Bush's master plan for oil?
493798
Nobody Is Going To Support Anthing Of His.
513849
I know that this is a political question, but I don't think that any human effort can solve this complex issue.  There appears to be a great deal of fear-mongering, and information appears to be skewed.  I do not trust any intelligence that the Americans have used, since it was twisted to make their ends justified.  I know how the British work, I've talked to someone who belonged in the SAS. (Secret Armed Service)  What is at stake, and the Americans, sadly, feed it with their life-style, is a great deal of oil.  I would like to say:  get rid of your dependancy on oil, but the oil companies are so used to power that they will do anything to subvert any efforts in that direction.\n\nFor true peace to happen, peace must first begin with individuals, then with families, then with communities, then finally, with countries.  \n\nI think that it's gotten out of hand and no one knows how to stop it.
1087945
First, Let me ask the intelligent people a question. Why would an oilman that thrives on American Produced oil want to imoprt more oil from the Middle East. It was not for oil. If Bush wanted a profit from Oil Prices, he would have stopped oil from coming from the Middle East, not encouraged oil coming in.\n\nThank you MesquiteGal for this answer to another poster.\n\nNote, this is not my answer, I copied it. Do not vote it best for me.\n\n'Thank God for a president that stood up to the terrorists, and took the war to them, instead of waiting for another 9/11. If Clinton had done his job, there may not have been a 9/11.\n\nCheck out what Clinton and other Democrats said in 1998...\n(Please note the first five entries were made PRIOR to President Bush becoming our president.... and then, we have Hiliary's entry!)\n\n"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." \nSandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \nLetter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." \nSen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002'\n\nThank you MesquiteGal for that answer. You did your research and know the facts.
1097047
If it were a war for oil, wouldn't we be bringing all that oil over here?  It is, in fact, a completely oil-less war.  We've gotten no oil out of it.  If we had taken that oil - free oil - prices would be at an all-time low.\n\nAlso, for those that say it's a war for oil because Bush is an oil baron, the last thing an oil baron would do would be anything that increases supply.  That would make the price go down.  So, if Bush were an oil baron, the absolute last thing he would want would be a war for oil.  Simple supply and demand.\n\nThe truly twisted, tinfoil-hat crowd should be claiming that Bush went to war to PREVENT Iraqi oil from getting to the U.S., thus restricting supply.  So, maybe it would be a war FROM oil.  See, the crazy conspiracists can't even get their conspiracies right.
553008
No, it would still be the same. Gas has nothing to do with whos the President. I dislike Bush, but I do not think he is in charge of the gas prices.\n\n"This is a total misconception. The reason for high gas prices is simply supply and demand in this country, not the cost of barrel of crude oil, be it purchased from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. \n\nThis country has not built any new plants (at least any that provided a significant increase to our ability to increase production of refined oil products) since the mid to late 1990s. \n\nIt doesn't take a lot to realize that if we have to divert millions of barrels of our refined oil products, such as gasoline and diesel fuel, to fight a war, less of the product will find its way to the American consumer. \n\nSo in the land which has proven that capitalism and open markets are much better at regulating than any government, it should come as no surprise that we will have to pay more per gallon of fuel until such time as the plants that refine the crude oil in the United States catch up with the deficit. \n\nToo many US citizens have the idea that they are entitled to a free lunch. Whenever a resource is used for one thing, it means there will be less available for whoever else might want to use this resource. Hey, it's the American way, and it works."
1093728
Yes, true but Bush's motto is give me freedom to go in search of more oil where no man has gone before! He needs to go alright and I hope we make it  to 2008 and after that he can go to ####
1046431
Negative, I do not. His current oil plans have hurt the economy.
550385
I don't think it's possible because people want what is no theirs. the U.S. is a prime example. They will keep taking until they have it all and someone is going to fight back.\nthat said we have Bush as a president and the U.S. will keep electing idiots.\nWeapons of mass destruction. HA!!  he just want the oil and people are dying for NOTHING!
339083
About Bush about the oil he know. And one questions what happens to oil banks after they are finish with all the oil, do they leave the big holes empty??
608318
Uh, where did you find out this secret 'fact' about Bush wanting Ken Lay as energy secretary? The only place that has this is www.thedailyfarce.com - a spoof newspaper.\n\nAnd where do you get the mistaken idea that 'Big Oil' (ooooh, how scary!) is in charge of our energy policies? \n\nDo you loopy lefties know just how ignorant you sound?
434640
Nah, it wasn't oil.  That's probably the most overworked cliche.  If it had been oil we'd have complete control of all the oilfields by now and that's not happening.\n\nSome part of it might have been left over grudges from the first Iraq war, but I suspect that combined with George Bush #2 getting some justification for finishing things, like the overreaching for weapons of mass destruction, was all it took.\n\nThe real reason I believe had more to do with Israeli security than anything else.  Iraq represented the biggest threat to Israeli security and pressure by Israel on the US may have had something to do with it.\n\nOther than that, Bush may have deluded himself into thinking that God told him to do it. Bush may be on a sort of "religious" conquest in his own mind.\n\nOne of these three possibilities may have been the prime motivator, or some combination, but I doubt very much if oil had anything to do with it because events subsequent to the invasion do not support that theory.
507692
Liberals don't think, they feel. As you point out, they think Bush is responsible for everything. That is because most attended a government sanctioned child abuse center, aka public school. Thus, you will get idiots replying that this was a "war for oil".  If so, then the price of gas would be around $1.00 a gallon.  Simple supply and demand.  \n\nLet's take a look at a few facts.  First, the cost of crude oil for each gallon of gas sold in this country has gone up from about 35 cents per gallon in 1999 to $1.59 per gallon in 2006.   So ... crude oil prices go up by 454% over a period of seven years.  How much did gas prices go up during the same period?  Try 162%.  Looks to me like things could be worse.\n\nSo ... did George Bush set those crude oil prices?  Did the oil companies go out there and set the prices that high?  Helllloooo!  Do you think the oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia might have had anything to do with it?  Is it possible that the ever-increasing worldwide demand for crude oil was a factor?  How about the fact that oil exploration slowed several years ago when crude was selling for under $20 a barrel?  Now that the price is so much higher many more companies are getting into the exploration business ... but it takes somewhere around 5 years from discovery of an oil deposit to actual production.  The price of oil didn't start its uphill swing until about 2004.  Do the math.  You also have the fact that oil is a commodity that is traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange.  Traders have much to do about setting prices.  Do you suppose that George Bush is calling these traders in to coach them on just what those prices should be?  That's what the Democrats want you to believe.\n\nBesides, can Big Oil set the price, even if it wanted to?  As The Motley Fool points out on their website, there are dozens of publicly traded oil companies.  Add to that mix the government-owned oil companies like Saudi Aramco, and the hundreds of small private companies (my brother used to be the president of one such company) that are drilling around the world ... and the Democrats want you to believe that they all got together to set these crude prices?  Not one of these companies wants to seek an advantage in the market place by lowering their prices?\n\nThis is all about playing on the ignorance of the American people for political advantage.  These Democrats and most in the media know the score.  They understand the difference between gross profits and profit margins ... and they know that most Americans do not.
435914
There is a plan to tap the oil reserves in Alaska.  But I would ask you this... Do we really need more oil?  Why not find alternative energy sources?  What happens when all the oil runs out? (And it will).  Why do we have to ruin the pristine environment in Alaska with oil drilling and creating a pipeline that will ruin the habitat of many animals?\n\nBush is unfortunately a slave to big business and is not interested in "green" energy and moving the country away from oil, which is sad because we are ruining the earth's environment.  Whatever the Bush Administration says there is global warming and CO2 emissions, like those from cars, are in fact heating up the planet.  Hope you all have working bicycles because in the future with no oil that's what we will all be riding!
181740
political????\n oil,relgeion, bush
103784
BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION
612883
Yes. He is destroying everything with his need to drill oil. Bush should take that 300 billion, wipe his a$$, and invest in some alternate energy!!
386567
Let's take a look at a few facts.  First, the cost of crude oil for each gallon of gas sold in this country has gone up from about 35 cents per gallon in 1999 to $1.59 per gallon in 2006.   So ... crude oil prices go up by 454% over a period of seven years.  How much did gas prices go up during the same period?  Try 162%.  Looks to me like things could be worse.\n\nSo ... did George Bush set those crude oil prices?  Did the oil companies go out there and set the prices that high?  Helllloooo!  Do you think the oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia might have had anything to do with it?  Is it possible that the ever-increasing worldwide demand for crude oil was a factor?  How about the fact that oil exploration slowed several years ago when crude was selling for under $20 a barrel?  Now that the price is so much higher many more companies are getting into the exploration business ... but it takes somewhere around 5 years from discovery of an oil deposit to actual production.  The price of oil didn't start its uphill swing until about 2004.  Do the math.  You also have the fact that oil is a commodity that is traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange.  Traders have much to do about setting prices.  Do you suppose that George Bush is calling these traders in to coach them on just what those prices should be?  That's what the Democrats want you to believe.\n\nIn short, when supplies increase and demand decreases.