Well written, but I'd argue that the Iraq misadventure will be seen as the second biggest blunder of bush's presidency of error. Iran will be nuked, hopefully not with ICBMs fired from the mainland as Russia might regard that as an attack on them and launch their ICBMs on the warning of a US launch.

Reagan was senile, bush is evil. We're on the brink of a major nukular war the like of which hasn't been seen since '62, and the media - rather than reporting the fact of this lunacy - is chearing the psychos on... Lord have mercy.

Bush's "roiling" is only part of the story. Fundamentally, we are facing a declining amount of oil available for export that has the world's primary importers bidding against each other driving the price up. The most recent article at TheOilDrum.com discusses the role of the North Sea's decline in production in the rising price of oil. Scheer, like most Americans, has a steep learning curve regarding oil and its fundamentals.

The Germans and the Turks as of May 30 were paying $11.49/gal for gas. The current US average is $4.052/gal. The half-way point to the German figure is about $7.80/gal. Where will the US economy be with gas at the latter figure in comparison to the German economy already accustomed to a much higher price?

I thought EVERYTHING was already Bush's fault.

Where am I again? This is a "progressive" website, right?

1.World Sweet light crude production is peaking or past peak.

2.World Liquid petroleum production overall is peaking or past peak.

3.U.S. production peaked 35 years ago.

4.Damn that Bush!

Wait, no, that last one doesn't fit.

-matti.

In the long run, supply and demand will result in never-ending oil prce increases, however, the current runaway oil price inflation is being 10% driven by supply and demand and 90% by deregulated commodities traders who are staging trades just like Enron did with the west coast power grid in 2000. Since only a handful of the Enron culprits went to jail, it is highly likely that many of the same players are making a killing in oil trading. there next target is world water supplies.

The deregulation orgy started on January 20, 1981 when Ronny Raygun was inaugurated president and probably hasn't ended yet since the Republican solution to any financial crisis is to enact even more deregulation.

Until the US re-establishes New Deal financial industry regulation and replaces the Federal Reserve Chaiman and Governors with people whose monetary policy helps the 98% rather than the 2%, the US will continue to experience one financial crisis after another and you will become poorer with each succeeding crisis.

Some day, for sure, we will find out that Bush and Cheney are profiting mightily by the rise in oil prices. Just you wait.

Bush is an idiot, and his military misadventures certainly haven't helped matters, but higher oil prices are inevitable due to increasing global demand. There just isn't enough for everyone in the world to have their own Hummer.
Scheer is trying to convince people that our present wastrel way of life can be preserved if we just had better leaders. Sorry, Robert, the party's over. Bush, Obama, McCain; doesn't matter. Whoever the next president is, their chief job (if they're smart enough to realize it) is to prepare America for a "soft landing" instead of a hard crash.

andersdl--You need to learn the fact that at the end of a futures contract, the holder MUST take physical delivery of the product.

Save your old Soviet rubles, Russia will rise again and with its energy supply will be ruling the roost. Smarties like Pastor Wright and me will be sitting pretty as it all comes home to roost

Thank you Mr. Scheer for saying what should be "obvious" but is instead obfuscated by the experts and pundits. I have heard experts on the Diane Rehm show state emphatically that the Iraq war has little or nothing to do with the woes of the American economy.

Now we have Republican's blaming oil prices on the Democrats and unbelievably having people believe it.

The price and demand argument is undermined by the fact that the current situation in price and demand has been around for quite awhile but only now has been escalated in a few years, and months. To believe that this is a natural price and demand market driven phenomenon alone and that the Bush policy and Cheney's contriving have no effect is ludicrous.

I can only say the John McCain's experience is of the wrong minded and ignorant in that he will certainly continue on the misguided notion of victory. As history repeats and our leaders ignore, you cannot defeat an internal conflict of people fighting to remove invaders.

"Bush's "roiling" is only part of the story."

Yup, the author is off base.

"I have heard experts on the Diane Rehm show state emphatically that the Iraq war has little or nothing to do with the woes of the American economy. "

What has happened in Iraq in the last year that would have caused crude oil to double in price over the same time?

Hmmmm.... I blame/credit rising oil prices for the ongoing demise of the monster-SUV industry and the looming containment of exurban sprawl. And I think of this as progress. So if Mr. Bush, and not a perfect storm of structural and mechanical currents in the world markets, is to blame/credit for these rising prices... Does this mean that Mr. Bush has somehow, serendipitously, enabled progress?

Well, at least I'm trying to keep an open mind about the fella...

Lord Trigo: "Scheer is trying to convince people that our present wastrel way of life can be preserved if we just had better leaders."

The article says no such thing.

jakenewton: "What has happened in Iraq in the last year that would have caused crude oil to double in price over the same time?"

Nowhere does the article claim that "Bush's roiling" has been limited to Iraq but the link is rather clear: Bush's strategy has been to perpetuate instability in the world's primary oil-producing region.

jj

Before Alexander the Great began his conquest of the world, he pulled together his fellow Macedonians and asked whether they would like to continue farming the land and working at their normal occupations, or go to war and pillage, plunder, and rape their neighbors and become wealthy. What do you suppose was their response? We have the same question before us today. Become satisfied in our new, oilless, peasant-style America, or go forth and do our best to dominate the mideast.

Yes, Bush and Cheney are completely responsible for the meteoric rise in oil prices. And what is most obscene is how much they themselves, their families, and their cronies (all deeply entrenched in the oil business) are profiting from that increase.

While the author cries over spilled milk about not getting "entitlement" for solar, wind, and the unmentioned hemp not paying attention to the fact that for the past 30 years, BIG GOVERNMENT has given her and us the MIDDLE FINGER, here's a better solution I shall give you so you don't have to wait until 2030 to get it.

Do a google search on

solar power generator
wind power generator
"make your own biodiesel" "petroleum free"
hemp "make your own fuel"

If you have time to blog around and/or watch American idol, you sure as hell can find time to devote your mindset and skills towards building those alternative renewables and draining Big Government and Corporate America of its oil revenue !

"Nowhere does the article claim that "Bush's roiling" has been limited to Iraq "

I wasn't responding to the article when I asked the question, I was responding to Dillan.

"Yes, Bush and Cheney are completely responsible for the meteoric rise in oil prices. And what is most obscene is how much they themselves, their families, and their cronies (all deeply entrenched in the oil business) are profiting from that increase."

Please explain both sentences and provide specific evidence.

Oil Zooms Nearly 9% Higher to Record $139 After Israeli Threat to Attack Iran

Crude oil prices went on a record-setting surge Friday as fears of a new Middle East conflict were fanned by comments from a top Israeli official about Iran. New York's main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for July delivery, leapt 10.75 dollars a barrel -- its biggest one-day jump ever -- to close at a record 138.54 dollars.........

ENTIRE ARTICLE- http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkLCJIKdipOHqJ8bwdjN1JUZSFtA

Oil, Israel, Iran, America and the High Cost of a Single War-Like Remark

by Dave Lindorff

One remark by a minor Israeli cabinet officer hinting at a possible US or Israeli attack on Iran has sent oil prices up by a record $11/barrel to a record $139 per barrel Friday. That should tell us what would happen if the Bush administration were crazy enough to attack Iran, or to let its vassal state of Israel do it......

ENTIRE ARTICLE- http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15116

Exxon profits have skyrocketed in the last 5 years, from 10 billion in 2002 to 40 billion in 2007

coincidence?

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/resources/OilProfitYearly-Big5.pdf

at least 9/11 and the Illegal Iraq War has profitted SOMEONE.

If 911 didn't happen on its own, Exxon would have had to MAKE it happen in order to survive.. (see their declining profits prior to)

The shareholders at Exxon must thank Osamma bin Laden on a daily basis for their million$ of windfall profits.

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/resources/OilProfitQtrly-Exxon.pdf

The Bush regime is at least partially responsible for the drastic hike in price at the pump - and thereby has finally done something good for us - because those higher prices are making Americans begin to do what we should have been doing all along, which is to burn less of the stuff. Reality is beginning to set in, although it will be far too long in coming. We cannot continue to consume at the rate to which we have become accustomed. It would be better for us in the long run if we were paying $12 a gallon like the Germans.

Live locally. Buy locally. It's the right thing for the ecology, and the right thing for your local economy, and the right thing for your personal well-being.

In February 2003, Murdoch expressed his support for the then-pending invasion of Iraq and stressed the potential economic benefits of such action. "The greatest thing to come of this to the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil," he told The Bulletin, an Australian magazine, in a February 12, 2003, interview.

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?everyman&1

The article doesn't explain very well exactly why Bush is responsible for high gas prices. Even if Iraq was producing it's prewar levels of 2 million barrels a day, we would still be paying well over $125 a barrel. Demand outstrips supply.
Instead Bush is responsible for the high price because he did absolutely nothing to reduce domestic or foreign consumption. In fact he encouraged MORE! He could have adopted California's earlier mandate (the car manufacturers eventually torpedoed it) to provide non-fossil fuel alternative vehicles, signed the Kyoto Protocal with conditions that the world would unite in reducing consumption, spent more time educating the public about the eventuality of peak oil rather than pretending 'terrorism' was a main issue and finally he could have made friends with countries like Venezuela and Russia instead of trying to 'corportarize' them.

A very good read:

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9191

excerpt:

" This upheaval in the global economy is deliberate. The State's economic and financial policies are controlled by private corporate interests. Speculative trade is not the object of regulatory policies. The economic depression contributes to wealth formation, to enhancing the power of a handful of global corporations.

According to William Engdahl;

"... At least 60% of the 128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme 'leverage' of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population. (See More on the real reason behind high oil prices, Global Research, May 2008)

Among the main players in the speculative market for crude oil are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, British Petroleum (BP), the French banking conglomerate Société Générale, Bank of America, the largest Bank in the US, and Switzerland's Mercuria. (See Miguel Angel Blanco, La Clave, Madrid, June 2008)

British Petroleum controls the London based International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), which is one of the world's largest energy futures and options exchanges. Among IPE's major shareholders are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

According to Der Spiegel, Morgan Stanley is one of the main institutional actors in the London based speculative oil market (IPE). According to Le Monde, France's Société Générale together with Bank of America and Deutsche Bank have been involved in spreading rumors with a view to pushing up the price of crude oil. (See Miguel Angel Blanco, La Clave, Madrid, June 2008)"

And then there is the deliberate debasement of the dollar by the Federal Reserve to cover war spending and a weak economy. Oil is traded in dollars that have fallen dramatically against other major currencies such as the Euro.

This is all nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the many to the few via war crimes and market manipulations !

Etc.

Bush told us that America has an addiction to oil. Duh! What and where is the energy policy hammered out in secret between Chenny and the energy execs? Americans are energy hogs. We need some kind of national energy policy. In that sense, Bush/Cheney are responsible for this mess.
Read Greg Palast's ARMED MADHOUSE. He explained the whole thing.
Thanks JConrad for a great read.

I always like Robert Scheer - always a rare voice of sanity in the madness that has been Iraq. But why the sneering aside "abetted by some green zealots"? Why is an eminently sane man like Scheer falling for the neoconservative frame about environmentalists? He doesn't fall for frames on foreign policy, so why this? Some explanation here http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/40377/On_the_side_of_angels.html, and I look forward to a mea culpa from Mr Scheer. We are in enough trouble on this lonely planet without the good guys getting it wrong.

The Democrats want to blame everything on Bush. This a part of their election strategy. Everything is Bush's fault. Then its also going to be McCain's fault. Follow this simple line of argument and it leads to the mirage that if you just vote Democrat then everything will be better.

So, what this article doesn't mention.

-- Peak oil and the effect the topping off of oil supply availability has on markets.
-- Increasing Demand from developing countries like India and China.
-- Neither Democrats nor Republicans talk seriously about reducing US demand.
-- To the extend the wars in the middle east have helped raise oil prices, the Democrats are as equally responsible for those wars.

Corporations have no business running our country, unless its run by We the People Inc.

karlof1 & andersdl -

By all means, help my learning curve.

What social utility is there in having an oil futures (or a water futures) commodity market in the first place? It seems to me these guys are nothing but day trading, paper shuffling parasites, who gamble that they can make a fast turn around buck off of other people's misfortune and other people's paranoia. I doubt if any one of them have ever actually wrapped their arms around a real barrel of sweet crude any more than they've ever fondled an actual pork belly.

What would happen if the government simply outlawed commodity futures trading (ie., speculating) in petroleum? What if each profit taking transaction were taxed at a 50% or even a 90% rate to generate a revenue flow directly into the federal treasury, rather than fiddling with the tax structure on retail gallons purchased at the pump?

I sense Sheer is basically correct, that the five fold increase in gas prices since Bush took office is directly, causally linked to sabre rattling and the petroleum consumption demands of maintaining a huge US military presence on war footing in the Middle East.

Sure, peak oil and the need for conservation and alternative energy is the long term task. But short term, the insider commodity speculators and the big oil companies keep on laughing all the way to the bank every time Bush, Olmert, or any of the other major politico crazies so much as hiccup about escalating war and roiling up still more strife and disruption anywhere near the Persian Gulf.

So why should there even be a market that makes it legitimate to place bets and make a buck (or a billion bucks) gambling on greed or Armageddon?

Bill from Saginaw

"that the five fold increase in gas prices since Bush took office is directly, causally linked to sabre rattling and the petroleum consumption demands of maintaining a huge US military presence on war footing in the Middle East."

I basically agree with this, except for the part where its blamed on Bush only. The Democrats have been completely on board and supportive of this policy all along. They voted to authorize both wars, they've voted to fund both wars, they've voted for ever increasing pentagon budgets, they've been very supportive of expanding the war to Iran, the Presidential candidates were trying to out-do each other in who could be more belligerent about extending it to Pakistan, just recently Obama pledged full fealty to Israel that the congressional Democrats have regularly passed resolutions saying the same.

So, I just think its a bit disingenuous to at this point try to blame Bush for policies that the Democrats have never tried to effectively oppose.

Bill from Saginaw,

If you look at the history of speculation in this country, you will find the present quagmire is no surprise, and answer much of your own question. After marginalizing indigenous peoples and stealing their land, this country was built on speculation. Land speculators helped the railroads make a killing. The 1870s and 80s were rife with exploitation, corruption, and greed, demarcating the beginning of the Gilded Age. Some historians argue we have entered a second Gilded Age. I argue we never left the first one. But, you raise a good question.

Let me expand on this, because it is rather central and common to Democratic policies. Typically, they've let Bush do pretty much anything he wanted to do. For instance, I can think of few if any Senate filibusters to try to block Bush policies or Bush appointments. Instead, the Dems will make a few mealy-mouthed statements that kinda-sorta oppose the policy, then they don't do anything to oppose it. Often they deliberately refuse to take actions like filibusters or controlling the funding or even impeachment that are the Constitutional tools a party in Congress has to actually oppose a policy.

Instead, the Democrats seem quite happy to let the awful policies happen because they think they'll have an 'issue' to use in the next campaign.

For me, that's a rather disgusting notion. The idea that the Democrats will let policies and appointments that will harm the nation take effect just to have an issue in the next election is awful. They are deliberately saying that their lust for power is more important than what's good for the nation.

That's why I roll my eyes now when they want to blame this all on Bush. The Democrats had chances to stop or contain these policies, and they have not done so. Now they want to point the finger and say its all Bush's fault.

One thing to keep in mind is that the price of 'futures' in oil is not directly tied to the actual price of oil.

For instance, people could be buying 'futures' for the price of oil six months from now. What they've really done is committed to buy oil at that price on that date. There's no guarantee at all that this will really be the price of oil at that time. The situation in the world could change drastically in some way, and the price of oil could be much lower then. These people with the futures would then be committed to buying it at a higher price than the actual market price on that date and thus lose on their gamble. On the other hand if oil went up more than expected in the interval, these people with futures would win because then they'd be holding a contract to buy the oil at less than the actual market price. They'd actually buy the oil, or sell the contract to someone who did actually want the oil, then they'd be getting oil at less than the market price.

So, don't confuse too much the 'futures' price of oil with the actual price of oil. The futures price does represent everyones best guess as to what oil will be worth in the future. But it does not actually set the actual price at that time. That's another market.

Now, what would affect the actual price would be if say some big oil companies were over-buying oil today to stockpile it against future days when they expect it to be worth more. That would affect the actual price of oil.

Yes, Bush is responsible for the surge in oil prices in that he blatantly attacked Iraq to gain control of the pond of oil it sets on. Did he do it to destabilize the ME? No, to the contrary Bush thought that it would place a "democracy" (that would kiss the feet of the U.S.)in place, secure Israel, and take away Saudi Arabia's trump card. His administration knew about peak oil so it seemed logical to control Iraq's oil and keep cheap oil coming to the US. The problem is that he and his advisers knew nothing of the ME (Bush probably didn't know a Shiite from a Sunni or an Arab from a Persian and I would be surprised if he could have found the ME on a world map before the invasion)and had no idea that it would be so offensive to have thousands of Christians soldiers, totally ignorant of Arab customs, occupying their Country or that the occupation would unleash a civil war. They had no idea that the Shiite were more closely tied to Iran and fanatical Islam than the Sunni who they thought was synonymous with the Ba'ath Party so they cast their political lot with the Shiite just because they were supressed by Saddam so should be ever grateful to the U.S. Liberators.
Yes, Bush did cause the immediate oil crises but I don't believer it was his intention-that's giving him too much credit.

Oil was at 60 dollars last June. Today it is 136 dollars. WTF did Iraq have to do with the oil price increases over the last year when it's oil production has increased over the past year to it's pre-war levels.

MiMiCcS, If not for the invasion of Iraq oil probably would have been $20 a barrel last June so I will tell your WTF Iraq has to do with higher oil prices. 1.) throwing the whole of the ME into chaos makes oil prices higher because of fear, fear of war with Iran, fear of tying up the straits of Hormuz, fear of Civil war in Iraq, and so on 2.) I don't know where you get your info but the last time I looked Iraq's oil production is nowhere near pre-war levels. 3.)And of course had Bush's plan for Iraq worked out we wouldn't be having this exchange as no one would be worried about oil prices - YET - peak oil would still be an academic notion like it was at the beginning of the war in Iraq

@william street June 11th, 2008 6:37 pm
@karlof1
@andersdl

Let us say I contract to buy a million dollars worth of crude oil in six months time from say, Exxon. In six months time, I must then sell this same oil at the market price. I can only get what the highest bidder bids. And regardless of whether exxon are selling it or I am selling it I am still not going to get better than market price, which is determined by a market that is essentially an auction.

Exxon will have gotten an assured price that they can count on regardless of the market. Myself, I may well have made a profit (or a loss). But my transaction will not have changed the total number of barrels of that are for sale, and so my transaction will have made no net effect on the price of the oil. Given that the supply is now fixed, the price is totally determined by how much the refiners are willing to bid for it, and ultimately by how much we are willing to pay for it at the pump.

I dont think that speculation alone can alter the price of oil at the market. In order to alter the price of oil, you would have to change the amount of oil flow that is available. You could do this by storing the oil, but this would only work in the very short term. In order to have a real impact over any long term, you would have to be able to change the the flow rate of extraction of crude (i.e. light sweet is the one where the shortage is). I believe that light sweet crude has peaked and the rate of extraction of light sweet crude cannot be increased.

I am aware that Iraqi oil production has been damaged by mismanagement (the Iraq sanctions) and also by attacks on oil production by the Iraqi resistance. Under production or overproduction of an oil well is known to hamper and damage the easy extraction of light sweet crude. So that will have had an effect. I could not guess the magnitude of that effect, however. It may have raised the price of crude by $10 or by $0.10 .

http://www.minimovie.com/film-128295-Welcome%20Back,%20Clinton

Hi Bill, Samson above does an okay job of explaining a bit about futures, especially the part about where the contract settlement price is different in the spot market than that set in the contract. For individuals and companies using for production or selling the actual commodity, the future contract represents a hedge, a guarantee of the price at delivery. If I grow corn and I need a particular price to met my margins and make a profit, then I will purchase the sell side of a futures contract that gives me that price, if available, or the one the closest to it at the time I expect to harvest. The same is true for the buyer; for example, Southwest Airlines wants to buy its jet fuel at the lowest possible price, so it enters into futures contracts to provide it with a known cost for its future fuel needs (in this they were very astute about the future rise in fuel cost and established very good hedges which are at much lower delivery prices than now and on the spot market). In both examples, the seller must physically deliver the contract amount and the buyer must accept physical delivery of the fuel. Neither buys or sells, respectively, their futures. The contracts merely expire upon delivery and the monies traded. Futures must have a buyer and seller as no distinction is made between the speculator and the seller or buyer making/taking actual delivery; this is why spikes up or down are often seen toward the expiration of the contract. A speculator can enter into a short or long position, but it must be balanced by another actor on the opposite side of the trade. Commodities cannot be just sold short or naked shorted, unlike stocks. So, there are speculators in the futures market, but the effect is nil over the course of the contract. Short term it is possible for many to buy long or sell short; but this is balanced by the signal it sends. For example, many contracts are bought driving up the price because there aren't enough sellers present. Sellers then enter to take advantage of the higher price they can get. But for those unable to take delivery, they must sell, or if they cannot provide delivery, they must buy, which alters the price in a volitile manner.

So why have oil futures risen? If there isn't enough supply to deliver to the buyers, then the buyers will bid against each other. That is what happens in the trading pits and drives up the spot price. Remember, this is a capitalist game and an old adgade applies: Charge whatever the market will bear. This is why Chavez's offer to sell oil and heating oil at below market prices to poor countries and impoverished peoples in the USA was met with scorn as it puts everyone else in a bad light.

As available supply dwindles, importers will bid the price up, as at an auction. This sets the spot price and in turn effects the futures price. Not to long ago, just a few weeks, oil futures were in Backwardation, which means the price went lower than the spot price the farther one went out in time. So one could get a very good hedge if they bought a contract for March 2012 at $100/bbl while expecting the spot price at the settlement date to be much higher than current spot price. This has now changed into a condition called Contango, where all forward futures prices are higher than the current spot price. This is a signal that supply is expected to be less, or demand to be more, in the future.

There are several benchmark crudes used as markers on the various world exchanges. What you see on the NYMEX is WTI, West Texas Intermediate, which is delivered at Cushing, Oklahoma. Recently, Louisiana Sweet has sold at a premium to WTI. TAPIS in Singapore has traded close to $150 recently. Considering oil's energy equivalent in human labor, gives us a figure of about 1/2 million/bbl, based on current minimum wage. So oil is relatively underpriced relative to what it provides, which is also why the US economy is so addicted to it. Cheap oil=Cheap labor. All the above and much more is explained and discussed at theoildrum.com. And the very important ASPO-USA Conference for 2008 will be in Sacramento, CA September 21-23. I'll be there, and you all should too if you're concerned about this vital issue and want to learn more and network with those of us trying to do something about it.

Braithwa842--Very close, except you don't buy futures from Exxon, you buy them at one of the global futures markets. In fact, after reading it all, BRAVO!!!!

No, Samson, the mistakes that Democrats have made simply don't exonerate Bush or mitigate his deeds in any way. He is a goose. Say it.
GOOSE! Or would you prefer "popinjay?" Or
"murderer?" He's a pompous twit, too, always worried about his "legacy." He is getting exactly what he deserves.

One can view his presidency as tragedy or comedy, I suppose. (Only tragedy implies
tragic stature in a man who is beneath pathetic.) In any case the villain gets his just reward.

I don't think you or anyone should cop out on this view.

Some posters in this thread are giving themselves hernias trying to lay off the blame for our current mess on the Democrats based on the rather childish reasoning that many of the Dems wound up voting for Bush's proposals.

While the Dems can justifiably be accused of gutlessness, the blame for the current issues facing the US can be assigned by answering two embarrassingly simple questions.

Would the US be in the mess that it's in WITHOUT the Democrats? The answer is "yes" because the groundwork for almost all of our current roster of disasters was developed by republicans.

Would the US be in the same mess WITHOUT the republicans? The answer is 'no" (same explanation).

The blame for the financial, energy, healthcare, and food crises belongs in the lap of the GOP.

End of discussion.

jj

jesusofjonesboro June 11th, 2008 9:12 pm

"Some posters in this thread are giving themselves hernias trying to lay off the blame for our current mess on the Democrats based on the rather childish reasoning that many of the Dems wound up voting for Bush's proposals."

Well, actually, that does make them partially responsible. There's nothing childish about holding people responsible for their actions in the real world, rather than giving them a free pass based on speculations about their behavior in a hypothetical world.

Many Democrats supported the Iraq War and opposed increasing CAFE standards until last year. These actions helped to make the problem worse.

However, the majority of the problem is due to rising demand for oil in China and other developing countries. Yelling at Bush won't chnage that one bit.

"Oil was at 60 dollars last June. Today it is 136 dollars. WTF did Iraq have to do with the oil price increases over the last year when it's oil production has increased over the past year to it's pre-war levels."

It's the answer I am looking for too, and would expand the question to "what Bush/Cheney have done in general in the last year as well.

I would most likely believe what a pit trader would say about the causes of oil prices over anyone else.

Yes but Gates doesn't know the whole picture, only his little compartmentalized piece. That is the way the global elite work. People serve them without even knowing it because others and doing the same. Only the elite and a select few know how to assemble the work of the ignorant into their plan for global enslavement. We are not building the military for foreign threats. We are building the military to use against our own people and people abroad. Detention camps are being built as we speak. Raytheon just completed a directed energy weapon to disperse crowds. One in ten are on antidepressants that don't work. Chemtrails are everywhere. Fluorinated water numbs us to the reality. AIDS and other cancer causing viruses are running amok. America has been duped. Whites never thought other whites would turn on them but the elite were never on the side of Caucasians anyway. They are own their side and their side only. The depopulation agenda has been going on for centuries and is beginning to reach peak efficacy. Wake up or die.

At least the violent depopulation agenda has one. We either depopulate voluntarily and humanely, or nature will due it for us with war, crime, famine, disease and other painful and violent means. Not man apart.

"Detention camps are being built as we speak."

Total BS.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0502.html

In a nutshell, he suggests that the Bush Administration dropped the ball in January 2006, when they allowed totally unregulated electronic trading of oil futures contracts in New York. Previously these electronic trades had been made at the London Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Futures Market. With that decision by the Bush Administration, all of the world's oil prices were then opened to upward pressure from speculative futures contracts. In essence, oil futures contracts made by speculators, banks, hedge funds and pension funds all competed with real demand on the spot markets and had the effect of driving up both wholesale oil prices and retail gasoline prices. Speculators have made billions of dollars on their trading of oil futures contracts. All of their profits come right out of our pockets.

Even with a stable oil supply, there is a slow worldwide increase in demand for oil, which creates a long-term upward pressure on oil prices. However, with the relentless saber-rattling and war-mongering by Bush and Cheney in the last several years, and the more recent war talks by McCain and the Israelis, the oil futures markets are rife with speculation and paranoia. This war talk keeps ratcheting up the prices on the oil futures contracts and hence the wholesale spot market prices. It is an endless spiral of greed and paranoia.

As long as there is no tough and effective oversight of the electronic oil futures markets by the Bush Administration, the oil prices will climb endlessly. These oil prices will be quickly followed by hikes in the retail gasoline prices at the pump.