Oily G and the ISG
For the longest time everyone, particularly those in Washington, have been hesitant to admit that a primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was the vast oil fields it possessed. But as the rationales slowly fell away, even President Bush was forced to cite keeping that oil out of the hands of extremists in a desperate attempt to maintain support for our continued presence. But regardless of what the President says, there are still many who refuse to accept that our motive for invasion had less to do with weapons of mass destruction and more with wells of deposited consumables.
The members of the Iraq Study Group, however, have no such qualms about admitting the importance of those WDC's:
As the article cited above concludes: "We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil."
Sadly, as long as the later substance remains more valuable, the former will continue to flow.
See Matthew Rothschild and Tom Hayden for more.
(Filed at State of the Day)
The members of the Iraq Study Group, however, have no such qualms about admitting the importance of those WDC's:
While the Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.
Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves....
The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.
As the article cited above concludes: "We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil."
Sadly, as long as the later substance remains more valuable, the former will continue to flow.
See Matthew Rothschild and Tom Hayden for more.
(Filed at State of the Day)
Post a Comment