Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I thought Professor Cole's response to Cheney's statement was rather nice:
http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109160367650493671

Great juxtaposition; that Corzine scare ad.

Yes the current bunch of liars for the Bush are scary.

I work as a promoter in the oil and gas industry in Australia - we're currently working on Merlin Petreolum, an oil exploration float.

As a result of that, I keep a pretty careful eye on whats going on in oil exploration, and I'm coming to a definite conclusion about the Africa, the next great oil and gas exploration province.

The Americans are getting their breakfast, lunch and dinner eaten by everyone else in the world.

Everywhere, up and down the coasts, there are Australian, British, French and Chinese oil companies investing in exploration and development.

The Americans just arent there, except for the established areas (Angola, Nigeria and Chad). Eritrea, Morocco, Mauritania, Kenya, Tanzania ... the Americans just arent there.

I dont know why ; you'd think that the American independants at least would be tossing some money into the pot, to make sure they still have a seat at the table.

But it just isnt happening.

Ian Whitchurch
ianw@acceleratedfarmins.com.au

i haven't been monitoring this blog [http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/] for any length of time. all the same, tuning in tonite to it, and having monitored some others over some months, i must express my astonishment at the failure of all to understand the bush energy program and its real goals.

everyone seems to think that bush/cheney invaded iraq to seize the hydrocarbons. why is that?

it occurs to me that if that were the goal, then cheney would have no hesitation to let the amerikans see the minutes of his energy committee hearings[the amerikans would applaud the goal of seizing iraqi hydrocarbons. in fact, probably would cheer and call for seizing saudi hydrocarbons as well].

but i think that the cheney desire for secrecy reveals the real goal of the bushits. and that goal was to "f*ck-up" the iraqi hydrocarbon industry, thereby driving up the price of hydrocarbons and rapidly enriching all the bushies and their allies[i.e., bush family, james baker, dick them all cheney, the saudi royal family, british and dutch royal families, vlady the spy,
et alia].

that is a much more realistic analysis of what the invasion of iraq was intended to achieve.

so, why is this analysis never heard?

it is as plausible[more plausible in my view] than the more simplistic one that has been proferred, up to now, by rethugs and demthugs.

even if the escalation in hydrocarbon prices was not the goal of bush/cheney - isn't this a charge that, if leveled by kerry/edwards against bush/cheney, would create lots of nasty, anti-republican party thoughts amongst the electorate?

it seems such a natural and salient attack argument based on bush/cheney hydrocarbon industry backgrounds.

does the democratic party really want to defeat bush/cheney? that is the question.