User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I have long maintained there are two Peak Oil moments.
1. Peak Oil
2. The preceding moment when everyone realised that Peak Oil was due.
Mr Cheney's Damascene revelation was essentially the driver for building a huge Embassy on the banks of the Euphrates.
The motive ...if you haven't got the oil...go and steal it.
And of course this has received "zero" attention in the MSM (Main Stream Media). I haven't even seen the usually brilliant Daily Show (weekdays Mon-Fri, 8.30pm, More4) pick up on this Cheney video clip. Unfortunately that show seems to be veering away from outright (deserved) political attacks on the Bush administration to go for the more jokey story at the expensive of truly explosive stories such as this one. Shame on the MSM :(
>The motive ...if you haven't got the oil...go and steal it.
So it didn't occur to them that the oil could be bought?
Maybe they thought there would come a time when it couldn't just be bought - remember winter 05/06 when the UK tried to buy gas from the continent?
Hello TODers,
Yep, as I have posted many times before: instead of Bush/Cheney expecting to be showered with candies and flowers for invading Iraq, they should have instead gone for Maximum Iraqi Peakoil Outreach.
If a FF-exporting country goes to Maximum Biosolar Conversion, then they will peacefully sell their depleting FFs to further leverage for this change in direction and long term advantage.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
On 60 minutes Geoge Tenet was interviewed about his book. He said that the Bush adminstration had been warned by the CIA repeatidely that Sadaam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons capability before the 2003 invasion.
It seems like Cheney and Powell took orders from Bush, but it is difficult to discern what special interests were involved.
I mean the Bush administration was warned that the Niger uranium documents were forged. There was no evidence that Sadaam had acquired uranium from Niger.
Very good point.
The 1,000,000 lb of refined yellowcake found in nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq came most likely from Russia.
Upon further research, I was wrong.
~260 tons of Uranium dioxide came from Portugal
~200 tons from Nigeria
~ 28 tons from Brazil
~ 12 tons from Italy
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html
All those aquisitions were quite old. Early 80's... From the IAEA's Fact Sheet above we can see the following.
"
As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:
There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.
Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon
There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.
There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material
All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.
There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.
"
totoneilia,
Now that's a brilliant idea. The only world leader with that kind of leadership is Hugo Chavez, and he's just kinky enough to try, or at least announce that's what he's doing.
It would sure beat selling gasoline to his people for $0.25 a gallon and giving away free oil to the poor of other countries as a message.
Sure, but what if it's the Chinese that buy it? China is investing heavily in aid for oil programs in Africa and successfully exploiting African resources (see, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/). The U.S. government couldn't let that happen to a country sitting on the world's third largest reserves. Could the U.S. have maintained enough pressure in the UN to keep Iraq locked up with sanctions forever? At some point China with its deep pockets, could have purchased a good piece of the action in Iraq in return for aid and arms. China's support of Iran for oil concessions has created a strategic nightmare for the administration. Imagine what a Saddam Hussein/China partnership for Iraqi economic development would have meant for U.S. strategic interests as understood by Cheney and company.
Actually Stewart did a piece on the 1994 video. I believe he called it "Dick doesn't know dick." And you are right, it does appear that the Daily Show has lost some of its edge or cockiness. It seems simply more "slapstick" than anything else. I am watching it less.
Stewart talked again about the Cheney Iraq Quagmire video tonight, August 22 2007. This video is mainstream.
I agree with you about The Daily Show, but I don't think it got any dumber over the years - I think we got smarter.
For a while it was easy fun to scapegoat Bush & Cheney for all our problems. But if you're peak-fuels aware, and if you look back at the history of America and Europe, Bush & Cheney are nothing new, and the Republicans aren't the only bad guys.
In fact it was President Carter who in 1980 established the doctrine of securing oil imports by military force. He was a Democrat.
The sad truth is that you and I are complicit in these crimes. We are guilty each time we fill up on ridiculously cheap $3.00 gasoline, or enjoy foods that are insanely cheap by historical standards.
"The sad truth is that you and I are complicit in these crimes. We are guilty each time we fill up on ridiculously cheap $3.00 gasoline, or enjoy foods that are insanely cheap by historical standards."
Very, very, VERY true. We are complicit. Not doing our utmost as individuals to cut our individual consumption of fossil fuels make us BAD PEOPLE.
And that's horrible. I want to be a good person. Still, I eat meat. Because it's so nice. I drive an electric scooter, but I'm still an immoral person. And that's horrible.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not trying to establish that you and I are "bad people," it's not that simple.
We do, however, each play our part causing the problems discussed here at The Oil Drum. We each consume more than the planet can sustainably produce, particularly fossil fuels.
Maybe we're nice guys in person, but our participation in a bad system perpetuates it. We don't need to feel depressed about this fact all the time, but we shouldn't forget it.
Because people forget this fact, they are capable of talking back and forth about whether some Cheney TV clip broadcast everywhere ten years ago, which now plays on YouTube and Jon Stewart, has been "buried by the media" and whether if it "came out" the hypocrisy of the war would finally be exposed, and the bad times in the Middle East might end.
This sort of talk is possible only when people forget their role creating the problem and focus attention on a charismatic "bad guy" like Cheney. It is a kind of entertainment that clouds understanding of what's really going on in the world.
"In fact it was President Carter who in 1980 established the doctrine of securing oil imports by military force. He was a Democrat."
On the whole I agree that the Carter Doctrine was a mistake, but as you note, he was simply being honest about a bi-partisan policy pursued by the US for 60 years.
More importantly, at the same time he laid the groundwork for developing alternatives, and eliminating our dependence on the Middle East. Groundwork which was partially dismantled by Reagan & Bush administrations.
He was also willing to risk "stability" in the ME when he withdrew support for the Shah.
He wasn't perfect, but he was by far the best president we've had in recent history on energy matters.
Quoting SilentPatriot at Crooksandliars:
I agree--it was brilliant. And included the 1994 Cheney video.
Find it on the Comedy Central site by scrolling down the Most Recent Videos column to "America to the Rescue," or find it on Crooksandliars here.
--C
Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com
Yep, somehow I missed the episode with the hilarious "Dick doesn't know Dick" section. Also the way he went after the guy that had done the Dick Cheney book in the interview segment after that was brilliant and brutal...
I have renewed faith in The Daily Show having seen that :)
I'll repeat my advice to The Daily Show: get Kunstler!
Jon Stewart has certainly dumbed it down this year. During an interview with Nikolas Kozloff on 20 Aug., Stewart remarks "what is Chavez going to do when the price of oil goes down... like it did in the 70's". I don't believe Stewart understands peak oil, today's production limits and the increased demand worldwide. Colbert is a more independent thinker for sure.
Charlie, Chicago
It seems that 100% of the time when someone screams that the MSM isn't picking up a story (shame on them), either they did pick up the story or it wasn't worth covering.
In this case the first link to the video on TOD was through the New York Times. Now it seems to have appeared on the daily show twice. There may be other instances. The MSM is all over this story and in fact was the initial source for TOD!
Could people please search Google or something before I assuming that "I have't seen it" means "The MSM is burying it"?
I record every episode shown on Freeview in the UK via my HDD recorder so was suprised I'd missed it. However I had found it linked on Michael Moore's site (via a reddit link) days before the date of the airing.
Cheney lying should have been a bigger story than the bridge falling down.
MSM should be calling for impeachment for any number of things (at least 5). I think the line "Clinton lied but nobody died" sums up the difference between one set of impeachment rules and another!
I think we can BLAME the MSM for ignoring certain stories. It's well known how they pretty well ignored the infamous "Downing Street Memo" story. The Times in the UK unearthed it as I recall. It was virtually ignored in the US and most of the UK papers / TV didn't pick it up either. Channel 4 and Newsnight were the only ones I recall.
It showed that the "US was fixing the evidence around the policy", and had a date "penciled in" for the attack.
So proving it was a lie that they were doing all they could to prevent war.
Also I like the way when Hans Blix says "we haven't found anything" Bush & Co said Saddam's very smart he keeps moving things around.
ie. there was NO way we weren't going to invade... if Blix found anything then we could say "look he's got weapons" invade. If they didnt find anything "youve wasted our time Saddam - stop hiding them".
Even if it was chemical weapons they found - the US sold them to him when Saddam was an ally (during his fight with Iran).
If the MSM were responsible they would go after the administration for the countless lies and when the administration says something without clear evidence point out every time they lied before that.
The latest angle seems to be blaming Iran or Al Qaida for "every" attak in Iraq even if it's Sunni vs Shia or vice versa.
After Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niel resigned, he said that Bush was trying to find a way to invade Iraq before 9/11.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
After 9/11 Bush tried to blame Sadaam for having ties to Al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission later concluded that these assertions were false.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/16/terror/main623504.shtml
GoogledPO - agree with virtually all you said but Jack is right, the shorthand 'MSM' should not be used to tar everyone in the MSM.
One needs to recognize there are individuals, news divisions, and media companies, that don't tow the line. It's a disservice to the likes of, here in the States, Murray Waas of the National Journal, Thomas Ricks of the WaPo, all of the editorial board and columnists of the NYT (don't remind me about J Miller, a 'reporter'), Tom Whipple of the Falls Church News-Press, the list goes on, and a slew of others I should list but my life is short and my brain feeble.
Not all of life revolves around the Daily Show, as good as it often is.
Do you think message was received?
cheers
Actually I did see The Daily Show cover the Cheney clip in a segment titled "Even Dick doesn't know Dick" parodied from his earlier "You don't know Dick" segments.
Philip
Try this - six words, starts with "Project" - ends with "Century".
Note the names of the bottom of the statement of principles page.
BTW, anyone conjecturing the current mess was in fact a strategic decision to obtain long-term presence: Gross incompetence, so unbelievable, often looks like sly genius.
Folks - it's not. It's not even hubris. It's just gross stupid incompetence.
Not that I feel strongly one way or the other.