From the very outset the administration's Iraqi oil policies have been a disaster. There are many such as Alan Greenspan who adjure that oil was the reason for the invasion. If that is indeed the case, the priorities it imposed perverted our mission from the very outset, whether it was detailing our troops to protect the oil ministry while Baghdad's great museums and their irreplaceable archaeological and historical treasures were being looted. It continued with the administration's immediate appointments of oil patch viceroys such as former Shell Oil CEO Phil Carroll, with a clear mandate to guide Iraq's oil policies and to steer Iraq back into the waiting arms of America's economic enemy, OPEC. "Iraq was a founding member of OPEC and the truth is that Iraq will find its way into OPEC," Carroll was to advise us on CNBC on May 29, 2003.

Policies that cost the nation thousands in lives and billions in treasure. Not only have thousands been wounded and maimed, billions expended on the war, but since the invasion the price of oil has quadrupled. The quadrupling of prices is costing American consumers alone some $1.5 billion/day transfer to oil interests, or some $575 billion a year. A large measure of this enormous extra burden can be laid at the feet of this administration who by their actions in Iraq signaled to oil producers throughout the world that they were not adverse to higher oil prices given their plumbing for Iraq to join OPEC. And of course OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, took the ball and ran with it to the $100/bbl goal line and then some.

These policies were put in place by an administration whose leadership, now some six years into the Iraqi quicksand and exploding oil prices, is led by man whose mastery of the complexities of the issue can be codified in the mind numbing statement: "$4 a gallon gasoline?...I hadn't heard that".

But the cynicism, the outrage doesn't stop here. With prices bursting past $100 a barrel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, grown fat, self assured and arrogant let it be known that they would not increase production in spite of calls to do so by the International Energy Agency, and no matter how muted, by Washington as well.

So here we are with a deteriorating economy, the oil companies more prosperous than ever, while American families find themselves increasingly financially exposed, and then comes the 'coup de grace':

In anticipation of the OPEC meeting this week, the Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani signaled his respect for President Bush and the thousands of service men sacrificed to bring some semblance of stability to his country and to permit Iraq's National Oil Company to go on with its business of producing oil. To quote him:

"We in Iraq think that keeping the production the same as it is and monitoring the market is the best decision. In general, all signs say there is not a shortage in the international crude oil market and, therefore, to ask OPEC to increase production because of the prices now is not justified."

So there you have it. If we went into Iraq to make the oil companies rich beyond their wildest dreams, to make the oil producing nations so wealthy that they have the ability to buy up our national assets at will, we have succeeded brilliantly. As for President Bush, his legacy will unquestionably entail, "He made the oil patch rich and in doing so began the dismantling of America's economic might and achievement". As for Iraq, another "Surge", anyone?


 

Comments
48
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

Exxon Mobil pays 13% corporate tax on their profits.
Ain't that just peachy?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 03/08/2008

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:12 PM on 03/07/2008


Was this outcome not OBVIOUS from the first day bombs were sent into Iraq? It made no sense then, it makes no sense now.

.... and this administration was elected twice. No quid pro quo was even extracted from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others for defending them either.

Genius planning? Brilliant strategy?

Now it is time to get on with recovering from the result.......

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/yyyyyyyy-yyyyyyyyy.html

..... and it's time to be diligent, and set some rules about the trillions that have been transfered offshore, but are looking to come back with different clothes on......>>>

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/america-for-sale.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 03/06/2008

None of the college talk matters to those who can't pay their heat bill

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 PM on 03/06/2008

There are multiple things to address that Mr. Learsy brings up and more from his other post.

First, there is plenty of oil. Look at deep drilling, oil sands, the Caspian, Russia, coast of Vietnam, Gulf Coast, Iraq, etc. New oil is being found all the time. Oil companies have even re-established the Bakersfield oil field and are pumping oil for $17 a barrel there. Oil should be in a range of $25 to a max of $60 a barrel. Canadian oil sands can be produced for $9 a barrel.

Second, big oil and OPEC are monopolies, plain and simple. No matter what commodities traders do, bid oil up, or down, its always the same people making the money. Traders may make money, but the big dollars ultimately go to the same large companies and OPEC.

Third, oil prices are always higher under republican presidents. One anomaly is 1979 under Carter. Each time though, the price rise is driven by a softening dollar. The first time, Nixon took the US off Bretton Woods, let the dollar float and we had a big devaluation leading to the 1973 oil shock. Also, the Vietnam war was pumping massive amounts of dollars out. To end this inflation/ stagnation cycle, Carter finally appointed Volker who pushed interest rates up to kill the hangover from dollar devaluation and the Vietnam war. We have the same situation right now. But as now, it was created by a republican president. The problem now though, is we have massive debt we didn't have in the 19070s and we made things. You cannot create wealth without manufacturing. That economics 101.

Fourth, the industrial mid-west always sees a rise in unemployment when oil prices are up. I went back to 1970 and checked Michigan's unemployment statistics to 2005. Higher oil prices correlate with a lagging effect and higher unemployment in Michigan. Also, republican presidents parallel higher oil prices and higher unemployment in Michigan. Oh, those great Reagan years, Michigan averaged 8% unemployment.

So, I guess my point is, republicans alway lead to higher oil prices and trouble for the industrial economy, at least since 1970.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 03/05/2008

Allow me to make a simple recommendation. Levy an excess profits tax on the oil companies to pay for the illegal iraq invasion and occupation. After all, they have profitted hugely. I suspect that this was the Cheney energy plan, which is hiddenin secrecy to this day. Nuff said.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 03/04/2008

The problem with that is that it would be the same as rolling back the Bush tax cuts and also raising taxes. That will happen right after Hell freezes over as long as this Administration (or it's puppet McCain) is in charge.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 PM on 03/04/2008

I still haven't heard one single lib explain why we MUST end all oil company subsidies (since oil prices are at record highs, as are profits), but that we CANNOT end agricultural subsidies (although food prices are at record highs, as are profits).

Why is it that Halliburton and Exxon rolling in their profits is so offensive to libs, but the ConAgra and ADM execs rolling in theirs aren't?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 03/04/2008

So let me get this straight: You think subsidies are the product of liberals instead of the special interest groups who profit from the subsidies?

Please pull your right-wrong head out of the sand.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 03/06/2008

I don't know anyone who supports subsidies for agriculture unless they stand to benefit. I think you are referring to presidential politicians who, regardless of party affiliation go out to Iowa every 4 years to kiss the collective ass of agricultural America. Imagine telling Iowa farmers "If elected I will end agricultural subsidies"

So yes let's end subsidies to all profitable industries. This isn't a partisan issue, Mormandude. No American wants their tax dollars going to profitable corporations (unless, of course, you have skin in the game)

"Why is it that Halliburton and Exxon rolling in their profits is so offensive to libs, but the ConAgra and ADM execs rolling in theirs aren't?"

Man you really relish tearing apart straw men of your own making don't you? We don't want either. You are not so ignorant that you think that ConAgra is being protected by libs. Isn't one of your straw men that libs hate all corporations?

Since we are on the subject of Halliburton, I find their profits (that come out of my pocket and yours too) obscene and thier business model based on using the political system to bypass the regular free market mechanisms a slap in the face of every legitimate business.

Recently a young woman working for Halliburton in Iraq was drugged and gang raped. You would think someone would be going to jail for that offense, right? Wrong. Bremer specifically made American contractors like KBR exempt from criminal prosecution. So no one will be going to jail for something that we all know is a crime. She will now have to take her case to an arbitrator and hope that she will get some justice through a private system. The civil courts have been slammed shut because of a mandatory arbitration clause. This lawlessness is what pisses me off and it should piss you off and every American. There simply is no justification for this. None at all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 03/06/2008

Most LIBS would agree with you as they buy organic and try to support the local farmer down the road...you know, real people, not soul less mega-corporations, so quit trying to pick a fight and stereotyping people. No one likes a bully.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 PM on 03/04/2008

Because the press (both MSM and blogosphere) has been slow in waking up to the story. I only got wind of it a couple of weeks ago when The Economist ran a front-page article. But don't worry; it will come up in the presidential campaign, and we'll all be talking about it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 PM on 03/04/2008

I say end both subsidies!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 03/04/2008


Because American soldiers are dying in Iraq in an invasion and occupation of a country that was not a threat to the USA.

Got it?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 PM on 03/04/2008

Why was it that Chevron took the name "Condoleezza Rice" off from one of their oil tankers?
They were ashamed of Condi? There was an appearance of some government complicity?
There was some government complicity in the record profits taken by big oil?
Big George, Little George, Dead-eye Dick, and Condi. . . all oil people. Think the price of oil will diminish under a Democrat, at least at the margin?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 03/04/2008

What I find interesting is that according to OPEC there is no shortage of oil on the world market. Supply is meeting demand. And you know, I believe OPEC is right. It is not the market that is driving up prices, it is SPECULATION!!!!.

Market theory cannot account for the price of oil but Monopoly Theory explains it very well indeed. Monopoly theory says that competition is wasteful and that given a lack of regulation capital will be concentrated into fewer and bigger hands. And once the concentration is complete the monopoly will set the price at what ever point they think the market will bear. And to Hell with anyone else (See John D. Rockerfeller and Standard Oil, Texas Railroad Commission, or the ENTIRE HISTORY of the Oil business since its creation.)

Although I think some of this is Saudi Arabia's getting back at the Chimp-In-Chief for ignoring their advice and instituting the Catastrofuck next door.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 03/04/2008

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED $4 PER Gallon and stock in the Blind Trust is now worth what???

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 03/04/2008

Glenwood Springs, CO: 3/4/2008 2:05pm- gas station down the street, self-serve regular $3.39. And it's not even summer. Anyone from Cali or Hawaii want to weigh in on this comment?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 03/04/2008

You must pat Chimp on the back. He mouthed the Patrician attitude thereby avoiding responsibility and letting the dumbest electorate on the face of the planet just how well they love ignorance and bliss.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 03/04/2008

heck, don't youi forget it Bushie and Gannon are laughing their way to the Bank (in switzerland of course... Alll that oil stock is in BLIND TRUSTS....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 03/04/2008



If those were REAL blind trusts they wouldn't know what was in them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:43 AM on 03/05/2008

If Mr Learsy were a drug addict, his complaints about how the dealers are taking advantage of his habit would be easily understood.

Yes, the dealers are evil. Yes, they will sell their junk to us at the maximum price that we can still afford to pay short of us going broke. The dealer doesn"t care if we have to go rob somebody (War), pawn all of our possessions (devalue our $), or live on mac & cheese, as long as we come up with the cash.

What is an addict to do? Whine? Beg? Threaten? Or heaven forbid, go into rehab. As long as our government, Mr Learsey, Big oil, et al , tell us there is lots of "smack" and that we are entitled to our lifestyle, we will never get free.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 PM on 03/04/2008

I think the backlash from the world against the oil companies(Bushs base) will make the French revolution look like childs play. The oil companies are driving the world into a depression, and they can't stop themselves, thier greed is too great.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 03/04/2008

Hoping you are right, but not counting on it yet. Reality was something the French were familiar with.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 03/04/2008

True, but imagine it: Every oil company asset would be declared a national security asset. That means they would be under the protection of the military. Can you imagine storming a refinery or Exxon's head office when there are tanks outside?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 03/06/2008

I couldn't believe it when I saw that moron say that he hadn't heard about $4.00 gallon gas. I heard it, how could the President of the United States not hear it? Everytime he opens his mouth he insults the citizens of this country. We know he's worth 22 milion and needs to "fill the old coffers." Why does he have to rub it in?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 03/04/2008

Because the american pubic...not all, but the majority...love the "talk" of a "good ole boy" especially when he acts "stupid"...Bush is as smart and devious as a fox...."I'm just an ole country boy, trying to help me fellow amereecuns...trust me...and I LOVE JESUS"..and he walked in and did anything he wanted..for his friends and daddy...you see, the super rich don't care...they make money no matter what.
Now all they want is power. And with America on its knees...(Like Bush with Jeff Gannon)...power is what they're getting...can anyone say.."new World Order"?? Remember that one from Daddy Bush??
Welcome to the New World....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 AM on 03/06/2008

The best (or worst) part was that he made the admission following his assurances that the economy was not going into recession. How reassuring is it to learn the guy who thinks our economy is strong "didn't hear" our expenses are going up?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 03/04/2008

The occupation of Iraq will seem like nothing once Bush 'postpones' the elections and dispatches Blackwater into our streets. When that happens, oil will be the least of our worries.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 03/04/2008

they are already setting this up, one of the most censored stories of 2007, the integration of military down to community police services and a few trial street sweeps taking away hundreds of people to who knows where?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 03/04/2008

The oil cartel has us where they want us. Addicted and dependant on their product. We cannot easily reduce our demand and they can practically charge us whatever they want. It is a confluence of circumstances that is guaranteed to cause lots of fiscal pain and misery!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 03/04/2008



Why, oh why, did America twice elect an OIL MAN to be president???

I'm still scratchin' my head over this one....


favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 03/04/2008

Are you kidding me, we elected an oil man 3 times and GE's adman twice and then people wonder why we are where we are....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 03/04/2008

When I was writing in 1983, it was for the purpose of arguing against allowing the first oil guy to make it to the Whitehouse. That is oil guy/CIA Director. It all went downhill from there.

(Please seperate out the fact that daddy and Cheney actually worked for their oil fortunes, whereas the kid never did anything on his own, oil industry or otherwise.)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 PM on 03/04/2008

He was NOT elected in 2000. The Supreme Court made that decision, not us. When the votes were finally counted, Gore won.

He STOLE the election in 2004 with voter fraud in Ohio and Florida.

Just the facts, ma'am.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 PM on 03/04/2008

He was NOT elected in 2000. The Supreme Court made that decision, not us. After the votes were counted, Gore actually won.

He STOLE the election in 2004 in Ohio and Florida.

To say that we elected him, is incorrect.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 PM on 03/04/2008

It should have gone to the House. That's what the constitution says. And where was the press in all of this. No where to be found, bunch of cowards.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 PM on 03/04/2008

all he has to do is make a phone call and prices will come down. why won't he make the call? Is he mad at us? should we be nicer to him? Maybe he'll make the call.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 03/04/2008