More Moore 9/11 Propaganda continued...

The issues of F 9/11 exposed..

from JoeUser Forums

Most of the propaganda peddled in Michael Moore's new Fahrenheit 9/11 basically boils down to playing tricks with the old 6 degrees of separation concept and crude manipulation of statistics. As I wrote in my other article, I don't tend to have a lot of patience for gullible people. People who buy into propaganda strike me as weak minded. If someone buys into some crackpot conspiracy theory I don't tend to feel like I should put in the effort to debunk it. It's a lot easier to fabricate a bizarre theory than it is to debunk it and the gullible aren't worthy of the time involved in providing that debunking.  Moore's film is full of, IMO, crackpot theories and crass manipulation of statistics.

Early in the film, Moore claims how Bush has not been working 45% of the time.  This statistic is really representative of the entire film in many ways because it is true and yet misleading.  If you count weekends and Bush's working vacations (i.e. where he meets with foreign leaders, does press conferences, etc.) and work the timing just right, the statistic is true.

But like all statistics, it can be abused.  I tend to work 60 hours per week. But I only work around 40 hours at the office. With these two data points all kinds of interesting statistics could be created.  If I work 5 out of 7 days of the week (full time) I automatically have 30% of the time off.  Since 9/11 occurred just after Bush finished his yearly vacation, there were only 8 months in the work year for the President thus far (because he was inaugurated in late January).  Now bear in mind, if he worked every day without a day off between his first day in office and 9/11 he would already have 30% of the time off.  Throw in some vacation days and voila, you're at 45%.  Moore's statistic came from a Washington Post article that indeed counted weekends as time off.  This is, by no means, the worst distortion of F 9/11. It is simply representative of the kind of intellectual dishonesty throughout.

In 2002, a full year after 9/11, Moore claimed in a TV interview that Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Yet, in his movie, he jumps all over Bush because Moore's hero, Richard Clarke, allowed Saudi and Bin Laden family members to return overseas. What about innocent until proven guilty? Error #1 in the movie - those people left AFTER the airspace was reopened not before as claimed in the movie and they were interviewed by the FBI contrary to claims in the movie (source: 9/11 commission).

The 6 degrees of separation stuff really comes into play when Moore tries to use the Carlyle group connection to tie Bush, Bin Laden, and the Saudi Royals.  This is akin to arguing that if you have stock in Exxon and Bin Laden has stock in Exxon that you two are tied at the hip.  Newsweek has a pretty good article debunking a lot of that nonsense.  One has to wonder at the gullibility of people who buy into the oil connections alleged here.  Are there really people out there that think there is some vast conspiracy between the Bush family, the Saudi royals and Bin Laden? Apparently it's a conspiracy so vast that the 9/11 commission, which investigated into these kinds of connections in exhaustive detail, must be part of it and covering it all up.

Which brings us to Moore's other premise which is that essentially unnecessary American wars are started by elitist rich white men whose own sons are safely insulated from the action while the poor and downtrodden of America are left to fight it out.  In the film, Moore is sympathetic to the poor underclass who gets sucked into the rich man's wars. This is an absurd argument given that our military force is all volunteer.  Moore plays with people's emotions while hoping to get viewers to forget that most jobs in the United States have particular demographics involved.  Ever looked at the socio-economic background of most fire fighters? Or police officers? Should the "rich elites" of the world have their children assigned to be policemen or firemen?  Somehow I suspect Michael Moore would be quite pleased if the government were there to assign everyone what their job should be. But in a free society, people are free to choose what they want to do.

All of which brings us back to a fairly basic problem with the film: It has no point. It's just a long pointless diatribe. It's criticism without alternatives.  Moore, who opposed US action in Afghanistan and claimed it was all for an oil pipeline anyway, later in the film argues that Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan. Well which is it? Serious people have to make serious decisions. If Moore had had his way, the Taliban would still be in power and so would Saddam.  This is a good thing? Can anyone honestly say that we're not better off with Saddam and the Taliban gone?

Personally, I don't think Moore really cares that much about these issues. I think it's about the money. He says outrageous things (such as once saying to the former Mayor of New York that he doesn't see why Americans think of Terrorism as a "big deal" as we're more likely to get struck by lightning than to die in a terrorist attack) to raise controversy and awareness for his books and films.  The difference between Moore and any other obnoxious hyperopinionated ideologue is that Moore happens to be a pretty talented film maker. 

As time goes on, I am sure there will be collections of distortions from his film listed on the net just like there was for his other "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.  But I suspect that like last time, Moore will get away with his propaganda largely unscathed because so many people want to believe what he says.  After all, the terrorist group Hezbola has endorsed it and hopes to distribute it as far as it can. That really says it all, doesn't it?

Interesting Links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/k/k-misc/king062704.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Interesting Statistics:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
(Iraq only exports ~$7 billion annually. Any argument that the war in Iraq was to get Iraq's oil represents a profound ignorance of global economics. Iraq simply isn't valuable enough to justify going to war there to steal its oil).

politics
10,095 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Hey Drag, did you ever notice how those exports are post-war estimates? You'd be amazed what conquering a country can do to the economy of said country.

The 42% vacation stat was from a Washington Post article, you know the Post, they're your 'publican buddies.

6 Degrees of separation is a bit of a misnomer. Bush Senior's Secretary of State is hired as the lawyer for the families of the Saudi hijackers of 9/11 and the Saudi Royal Family happens to also be directly tied financially with the Bin Laden Family as well as the Bush Family. That is more of a circle of direct relationships that the brother of a cousin of a roomate who's grandmother's stepson's nephew.

As for Richard Clarke, the only thing that the republican party has against him is that the administration says he is a liar. That does not make him Moore's hero, that makes him an opponent of the administration. Many also call the administration liars, would it be fair for me to call Ari Fliescher or General Sanchez or Dick Cheney your heroes without knowing anything except that you believe when they call people liars as opposed to believing that they are the liars? The issue is that there is a credibility issue, and when there is such widespread account of these relationships with Saudis as well as former administration insiders publishing texts (Paul O'Neil underwent the same criticism as Clarke, and we have comfortably forgotten that liar), you really can't fault Moore for starting to believe it. Personally, yeah Moore's way too far left for my liking, but I expected Fahrenheit 9/11 to be far more critical, overboard, and outright fabricated at times. The only thing that Moore states that has not been independently published ahead of him is the story of poverty stricken citizens of Flint Michigan enlisting in the military.

There is no conspiracy theory here, and it is really a shame that no matter how many people come out of this administration in criticism of it you on the right are still blindly following under the assumption that all criticism is a liberal lie or conspiracy theory. Baker was right on your other thread, Clinton was most likely just as corrupt, and the Republicans were more than vocal about their feelings for that. We didn't say "hey those crazy ignorant republicans are spreading conspiracy theories!", we just dealt with it and even helped investigate. Why this administration is off limits is beyond me. Moore's film is presenting independently confirmed facts in an order that provides his feelings of what this particular administration has done that is corrupt. That is as innocent as anything, and like I said before, I expected more in terms of radical opinion out of "Fahrenheit", but it just isn't there. Read Unger's book, write all of this slander against Unger. Respond to my posts on your other thread instead of ignoring them, and stop slandering the left with name calling while the "facts" you present have already been shown to be at the very least misleading. If you want intelligent debate, I'm right here. If you want a soapbox to spread your own propoganda, then just say so. What you have achieved thus far is saying that Democrats get no propoganda and everything the Bush admin has said is not propoganda but the honest to goodness truth about everything. Guess what you're writing Drag, it's propoganda for better or for worse. It happens, grow up and deal with it. People get criticized, and the more you flip out over it the more you lose your own credibility on the issue. Make some intelligent responses or let me know that you just want a soap box to slander people for no reason except that they disagree with you.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey Drag, did you ever notice how those exports are post-war estimates? You'd be amazed what conquering a country can do to the economy of said country.


No kidding they're post-war exports! IF THE US IS FIGHTING A WAR TO STEAL OIL, HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO STEAL IRAQ'S PRE-WAR EXPORTS? Anything obtained after the war would be post-war.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
You miss the point, nothing in Iraq works right now, the oil wells are sabotaged frequently, the economy is not exactly up to pace with its former capacity. I am not saying we stole oil though, I am saying those figures are estimated after the country gets decimated. By the way, if we were "stealing" the oil, it wouldn't be listed as an export anyway. The figures are not showing that there is no money in oil worth fighting for, the figures show that there is a far less capacity to pump oil in Iraq post-war than there was pre-war when the GDP was far higher.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Feel free to post statistics on Iraq's ALL TIME highest export levels. Don't insinuate that the levels were vastly larger unless you're prepared to back it up.  Let's say it was 3 times as much (which I highly doubt), it still wouldn't be even close to being sufficient.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
MOORE HAS RECENTLY USED A TERRORIST GROUP TO DISTRIBUTE HIS MOVIE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. HEZBALLAH AND AL QAIDA HAS ALSO ENDORSED THE PROPAGANDA MOVIE. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS ALSO ENDORSED MOORES MOVIE.

I HAD THOUGHT THE COMING ELECTION WOULD BE CLOSE, BUT NOW I BELIEVE THAT BUSH IS A CERTAIN WINNER. IT WOULD TAKE AN ACT OF GOD FOR BUSH TO LOSE THE COMING ELECTION. THE DEMOCRATS SEEM TO HAVE COME OUT ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS. THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS MORE THAN THEIR OWN PRESIDENT.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course the US is not stealing Iraq's oil. The idea of stealing was presented as a hypothetical.

The point about Iraq's oil exports is the following:

"It is rediculous to suggest that the US invaded Iraq to gain profits from oil because even if the US stole all of the oil Iraq is exporting, it would take years to pay off the $100 billion+ the US has already spent on Iraq."

I fail to understand how Iraq's pre-war exports are relevent. Sure Iraq has the potential to do better, but the potential would not be available to the US now.

You seem to be arguing that the figures are "distored" because of the war, but any oil obtained after the war would have to be obtained with the post-war infrastructure. Even if you triple the number, it still would take over 4 years to break even on the $100 billion.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine: Exactly. And it glosses over the fact that millions of Americans, such as myself, not only supported the war in Iraq but were vocally pushing for it.  After 9/11, Saddam had to go. It's not like we're getting oil royalties.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Okay, this is getting out of hand. For one, I gave Wolfowitz's numbers to Congress on Drag's other thread to back this up. He had claimed a GDP of $50 Billion in Iraq as being sufficient to pay for the war that congress was about to vote for. We spent far more than anyone had ever estimated, and that is a testament to unpreparedness and deception on the administration's part, that does not mean that the figures somehow are irrelevant. Congress had voted for the war after these figures were presented as factual, and after being under the assumption that Iraqi oil could pay for the war. This is, of course, not the case. Now we have a post-war export of $7 Billion according to the CIA site. The point is that the post-war infrastructure is utterly incapable of providing the numbers that Wolfowitz had promised Congress. The numbers aren't distorted at all, they are just unexpected by the administration. My original argument was that Drag had claimed oil to not be a "particularly lucrative" resource, and then said you'd be ignorant to think this war had anything to do with oil. Well, when Wolfowitz comes to Congress and says "don't worry, their oil will cover it"... yeah it has something to do with oil. Lexis for the transcript of congress or I can get it in the morning for you if you for some reason think I am making up this testimony of his. My argument is that yes, oil is really that lucrative when we feel that $50 Billion GDP is primarily coming from it and will be in and of itself enough to pay for the war to take the country holding it. Post-war, none of these figures add up obviously. Again, that is my point, this administration felt that oil was that profitable, and had all their numbers wrong. So yes, post-war figures don't prove anything here, showing that Iraqi oil cannot pay for our war does not either. The whole point is that our administration felt the exact opposite of these currently-known facts before they entered the war specifically because of the ultra-lucrative nature of oil. Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil on the planet, to say that there is only $7 billion in exports in the whole country is absurd.

Furthermore, if you go to Drag's cia link there, and select to "view rank order" on oil exports, you will find China at the top as of 2001 with 409 million barrels a day with Norway and the UK in third and fourth, Mexico at eigth. Guess what, $$$ in exports does not necessarily mean that it has its origin in that country. Iraq's oil infrastructure is then, by deduction, in even worse shape than the $7 Billion figure suggests compared to our pre-war estimates.

My point is just that the post-war numbers illustrate how vastly inaccurate our hopes in times before the war were of the state of the oil industry in Iraq after our efforts there. We originally felt (by we I mean based on Wolfowitz' testimony) that there was such a vast amount of money in the oil to the tune of $50 Billion that we would be able to pay for the war. We now know that the war costs many times more than $50 Billion, not to mention Iraq having no comparable capacity to produce oil that they had before the war (hence the $7 Billion number which in itself is inaccurately large if we are talking about origin.

As a point of interest, that same CIA site lists the United States as the second largest producer of oil as of the 2001 estimate. China is number 8. Read in to that what you will.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Vor - just because you quoted Wolfowitz doesn't mean anything.  I gave you Iraq's actual GNP/GDP from an official source.

Nothing you write remotely contradicts the points being made: Iraq is not wealthy enough to justify conquest for. It has great strategic importance but it is not a rich country and never has been.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I salute you for the effort, and pity you for the responses. Insightful, though it is gonna draw a mountain of cut-and paste.

Think of it this way, though. At least they are here where they won't change anyone's minds instead of out getting fresh air and exercise...
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. What leaves me completely boggled is that they don't seem to understand that most of us don't care if Bush or anyone else made money. The world is a better place.

These naive twits will never understand that no matter what had been decided someone would have made money. Better without the Taliban and Hussein than with, wouldn't you say? Otherwise they would have simply been more empowered by the transaction.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Drag... you seem to be missing the point. Iraq may not be wealthy enough from oil alone, but the impression our adminstration had is the exact opposite. That means that the war for oil argument is by no means invalid especially when wolfowitz specifically cites Iraqi oil as a cash cow to be had once the campaign is over. Your little tiff over oil being a "strategic resource" and not a "particularly lucrative resource" still baffles me. Please explain to me how you differentiate, and please tell me a single more "particularly lucrative" resource other than oil. Keep in mind that today the price of oil per barrel jumped almost 5%. And Baker, I do not understand who your first response (#10) is aimed at if you could please clarify? Either way I enjoy a discussion with you guys so please don't just putter out on me
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
In other words, Drag, your numbers could be utterly infallible, but they are post war estimates. The Bush administration did not have those numbers going in to the war by definition. What they went in to the war with in terms of figures was what I cited from Wolfowitz. They were obviously very wrong, but the point is that the expectation of Iraqi oil profit was so great that Wolfowitz told Congress the cost would be paid for in the oil alone. Oil is not a one-time-withdrawl, there is a residual that we will always be making from these fields in terms of cheaper prices from those pipelines once they are at maximum efficiency, the money was expected to pour in. It did not, obviously, and hence your numbers, but that is after the fact. Those numbers only indicate that the administration was wrong in their optimism over how much money was to be had in the Iraqi oil fields, it does NOT indicate that oil is not very lucrative or that oil was not a factor in the decision to go to war.

Edit: Oh, and to both of you, please feel free to add your input to my two posts today (one on how bush will win no matter what, one on a little observation about the difference between the war on terror versus the war on terrorism). I'd love to hear what you guys have to say about both topics
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
you will find China at the top as of 2001 with 409 million barrels a day with Norway and the UK in third and fourth, Mexico at eigth.


That list includes oil products, not just crude. Norway, UK, and Mexico are all major producers of crude oil.

Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.


WolfowitzLink

Of course, Wolfowitz's predictions didn't pan out. The war cost more than he expected, post-war oil exports were lower than he expected, and we are paying the entire cost of the war.

please tell me a single more "particularly lucrative" resource other than oil.


Opium.

The Bush administration did not have those numbers going in to the war by definition. What they went in to the war with in terms of figures was what I cited from Wolfowitz. They were obviously very wrong, but the point is that the expectation of Iraqi oil profit was so great that Wolfowitz told Congress the cost would be paid for in the oil alone.


I don't recall the official position of the administration being that Iraqi oil would finance the war. Paul Wolfowitz's estimates are not the same thing as official policy. Even if Iraq did pay for the war, it would still be over several years.

As a point of interest, that same CIA site lists the United States as the second largest producer of oil as of the 2001 estimate. China is number 8. Read in to that what you will.


The US is the 2nd largest producer of oil (maybe 3rd behind Russia now), but consumes all its domestic oil supply.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Madine, of course, you are right about the difference between official policy and that of Wolfowitz... but if you'll recall leading up to the war Wolfowitz was more or less the go-to-guy for Congress if they wanted to know about the war. What I am trying to hint at is that members could have been misled in some ways to believe that the costs would not be so bad due to the oil influx in Iraq.

As for Opium, granted, a very profitable trade... but are you sure you want to say it rivals oil? Every car in this city needs oil... I don't know of many people that drive those cars who need opium. Either way I am not so sure it should be categorized as a resource considering it is a rather adaptable plant and not a natural... well... resource.

And for the crude as well as US consumption, thank you for the input I had actually not considered the crude factor.

And as for the domestic supply, I am aware that we consume it, but in terms of actual natural resources to tap I had never heard any report claiming Iraq to be anywhere else but second to Saudi Arabia. By that, note that these rankings are of production and not of potential output. Thanks again for your input though.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, my problem with Bush is that he has always acted arrogant and above accountability, and many republicans who walk lock in step with him toss out insinuations that to question him is somehow unAmerican.

I will give you that much of what I have heard about "Fahrenheit 9/11" sounds as if it is deliberately distorted data. I have not seen the movie, and do not intend to until it is released on DVD. My chief disappointment with Moore (who hit a homerun with "Roger and Me" in my opinion; one I do not hold so highly of "Bowling for Columbine") is that he has simply jumped on the "bash Bush" bandwagon. I have many issues with the Bush administration, but do not feel that there is anything in the man to make him so callous and malicious as to sacrifice the lives of 3,000 of his countrymen over an issue simply of oil. I believe Bush acted in what he FELT was the best interests of the nation, because, frankly, he seems to be yet another president who is more concerned with the legacy he leaves than with making the tough, right decisions.

I will say this, however: I think the vast majority of Americans are reacting to current events with far less than what could be conceived as a passable knowledge of ALL of the details surrounding them (I would include myself in this statistic at times), and that there is much about the current situation that we do not, and CAN not know at this time due to the fact that it would endanger the lives of all of our troops over there. Whether hawk or dove, I think it can safely be said that we have a common objective in wanting our soldiers home safely.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
These naive twits will never understand that no matter what had been decided someone would have made money. Better without the Taliban and Hussein than with, wouldn't you say? Otherwise they would have simply been more empowered by the transaction.


Baker, I'm a little disappointed. You're usually a bit more objective in the nature of your responses. I don't think of everyone who criticizes the actions as being "naive twits". Personally, I take umbrage to that.

While I agree that the Moore movie is apparently just pop garbage set out to appease a liberal agenda(haven't seen it, but haven't heard a Moore supporter utter one argument I haven't heard a million times before), I think that intelligent questioning and properly directed criticism is not only permissible, but essential. If Bush WERE acting like a dictator, the questioning would have since "found it out".

That being said, the one point on which you and I are in complete agreement is that we are better off without the Taliban and Hussein. While I question the MEANS of removing Hussein, I will NOT question that the end outcome was proper (especially since our soldiers showed what true officers and gentlemen they can be by not "accidentally" pulling the trigger while they were extricating Saddam).
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Drag... you seem to be missing the point. Iraq may not be wealthy enough from oil alone, but the impression our adminstration had is the exact opposite.

I suspect that the administration, like most people remotely familiar with this subject, were well aware of Iraq's GNP/GDP before the war. In fact, rumor has it that even the government has access to Google.

How much oil Iraq produced before the war wasn't exactly a secret. Just because you find it all complicated and unknowable doesn't mean others don't know. I find it rather sad that you cling to the whole "It's all about OILLL" thing.

But hey, for you, let's assume you're right. It was all about the ooilllll. Yes, we went into Iraq purely and only to obtain Iraq's oil. In fact, assume that Bush, Cheney and the other "Neocons" are now living high on the hog from stolen Iraqi oil.  So what? I could give a rat's ass what the personal motives of an action are. I care about the action itself.  Clinton should have removed Saddam in 1998. And after 9/11, Saddam being in power was simply not a luxury we could afford any more.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Micheal Moore is nothing more than a profiteert; he is out to made his name in the world of big business. And, this he has done because of people who are looking for someone who can explain to them what is going on on this planet. Some people (not all) like to have someone show them in the easy way possible how they can understand what it is that is being said by the statesmen of today. People are thrown bits and pieces of information through the news media; this media can be newspapers, magazines, or visual (TV, Movies), etc. Still they find it difficult to understand, so they go looking for it somewhere eles. Guess where that somewhere is; yes ladies and gentlemen it comes from the Moores' of the world. Thus, Moore's movies become gospel. There is nothing coming out to disapprove what he is saying, or showing people. The visual is the greatest part of the whole; it is easier for people to believe what they see then what they hear or read. What Moore is doing is feeding on peoples mines through the visual media.

I have seen Moore's precious two movies (not going to comment on them), but even as a democratic/liberal I will not go see this movie. I believe in this country and what it stands for, thus can see know reason to add another $5.50 (Senior Rate) to Moore's pockets.

Pam
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh what the hech, I am off to see "Spiderman 2"

At least this will be mindless fun, and will not require me to use a great deal of brain cells.

Pam
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Drag, I didn't say it was all for oil. All I said is that given the information provided to Congress before the war the argument that oil played a role in the decision is not an invalid one. Personally I think Bush wanted an Iraq war from day one because of his Dad, but that's a different topic altogether. I just don't think the oil argument should be thrown out altogether as a potential factor.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
*sigh*

The war was partially sold on inflated estimates of Iraq's potential pumping capacity. Note: POTENTIAL pumping capacity. Since no one really knew the state of Iraq's oil fields and infrastructure, and Iraq's production for the past decade has not been subject to market conditions (due to the oil-for-food program), this is NOT something you can just look up on google.

It was also sold by underestimating the cost (SOP for the Bush administration, seemingly).

Put the two together, and you get the prewar argument that Iraq would be able to pay for a large part of its own reconstruction.

[tangential rant]
Whether the administration actually believed these fantasies, I don't know. I doubt it, though. I have learned from the past few years of watching Bush "budgets" never to believe a number that comes from this administration. I can't see how anyone could pay even a little bit of attention to the way Bush has sold his budget numbers over the past few years--not just on Iraq, but on anything--and call Bush a "straight shooter." Someone in the White House seems to believe that the public can't tell the difference between numbers above fifty billion dollars.
[/tangential rant]
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Vor: I think oil was a factor for strategic reasons. But that isn't the argument being given. The argument Moore and his ilk give is that Bush and his buddies will personally get rich off the endeavor in which there is no credibile evidence to support that.
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
Wait... if the argument is that the war is to personally enrich Bush, then isn't all this stuff about oil exports versus cost of war completely irrelevant? Bush isn't personally paying for the war.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
vincible: It's hard to figure out exactly what the "it's all for oil" people mean. Sometimes they mean individuals getting rich and other times they mean "America" generically getting rich.  Keep in mind that those who make these claims don't tend to be the brightest bulbs out there.