If the Bush administration invades Iraq, future scholars will look back on this period and name the era for what it was: the Petroleum Wars. Almost every move the Bush administration has made in response to the terrorist attacks of a year ago has been tainted with the sickening smell of gasoline.

What else explains our light hand toward supposed ally Saudi Arabia, which nurtured 15 of the 19 hijackers and continues to support the schools and mosques that preach Islamist fanaticism and hatred of America? What else explains the Bush administration's continued loyalty to the House of Saud, despite the fact that they have done little to assist our investigation into the planning of the Sept. 11 attacks?

The American attack on Afghanistan was entirely justified and had nothing to do with global petroleum politics. But Osama bin Laden's demise is still uncertain and al-Qaida is far from vanquished; yet President Bush has already turned his attention to Iraq.

What but oil could possibly explain the Bush administration's stubborn insistence on attacking Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to the atrocities of Sept. 11? While the White House claims that Hussein's manufacture of weapons of mass destruction constitutes grounds for an unprovoked attack, other power-mad dictators, including North Korea's Kim Jong-il, have equally dangerous weapons.

The most cogent analyses of the Bush administration's fear of Hussein point to his potential to control the Persian Gulf, with its vast reserves of petroleum. Indeed, that's the reason we went to war with Iraq in 1991. Hussein had invaded Kuwait and threatened to take over its oil fields. If we go to war with Hussein again, it will be for the same reason: oil.

Despite years of warnings from international energy experts, the United States has done nothing to wean itself from oil. You might have thought that the attacks of Sept. 11 would have forced us to reconsider our relationship with oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia. You might have thought that Bush would have used the occasion to set policies that would greatly reduce our oil dependence in the years to come.

But no such thing happened. The Bush administration is saturated with oil industry bigwigs, from the president himself to the vice president to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who served on the board of directors of Chevron and has an oil tanker named after her. It simply does not occur to them to seek alternatives to petroleum. Their natural mindset is to assume that oil must be consumed ever more abundantly, even if that means going to war to preserve access to the supply.

Not once in the last year has the Bush administration admonished Americans about the need to conserve. Nor has the president done much to encourage the development of alternative fuels. He sat by while Congress refused to pass legislation requiring car manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 should have led us to reconsider our addiction to petroleum, but they didn't. A hundred years from now, historians will wonder why.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Tucker is the editorial page editor. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays.



Makes sense to me....lol.




Regards.

 

I suppose she drives a ten-speed bicycle.

 

franktheman this stuff is great reading. Just watch out I have seen movies where enlightened people "disappear" and we all know a lot of movies are based on fact

 

Frank,
Do you believe everything you read? Maybe you should try listening to someone other than the extreme liberal media for once. You might be surprised when you hear the truth. But then again, for a lot of you liberals, the truth is completely lost in a blur of lies and deceit. I'm sure if you read an article in some rag newspaper that claimed President Bush worships the devil and performs blood sacrifices in the Oval Office you'd believe that too.

 

mr wizard,
Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans...blah blah blah blah blah. And you think that he'll hear the "truth" if he listens to somebody else? Who, you? Tell us the "truth", amigo. Tell us what Rush told you, because Rush ALWAYS tells the "truth".
The article he posted was a column, by an author of unlisted political affiliation. How do you know for sure that the author isn't a "conservative"? But then again, for alot of you conservatives the "truth" is issued to you by the prophet Rush and the almighty Bush administration, and you believe it because it wasn't said by a liberal. Do you believe eveything you are told, wizard? Or do you just base your views on what you are not told, and automatically not believe anything in the media because you were told not to, because the media is "liberal"?
Last I checked, intelligence had little to do with what wing your on. Unfortunately, objectivity is lost upon the "conservatives"...
BDV

 

Frank - Agree or disagree, it's a good post and I enjoyed reading it. I do think the first sentence should say "when" instead of "if" because nothing is going to happen that will stop the attack.
Defination of a liberal - anyone who questions any opinion of any conservative.
Dono

 

LOL!! Good call. You can always tell a Rush listener. Most of us don't even have to listen to the show, because we hear it verbatim from his brainwashed followers every time a discussion comes up.

 

Q.....Why did god take away Rushes hearing???............A.....Because he was starting to believe his own BS.....fd

 

?!? Why bring Rush into this? 2112 is one of my all time favorite albums

 

I'll tell you strait out Why I think Mr. Ditto Head is a POS.....Back during the election... He (Rush) conducted a smear campaign against John McCain......after he won that one primary.....He did every thing in his Power to Smear McCain.........So that Bush wouldn't have a bonafide , republican challenger. McCain has Given more Blood , sweat , and tears in the name of Freedom than "W" ever will......He is a true patriot in my opinion......And , for that POS Rush to say what he did about McCain is unforgivable in my opinion....All Rush is capable of Doing is running his big , fat , partisian Mouth...period ....He hasn't fought in any battle as far as i know , nor has he ever served his country in the military in any capacity that i'm aware of......Maybe You can fill us in on Mr. Ditto head.........The more i type the more pissed i become when i think back on the events of the election...and how Rush treated John McCain....... fd

 

I'll second that, FatDaddy!

 

The only Rush I listen to!

 

brainwashed? hardly. im an independant who listens to Rush and sometimes doesnt agree with him. the problem you rush haters have is dealing with the truth when presented to you by a conservative. liberal being is based soley on opposing conservatives weather right or wrong. dont talk to me about objectivity, both the libs and consevatives by nature cant be objective, they both subscribe to a party and embrace its ideals.


the truth is what you make of it and who gives it to you. by that i mean.......if you dont stand for something, you'll fall for anything.


dont think the media is bias? ill give you and easy example.......

last weekend in cities across America their were Pro-America rallies. these were rallies that from the outset were planned as such, pro-america, pro-troops and not pro-war. not ONE sign in any crowd in Any city said anything about bombing saddam. NPR labeled these rallies as pro-war and one of the major newspapers in america showed 6 people in front of the Washington Monument saying it was the pro-america rally.

the facts are 10,000 people showed up here in cleveland and in san antonio texas, 8,000 in another city, 3,000 in another and so on. did any of you see these rallies on ANY national media outlet? nope. yet a few hundren anti-war protesters gather anywhere and thats all over the news. hows that not bias?

for the official tally(by local police) of attendants of the Pro-America rallies go to glennbeck.com

another example.......well over 10,000 people were here in cleveland(from as far away as Alaska) and the local media said it was 5,000. at the same time across town there was an anti-war rally. head count at that rally was taken.......256, yet the media said enthusiasticly " hundreds show up for anti-war rally". why not say 256? the head count was official.

 

First off, I thought the guy who posted the article wasn't really agreeing with it, since he laughed when saying it made since to him. That's how I perceived it anyways. Second, why did this turn into a bashing of Rush Limbaugh? Everybody preaches on here about how the war protesters have their right to free speech and complain when somebody bashes them, but it is alright to bash Rush for his free speech? I am a republican and consider myself conservative, but I always try to listen to both sides and make up my own mind, and most often I agree with the conservative view. Also, why is i that Rush is suppose to be full of BS when quite often he says what is on the news? Obviously I listen to Rush and enjoy his show.

Now, for the original post. I don't think the war with Iraq is about oil at all. It is about enforcing the surrender conditions from the Gulf War and making Saddam dissarm. As to why we aren't going into N. Korea, I think it is because they are making it known what they have. Are they a threat, yes, and I think that they will be dealt with in due time. Saudi Arabia is moving towards a democratic government and aren't a threat is why we are not after them. Also, by installing a democratic government in the region there is a good chance other countries will change. As to Bush supporting all his big oil buddies, I don't know about that. If the person writing the articel did research, they would know that several of the "Big Oil" companies are researching and developing alternative energy sources. I know British Petroleum is working on power cells, and they use a lot of solar power. They install solar panels on some of their canopies to power the canopies and maybe even the stores, don't remember off hand. It's getting late and I can't think of anymore so I'll get.

 

The real truth is that mcain doesnt need to smeared because everyone who knows him already is fully aware that he is nothing more than a closet dictator himself.
Rush merely pointed out the obvious.
Franklin