Sorry to drag this thread off topic, I'll make this my last comment here and I'll wrap it up, promise.

I don't think I could show you. I could only hint at critiques, and speculation (that's what politics is). One reason I can't show you a source is that, if I could, it would be extremely damaging to the parties involved. ("If I told 'ja I'd have to kill ya." ;] ) Everyone knows about the secretive/sketchy Cheney energy task force meetings. Supposedly they talked about Iraq. If they didn't, they're dumber than I thought... As for executives, that's not their role to publicly declare war. Or pontificate on foreign policy. They're supposed to smile and make shareholders happy and hope for a bright hunky-dory future. That's why the executives and their parent corporations hire think tanks, and certainly have divisions within their own corporations who perform a similar role within their very own company (as opposed to the industry, oligopoly-like positioning that the major think tanks limn for their corporate masters.) Anyway, I'm sure they keep a big hallway between these people and the technical experts, such as yourself. We haven't even jumped into the brisk cold waters of academia yet either! Let me note I respect people and families that work in the oil and gas industry--they are just people doing their jobs for the most part dutifully, and in many cases in highly dangerous, or daunting situations. My hat is off to them. I do have a problem with the politics of the upper echelon of the oil corporations though--and see them as responsible for a lot of truly evil PR, history and "guidance". This isn't about being "liberal" or "conservative", or dunkey or elephant. It is simply about appreciating that "leaders" of the industry to a large extent have been responsible for building us up mindlessly to this point we're at now, with little care for anything else aside from profits. (The ANWR crowd is merely one minnow indicative of this mindlessness). Alas, that's what a corporation is supposed to do, turn profits. As you said down thread, I only wish they would do it honestly without blatantly manipulative propaganda... I do believe that one can make a profit without being sinisterly uncaring of the future.

Of course, you have a rosy take on things that go on inside your realm, politically, because from your perspective you are hired to perform an actual job (versus being paid to come up with hifalutin rationalizations for illegal wars)--and you probably do it extremely well, judging from what I've read of your writing over the years. You're probably friends with tons of decent, downright cool oil and gas dudes. I'm not trying to make a blanket statement that everything that the oil industry does is evil or something, I'm just pointing out that simply because you don't personally agree with the top-brass doesn't in anyway explicate away their self-destructive, purely profit driven behavior--and I just love to state this as often as possible while I lumber around God's green earth for my few moments of life. So, again, I think we are there on behalf of the oil companies--but this is a futile debate, I'm just putting out my counter opinion for the peanut gallery. I can't "prove it" just like I can't prove to a believing a Christian that there is no "personal God". In politics there is no proof, just pudding--which is why things get messy so quickly.

You seem to think there is a big difference between the power structures of "politicians" and the "oil companies." I'm not so sure. I think to the extent that the US is an O&G empire, that our politics and energy policy are like two peas in a pod. It is convenient to blame Bush though, right? Personally, I'm over hating Bush. Everyone seems to do it, and it is hysterical how our "democracy" can function as a ready and easy explication for why things are so screwed up. Truismville. Obviously no one can debate that. It becomes the "consumers" fault--which, again, I'm more than willing to accept... It's just that critique deflects the political reality, which is that the powerful decision making forces (the people with lots of money--institutional capital and wealthy individuals) have a much more powerful say in how things function than the middle class combined. And I'll just note that I'm not saying you support(ed) Bush, but you are using him as a scapegoat--which is something I like to avoid, because how can anyone blame an invisible hand sock puppet?

I'm afraid the most proof I'll ever have is Dick Cheney himself, pudding or no pudding.

The good old predictable "Check your facts" line that I know too well. I think I have. Yes. Everything is propaganda--you just have to make sure who it's for, you don't want it delivered to the wrong person! In this case, propaganda in support of the collections of neurons in my brain that say you are wholly unjustified in equating "Elders of Zion" conspiracy theories with a foreign policy stance that the major oil companies and their minions underwrite.

By minions I mean those that "aid and abet" the powerful interests which have a stake in "infinite growth into a finite resource base." That is practically everyone! At least, amongst those in the "elite." Since our complex systems are powered by hydrocarbons, that essentially means energy is at the top--everyone else waits for a dole out in exchange for some fiat currency.

I don't understand how you can accuse me of stereotyping though... On what basis?

You make a long and tedious rant about some old money families that still have money and power--but there is a market out there, and there are people with different types of power, doing entirely different "things." I'm engaged in stereotyping I don't know how...

I'm sure you'll tell me it's because Chevron has such wonderful ads in Harper's magazine or something...

Oh, and sorry for breaking my promise upthread.

Also, I might add that Dick's order of going from PNAC apparatchik to the private sector O&G industry hardly matters. In this case, it seems to indicate only further the impetus that experience gave him to address PO in this fashion (invade and occupy Iraq) versus the more rational (albeit liberal) response. His mind was easily changed by the sleek world of the XOM et al.

Yes. My contention is just that the gerbil-consumer is not at the reins when it comes to foreign policy, after all he or she is too busy on the squeaky wheel. The gerbil-consumer invading foreign countries? To say so is absurd (with that said, their tax dollars are going to pay for it...) The reins clearly rest in the hands of the people with power, money and influence. That is to say a circle jerk of Democrats, Republicans, oil corporations, economists and many others... Sure, Republicans elected them, but Democrats went along for the ride, and will most likely kick the elephants out soon and start wildly driving themselves around on a joyride. Either way, both the mainstream donkey and elephant live in the same house, they just have different personality disorders...