U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq

[markalot]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says

By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; A01

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.

But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.

U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. "It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.

"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

"Under pressure to get a constitution done, they've lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a document that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don't have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim constitution -- to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent constitution," he said.

The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.

On security, the administration originally expected the U.S.-led coalition to be welcomed with rice and rosewater, traditional Arab greetings, with only a limited reaction from loyalists of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The surprising scope of the insurgency and influx of foreign fighters has forced Washington to repeatedly lower expectations -- about the time-frame for quelling the insurgency and creating an effective and cohesive Iraqi force capable of stepping in, U.S. officials said.

Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Iraq's ministry of health estimates that bombings and other attacks have killed 4,000 civilians in Baghdad since Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari's interim government took office April 28.

Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.

"There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy," Yaphe said. "This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."

Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq -- and its $20 billion investment -- have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.

Pentagon officials originally envisioned Iraq's oil revenue paying many post-invasion expenses. But Iraq, ranked among world leaders behind Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves, is incapable of producing enough refined fuel amid a car-buying boom that has put an estimated 1 million more vehicles on the road after the invasion. Lines for subsidized cheap gas stretch for miles every day in Baghdad.

Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq's pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.

The United States had high hopes of quick, big-budget fixes for the electrical power system that would show Iraqis tangible benefits from the ouster of Hussein. But inadequate training for Iraqi staff, regional rivalries restricting the power flow to Baghdad, inadequate fuel for electrical generators and attacks on the infrastructure have contributed to the worst summer of electrical shortages in the capital.

Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

Knickmeyer reported from Baghdad.

[stpdgirl]

Yeah, now try getting Bush or any of the other chicken hawks to admit to any of that.

[jneale]

The Brits were no more successful in the 1920's - you think someone would have researched that attempt before the US invaded.

It is all such a waste & like OJ - the guilty party is free.

Bush invaded Iraq because he & his clan wanted to make money.

[akip]

i wonder how much more it's gonna cost once all the young saudis and other foreigners being trained in explosives and other guerrilla tactics in iraq, hit their own home turf again. ripple effects for decades.

a big fucking disaster all around.

[benway]

Seems like every generation this country has to get involved in a war like this. The idea that these cowboys thought the could ride into a fanatical country like this and just "take over" boggles the mind. I hope everyone that voted for bush is very happy with this outcome.

[Slar]

The Brits were no more successful in the 1920's - you think someone would have researched that attempt before the US invaded.Had you been in the CIA before the war and had made such a statement, you'd have suddenly found yourself without a job.

[Ta2]

If Dubbya ever lowers his expectations, to this it will be a miracle. Damn itt would be good to hear Rumsfeld trying to stumble through a speech like that though.

[yoshomon]

Let's go back and find all the quotes from conservatives on these boards going on and on about how democracy is really going to happen there and how all the bad stuff was being overblown by the media...

[REMgirl]

Gee, the new constitution is supposed to be signed in Iraq tomorrow. Think that's gonna happen, or if it is signed, will it have any value whatsoever? It's a joke, and if there had been any real headway with creating a real constitution, the Bush people would be all over the news with it. This is a deadline that isn't going to be met, thus keeping our men and women serving in a war that has no real end in sight.

[markalot]

It's a joke that we thought we could install a democracy on a bunch of back asswards people. Now we will have another Islamic state that will restrict freedoms in the name of religion. I would say Islam is the worst, but can you imagine if the religious right in this country were in power and we didn't have a good constitution? Like there would be any difference.

[jneale]

It's a joke that we thought we could install a democracy on a bunch of back asswards people.

Dude - not back assward - just completely different. What works here - doesn't mean it will work there, and it is kinda harsh to condemn a bunch of people that operate under different cultural norms.

[markalot]

Dude - not back assward - just completely different. What works here - doesn't mean it will work there, and it is kinda harsh to condemn a bunch of people that operate under different cultural norms.

Sorry, but I condemn them as backwards. Any society that has a social structure like they do is backwards. Any society still struggling with basic rights, womens rights, and freedom is backwards.

[benway]

..but can you imagine if the religious right in this country were in power and we didn't have a good constitution? Like there would be any difference.

I'm glad someone else is also seeing the simularities. Damn good we can throw these bums out every few years. I can imagine the rightwing advances that would happen over another 4 or 8 years.

[Jim Schue]

Dude - not back assward - just completely different. What works here - doesn't mean it will work there, and it is kinda harsh to condemn a bunch of people that operate under different cultural norms.

My brother spent a year over there. A few hours' of conversation with him would probably leave you with a completely different opinion of their moribund culture.

[tempo]

Sorry, but I condemn them as backwards. Any society that has a social structure like they do is backwards. Any society still struggling with basic rights, womens rights, and freedom is backwards.

I sympathize with your view there, Mark, but just like any country Iraq has a variety of political/religious beliefs. It's still possible that Iraq's progressive elements can change their country for the better. (And in terms of human capital, Iraq seems to have more going for it than its neighbors.)

Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope for a that outcome in the near future.

The occupation is still at square one: establishing personal security for day-to-day life. The reports I've read about the training of Iraqi security forces are pretty grim, and that doesn't bode well for getting past square one.

[yoshomon]

It's a joke that we thought we could install a democracy on a bunch of back asswards people.

I think the only back asswards people are those who actually fell for the lie that the U.S. went to war to "install a democracy".

[benway]

I think the only back asswards people are those who actually fell for the lie that the U.S. went to war to "install a democracy".
51% of the back asswards can't be wrong, just ask them. They'll find some way to spin this.

[tempo]

It's tough to democratize at gunpoint.

[silvertone32]

Got another bud who has just been hurt there...lost most of his face. This war is a fucking waste.....not that anyone really cares about it. Those of us who are and were career soldiers will continue to go as often as we are told. We have to.

[jneale]

Got another bud who has just been hurt there...lost most of his face. This war is a fucking waste.....not that anyone really cares about it. Those of us who are and were career soldiers will continue to go as often as we are told. We have to.

and please don't get the feeling that those of us that bitch about it transfer that emotion to those who are serving - my vet's receptionist's son just got back not too long ago - he lost most everyone he knows & all of us felt it....there is an employe @ work with a kid over there & I hold my breath whenever they say someone from Ohio was killed.

[markalot]

It just seems to me, and I'm an expert at being wrong, that this whole thing is about to come to a boil.

1. More soldiers killed in the name of this great cause.

2. Very high gas prices.

3. An Iraqi constitution that, if it's actually produced, may be too Islamic to swallow.

4. The lowering of expectations on what we can accomplish (see #1).

/incoming novel

I fully support our troups and I think we need to stay, but it seems to me this is going to get really ugly (as if it's not already). If we end up 'creating' a government in Iraq that does not respect womens rights and is too steeped in islamic law then a lot of the so called neocons are going to bail. If we tell Iraq that we don't accept their constitution ... well, I can't imagine a good reaction to that.

When the elections were held I was a strong believer, and I even posted here that I thought this would be the turning point. I was glad Bush stuck to a firm deadline and I commented on how Kerry would have probably backed down. Well the elections didn't seem to make any difference because the people who needed to be empowered decided to stay away. If anything the elections made it worse.

My attitude today is basicly 'fuck em'. We can't nation build, but we do have to look after our interests. We should have assasinated Saddam and his sons and let the people sort it out. What's the old saying? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The people of Iraq won't get a decent chance at peace until the majority of the people WANT peace. The second we leave, regardless of when that is, the country will degenerate into civil war.

I could care less about any Iraqi citizen. If they want a good life I say we welcome them over here with open arms, but if you want to stay in the middle east you've got to MAKE your own future, not us. We can piddle around over there for years trying to teach the virtues of democracy, but it won't happen until the people rise up on their own and demand it. Any thing we do, regardless of the motive, is seen as interference.

So fuck em.

We all have to wake up to the reality that when we reduce our dependence on foreign oil the middle east is in real trouble. They don't have anything anyone wants except oil. Can you imagine the strife in the middle east as they basicly turn into Africa (corrupt regimes living in poverty in the middle of a desert)? In other words, I just don't see the situation over there getting better before it gets worse.

[Sovrana]

A very impassioned rant. Though I am curious about one thing that I keep hearing:


If we end up 'creating' a government in Iraq that does not respect womens rights and....



Why are we citing women's rights when it comes to the Iraqi constitution? Isn't this just merely political? I mean, name one issue where Bush is concerned about women's rights here in the US.

[sparkie]

i thought we went to war because were good at it. damn have i been miss lead.

[markalot]

A very impassioned rant. Though I am curious about one thing that I keep hearing:



Why are we citing women's rights when it comes to the Iraqi constitution? Isn't this just merely political? I mean, name one issue where Bush is concerned about women's rights here in the US.

It popped into my head as I was ranting because I think it signifies something many of us care about. It's more fundamental than woman's rights as we see it over here. I'm talking about voting, marriage, divorce law, fundamental freedoms we have come to expect.

Over here we are arguing about fairly minor issues IN COMPARISON.

[yoshomon]

What's the old saying? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The people of Iraq won't get a decent chance at peace until the majority of the people WANT peace.

I don't follow your logic at all.

The U.S. invades in the early 90's then slaughters thousands of conscripted Iraqi soldiers who were retreating (thus saving Suddam). Through sanctions and bombings, the U.S. cripples Iraq over the next decade and destroys their infastructure. The U.S. steps up the bombings ("shock and awe") and invades again... establishes itself as an occupying force and props up a puppet government. The bombings and invasion leaves the infastructure in even worse condition, with many losing electricity and water. Against the occupation, a hetergenous armed resistance movement develops. As an occupying force, the U.S. attacks womens groups, trade unions, anti-occupation political parties, and others in addition to attacking armed Islamist and Nationalist groups. The U.S. orchestrates bullshit elections that are boycotted by most of Iraq's Sunni minority, and after the election the U.S. backed government is not trusted or supported by most Iraqis. The U.S. continues with bombings and other attacks (the deaths caused by these far outnumbers the deaths caused by anti-occupation insurgent attacks).

And then you blame the Iraqi people for the violence? As long as there is an occupation, there will be no peace.

[markalot]

And then you blame the Iraqi people for the violence? As long as there is an occupation, there will be no peace.

Blame them for violence?

Not exactly. So I gather you think all will be peaceful if we leave?

[Homsar]

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

Wonder how they expected to do those when they haven't been done here.

[jps]

why are we talking about installing a democracy?? we went there because iraq was an immediate threat to the health and welfare of the united states of america, right? wmd? ties to al quada?

To me its scary to think that with as screwed up as that country was with a ridiculous dictator that we propped up a long time ago that killed his own citizens was actually a safer place to be prior to our invasion in the first term of our current president. It was safer to walk down the street pre-invasion than it is now.

we didn't go there to set up a democracy in the first place, so if we don't do that, we will have accomplished the mission...

[tempo]

It was safer to walk down the street pre-invasion than it is now.

I think people tend to underestimate the importance of this point.

I know that not every place in Iraq is unsafe, but personal security is still a huge issue there. If people are afraid for their own safety and the safety of their families it puts the brakes on every aspect of normal life. (commerce, politics, education, etc.)

[sparkie]

no amount of military force that we, or the rest of the world can provide will make iraq a safer place. we had our cival war, russia theres, and iraq needs to have their own. we need to allow this to happen. no matter what we like or whats in our best interest, we need to let them do it themselves. the iraqis need to get together after the fight it out and decide whats best for their country. iraq wasnt a threat saddam wasnt a hitler, he was happy with his little corner, and we were to stupid to see that.

[the happy prole]

This is really the kind of stuff you should realize BEFORE you blow trillions and cost troops their lives, call me crazy.

The thing is, we're in their business whether we like it or not. If we leave they will try to develop weapons of mass destruction again, whoever is in charge. It's an unstable region, countries will protect themselves.

Funny thing is, I was talking to two people today-- both more liberal than I am-- and they independently brought up the same issue without me mentioning anything. And they both expressed support for US troops in the region even at the current casualty rate if we could start to slowly make headway on getting towards peace and stability. I think maybe the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza strip has renewed hopes for a peaceful Mideast. They also agreed we need to protect our security and gas interests.

So yeah, Bush's goals were too ambitious (or if you prefer, totally bogus). But there's a place where conservatives looking to protect US interests and liberal peaceniks can meet. Peace in that area helps everyone out. It just takes someone with an actual PLAN. Maybe McCain is that man, I don't know.

[benway]

...So yeah, Bush's goals were too ambitious (or if you prefer, totally bogus). But there's a place where conservatives looking to protect US interests and liberal peaceniks can meet. Peace in that area helps everyone out. It just takes someone with an actual PLAN. Maybe McCain is that man, I don't know.
Unfortunatley, any PLAN is going to involve more people loosing their husbands, wives or children. And for what? Oil? (we all know it was about oil, so don't kid yourself) We're not even getting that out of the deal. There's never going to be a democrocy in that country and when we do get out (staying just long enough to save as much face as possible) what will we have done? Removed Saddam, turned the country into rubble, opened the door for civil war, lost countless lives and the rest of the world hates us. Pretty good spoils of war. Pretty good for a hill-jack from Texas.

[dragonflier]

There's never going to be a democrocy in that country...
We (the US) were amazingly naive to believe that we could thrust democracy upon a country that had never had any kind of movement toward democracy in its history. Democratic movements must come from within the native populous.

Does anyone really believe that the Iraqi constitution will become a long-standing document that stands for decades and centuries? I doubt that the Iraqi people (in general) don't have the same concept of a constitution as we do.

[joebob]

Mr. Bush is guilty of all of the following: nation building; deceiving the public; lying to the UN; betraying the Armed Forces; defrauding the citizenry; and as commander in chief, he is responsible for the murder, rape and ritual abuse of hundreds of thousands of innocent inhabitants of a country that did absolutely nothing to endanger the national security of those of us in whose name these atrocities have been committed.

His crimes and lies are unforgivable. Manufacturing talking points, further deception, and alternate "spins" on the state of affairs, resultant from these immoral and illegal acts, are continuing to horrifically dishonor the citizens of this country, the law of the international community, and the very tenets of liberty, equality and justice on which this, our own country was founded.

[markalot]

joebob goes a bit overboard, as an obvious Bush hater and probably a hard core liberal.

I still put most of these mistakes into the incompetent or uncaring category.

[Shlep]

Clearly, there's a hard lesson here that's been learned which I'm sure future US Presidents will take heed of:

When taking over a country for the expressed purpose of removing the leadership and starting over with an entirely different form of governance, SET THE BAR FOR "SUCCESS" LOW!!

[The Big Crunch]

In related news, I'm lowering my expectations about being able to hook-up with the hot chick behind the counter at my gym. However, THAT news did not make the front page of the Washington Post.

[sparkie]

haha, sorry buts thats funny

[Shimmercore]

Unfortunatley, any PLAN is going to involve more people loosing their husbands, wives or children. And for what? Oil? (we all know it was about oil, so don't kid yourself)

If it was for oil then why do we pay such high gas prices right now?

[joebob]

If it was for oil then why do we pay such high gas prices right now?
Keeping Iraqi oil off the market forces the insane inflation of Saudi and other oil - all of which is entangled with Bush & Co. and has been since before H.W.

[Shimmercore]

Keeping Iraqi oil off the market forces the insane inflation of Saudi and other oil - all of which is entangled with Bush & Co. and has been since before H.W.

So you're saying that Bush wants to keep Iraqi oil out of the marketplace so the Saudis can reap higher profits? Where do you people get your conspiracy theories?

[joebob]

So you're saying that Bush wants to keep Iraqi oil out of the marketplace so the Saudis can reap higher profits? Where do you people get your conspiracy theories?
How do you remain so simple?

Sometime around, I don't know, elementary school, we were taught this newfangled technique called "critical thinking." It came a little while after "reading," and shortly before "sex education." Some of us concentrated on the reading and thinking, the rest of us just jerked off.

Please, continue.

[Shimmercore]

How do you remain so simple?

Sometime around, I don't know, elementary school, we were taught this newfangled technique called "critical thinking." It came a little while after "reading," and shortly before "sex education." Some of us concentrated on the reading and thinking, the rest of us just jerked off.

Please, continue.

Where are the sources that say that Bush is keeping Iraqi oil out of the marketplace just so he can let the Saudis reap higher profits? This is just a repeated conspiracy theory propagated by far-leftists. I suppose next you'll be saying that Bush ordered the 9/11 attack himself. It's liberals like you that "critically think" so hard that you bypass common sense.

Please, continue.

[markalot]

How do you remain so simple?

Sometime around, I don't know, elementary school, we were taught this newfangled technique called "critical thinking." It came a little while after "reading," and shortly before "sex education." Some of us concentrated on the reading and thinking, the rest of us just jerked off.

Please, continue.


lol, what an asshat. History tells us that high oil prices hurt the party in power and the republicans are scared to death of these high oil prices. I really think you give Bush too much credit in saying that he conspired to keep oil prices high when really he thought Iraq would be a cake walk and we would be living with low oil prices and a full fledged democracy in the middle east.

I am critical of your so called critical thinking.

[joebob]

Where are the sources that say that Bush is keeping Iraqi oil out of the marketplace just so he can let the Saudis reap higher profits? This is just a repeated conspiracy theory propagated by far-leftists. I suppose next you'll be saying that Bush ordered the 9/11 attack himself. It's liberals like you that "critically think" so hard that you bypass common sense.

Please, continue.
Current Department of Energy statistics: U.S. imports more than 1.5 million barrels of oil PER DAY from Saudi Arabia. This contitutes an increase of over 12% since last year. Link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html).

Saudi crude oil prices per barrel have doubled in the past 2 years. Link (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050802/ZNYT01/508020350).

Saudi oil exports totalling more than $110 billion this year. Last year's oil revenues doubled their own government expectations. (Don't make me timeline the orchestrated crippling of the Iraqi infrastructure and oil industry). Link (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?storyid=103845).

Flashback time...

Richard Clarke, Downing Street memo, Iraq was on the agenda before 9/11, and was the first thing out of W's mouth once it happened (after a significant "Uh.... Dick?").

... Back a bit further...

Saudi Arabia welcomes the 4 U.S. oil companies Chevron, Texaco, Mobil and Exxon - an alignment that forms "Saudi Aramco," the country's largest oil export operation. Link (http://www.mideastnews.com/oil_saudi.htm).

2000 - 2004 contributions to (George W. Bush and) related PACs:
ExxonMobil (they merged, I read somewhere) = $2.6 million
Chevron Texaco (also merged) = $2.1 million
Databases at Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org) track (reported, legal) political hard- and soft-money contributions. Among these companies, money to Republicans outweighs money donated to Democrats by a ratio of 20/1.

After these large mergers, the Government Accountability Office investigated evidence of price gouging in American markets, finding that the oil companies above have engaged in this profit maneuver since before 2001. Link (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0496.pdf).

... Now back to the present. Still there?

Oil companies post record profits, as high as 51% more than for the same period in 2004 - ExxonMobil posts 35% higher profits last quarter than seen during the same quarter last year. The top five oil companies in the United States post profits (not revenues) totaling more than a quarter of a trillion US dollars since 2000. Link (http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/12358264.htm). Link (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-07-27-oil-usat_x.htm). Link (http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/9702/).

Bush's energy bill subsidizes Alaskan drilling to the tune of more than $2 billion. Tax breaks in the energy bill total from $4-$6 billion for US oil companies.

Oil forecasts for US consumption predict average cost per barrel will remain above $60, reaching $68 by 2006. This month's peak of $67 outstripped the year-to-date average by more than $14 per barrel. Link (http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2005-08-18T142320Z_01_L18572961_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-ENERGY-GOLDMAN-DC.XML).

Keeping Iraqi oil (to be owned and controlled by the Iraqis we're told) out of the market will sustain Saudi oil consumption by the United States, thereby further enriching the already profit-swollen companies that fund Bush and the Republicans. It is unlikely that Bush's successor would score another $4.7 million (maybe I should index that for inflation) in campaign contributions if all of a sudden we halved their trade by rebuilding and importing from Iraq's oil companies.

[dragonflier]

lol, what an asshat. History tells us that high oil prices hurt the party in power and the republicans are scared to death of these high oil prices. I really think you give Bush too much credit in saying that he conspired to keep oil prices high when really he thought Iraq would be a cake walk and we would be living with low oil prices and a full fledged democracy in the middle east.

I am critical of your so called critical thinking.
For once, I agree with Markalot. If Bush meant to do anything with oil prices by entering a war with Iraq, I'm certain that he hoped that the oil prices would fall, not skyrocket upward. I just think that his administration did such a terrible job with the war that oil prices did the opposite of what Bush wanted. Do you think that congressional Repubs are pleased with high gas prices? Ask them again after the mid-term elections.

Of course, the oil companies aren't complaining as they are reaping record profits thanks to low refinery capacity keeping gas prices high. The bigger crime is that the recent highway bill gives billions of dollars in tax breaks to said oil companies. Do you think that these companies will take those tax breaks and make more refineries? I don't.

[Shimmercore]

Keeping Iraqi oil (to be owned and controlled by the Iraqis we're told) out of the market will sustain Saudi oil consumption by the United States, thereby further enriching the already profit-swollen companies that fund Bush and the Republicans. It is unlikely that Bush's successor would score another $4.7 million (maybe I should index that for inflation) in campaign contributions if all of a sudden we halved their trade by rebuilding and importing from Iraq's oil companies.

None of your links prove nothing about Dubya keeping Iraqi oil out of the marketplace and giving profits to Saudi Arabia. You laid your cards down and I'll call you with my hand. Here's the REAL resons for the high gas prices in This Week In Petroleum:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

"In summary, increases in crude oil prices, along with a number of refinery outages that reduced the supply of gasoline, have resulted in higher pump prices. Prices are likely to continue to increase over the next few weeks, but may drop some after Labor Day, as gasoline demand typically falls once people go back to school and work. Of course, this assumes that refineries are up and running again and that hurricanes or other factors don’t reduce crude oil production. But at least for the next few weeks, it appears that consumers will continue to experience pain at the pump when they fill up.
"

Again, you can critically think all you want and make up outrageous senarios all day long, but common sense will tell you that supply and demand determine gas prices.

[joebob]

None of your links prove nothing
...Back to that reading/thinking stuff we were supposed to have picked up...
about Dubya keeping Iraqi oil out of the marketplace and giving profits to Saudi Arabia. You laid your cards down and I'll call you with my hand. Here's the REAL resons for the high gas prices in This Week In Petroleum:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

"In summary, increases in crude oil prices, along with a number of refinery outages that reduced the supply of gasoline, have resulted in higher pump prices. Prices are likely to continue to increase over the next few weeks, but may drop some after Labor Day, as gasoline demand typically falls once people go back to school and work. Of course, this assumes that refineries are up and running again and that hurricanes or other factors don’t reduce crude oil production. But at least for the next few weeks, it appears that consumers will continue to experience pain at the pump when they fill up.
"

Again, you can critically think all you want and make up outrageous senarios all day long, but common sense will tell you that supply and demand determine gas prices.
That's strong - citing an administration report explaining high prices. Those are "talking points" by any other name. They also blame OPEC, a ready scapegoat if ever we need one.

And when all else fails, and one refuses to consider that politicians can be motivated by immense wealth and power instead of their duty as public servants, claim the ethical high-ground with the omnipotent argument winner and the heartland's favorite thing besides white people, COMMON SENSE.

[Shimmercore]

I am so fucking sick and tired of these statements.

I am not agreeing with Joe because I happen to think he's wrong but if you cannot tell him he is wrong and back it up with resonable arguements please do not pull out the liberal v neocon card.

It only serves to display your great depth of severe stupidity and hurts your arguement or lack thereof.

IF Iraqi oil is kept out of the reserves (I can't imagine that it would) it's because OPEC decided to keep it out of the reserves. OPEC makes these decidions not Bush.


You're a liberal!
You're a neocon!

WHO FUCKIN' CARES!
:mad:

You calling me stupid only negates your intent. I threw the liberal card out because only a far-leftist would believe that Bush is responsible for the Evil in this world. Don't worry, I'll throw the neo-con card too when they try to push their fundamentalist agendas on the masses. Never underestimate a centrist.

PS - OPEC or Bush hasn't kept Iraqi Oil out of the marketplace. In fact, Iraqi Oil is being exported as we speak. Here's a link top prove it:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html#oil

[Shimmercore]

That's strong - citing an administration report explaining high prices. Those are "talking points" by any other name. They also blame OPEC, a ready scapegoat if ever we need one.

And when all else fails, and one refuses to consider that politicians can be motivated by immense wealth and power instead of their duty as public servants, claim the ethical high-ground with the omnipotent argument winner and the heartland's favorite thing besides white people, COMMON SENSE.

Your paranoid delusions are trite. I merely sourced statistics on a government website explaining the high prices in gas. It's up to you whether or not to choose to believe in facts or your current theories of fiction. Perhaps Intelligent Design fits nicely with your "critical thinking" studies, no?

[joebob]

Your paranoid delusions are trite. I merely sourced statistics on a government website explaining the high prices in gas. It's up to you whether or not to choose to believe in facts or your current theories of fiction. Perhaps Intelligent Design fits nicely with your "critical thinking" studies, no?
You should stick to grammatical errors. They made more sense.

It's been fun but I'm staying on-topic from now on. You've reminded me why I don't do this tangential bantering much. I've cracked too many monitors with my skull after these little encouragements for others to cultivate their gardens.

[Sofa King]

The Vacationer
While the president worries about restoring "balance" to his life, Americans are worried by stratospheric gas prices and growing fed up with the war in Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal www.salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/08/18/bush_woes/index_np.html)

Aug. 18, 2005 | Now is the summer of our discontent, made lowering winter by this sun of Crawford. President Bush capers nimbly through his bicycle rides, fishing, brush clearing, attending a Little League baseball game and holding a merry meeting with his adoring and adored Rangers and Pioneers, his largest political contributors. His national security team comes and goes praising the nonexistent Iraqi constitution. He bestows souvenir pens on congressional leaders festively gathered around him, signing an energy bill that provides new loopholes for oil companies awash in windfall profits and drastically scales back measures for conservation as the price of petroleum skyrockets to near-record levels.

Home on the range more than the deer and the antelope play. Near a drainage ditch by the road leading to Prairie Chapel, the president's ranch, the mother of a dead soldier has pitched a tent. Cindy Sheehan has refused to leave until she is granted an audience with the president. Her son, 24-year-old Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, a Humvee mechanic, was killed in Baghdad's Sadr City on April 4, 2004, and she calls her makeshift vigil in memoriam "Camp Casey." Her previous meeting with Bush has only impelled her to seek the satisfaction of another one. "He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey," she said. "He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.' Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."

Bush has sent out emissaries, including his national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, to reason with her, but she remains adamant. Her emotional drama and outspoken opposition to the Iraq war have become daily features in newspapers and on the network television news. Every twist in her standoff provides grist for expanded coverage. One of Bush's neighbors has offered Sheehan his ranch as a more commodious base. Yet another fired his shotgun in the air to startle and frighten her. Still another, the president of the local gun club, drove his pickup truck over a memorial of small white wooden crosses and American flags constructed by Sheehan and her supporters to honor the approximately 1,860 soldiers fallen so far; he was arrested for criminal mischief.

Other bereaved parents of dead soldiers have suddenly begun speaking out and receiving respectful media attention, especially in their home states. In Ohio, Paul Schroeder, the father of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II, killed two weeks ago along with 15 other Marines from Ohio, called a press conference in front of his Cleveland home. "Our comments are not just those of grieving parents," he said. "They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated." His wife, Rosemary, accused Bush of failure: "Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out -- he can't just let it continue." Before Sheehan's vigil, public support of Bush's Iraq policy had plummeted to 34 percent.

From the administration come conflicting statements about strategy in Iraq. The recent fiasco over the attempted rebranding of the "war on terrorism" as the "global struggle against violent extremism" reflects internal tensions. While Bush proclaims that he will "stay the course," military sources leak stories that the vaunted objectives of the Iraq war, democracy and civil order, are chimerical. Pentagon briefings suggest that U.S. forces may be drawn down soon, but the projections do not flow from any new strategy. Retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey declared: "The Army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24 months. We are now in a period of considerable strategic peril. It's because [Donald] Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, 'I cannot retreat from my position.'"

Iraq's confounded constitution writing has further illuminated its centrifugal forces and the increasingly visible hand of Iran. It is becoming undeniable that the outcome of the war will be an Islamic republic closely allied with Iran.

For the American public this news melds in their daily lives with the spike in gas prices. The Iraq invasion, of course, was supposed to guarantee perpetual cheap oil. While the price boost has erased wage gains and flattened consumer demand, this oil crisis is more than a tale of statistics. Like oil crises in the past, it strikes at American feelings of independence, mobility, freedom and exceptionalism. Not since the oil crisis during the summer of 1979 that provoked President Carter's "malaise" speech have such frustrations surfaced.

Sandstorms by the banks of the Euphrates swirl to the Waco River, and the presidential vacationer, besieged by alarms and marches, has turned querulous and peevish. As his crusade was being overtaken by a sense of drift and futility, Bush explained why he would not meet with Sheehan: "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life." This week he has planned a bike ride with Lance Armstrong.

[Shlep]

I'm extremely curious, at this stage, regarding what I think is a salient point given the direction this thread is going: why did Dubya blow through tons of international political and diplomatic capital to start a horrifically expensive war (even if all went well, it'd have been expensive) that did massive damage to the US image abroad predicated on (if I'm to believe the most strident critics of Bush's policies) complete and total lies that were sure to have been discovered as such and further ruined his chances, the GOPs' chances, politically in order to keep Iraqi oil off of international markets in any meaningful way...............when we'd been doing a fine job of it for 12 years with sanctions that we were able to lean on the UN successfully over and over again to maintain?

Your thoughts and speculation, please.

[yoshomon]

We (the US) were amazingly naive to believe that we could thrust democracy upon a country that had never had any kind of movement toward democracy in its history. Democratic movements must come from within the native populous.

I don't know if "democratic movements" is the right term, but Iraq has a long history of class struggle.

I think that the situation in Iraq makes nationalism look really stupid.. I mean Iraq as a nation-state is a bad experiment of British imperialism. I don't think that there is "national unity" anywhere in the world, but it definitely doesn't exist in any way in Iraq. Both the Left and the Right have been pushing nationalist slogans and solutions for the "iraqi question", which really demonstrates whose side they're on.

I'm excited when the Iraqi Unemployed Union writes, "In the U.S. and the West, it is only cultural relativists and bigots like Bush and his cronies, who divide Iraqi society along lines of ethnicity, religion, and tribalism, that can deny the class reality of Iraqi society. In Iraq, it is the Iraqi bourgeoisie that appears as the nationalist movement, Islamist forces, tribal heads, and agents of the CIA and the Pentagon that deny and reject workers and their struggle... The US government brings up the issue of “foreign fighters” for many reasons, among them, to stir up backward nationalist feelings and sentiments against foreigners among the Iraqi masses. Who really cares if there are foreign fighters in Iraq? From the point of view of an “internationalist,” it is irrelevant whether there are foreigners fighting in Iraq or not. Engaging in a xenophobic discussion to assure us that the anti-occupation movement in Iraq is “homegrown” and not incited by foreigners is quite appalling. What is relevant to consider consists of what kind of movement these foreigners represent, what kind of goals and objectives they are following and what kind of future they see for Iraqi society."

[joebob]

I'm extremely curious, at this stage, regarding what I think is a salient point given the direction this thread is going: why did Dubya blow through tons of international political and diplomatic capital to start a horrifically expensive war (even if all went well, it'd have been expensive) that did massive damage to the US image abroad predicated on (if I'm to believe the most strident critics of Bush's policies) complete and total lies that were sure to have been discovered as such and further ruined his chances, the GOPs' chances, politically in order to keep Iraqi oil off of international markets in any meaningful way...............when we'd been doing a fine job of it for 12 years with sanctions that we were able to lean on the UN successfully over and over again to maintain?

Your thoughts and speculation, please.
I was wondering when someone would mention this. Thank you.

The UN sanctions, tied to the findings of (like you said) 12 years of allied inspections, sketchy at first but extremely thorough up until 2002, were set to expire, having found absolutely no evidence that any weapons caching, production or development were underway in Iraq. This would have qualified Iraq for relief from many, if not all, sanctions. UN weapons inspectors presented their findings before the international community, and after 9/11 they were simply ignored (Hans Blix), insulted and smeared (Scott Ritter) if not outright relieved of their duties. Then to discredit the UN itself, the entire oil-for-food issue was pumped up, which bares even a few American necks but paints the UN as dodgy in enough minds here to help us forget they never found anything we ritually chanted they possessed.

[markalot]

I was wondering when someone would mention this. Thank you.

The UN sanctions, tied to the findings of (like you said) 12 years of allied inspections, sketchy at first but extremely thorough up until 2002, were set to expire, having found absolutely no evidence that any weapons caching, production or development were underway in Iraq. This would have qualified Iraq for relief from many, if not all, sanctions. UN weapons inspectors presented their findings before the international community, and after 9/11 they were simply ignored (Hans Blix), insulted and smeared (Scott Ritter) if not outright relieved of their duties. Then to discredit the UN itself, the entire oil-for-food issue was pumped up, which bares even a few American necks but paints the UN as dodgy in enough minds here to help us forget they never found anything we ritually chanted they possessed.


Sounds like a good reason to go to war. I wouldn't want Iraq with Saddam around if sanctions and inspections expired, would you? Which of course brings me back to assassinations. Easy, cheap, and we don't have to help rebuild.