« Gerson's Pants-on-Fire Problem | Main | Surrender Donkeys »

September 13, 2007

Comments

To completely derail the thread -- warner's in for VA. Mark it up. That's at least 2 very likely wins (CO and VA) before you even get to MN, RI, ME, NH and OR.

The oil law — which would govern how oil fields are developed and managed — is one of several benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressing the Iraqis to meet as a sign that they are making headway toward creating an effective government.
This must be the IMF-backed oil bill. If it is, the Sunni walkout is definitely political and I think, in the long term, best for Iraqi nationals to forge their own law and redistribute wealth as they see fit.

How is it that we let an American oil company sign on to a deal that's wrecking progress in Iraq? Is there any better sign that the administration doesn't give a fnck?

I don't think there is any possible universally acceptable oil law.
Washington will not accept/allow any version that cuts into the profits of "Big Oil" or would enable the Iraqis to ignore US companies in favor of others (e.g. Chinese), the have-regions will not be willing to share with the have-nots and any central government would be mad to let go of its main lever, the ability to decide what the revenue is used for. And while no law is in place there is money to be made in smuggling.
The mere fact that Washington is pressing for the passing of an oil law is enough to kill the chance of acceptance and the actions against the oilworker union do not improve the situation.

I think of the presidents grandfather getting rich off the Nazis.
I think of the Heritage Foundation neophytes sent over to administer the new right-wing Utopia in Iraq.
I think of GWB helping wreck political progress because he can't resist the impulse to help his Texas oil cronies get on the gravy train.

I think it is egregious self-dealing riff-raff like Bush who generate egregious left-wing lunacy of the General Betray Us sort. It's an equal and opposite reaction.

Josh over at TPM points out that Hunt Oil is run by Ray Hunt, a buddy, and political appointee (to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) of the president. So I guess we're about to see if policy is really more important to the president than enriching his oil buddies.

And I agree with Lesly that this particular oil bill, precisely because it is being imposed from without, is not in the best interest of Iraq.

You should NOT be endorsing this bill!

It is a US crafted bill that sets the country up to be plundered by multi-nationals. I've written about this 3-4 times now. See US-Orchestrated Iraqi Oil Bill Stalled

Ds and Progressives do NOT tout this bill -- it is a big business (as usual) bill.


Posted by: Lesly
How is it that we let an American oil company sign on to a deal that's wrecking progress in Iraq? Is there any better sign that the administration doesn't give a fnck?

-----
An article in tomorrow's Times reports that the long-negotiated compromise which seemed to be leading towards an Iraqi oil law

the decision of the Kurdistan regional government to sign an oil exploration deal with Dallas-based Hunt Oil, run by Mr. Ray L. Hunt.


But remember, Hunt, in addition to being the son of legendary Texas John Birch Society extremist H.L. Hunt, is also a pal of the president's.

Indeed, President Bush has twice appointed Hunt to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So while the president is striving to get the Iraqis to meet these benchmarks one of his own pals -- and more importantly, political appointees -- is busy helping to tear the whole thing apart.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/053047.php


Ah, the Hunt family, the Zelig of American families.

If a movie could be shot about the Hunt family of Texas and the line it traces through U.S. foreign policy over the past 65 years, I'd let Oliver Stone write the screenplay, Orson Welles would direct, and Larry Hagman would play H.L. Hunt and all 14 of the Hunt spawn.

Joan Collins would play Osama Bin Laden, whose most recent video may be as fake as Joan Collins' dye job, according to a post up over at Balloon Juice.

The movie title would be "Weekend at Bernie's, the Sequel".

George Bush and Dick Cheney would reprise the roles of Andrew McCarthy and whomever the other guy was.

"I think it is egregious self-dealing riff-raff like Bush who generate egregious left-wing lunacy of the General Betray Us sort. It's an equal and opposite reaction."

How do people get this silly? Or is it just throwing left-wing around in any direction order to muddy the waters of what left is? General Betrayus is a Fox News, neo-con, Bushite probable Republican presidential wanna-be. They cant stop fawning over him, or singing his praises.
Silly rabbit.

Candied, I think "lunacy of the General Betray Us sort" refers to the MoveOn ad, not General Petraeus himself. I'm not sure what MoveOn's ad is supposed to be an equal reaction to, though, since right-wing lunacy is in the White House and thus has been so much more consequential.

Candied,

You wouldn't have written what you did had you heard, for example, Terry Gross' interview with Thomas Ricks following the Petraeus testimony. Ricks is the author of 'Fiasco' and has a very good handle on the facts. One of his remarks- Petraeus and Crocker were skeptics of the '03 invasion. Bush & Co only threw the operation in their lap after their belated recognition that the course they (the administration) charted was an utter shambles.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad