Many here argue about Oil rolleyes being 'the' motivator for Bush, or some other equally questionnable rationale. But, although it appears that Clinton's team may have some reservations or criticism's of Bush's handling of internatinal relations or his timing on Iraq compared to obl, but generally they agree with Bush's teams assertions that Iraq poses a threat to the US and war may be necessary. Albright is the only one who doesn't really mention war and would like to see inspections go on indefinitely, but she doesn't really rule out war as a potential necessity. So what's going on here? Is GW going to give a cut of the 'loot' to Clinton and his team? Or maybe there really is a National Security issue here. Clinton William Cohen -secretary of defense Sandy Berger - national security advisor Madeline Albright - secretary of state ======================================== Clinton: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/ William Cohen: Sandy Berger: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/07/cf.00.html Albright: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...mar04,0,4310810.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Sorry, Cohen, but I predict this thread will be largely ignored. It doesn't jive with the prejudice oozing everywhere.
Cohen, as you admit Madeline Allbright is for continuing inspections at this time.. Secretary of Defense, Cohen, is a Republican put in by Clinton to appease military hawks. Is it so surprising that once out of office he takes a generally Republican stance on this war? As far as Clinton goes isn't it possible that he is just being opportunistic and supporting his wife Hiliary the senator from New York?. Hiliary, who has to court the Jewish vote in her state, has become surprisngly more and more of a hawk recently. On the other hand polls show about 40% of Democrats support the war so maybe Allbright, assuming she is a Democrat and the Clinton are examples of this minority position.
Or maybe they know more about Saddam than we do and did that reasonable people- reasonable conclusions thing I've heard about a few times
As far as Clinton goes isn't it possible that he is just being opportunistic Lots of things are possible. At some point, you have to start asking how likely something is, though.
Don't let Achebe or RM95 read these things about the Clintons. According to them, the Clintons only say what they feel all the time, and never act out of self-interest. Achebe may get on you for 'only wanting your women to stay in the kitchen and bake cookies'.
If you want to believe that in order to satiate your fantasy-world drive, then go ahead. If you believe that it is in Clinton's "interests" to be boo'd or cause a crowd to be very uncomfortable when speaking at Democratic and left-leaning events, then go ahead and believe that Clinton is just pretending to support military action. Why not also believe, like all conservatives, that he pretends about everything he has ever done in his life - might as well...don't believe one, don't believe all - who cares? Clinton has contunally been pro military action in Iraq - his only criticism has come at some of the ways in which Bush has approached the matter. I even read an interview where he defended Bush Sr. for not deposing Saddam (even though he should have been, in Clinton's mind) because Bush had to promise not to go into Bagdad in order to get support from most of the Islamic world. Is that because the way to GWB's heart is through daddy?
It only illustrates the fact that the Democrats have completely sold out. This beautiful democracy really only has one party now anyway.
Is there a poll somewhere about how American Jews feel about a possible war, or are you/everyone speculating? Many of the Jews that I know speak out against it. My neighbors are Jewish and have had an 'American for Peace' poster stuck in their front yard for weeks. To me, your suppositions just look like a continuation of a very negative view of human nature, where even the liberal politicians will sell their ideals for personal gain. And what about Berger? An ex-National Security Advisor. Seems like he should be able to understand the threat quite well. He's not running for anything, is he?
If you want to believe that in order to satiate your fantasy-world drive, Yeah, only someone totally out of touch with reality could possibly think that Clinton was thinking about the future electability of him or his wife. This about a guy who oposed the Vietnam War, but as a young man was trying to have it both ways because it would interfere possibly with his future electability. If you want to argue that Clinton has always been a hawk on Iraq, you could be right. You could also argue that he was unconcerned or immoral about it. See his wag the dog bombing of Iraq.
Regardless of what the Clintons say, as long as the Bushies keep acting like this, the charge will carry weight. _______________ Oil and Gas Industry Exempt From New Clean Water Rules By JENNIFER 8. LEE, NYTimes WASHINGTON, March 7 — New clean water regulations requiring small construction sites to develop plans for storm water will not apply to the oil and gas industries, officials of the Environmental Protection Agency said today. The new rules, which take effect on Monday, will require construction sites bigger than one acre to have plans to handle storm water, which can carry chemical and metal runoff from the disturbed soil. Existing rules already require such plans for sites larger than five acres. The agency says it is giving the oil and gas industries a two-year exemption from the requirement at the smaller sites while it conducts further study. Critics in national environmental groups and in Congress say the oil and gas industries are taking advantage of close ties to the administration to lay political groundwork for broader exemptions to the Clean Water Act. John Millett, an environmental agency spokesman, said the agency had received conflicting information about the environmental impact of oil and gas construction sites. "It's different because of its short time frame compared to other construction," Mr. Millet said, adding that the agency did not have enough data to properly understand how the rule would affect the oil and gas industries. "All that information right now is residential and commercial construction." "Oil and gas differs sufficiently enough to warrant further evaluation," he said. Since 1990, construction sites, including oil and gas facilities, that are larger than five acres or in more densely populated areas have been required to obtain permits. Oil construction sites larger than five acres often dealt with the regulation by building ponds to collect the storm water and soil runoff. Senator James M. Jeffords, independent of Vermont, the ranking minority member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, criticized the exemption. "While small communities and small construction projects in every other sector of the economy must comply with strong storm water standards," Mr. Jeffords said, "the Bush administration is giving a free ride to the oil and gas industry." Mr. Jeffords is one of six senators who have sparred with the agency since the exemption was proposed on Dec. 30. The agency said that when it proposed the original rule in 1999, it assumed that "few, if any" oil and gas production and treatment sites would be affected. Instead, the agency said, it has discovered that 30,000 oil and gas sites a year could be affected. "New information came to light that necessitated re-evaluation of oil and gas construction activities," said Mr. Millet, the agency's spokesman. But in a letter to agency's administrator, Christie Whitman, the six senators say there is "voluminous evidence" of an oil and gas industry review before the rule was created in 1999. They also dispute the 30,000 number, saying that industry number is inflated because it includes offshore and onshore construction sites alike. The data also does not break down the construction sites by size, so it is unclear how many of those 30,000 sites would actually be affected, they said. In addition, they noted that the data that the agency said had come to light had been collected by the federal government since 1973 and available since 1978.
Is there a poll somewhere about how American Jews feel about a possible war, or are you/everyone speculating? Good question. A Jewish friend of mine invited me to go to the weekly demonstration at the Mecom Fountain in Houston against the war. I declined as I was visiting my elderly parents. I'll look for it. January 24, 2003 - NEW YORK -- A majority of American Jews -59 percent-approve of the United States taking military action against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, according to a new survey released today by the American Jewish Committee. Thirty-six percent oppose military action. These findings are comparable to the attitudes of the general American population, as revealed in recent survey data. I'm not sure this is the whole story as you need to take into acount the intensity of those who support the war versus those who don't support the war. For instance how many of those who support the war will work against Hiliary just because of this one issue if she crosses them. I,m not sure of the point of view of the Jewish org sponsoring the poll. opinion
and this... ___________ Halliburton wins contract on Iraq oil firefighting Reuters, 03.06.03, 8:31 PM ET HOUSTON, March 6 (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. (nyse: HAL - news - people) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday. KBR was widely viewed by many in the oilfield services industry as the likely candidate to oversee firefighting in Iraq's oilfields. Halliburton does extensive logistic support work for the U.S. military. Vice President Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's chief executive officer from 1995 to 2000, A possible beneficiary of Thursday's deal is oilwell firefighting company Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc., with which Halliburton has had an alliance since 1995. A Halliburton spokeswoman declined comment and referred all questions to the Defense Department.
Same story from the WSJ... my bolds. ________________ Halliburton Unit Is Tapped To Oversee Oil Fields in Iraq By CHIP CUMMINS and THADDEUS HERRICK Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL The Pentagon said it is tapping a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, to oversee efforts to control oil-well fires, should Saddam Hussein torch Iraq's oil fields in the event of a U.S. attack. The Pentagon said it intends to use a plan developed by Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a unit of Houston-based Halliburton, if Mr. Hussein sabotages his fields. The plan also addresses assessing damage to oil facilities, the Pentagon said. Mr. Cheney served as chief executive of Halliburton until 2000, when he stepped down to become the running mate of President Bush. The development positions Kellogg Brown & Root as a leading candidate to win the role of top contractor in any petroleum-field rehabilitation effort in Iraq. The job could involve coordinating dozens of smaller specialty contractors that do everything from helping clear mines and build roads to putting out fires and repairing damaged wells. Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said the announcement comes as no surprise, since Kellogg Brown & Root has a long history of doing work for the government. "This business has been doing government contracting since the 1940s," she said. Iraq has oil reserves second only to those of Saudi Arabia, and oil-services firms such as Halliburton and Schlumberger Ltd., New York, are seen as favorites for what industry analysts say could be as much as $1.5 billion in contracts to jump-start Iraq's petroleum sector following a war. A number of oil-field fire-fighting firms have been gearing up for months for the possibility of Iraqi fires. But some have complained that -- unlike 12 years ago in Kuwait -- they haven't been given many details to prepare for a possible deployment. For instance, companies haven't had any contact with local experts who know the fields. The Pentagon, meanwhile, has been slow to share its own plans for securing the fields and any intelligence that may shed more light on what military planners believe Mr. Hussein has in store for the fields. Companies like Houston-based Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc.; Cudd Well Control, a division of RPC Inc., Atlanta; and Wild Well Control, a unit of Superior Energy Services Inc., of Harvey, La., helped extinguish nearly 700 burning wells in Kuwait in 1991, after a retreating Iraqi army set the fields on fire. About 60 firefighters and engineers from Cudd are ready to deploy to the region on short notice, said Ronnie Roles, president of operations. "We're sitting on dead ready," he said. But the company hasn't been in contact with the Department of Defense about contingencies since a preliminary meeting late last year, Cudd officials said. They also haven't heard yet from Kellogg Brown. The Pentagon's statement didn't specify whether it had actually awarded a contract to Kellogg Brown, and a Pentagon spokesman said he had no further information. Pentagon officials have said for some time that they believe Mr. Hussein will attempt to sabotage the fields to slow any U.S.-led invasion. The Pentagon's statement Thursday provided some detail, saying "reliable reports" have indicated sabotage has been planned and already may have begun. The Pentagon said intelligence suggested that Iraqi forces had received 24 rail cars of explosives, which the regime might use to detonate wells.
So, regardless of whether Clinton's team sees a true threat to the US, it's all about Oil so we should ignore them and all other who see saddam as a true threat to the US? Re. the Oil, none of the articles indicate that we or even our companies will actually 'steal' oil. Sounds like there will be contracts to rebuild the fields ASAP for the Iraqi people. There is no indication that these companies will be guaranteed a longterm contract. And apparently, Brown and Root may not even be the lead contractor on the rebuilding project.
That is exactly your argument. Dissecting a Slogan by Hans H.J. Labohm [ 07/03/2003 ] 'No Blood for Oil'. This is the slogan under which many protesters all over the world have marched against a possible or probable war against Iraq. It begs the question whether oil really does play such an important role as they are suggesting. It is true that oil analysts keep a close watch on the world energy markets and Iraq's place in it, if only because Iraq, with its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels (11% of proven world oil reserves), ranks second after Saudi Arabia. Further exploration could increase this figure to 300 billion. But its current production is limited because of sanctions. Moreover, today Iraq's oil infrastructure is in a shambles, not only because of the impact of the first Gulf War but also as a result of the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s. Reconstruction of existing facilities will require billions of dollars. In the framework of the UN Food for Oil programme Iraq is allowed to export 2 million barrels per day. This is a very modest share of a daily total of 40 million traded on the world markets. This means that the world is presently not dependent on Iraq's oil. However, given its vast resources, a post-Saddam Iraq might play a more important role in the longer term. In the light of the depletion of existing oil wells elsewhere in the world, e.g. in the North Sea and Alaska, relatively cheap Iraqi onshore oil might offer a welcome substitute. But does this mean that oil is the decisive factor or even an important consideration for countries as the US and Britain to go to war with Iraq? That is highly implausible. Neither politicians nor political commentators who are dealing with the Iraq issue seem to pay much attention to it. More importantly, however, is that the mindset of today's policy-makers is conditioned by the mores of the time, which forbid a large-scale sacrifice of human lives for material wealth, even if it takes the form of oil. But perhaps cynics will dismiss this line of argument out of hand as highly naïve. What then about simple cost/benefit analysis? The easiest and cheapest way to obtain oil for now and many years to come is to just call off an eventual war with Iraq. It will be immediately followed by a steep decline in oil prices, which may trigger a worldwide economic recovery. Future supply of oil will be taken care of by the markets and the price mechanism, which have secured a steadily increasing flow of oil at remarkably stable prices (in constant dollars) for more than 120 years. And such despite a massive increase in consumption and a major shift of the control over natural resources from oil companies to oil producing states. The price hikes which have occasionally occurred were of political origin and always of a temporary nature. What about the transatlantic (family) quarrels about Iraq? Does oil play a role in that context? There is no disagreement about the final goal of any action against Iraq. All members of the Security Council voted last November for Resolution 1441, which demanded that Saddam Hussein should account for and relinquish all his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes or face serious consequences. The difference is not about the ultimate target but the time Iraq should be given to comply with the resolution. This difference has led to a strong feeling of being betrayed among many Americans by what Secretary Rumsfeld called the 'old Europe' or the 'axis of weasels', mainly France and Germany. Americans reproach Europeans for being forgetful of US sacrifice, of which the thousands of crosses overlooking the beaches of Normandy still bear witness. Although understandable, it is still too early to conclude that this resentment is justified. First of all, because France and Germany are only part of Europe or the European Union. A vast majority of the EU members and other European countries (18 to be precise) backs the US. Secondly, even the policies of Germany and France cannot be attributed to 'forgetfulness'. Gerhard Schröder was narrowly re-elected on a anti-war platform. In the light of Germany's history this is not all bad. In the not-so-distant past many generations of non-German Europeans have hankered for a peaceful Germany. But one should not forget that it was ultimately only the willingness to go to war by the Allied Powers which has turned Germany from war-monger into peacenik. However, it cannot be denied that its present mood of aloofness may exclude any movement for Germany, despite the candid discussion of the pros and cons of the current policy stance between Schröder and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, which has been described in the media as a 'shouting match behind closed doors'. But France's position is different. It does not categorically exclude the use of military force. However, it has a gloomy view of the risks involved, because it believes that it might destabilise the political situation in the entire region. It also fears that it will trigger a strong reaction from Arab and Islamic public opinion (remember, there are 4-5 million Moslems living in France), which may give birth to a new generation of 'little bin Ladens'. At the same time, France does not reject the military option, if the inspectors should ultimately conclude that it is impossible for them to fulfill their mission in the face of Iraqi ill will and impediments. So, what do we make out of this? Does oil play a role in the differences of view between a few EU members and the Bush administration? It is hardly plausible - a marginal role at most. There is no doubt that, in their planning, decision-makers are compelled to take account of a vast array of factors and possible implications of their actions. They have to weigh the costs and benefits over a whole range of fields: military, political, social, and economic. In such an overall analysis, oil and the shape of future world oil supply cannot be ignored. But recognising this is a far cry from focusing on oil as the dominant driving force behind America's policy vis-à-vis Iraq. What about the immediate future? It should be clear that over the past twelve years every diplomatic effort to force Saddam Hussein to comply with Security Council's resolutions has failed. One has to draw the line somewhere ... and stick to it. If not, one risks undermining one's own credibility. This does not only weaken or even destroy one's reputation on the current issue at stake but on all other issues which have to be faced in the future as well. This basic principle should be heeded, both by the Security Council and its individual members. Recent decision-making in the Council, however, has shown that many of its members rather shift the line than stick to it. This is a dangerous and irresponsible policy course. A ruthless dictator, controlling a rogue state, possessing weapons of mass destruction and providing a safe haven with a whole range of modern amenities to terrorists, make up for a potentially explosive cocktail. Better defuse it when there is still time, in order to make the world safer... for everyone. www.techcentralstation.com
Oh my God!!! What an outrage!!!! You mean that we are putting a team in place to fight the fires should Saddam torch the oil fields????!!!! Would you prefer we just let them burn? Would you then b**** about the environmental impact of the fires? Sounds to me like Bush is in a no-win situation for you.
No, I think the problem he has is that an American oil company with ties to the VP is getting the contract. I think he would prefer that Hasbro or Calvin Klien got the contract - someone with no oil experience and no contacts with the administration...
