kakki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe it is "all about oil" as far as the oil being an important part of the region and most of the world depends on getting access to it in the middle east, but the whole situation goes back way before the Bushes and before U.S. involvement.
I can understand your frustration with people crying "Oil" in response to the Bush administration's push for a "regime change" in Iraq. It is about the oil - not because the of Bush ties to the oil industry, but because of decades of U.S. presence in the Middle East and policies to protect it's access to middle eastern oil. kakki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The Bushes and Cheney have spent most of their careers in public service, not the oil business. Halliburton is a large construction company, kind of like Fluor Daniel. They are involved in projects all over the world, not just the oil sector. I think George W. actually has spent somewhat more time in the oil business then in public service. And Halliburton bills itself as "the world's largest provider of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries". But even if Bush and Cheney weren't ex-oilmen, the fact remains that the oil industry - as well as other energy industries - gave the majority of their political donations to G.W. and other Republicans in the last election. And Bush as governer of Texas and as president, with Cheney as vice-prez - clearly favor policies that help the energy industry at the expense of environmental and anti-pollution laws. And white house plans for Iraq are clearly tied to U.S. access to oil. Definitely moreso then keeping us safe from state-sponsored terrorism. But their regime-change rhetoric has shifted away from the dangers of al quaeda to Saddam developing WMDs. And now they've softened their stance it even more - saying war is not imminent, while military movement seems to suggest otherwise. Remember the Gulf War - how the white house at first said we needed to send troops to keep Saudi Arabia from being attacked, and then it shifted to we must stop aggression in a post-cold war world and restore a Kuwait's legitimate (feudal monarchy goverment), and then it shifted to we have to stop Saddam from developing nuclear weapons and finally public support was won. Am I remembering this correctly? No mention of oil. I think that is what I resent the most - when white house administrations develop PR campaigns to drum up support for military action and are not up front about what is really at stake and what they are trying to accomplish. Jenny U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
