More on Bush’s Incompetence: United States Invades Iraq for Oil; Gets None
The New York Times reported yesterday:
Iraq’s leaders said Friday that they had reached a tentative deal to divide the country’s vast oil wealth between the central government and the provinces, a potentially significant break in the negotiations over a new constitution.
Under the agreement, oil revenue would be shared by the central government and Iraq’s 18 provinces, and split roughly according to their populations. It was unclear which entity would control the money, though one Iraqi leader said it would be the central government.
Yet another example of the incompetence of President Bush. Here he goes and invades Iraq purely for the oil (right, Cindy?) and we don’t get a drop? Not one penny of the revenues?
By the way, the headline of the article is “Iraqi Leaders Reach Tentative Deal on Oil, Removing One Obstacle to a Constitution.” For the benefit of the Cindy Sheehans of the world, shouldn’t the headline clearly say that the U.S. is not taking any of the oil or oil revenues? Just askin’.
That’s question #1 to ask the war-for-oil crowd. Question #2 is, “Would you please identify Bush’s friends who are being enriched by the war, and the amounts they have made as a result? If you’re speaking of corporations as Bush’s friends, would you please identify them, and specify the above-market returns that their investment in the war has earned, either in gross dollars, or as a return on investment?”
You’ll never see such questins being asked by a reporter for the MSM.
Roofer (c97425) — 8/14/2005 @ 11:10 amPlease.
It’s “Mother Sheehan.”
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 8/14/2005 @ 11:27 amWe may not get any oil, but the good news is the moonbats are batting 1000, wrong on every thing 🙂
bill (26027c) — 8/14/2005 @ 4:06 pm“Here he goes and invades Iraq purely for the oil (right, Cindy?) and we don’t get a drop?”
Says who none of that oil is going to come here?
actus (a5f574) — 8/14/2005 @ 5:40 pmThey’ll sell it to us, sure.
I still think we should just take it, which is what a real “war for oil” would entail.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 8/14/2005 @ 6:27 pmThe reliable supply of oil is very important to all regions of the world that are civilized. There are parts of California which consistently vote to outlaw things like gasoline refineries. Decide for yourself who the insane people are. Reducing this argument to “blood for oil” is something everyone beyond a 7th grade education should be ashamed to emit.
Shredstar (e73f56) — 8/14/2005 @ 7:28 pm“There are parts of California which consistently vote to outlaw things like gasoline refineries. ”
I can’t imagine that there are parts of california that don’t have gasoline refineries.
actus (a5f574) — 8/14/2005 @ 8:02 pmThat’s it. I’m voting Lunacrat in 08.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/15/2005 @ 8:35 am