the Republicans in Congress to reincorporate in Bermuda to avoid US taxes) will look kindly on efforts to turn control of Iraq and its oil over to the United Nations or an Arab-led consortium, even if it will mean stability in the region and will save the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen, and Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire.

If Bush turns the oil and the reconstruction bonanza over to the UN, he could lose millions in campaign contributions, and Cheney's company Halliburton, which lost $498 million last year but just reported (July 31) a $26 million profit, may go back to losing so much money it can't continue the million-dollar-a-year payoff he's still receiving.

George W. Bush confronts one of the most difficult choices of his life: Should he turn Iraq over to the UN and thus save the lives of our men and women in uniform, but lose the oil, the campaign cash, and probably the election? Or should he keep our troops in Iraq to protect Halliburton, Bechtel, and his other Republican corporate campaign donors, skim millions in campaign cash out of the billions these friendly corporations are being paid by American taxpayers, and hope all that money can buy enough commercials to make Americans forget about the price of gasoline, growing Iraqi nationalism, and the resulting coffins returning to America on a daily basis.

Or maybe there's a third option. If the American media keep ignoring the oil, don't report on Bush's unwillingness to attend GI funerals (he'd rather take a month-long vacation and play golf), and continue to overlook the obvious connections between Iraqi nationalism and dead Americans, Bush could repeat his very successful political strategy from the middle of the fall 2002 election campaign that threw the Senate into Republican hands. He could simply declare his intention to start another war mid-2004, stimulating anti-war protests and dividing Americans, and then again use that division to paint Democrats with a yellow brush.

Which will it be? Only Karl Rove knows for sure. But whichever way it goes, you can bet American taxpayers and soldiers will pay the bill in cash and blood, and democracy will be the weaker for it.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the bestselling author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," and the host of a nationally syndicated daily talk show, "The Thom Hartmann Program," that runs opposite Rush Limbaugh. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title is unchanged.

”

“Dog help us”

“What is a "bestselling author?"”

“Michael Jackson is a "best-selling" recording "artist".”

“Ahhh, Bush in 2004. Golfing, fishing, spending time at the ranch. He'll have a nice retirement.”

“Caught some of the democrap debate this morning. Gawd what a bunch of losers. No new ideas...no ideas at all actually. Just attack, attack, attack. Look for a landslide, especially if that dyke Hillery runs.”

“What a biased piece of crap. I'm sorely disappointed with Bush these days, but that article is as slanted as the deck of the Titanic.”

“Yeah, he appears to be the left's wannabe Rush.”

“Why would anyone wannabe rush?”

“Ding Ding! Mutt wins the super-secret prize!”

“and ATTACKING our President George W. Bush. If YOU hate the good old USA PLEASE LEAVE will you and go to one of your favorite third world countries were people still do their business in the streets.

By the way, are you still participating in those anti-American Rallies? I seen you in one of those rallies sponsored by The World Workers Socialist Party.

My advice: GET THE HELL OUT OF THE USA YOU Communist!!!”

“The Bush Regime is trying to turn the U.S. into a third world country.”

“...is that why Phaedrus supports the Palestinians over the Israelis and the removal of the Ten Commandments in Alabama??? Communist don't like either God's Commandments being displayed or Israel's right to exist. Didn't the Soviet Union arm the Arab States to fight against Israel???

Plus Communist want to corrupt people with homosexuality, that's also in the Communist Manifesto.”

“No it isn't.”

“For the edification of folks with an IQ over 12: I don't support the palistinians over israel.

Anyone who has discussed the issue with me knows better.”

“...much better than the Clinton Administration that's for sure. God bless George W. Bush!”

“Let me get this straight Ohio, if you're a TRUE American you don't have freedom of speech. Is that what you're saying?”

“Don't waste your breath snake. We're all under the covers here hoping this monster will go back under the bed.”

“It has always amazed me that the very people who shout the righteousness of being American are the first to forget the First Amendment.”

“All those who disagree with Bush, raise your hand.


You're under arrest!”

“NBC Poll: Bush rating lowest ever

Just 49 percent approve of president’s performance

By Tom Curry
MSNBC

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 — George W. Bush is in the worst political trouble of his presidency, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday night. Bush’s approval rating now stands at 49 percent, the lowest point of his tenure.”

“Compare to his predecessor, who was at 71% on the day he was impeached.”

“Oh stop that, its just "hate speech"!”

“Would Al and Joe be doing any better?”

“The way i see it, this is the worst adminstration since the Hoover days. So, yes, maybe it would be better...”

“Why is the libs are so keen on what the problems are but yet we get no suggestions on what THEY would do to fix things. The biggest answer we get is to raise taxes. We never taxed our way out of a resession.”

“Nigal, you're just not listening if you think taxes are the only answer.”

“Nobody is saying to raise taxes, Nigal. The only time I have seen the tax question come into play is in deciding on the issue of how to pay the first installment of $87 billion. You know, that money that Rumsfeld saiwe can easily afford and also that money that was supposed to come from an Iraq that would pay for its own reparation through oil profits. You know, that oil that went down in price all of 2 cents since before Labor Day and will not be going down in price anytime soon because OPEC, in its inimitable wisdom, has decided to cut production just in time for the changing weather here. Oh yeah, taxes. So, to pay for the first installment of our conquest into Iraq (with many more to come), some have floated the idea of repealing some of the tax cuts that were initiated for the wealthy. We know that will never happen because it's political suicide, so it's actually a non-issue at this time. Does that counter anything for you, Nig?”

“That puts him Way ahead of the Democratic governors in both California and New Jersey, both very Democratic States.

Negative view of governor expands

His disapproval rating rises to 52%, poll finds


Thursday, September 25, 2003


BY JEFF WHELAN
Star-Ledger Staff

A majority of New Jersey voters say they're not pleased with Gov. James E. McGreevey's job performance, but most say they won't hold that against other Democrats in this fall's legislative elections, according to a new poll released yesterday.

The Quinnipiac University poll found 52 percent of registered voters surveyed disapprove of the way McGreevey is handling his job -- the first time the governor's negative marks have cracked 50 percent. His approval rating stayed steady at 35 percent, while 14 percent were undecided.”

“Fortunately neither McGreevey nor Davis are running against Bush.”

“"Nigal, you're just not listening if you think taxes are the only answer."

No Tom, taxes are the general answer from liberals, not me. Less taxes are my answer personaly.

Thank you for the thoughtful response Treebeard. You bring a lot to the discussion.”

“No prob, Nig. I don't want to see my taxes go up any more than you do. I would just love, for once in my life, to see our money prioritized in a better fashion, that's all. But, I guess I am being a little idealistic, aren't I?”

“The way to grow the economy is to stimulate aggregate demand now. Tax cuts heavily tilted toward the top one percent of taxpayers running out into the distant future (presumably after we’ve recovered) don’t do that. The wealthy already spend about as much as they can - more after tax income doesn’t stimulate demand. That money will be invested wherever the greatest return can be expected - not necessarily here where it will produce jobs. If companies don’t see a healthy market for more goods, they won’t invest more capital here. If historically low interest rates haven’t convinced businesses to invest, tax incentives are unlikely to do much. Capital could very well be stripped from our economy to develop China or Pakistan (for example). An expansion of the earned income credit (a tactic used by Reagan and Clinton) would put money in the hands of people most likely to spend it, increasing aggregate demand and stimulating employment. A temporary holiday from payroll taxes on say the first $15,000 or so earned would put an extra $1,200 in working folk’s budgets this year. Raising the cap on what income is subject to social security taxes could offset that. These measures won’t be taken by this administration because of ideological reasons - they consider the working poor to be “lucky duckies”. The federal government could increase the amount of aid to states as they have always done in past recessions so that services and state payrolls don’t have to be cut. We could embark on a major investment in our infrastructure (highways, schools. etc.). That would directly raise employment and aggregate demand while positioning our economy for long term gains. This administration is opposed to such ‘make work’ programs on ideological grounds. The budget deficits we are facing now for as far as the eye can see threaten to cause a credit crunch that could cripple our economy long term. In short, all that has been learned since 1930 about economic theory is being ignored by this administration. You are supporting Herbert Hoover.”

“violin: what's your educational background?”

“Do you think the windows are painted shut at the Hoover Institute so people can't jump out of them?”

“I've got a BA from Rutgers. My major was Economics. I've done quite a bit of post-graduate work.”

“"No Tom, taxes are the general answer from liberals, not me. Less taxes are my answer personaly."

That is what the popular propaganda says and repeating it doesn't make it any truer.

What Treebeard said.”

“Violin - that makes sense. Good analysis!”

“Yeah, no kidding! And all this time, I thought Violin was just a Googler ;)”

“Back in the storied days of Arclite and the Ayn Rand thread,
did the Tightly Strung One out himself as an economist.
One more reason to ban him.”

“Catgut, Horse hair and economics... Hmmmm”

“Here's an admitted liberal who hates Bush for apparently no real political or policy-related reason. I don't know anything about him, just that his little piece of whining appeared in the New Republic. Chait hates Bush for no real reason”

“But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality. Indeed, for those not ideologically or personally committed to Bush's success, hatred for Bush is a logical response to the events of the last few years. It is not the slightest bit mystifying that liberals despise Bush. It would be mystifying if we did not.


Not a very substantive article.”

“That's what's puzzling to me. I don't know much about The New Republic, so I'm at a loss as to what they are trying to accomplish by printing this. Are they a bunch of left wing nutjobs or just offering a little peek into the radical left viewpoint?
I'm not being sarcastic, what do you think the purpose was?”

“Its not much more than a rant but he did give more than a few reasons for his hatred. I feel the same way about that kind of crap as I do when I turn on just about any AM radio station to learn why liberals are so detestable. Neither is helpful in finding middle ground and common cause.”

“I guess you just don't hear about guys like Chait as much because they're not as well known.
Even if he did give a few reasons for his hatred, I didn't think they were valid. The way Bush walks? His pseudo populist twang?Ah well, you're right Stradivarius, it's just the left's version of Scaife, I guess.”

“American politics have become the biggest problem in America (not the issues that are being debated by politicians).

Left hates Right because they are Right, Right hates Left because they are Left.

Bush is a victim of a bad economy, and his presence or lack of isn't helping people to feel better about it. He's created a war in Iraq, Americans have a short attention span and the repeated less than good news is really chipping away at our resolve. Clinton recieved a bad economy and for various reasons the economy recovered, and many Americans just felt good about him (he was kind of a 'buddy' President). His 'wars' were smaller and didn't seem like endless operations, although there were a lot of them.

Yet both of these Presidents under similar circumstances were/are both victims of politics, not issues”

“Why is the libs are so keen on what the problems are but yet we get no suggestions on what THEY would do to fix things. The biggest answer we get is to raise taxes. We never taxed our way out of a resession."
Nigal
08:02:10 AM
09/25/03

What's the matter, Nigal. Too ashamed of the ol' USA to pay taxes? How much you make a year? What kind of job you got? Which government created the jobs which complainers like you have?”

“NEW YORK, September 8—Patriots for the Defense of America today issued "America's Failing War Effort: A Report Card," a scathing critique of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Unlike left-leaning voices critical of the war, Patriots criticizes the Bush administration from a pro-American, pro-defense perspective. It maintains that Bush has failed to uphold the moral obligation of his government to defend American lives and interests.

Patriots assigned the Administration an average grade of "D+" for its failure to execute a war against the most pressing foreign threats. The categories graded are as follows:

The "Hot War" (Iraq and Afghanistan): Iraq posed a real threat to the U.S., but not as great as that posed by nations like Iran and North Korea. Each of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought in a shameful manner, sacrificing American troops to unjustifiably restrictive "rules of engagement."
Grade: C
The "Cold War" (Iran and North Korea): Two out of three members of the "axis of evil" have gone unpunished, despite the overwhelming terrorist and/or nuclear threats they pose. Even worse, the U.S. has appeased them, encouraging further aggression.
Grade: D-
The "Breeding Grounds" (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan): These governments claim to be allies in the war against militant Islamic terrorism, but fail to suppress terrorists in their own midst. Bush has failed to issue an ultimatum demanding their cooperation.
Grade: C-
Israel and the Palestinians: The American "road map" for peace has forced Israel to negotiate with Palestinian terrorists, requiring Israel to abdicate its right to self-defense. This policy is self-defeating for America, since Israel is a natural ally in the war against militant Islam.
Grade: F
Military Deployment and Readiness: Despite massive new defense spending, the Bush administration has failed to use its military power—especially the threat of its nuclear arsenal—in a way that minimizes risks to American troops, and maximizes the American ability to destroy the enemy.
Grade: C
International Law and Diplomacy: While American policy is widely criticized as too "unilateral," in reality the Bush administration has demonstrated an undue, self-abasing deference to international opinion and the U.N.—resulting in pointless delays and setbacks in the war.
Grade: D+

http://defenseofamerica.org/reportcard/?ref=ga_gufp”