digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

McClellan: Iraq’s Oil is Big Part of Cheney's Desire for War

thinkprogress.org — Inquiring about Vice President Dick Cheney ’s motivations to go to war, CBC Radio One host Jim Brown noted that Cheney “doesn’t strike me as someone who would be particularly motivated by idealistic visions.” McClellan agreed, adding that Iraq’s oil occupied Cheney’s mind more than anything else.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • treehugger87, on 07/08/2008, -6/+23Can this be true? Can somebody be *that* corrupt? Seriously. Is he total sociopath? I always thought there had to be a great 'vision' behind the actions of the Bush administration. Could it really all be this simple?
    • mellowadam, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4I ask myself this question all the time! Could they really have started this entire war just for the financial gain? Could anyone be that greedy? Could anyone be that cruel?
    • shna, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Wakeup....at least now....we have been fooled...
    • TheInformer, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1Did you see where the story came from?

      Next up - "The sky is falling" from chickenlittle.com.
      • publiclurker, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Like we'd expect the truth from Fox.
    • jj2me, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I can't believe such a move was instituted purely for personal greed. I've always thought that the conservative think tanks had decided that America's dominance depended on cheap oil, and they came up with a plan. (George Bush's friendship with the Saudis was viewed as a bonus.) In their minds, it might have been some type of practical patriotism.

      The problem with these think tanks is their surety. They think they can determine a course of action that will work. Life is never that certain. That level of surety is arrogance leading to group stupidity. Better to be a principled country, things will more likely fall in place. Especially now with instant world-wide communication.
  • qdkk, on 07/08/2008, -5/+25Simple greed. Greed enough to sacrifice the lives of young men and women.
    • robbiedo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1How about all the lives of the innocent Iraqis which have been utterly destroyed, let alone all that would not have been killed.
  • obliviousfool, on 07/08/2008, -5/+31This idea that Dick Cheney somehow cares about Iraq's freedom has always made me chuckle.

    Look at the man. Look at Halliburton. Look at what Halliburton does. Look at Cheney's energy task force. Look at the bills they've written. Look at Cheney's time as Secretary of War.

    Freedom? This man pisses in the mouth of freedom. He wants to bomb your town, then sell you a new one.
  • monkeybites, on 07/08/2008, -5/+19Welcome to fascism.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/08/2008, -13/+6Greed yes, but the zionist agenda plays a bigger part than the greed of the oil pigs. IMHO.
    • hawkeye17, on 07/08/2008, -3/+4FYI...."zionist agenda" makes you sound like a bigot.
  • RedHeadedFreak, on 07/09/2008, -17/+7If there's one thing to fight a war over, it's definitely oil. It's not greed, it's survival--just take a look around. Cheney doesn't need the oil, this country does because our entire way of life (and I'm also talking to you Western Europeans) depends on it. If we don't take it, the Chinese, who are much less compassionate than we are (not to mention the huge chip on their shoulder), will, as they get bigger, and bigger and bigger. Oil was/is an infinitely better reason to invade Iraq than Iraqi freedom. Anyway, digg me down you naive, bleeding heart commies.
    • EdgarAllenPwn, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5You've got to be kidding me. The fact that darth Cheney is making money hand over fist somehow equates to no greed? Survival would(and probably will) be developing an alternative energy source. That or embracing one that isn't so widespread. Why don't we look forward and break our dependency on oil? And furthermore what gives us the right to invade foreign countries and take oil that sits under their land? Does our wasteful lifestyle give us that right? Or is it just that them ther' terrist muslims want to blow us up? Your name should be RedNeckedFreak cause that's who you sound like.
      • RedHeadedFreak, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6Thanks for insult. However, I agree, I would much rather see us break foreign oil dependence with an alternative. But that's looking less likely. Cars, no problem. Planes, you have a problem there. Secondly, what gives us the right? Nothing gives us any rights. We have to evaluate our lifestyle and decide whether or not that's worth taking another's life to preserve. My priority is myself first and then my country. Perhaps that makes me a selfish prick, but I look at it with a fairly Darwinian mindset. Why has anyone ever gone to war? Perhaps you should try to look outside and imagine yourself without that bubble you have called home all your life--this lifestyle we live is earned, not guaranteed. We've been lucky to live such a luxurious and carefree life, and I want to preserve that.
      • yodaj007, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Red:
        I really have no idea what the hell you mean about "ensuring our survival." That was never at stake.

        1. Preserving our way of life has nothing to do with violating the sovereignty of another nation.
        2. Iraq was producing oil just fine. They weren't threatening to stop selling to us.
        3. Reducing the usage of SUV's would go a lot further to "ensure our survival"
        4. You insulted us first by calling us commies, then complain about being insulted. You then proceed to insult again.
        5. Planes have a problem with becoming more fuel efficient? No. Of our oil usage relating to transportation, 12% of our oil goes to aviation. 61% to gasoline. Making cars more efficient is more than sufficient to reduce our dependency. In fact, transportation is only 28% of our oil consumption.
        6. Ensuring "our survival" would mean long term solutions that pay off in the long run. In Iraq we're paying buckets of money only to see badly disrupted oil production as a result. Long term solutions involve domestic drilling and refining. Alaska is a biggie. Why aren't you pushing for this?
        7. We didn't just take someone else's life here. We invaded an entire nation and beheaded their leader, and all under false pretenses. Want to "ensure our survival"? Use diplomacy instead of an incredibly costly war. Promote new energy research. Increase public transportation usage. Employ some of the bike rental systems you find in Europe. Stop using gas guzzling vehicles (I'm looking at you, Hummer owners).
        8. Ensuring our survival might mean not whoring out our credit to China.
        9. This isn't a war at all. It's an occupation.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_Uni ...
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I agree with the pragmatic worldview Red, but the problem is that this blood oil costs us way too much in the long run.
    • redxninja, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Yea kinda like a strategy game.
  • willdelaney, on 07/09/2008, -7/+2we know this already. why do we need constant stories about it
  • grant1080, on 07/09/2008, -7/+3This is news? Give me a ***** break. The Carlyle Group - enough said.
  • blueandgreen24, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5O RLY? NO WAI!
  • jamessavik, on 07/09/2008, -9/+3>>CBC Radio One host Jim Brown noted that Cheney "doesn't strike me as someone who would be particularly motivated by idealistic visions." McClellan agreed, adding that Iraq's oil occupied Cheney's mind more than anything else.

    Oh great. Now the lefties can read minds in addition to flogging dead horses
    • andy314159pi, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5so discussing the ongoing war in Iraq is now "flogging a dead horse"?
      • jamessavik, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1what bothered me is here are two journalists expounding on what is in someones mind [Cheney] as an absolute fact when in reality all it is is an opinion.

        Flogging a dead horse is the old chant war for all. Goddam it at $4 per gallon, we need to invade Iran and Saudi to insure our supply.
  • kingygk, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3The left hatred machine is getting this country no where fast.
  • cambob76, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4Thanks Captain Obvious. Thanks for waiting until now to say ***** like this. Get bent.
  • targetpro, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6yes, he is that corrupt.
  • woody313, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Wow, talk about a circle-jerk.
  • Psi57, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7Buried as inaccurate.

    Cheney wanted Iraq so he could feast on the sweet bones of Iraqi children.
    • Ortheos, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3And then wash them down with a big glass of Iraqi sweet crude.

  • soinie, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6This is old news, as in, despite the propaganda from the administration and the "let's go to war with Iraq because they did 9/11" fervor of most Americans, some of us knew this before the war started, but we were considered cynical and unpatriotic.
  • darthjure, on 07/09/2008, -6/+2I always thought of Dick Cheney as a modern-day Thomas Jefferson.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/09/2008, -8/+2Buried...McClellan is looking to sell books and all this garbage is his Sour Grapes...His recent testimony produced nothing because he is so full of Bull *****
  • crackberri, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2The Anti-Drill Policies of the Democrats is why our economy is spiraling out of control!
    • gigamugged, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Since you're so smart, can you estimate what the maximum daily extraction rate would be assuming we went after every recoverable US oil resource (and they could ramp up to production immediately)? How fast is global demand increasing? I'll give you a hint: gnat fart in a hurricane is the proper mental imagery.
  • TheInformer, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1Let's see... comments from a disgruntled, ousted person on a website that is as unbiased as hannity.com. Sure.

    I think I'll go and read about Obama on rushlimbaugh.com now. Can't be any less biased.
  • rrife, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1This sounds like his personal opnion and not "fact"...so big deal.
  • denizen42, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Perhaps most disgusting of all, he is still in office
  • amightywind, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3McClellan is a bit player who came in years after Saddam instigated the war with the US. Now he is just a sleazeball trying to make a buck off of the ignorant liberals.
  • normalkid0615, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1up yours lol
  • mickin014, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3This was news back in like 2003. Anyone with half a brain knew the only reason we were going to Iraq was the oil. Subtract the oil in Iraq, we wouldn't even be there.
  • bcamp1973, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5I'm from Wyoming. It makes me sick to know that bastard calls the state home. Someone that morally bankrupt has no place in the human race...let alone our government.
  • tpearl, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I think it would just be easier to drill in our own area than spend a trillion or two and kill hundreds of thousands of lives and ruin an economy.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.