Bush Admits It's About Oil

Link For what I think may be the first time, Shrub is admitting the Iraq War is about oil. There are a couple of angles to explore here.

First and foremost, this notion of committing to the same end achieved through a variety of means and justifications is getting tiring. Put more succinctly, how can we be expected to "stay the course" when the course keeps changing? This desperate need for justification in the face of rapidly-changing public opinion about the war can't be good for Bush. It makes him look both desperate and deceitful.

Which brings me to my next point. It could be easily argued that Bush's speech is an attempt to bolster support for the war by using the recent Katrina tragedy in the Gulf states. Here we are, just before Labor Day when gas prices traditionally shoot up due to holiday driving. The devastation caused by Katrina is causing supply and capacity problems, which on top of the usual uncertainty in the Middle East will easily put consumer gas prices above $3 this weekend. And then here's Bush - leveraging that consumer backlash on gas prices to justify his war.

Shameful. Just shameful.

Of course, the smart conservatives will say that it's always been about oil, and we liberals were too stupid to see that from the beginning. Well heck, I would have been much more supportive of President Bush if the war were justified on the grounds of protecting our economic interests than I was when he threw out terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and securing freedom for the Iraqis as bullshit excuses. (I wouldn't have supported a pre-emptive strike, but I'd be more supportive in general...)

The stupid conservatives, on the other hand, will parrot back what Bush is saying. "You don't want the oil wells falling into the hands of terrorists, do you?" they'll say.

Well look at the situation we have here. If we pulled out today, we'd be leaving the oil wells to a bunch of loosely-organized insurgents and we'd leave the country in total chaos. If we stuck it out, however, we'd be presented with the 'opportunity' to hand those oil wells over to what appears to be headed toward a conservative Muslim theocracy that's likely to implode. As far as I'm concerned, what's the diff? Bush's argument holds no water with me.

Asking Questions = Obstructionism?

Somehow, the Bushies have re-framed the debate over Supreme Court nominee John Roberts such that asking questions about how his judicial philosophies and how he might function in a role as a Supreme Court Justice is seen as obstructing the confirmation process. This battle was fought and won by the Republicans before any of the serious grilling could take place. Folks, someone has to stand up and bring this country to its senses. Senators would not be doing their jobs properly if they didn't get a reasonably complete picture of Roberts. I understand Dianne Feinstein says she needs to have answers to a few critical questions before moving forward with a decision - that's how the issue needs to be re-framed by the Democrats. The burden of proof with respect to Roberts' worthiness for this position lies with John Roberts, not with those participating in the confirmation process. And if Roberts stonewalls and refuses to answer critical questions, the Democratic response should be that he failed to prove his worthiness and that he deserves a "No" vote.

How could it be any other way? I resent the implication that senators should simply rubber-stamp Bush's nomination and that asking questions amounts to obstruction. O'Connor's replacement will represent a critical vote, and if we don't know where that vote will fall, whether Roberts will be a judicial activist or a strict intepreter of the laws, or whether his philosophy is compatible with the notion of interpreting the law rather than making it, how can senators make an informed decision?

Instead of asking these very basic questions about how we'll get to know John Roberts, we're instead looking at the issue through a lens foisted on us by administration Republicans that involves thinking of the Roberts confirmation as an "us vs. them" issue, where any sort of challenge to Roberts' suitability for this post is seen as partisan politics. That's a load of crap. We need to re-frame this such that everybody is on board with getting enough information to make an educated decision.

We'll Leave It Worse Than We Found It

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic."

Link.

Look for your conservative friends to complain that this is all due to liberal dissent and obstruction.

This isn't the fault of the liberals. The neo-cons went into Iraq under false pretenses with no plan. And when we eventually get out, Iraq will be worse off than it was pre-invasion. Saddam was no doubt a bad guy, but at least he kept his government secular. Now we're looking at some form of militant Islamic rule.

Here Comes the Smear!

Well, the business about Cindy Sheehan flip-flopping didn't work, so it's obviously time for the Republican camp to try something else. Evidently, that "something else" comes in the form of an alleged e-mail sent to Matt Drudge by another member of Casey Sheehan's family, saying the family does not support Cindy's point of view and wants her to stop. Republican talking points seem to be all over this one, including in the following sentence: "The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

Who wants to take bets on which Republican hack ghost-wrote this puppy?