How high will gas prices go?

[Mavdog]

Seems that OPEC is happy with the increased price of crude as they vote to cut production, a move that will at the least maintain current price and possibly lead to higher price for crude. Not good news for we consumers, and the affect will be most notable at the gas pump where prices are close to historical highs already.

With this escalating cost it is hard to imagine inflation remaining low. All commodity prices are rising and the end consumer will undoubtedly be paying more at the cash register.

Hmm, was this what those still secret Cheney Energy Task force meetings were all about (remember that the White House still refuses to release the records)? If so, they clearly acheived their goal.
---------------------------
OPEC to Cut Oil Production by 4 Percent
22 minutes ago Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!

VIENNA, Austria - OPEC (news - web sites) agreed Wednesday to follow through on an earlier pledge to cut its oil production target by 4 percent starting in April despite recent high prices of crude, several oil ministers said.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which pumps about a third of the world's oil, will reduce its output ceiling by 1 million barrels per day. A recent surge in oil prices had led some of the group's 11 members to suggest postponing the cut, but OPEC's most influential oil minister, Saudi Arabia's Ali Naimi, prevailed in his effort to press ahead.

Kuwait's oil minister Ahmad Fahad Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, who had suggested delaying a cut, was among those who confirmed the group's decision.

Ministers from Algeria, Nigeria, Libya and Qatar also confirmed the agreement reached in private talks ahead of a formal meeting at OPEC's headquarters in Vienna.

[FishForLunch]

It is tme for OPEC to make money, after record low prices for crude couple of years back.

[madape]

Typical how you manage to blame Bush for this. As if China's explosive growth in consumption would have been prevented if someone else were in office. Of course, to the loony libs this can all be blamed on greedy, corrupt Haliburton. What's next? Are we to blame Bush for bad weather? If the Mavericks lose? Rising oil prices could NEVER be due to the power of OPEC, could it? Never them. Never the power hungry facist dictators who have had the world by the balls for sixty years because their backwards third world countries happen to sit on top of millions of tons of prehistoric carbon deposits.

For the first time... ever, America is looking like it's ready to finally challenge OPEC. Our oil reserves are higher than they've ever been. Soon we'll be able to rely on a newly non-OPEC Iraq to circumvent the cabal. Plus, thanks to Bush administration, we can back up our diplomacy and economic pressures with the real threat of military action. If we were ever ready to fight, it is now. I wouldn't be suprised if before the summer is over, we hear Bush speak boldly, rallying Americans and it's allies to stand up to the cartel. So if I were to guess on what exactly was being said in those Energy Task force meetings, I would say at least a few words were said on how to bring OPEC crashing to the ground. It's time to stand up to these bastards. I'm growing tired of America being the subject of a group of facist, Marxist countries who teach their children to hate us and kill us.

[Male30Dan]

I dont really care whose "fault" it is... I would just like to see gas prices go down significantly seeing as how I drive 52 miles one way to work daily...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
Typical how you manage to blame Bush for this.

Actually I didn't "blame" anyone but OPEC. However, isn't it a fair question to ask as what the "Energy Task Force" is composed of and what were/are its plans? The White House and Cheney REFUSE to reveal, leading to a big fat WHY? Enquiring minds want to know...

As if China's explosive growth in consumption would have been prevented if someone else were in office.

Clearly the explosive growth in the Chinese economy is pressuring commodity prices. Is this your answer as to why consumer gas prices are so high? Not a good answer...the Chinese don't consume our gasoline.

Of course, to the loony libs this can all be blamed on greedy, corrupt Haliburton. What's next?

Kinda odd that you would introduce Halliburton to the issue. Do you believe they have a role? Were they at the Energy Task Force meetings? WHO KNOWS?

Are we to blame Bush for bad weather? If the Mavericks lose? Rising oil prices could NEVER be due to the power of OPEC, could it? Never them. Never the power hungry facist dictators who have had the world by the balls for sixty years because their backwards third world countries happen to sit on top of millions of tons of prehistoric carbon deposits.

OPEC produces about 32 Million barrells/day out of a total of 82 million barrells/day worldwide. Not exactly a firm grip on those cajones, eh?

For the first time... ever, America is looking like it's ready to finally challenge OPEC. Our oil reserves are higher than they've ever been. Soon we'll be able to rely on a newly non-OPEC Iraq to circumvent the cabal.

So WE are going to control the Iraqi oil production? You're certainly leanding credibility that the Iraq invasion was about oil as some have speculated.

Plus, thanks to Bush administration, we can back up our diplomacy and economic pressures with the real threat of military action. If we were ever ready to fight, it is now. I wouldn't be suprised if before the summer is over, we hear Bush speak boldly, rallying Americans and it's allies to stand up to the cartel.

That will be a really good platform...if the oil producers don't lower their price, we will attack them!
Talk about "ugly American", if this is the basis of the Bush energy policy heaven help us!

So if I were to guess on what exactly was being said in those Energy Task force meetings, I would say at least a few words were said on how to bring OPEC crashing to the ground. It's time to stand up to these bastards. I'm growing tired of America being the subject of a group of facist, Marxist countries who teach their children to hate us and kill us.

First, it is a absurd to say "fascist, Marxist" as they are divergent (and actually contradictory) political philosophies.

Second, isn't it ridiculous that we have to speculate about what our government's plan of action is as it relates to an energy policy? What is there that requires any secrecy? Is it the plan, the beneficiaries of such a plan, or the people who will lose the most in that plan?

Long and short is that whatever "plan" that came out of the secret Cheney meetings is resulting in a higher price for oil, and a higher price for gas for all us car driving people. If they were discussing "how to bring OPEC crashing to the ground" they have failed miserably, but then again who knows, maybe they formulated a plan to help OPEC and they have succeeded.

Thanks Dick! You did a hell of a job for someone, unfortunately that someone is NOT the American consumer.

[Chiwas]

Isn't Bush in the business of oil?

[madape]

It is you who insinuated that the insidious Dick Cheney was doing something currupt and secretive in the Energy Task Force meetings. I simply gave the name of that which you were hinting around. Halliburton has become the focal point for the left's anti-american, anti-capitalism rhetoric, and I think it's a joke. If you really dig down into their beleifs, the majority of these looney lefties will tell you that this company, which is a legitimate American enterprise, is more evil than Saddam, Osama Bin Ladin, Shiek Yassin combined. Here's some news to the crazies - Haliburton has never committed genocide. It's never plowed commercial airlines into skyscrapers. It's never funded groups who's goal is to kill every Jew on Earth. It exists to help drill and process petrolium, and it does so perhaps better than any other company in the world. They provide a useful service that you and I benefit from every day of our lives. The demonization of this company by the anti-capitalists, Marxists freaks on the left is an indication of how delusional they have become. To me, they resemble Russel Crow's character John Nash in A Beautiful Mind... so convinced that government is corrupt that they will invent consipiracy theories without any evidence and hold them as fundamental beliefs that define their political ideoligies. It's insane that these people overlook the evils of the the rest of the world, where genocide, torture, rape, and oppression are every day occurances, but scream bloody murder about the greed of Haliburton - and capitalism in general. They think that Marxist ideals represent noble fight for humanity and that socialist governments are protectors of the common man. Yet the left conveniently ignores the fact that almost every Marxist country has eventually resorted to oppression, military rule, and mass murder (Stalin murdered millions more of his own people than Hitler did, for example)

Regarding OPEC, it is simply a threat to the economic security of the world. Looking past the fact that most OPEC countries in one way or another sponsor anti-Americanism in their own countries, the simple idea of a cartel that controls most of the world's oil supply is frightening. There isn't a legitimate economist or non-OPEC leader who would argue with that opinion. These countries artifically manipulate oil prices to funnel more money into their pockets at the expense of the world economy. Most use oil revenue to line their palaces with diamonds and gold while their subjects must resort to licking the moss off of rocks to get the nutrition their country is unwilling to provide to them. It would benefit the world if OPEC ceased to exist. It would improve the lives of every single free person on this planet, rich or poor if it simply went away. I CERTAINLY hope that our government has at least had high level discussions on how to rid the world of such a terrible menace. And NO, those discussions shouldn't be made public. Today is probably not the right time to instigate a trade war over oil. But sometime, I don't know when, the world needs to stand together and say "enough is enough". And America will be prepared.

Just to reiterate, I've never said that oil wasn't a reason we went into Iraq. I think it was. But it was only one of a dozen reasons why the war was necessary. The bottm line is that the Iraqi's are free. America is safer. The world is better off. And don't forget that it is never wrong to be on the side of freedom. But given all the success that we've already seen come out of the war, more benefits are yet to come. Someday soon, the free flow of Iraqi oil will help the world be able to stand up againt the evils of OPEC. It will be another victory for humanity. Hopefully, the fight will be bloodless. Hopefully we can use economic and diplomatic pressures to bring it down. But any blood that MAY be spilled will be just a small drop in a sea of blood that these corrupt tyrants have already spilled in the name of OPEC gold and treasure.

Another thing that the left doesn't seem to want to admit: Evil does not just go away without a fight. Big time props go out to this administration for calling evil by it's name. I think history will show Bush-era America as being the most righteous, humanitarian, and ambitious empire of modern times. History will also show that those who think Halliburton is the world's most dangerous entity on the planet as being some of the biggest fools of all time.

[Mavdog]

Yes, I do wonder why Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force needs to be cloaked in secrecy. The steadfast refusal of our Vice President to reveal who is a part of the Task Force, what the Task Force determined is its policies, and how those undisclosed policies are being implemented with what results is important to every American. There is not ONE valid reason that this is not public knowledge...unless there is something that our current administration is trying to hide from the American public.

No, you are wrong. Halliburton does NOT just "exists to help drill and process petrolium". it exists to do what every other business does...make a profit. Unfortunately for us taxpayers, it seems that Halliburton is getting that profit on the backs of our tax dollars these days. Is Halliburton a part of the secret society called Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force? Who the heck knows as the current administration won't tell the citizens of our country. Such secrecy only helps those conspiracy freaks obtain a measure of credibility, full disclosure would pull the rug out from those conspiracy minded people.

As it relates to OPEC, they do not control the majority of the world's oil, as my stats show they currently produce less than half of the daily production. Regardless, they do not control the refining of gas in the US and are not the culprits who have raised the price of gas to 15 year highs.

An intriging quote:

Just to reiterate, I've never said that oil wasn't a reason we went into Iraq. I think it was.

A damning indictment for sure, the vast majority of Americans would be very, very disturbed if the Bush administration gave pretexts for the war only to have the goal of controlling the Iraq oil as the bottom line reason. I'd expect that if this were admitted to by the Bush administration Kerry would win in a landslide. Iraq produces about 2 million barrells plus a day, a small percent of the world's consumption. This will in no way affect the viability of OPEC.

Evil exists in many forms as well in many places. America is not the one to protect the whole world from evil, only to protect its citizens from evil. Are we to go out into the world and exorcize all the evil that exists? No. BTW America is not an "empire" nor should it be. Empires are for imperialists and colonialists, two -ists that we as a country have been against since the Monroe Doctrine.

[madape]

See, now we're getting down to the fundamental difference between the forign policies of the left and the foriegn policies of the right. Both agree that America holds great influence. The right beleives that the influence should be used to advance the interests of America, and to foster freedom and liberty around the world. The left would rather us sit on our hands as the world goes up in flames: as people starve, as people are murdered and tortured and maimed in the attempt to keep some crackpot dictator in power. Additionally, the left would rather see America put it's own interests BELOW those of oppressive nations bent on destroying us. They see something immoral in America looking after itself.

You can see it right here in Mavdogs rants. He decries Halliburton as beight fraught with corrutption and corporate greed. But he does nothing to criticize the countries of OPEC, who blantantly put the monitary desires of their respective ruling classes over the well-being of the world economy. To him, it is better to keep your mouth shut while getting fucked in the ass than to do anything to stop the fucking.

Other lefties on this board have critisized Israel for committing "terrorism" for carrying out an operation to kill a man who's self declared purpose in life is to exterminate every single Jew on the planet. They would rather Israel continue to see it's children carted off in 20 different peices than to make any kind of waves with those who strap the bombs on the backs of the terrorists.

What is see in the left is a real distortion of what is good and what is evil in this world. The left has decided that the evils of American hegemony is a greater threat to humanity than that of terrorism, facism and the propagating mulsim anti-Western ideology. I think that's lunacy.

In the aftermath of 9-11, these are the people who did not lament over the lives lost, or fume over the murderous bastards who did this terrible deed. These are the people who thought "what have WE done to make these poor people so mad?". When 60% of Palestinians support targeting Israeli civilians with terrorism, the left thinks "what has Israel done to make these people so mad". No condmenation of the terrorists, mind you, just condemnation of what WE'VE done to make these people hate us. As if WE are the people who want to push the MUSLIMS off into the Meditterranean Sea. As if WE'VE flown jetliners into the towers of Kuala Lampur or something. "Of course they hate us" the left says, "We established a military base in Saudi Arabia! We helped the Jews settle in Israel! We took Saddam Hussain out of power. Heck, with those sins, I'd say we DESERVED 9-11".

I don't know what drives those on the left to choose to be on the wrong side of this moral fight - whether it's guilt for living so high on the hog here in America, whether it's empathy for those they see as being oppressed, whether it's all dependant on who they want to see win the election, or whether it derives from some lingering mistrust of all things "government" left over from Vietnam, the Kennedy assination and Watergate. Figuring out what drives these people's madness is just about as pointless an effort as trying to figure out why the terrorists think it's their purpose in life to blow themselves up and kill Americans. Each group thinks that they are fighting a virtuous cause against their oppressors. The ironic thing is that it is the very people who the left defends who are the oppressors, and we in America who are the emancipators. In their search for moral equivilance, they've somehow crossed over to the side that opposes their beliefs!

The Bush administration just might go down as being history's greatest liberator. In four years, 30 million people who have known nothing but opression have been granted freedom. You can bet there will be millions more freed if the world is lucky enough to get four more years. Whether you want to call it an "empire", or whether you just want to call it "noble use of power", I don't care. It's semantics. It's certainly not imperialsm, we aren't establishing colonies, or 51st states. But we are looking out for ourselves. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!!! It is my opinion that this country has a hell of a lot of economic and military power. The idea that it would be "noble" to us run away from this fight and use our abundant resources to fatten ourselves up is pure self-serving cowardice. The thought that America is on the wrong side of this fight is absolutely scandalous.

Anyway, I'm done with my rant for a while... at least until mavdog decides to spout off some more anti-capitlaistic, Marxist, conspiracy theory lunacy.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
See, now we're getting down to the fundamental difference between the forign policies of the left and the foriegn policies of the right. Both agree that America holds great influence. The right beleives that the influence should be used to advance the interests of America, and to foster freedom and liberty around the world. The left would rather us sit on our hands as the world goes up in flames: as people starve, as people are murdered and tortured and maimed in the attempt to keep some crackpot dictator in power. Additionally, the left would rather see America put it's own interests BELOW those of oppressive nations bent on destroying us. They see something immoral in America looking after itself.

Actually you have it reversed. The right wing of American politics has always wanted the dictators of the world to stay in power (Chile, Guatamela, Boliva, Myanamar). Who supported Marcos in the Phillipines? Who put the Shah of Iran in power, allowing for the rise of the fundamentalists? Who supported Franco for the decades he was in power in Spain? Who provided Saddam Hussein with military equipment in the 80s? Your revisionist view of history is flawed and flat out wrong.

You can see it right here in Mavdogs rants. He decries Halliburton as beight fraught with corrutption and corporate greed. But he does nothing to criticize the countries of OPEC, who blantantly put the monitary desires of their respective ruling classes over the well-being of the world economy. To him, it is better to keep your mouth shut while getting fucked in the ass than to do anything to stop the fucking.

Speaking of dictators, what about our support for the Saudis? Do you know who first suggested the formation of OPEC? (hint: think conservative SofState for an American President of 1968-1973).
BTW, just where is the "rant" about Halliburton's "corrutption and corporate greed" that you give me credit for? I'd love to see it...

What is see in the left is a real distortion of what is good and what is evil in this world. The left has decided that the evils of American hegemony is a greater threat to humanity than that of terrorism, facism and the propagating mulsim anti-Western ideology. I think that's lunacy.

"Lunacy" is the above fabrication. Your "rant" is the true "distortion" of the truth IMHO.

In the aftermath of 9-11, these are the people who did not lament over the lives lost, or fume over the murderous bastards who did this terrible deed. These are the people who thought "what have WE done to make these poor people so mad?". When 60% of Palestinians support targeting Israeli civilians with terrorism, the left thinks "what has Israel done to make these people so mad". No condmenation of the terrorists, mind you, just condemnation of what WE'VE done to make these people hate us. As if WE are the people who want to push the MUSLIMS off into the Meditterranean Sea. As if WE'VE flown jetliners into the towers of Kuala Lampur or something. "Of course they hate us" the left says, "We established a military base in Saudi Arabia! We helped the Jews settle in Israel! We took Saddam Hussain out of power. Heck, with those sins, I'd say we DESERVED 9-11".

I know of NO ONE who professes the above surreal views, are you sure that they aren't just in your mind? Appears to be the case...

The Bush administration just might go down as being history's greatest liberator. In four years, 30 million people who have known nothing but opression have been granted freedom.

No, FDR was able to liberate 3 times that many.

You can bet there will be millions more freed if the world is lucky enough to get four more years.

Just who are we going to invade next? Shall we go for the Saudis? They don't have freedom, in fact the women can't even vote! Freedom for the Saudi women! Then we can invade Mynarmar, they don't have freedom either! Then we can go to Mozambique! I can hear those war drums beating...wait, those last ones don't have any oil. Guess we don't need to "liberate" them, huh?

Whether you want to call it an "empire", or whether you just want to call it "noble use of power", I don't care. It's semantics. It's certainly not imperialsm, we aren't establishing colonies, or 51st states. But we are looking out for ourselves. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!!!

Earth to madape...using military power to invade other countries to control them is called Fascism. You're acting like a fascist! How ironic...

It is my opinion that this country has a hell of a lot of economic and military power. The idea that it would be "noble" to us run away from this fight and use our abundant resources to fatten ourselves up is pure self-serving cowardice. The thought that America is on the wrong side of this fight is absolutely scandalous.

"scandalous" is an appropriate description of what you propose, which is imperialism. No way to win the hearts and minds of the world pop, in fact it is a sure fire way to lose the war for their hearts and minds. Then again, with your proposed fascism the people who are in opposition can just be "removed", right?

Anyway, I'm done with my rant for a while... at least until mavdog decides to spout off some more anti-capitlaistic, Marxist, conspiracy theory lunacy.

Now that you've revealed your "madness" for all to see, I'd really like to see where I have posted "anti-capitalistic, Marxist" theory. But then you're very quick to hurl labels that don't fit, so I really don't expect you to substantiate anything you say.

As far as "conspiracy", isn't the refusal to open the Cheney Energy Task Force meetings/composition only feeding a conspiracy concept? If there is nothing to hide why would there be a refusal to open up? Indefensable to say the least.

[madape]

Actually you have it reversed. The right wing of American politics has always wanted the dictators of the world to stay in power (Chile, Guatamela, Boliva, Myanamar). Who supported Marcos in the Phillipines? Who put the Shah of Iran in power, allowing for the rise of the fundamentalists? Who supported Franco for the decades he was in power in Spain? Who provided Saddam Hussein with military equipment in the 80s? Your revisionist view of history is flawed and flat out wrong.

I am talking about today. Last I checked, the Bush is not attempting to install any dictatorships. It never supported Franco, Marcos, Hussein, Chavez or any of the other dictators you mentioned. Quite the opposite. It is promoting democracy in areas that most people say democracy can't exist. In fact, for the first time in decades it is posing a direct challenge to dictators we've traditionally supported, especially thsoe in the middle-east. This will be the legacy of this administration. It's not fair to Bush to heap the sins of his Republican predicessors upon his head. If so, why don't you go ahead and blame Clinton for slavery?

Speaking of dictators, what about our support for the Saudis? Do you know who first suggested the formation of OPEC? (hint: think conservative SofState for an American President of 1968-1973).
BTW, just where is the "rant" about Halliburton's "corrutption and corporate greed" that you give me credit for? I'd love to see it...

The comment where you suggested that Halliburton was influential to the Energy task force - I can only imply that you meant to suggest that Halliburton was invlolved because they planned on lining their pockets with fat new Iraqi oil contracts. Maybe I'm giving your conspiracy theory too much credit. Perhaps you can explain exactly what you think Halliburton had to gain.

"Lunacy" is the above fabrication. Your "rant" is the true "distortion" of the truth IMHO.

I know you are, but what am I?

I know of NO ONE who professes the above surreal views, are you sure that they aren't just in your mind? Appears to be the case...

I know of plenty of people with these views. A few of them write for the NY Times, almost every muslim I know is of this opinion. Several Europeans think this way. In fact, slmost everyone on the left I've read or spoken with has some kind of sympathy for the terrorists, and at least attempts to rationalize their hatred of America. Here's a true story: In New Orleans last month, a woman spit in my girlfriend's eye three times and proclaimed that "Osama is God" while laughing about all the people who died in the towers. That person was obviously a radical, but if you think that a more moderate version of this same opinion isn't growing among many of the left, you are leading a sheltered life.

No, FDR was able to liberate 3 times that many.

No offense to FDR, but he did let millions of his allies die before he decided to get in the game. Imagine how many lives would have been spared if Europe and America would have been more proactive in confronting Hitler. This is one lesson, I guess the appeasers on the left didn't learn.

Just who are we going to invade next? Shall we go for the Saudis? They don't have freedom, in fact the women can't even vote! Freedom for the Saudi women! Then we can invade Mynarmar, they don't have freedom either! Then we can go to Mozambique! I can hear those war drums beating...wait, those last ones don't have any oil. Guess we don't need to "liberate" them, huh?

I never said anything about invading countries. I think you have misunderstood my point! Of course I want a peaceful solution to everything. I'm a pacifist at heart... but I'm a realist in that I know military force is needed in a day and age in which the nature of humans is to serve themselves ( a lesson that has been writen on the pages of history, but a lesson which the socialists have failed to learn). Ideally, I'd rather solve all of our problems through diplocmatic means, and I can tell you this, we have a hell of a lot more diplomatic power under Bush than we had under Clinton. That power has stopped a lot of the flow of money to the terrorists. It has made one terrorist supporting country in Libya give up it's WMD programs. It's caused another former terrorist supporting country in Pakistan to end it's sipport and help us root out its terror cells. There are other examples where our diplomacy is helping to turn the tide of anti-american hatred and terror around the world. I like to think it's because the world is finally taking us very seriously. Theodore Roosevelt said "Walk softly and carry a big stick". Well, it's fine to carry the stick, but people won't give you much respect if they don't think you'll use it.

Earth to madape...using military power to invade other countries to control them is called Fascism. You're acting like a fascist! How ironic...

No, facism is the use of military power to suppress your own people. Look it up. Using military power to protect yourself is called common sense.

"scandalous" is an appropriate description of what you propose, which is imperialism. No way to win the hearts and minds of the world pop, in fact it is a sure fire way to lose the war for their hearts and minds. Then again, with your proposed fascism the people who are in opposition can just be "removed", right?

Yes. Any dictator who poses a real threat to America should be removed. I will stand by that. I don't think it's scandalous. Do you think it was "scandalous" for us to fight back against the Japaneese? To help stem the tide of the Third Reich? I suppose that instead of standing up to the Soviets, you would have rather just let the them sweep over the free world until we were all goose-stepping, religionless, commies... right?

Now that you've revealed your "madness" for all to see, I'd really like to see where I have posted "anti-capitalistic, Marxist" theory. But then you're very quick to hurl labels that don't fit, so I really don't expect you to substantiate anything you say.

What I've displayed here is an incredible amount of patience in order to weed through all these arguments. I've even done something I'd say I'd never do, and fumbled through a point-by-point counter argument. I am generally not a patient man, mind you. So if you are waiting on me to go back and dig up quotes where you bemoan fundamental capitalistic ideals such as free-markets, trade, and enterprise, you'll be waiting a long time. .. but I'm pretty sure you've argued against all three.

[dude1394]

It's worth emphasizing that the four victims were civilians working for an American company (which company the news reports have not yet told us). Like America's soldiers, these civilians are putting their lives on the line to enhance America's security and help build a better Iraq.

John Kerry and other Democrats have been vilifying American contractors in Iraq, especially Halliburton. This seems a fitting time to point out what a despicable bit of demagoguery this is.

[dude1394]

Go get 'em ape....Luverly.

I also like this little bit of conspiracy theory

The steadfast refusal of our Vice President to reveal who is a part of the Task Force, what the Task Force determined is its policies, and how those undisclosed policies are being implemented with what results is important to every American. There is not ONE valid reason that this is not public knowledge...unless there is something that our current administration is trying to hide from the American public.

..

Well I guess there must be at least ONE valid reason since cheney has successfully defended his ability to have private counsel. And what "undisclosed policies". The energy task forces "policies' were right out there in a written report. I think I have some tin-foil for you if you need it.

If Cheney should publish his private counsel then clinton should publish HIS private counsel with Carville and his cronies, there is no difference.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: madape

Speaking of dictators, what about our support for the Saudis? Do you know who first suggested the formation of OPEC? (hint: think conservative SofState for an American President of 1968-1973).
BTW, just where is the "rant" about Halliburton's "corrutption and corporate greed" that you give me credit for? I'd love to see it...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment where you suggested that Halliburton was influential to the Energy task force - I can only imply that you meant to suggest that Halliburton was invlolved because they planned on lining their pockets with fat new Iraqi oil contracts. Maybe I'm giving your conspiracy theory too much credit. Perhaps you can explain exactly what you think Halliburton had to gain.

I believe it is fair to assume that, with Cheney's past assoc. with Halliburton, they were involved. I really don't see Halliburton as corrupt, but they do seem to be given sweet contracts that were not bidded against. At the very least there should be competition for the work to ensure fair pricing. Are they getting "fat"? Sure seems like they don't have to worry for work to do..

The policy sessions should be public. The secrecy only fuels speculation.

Here's a true story: In New Orleans last month, a woman spit in my girlfriend's eye three times and proclaimed that "Osama is God" while laughing about all the people who died in the towers. That person was obviously a radical, but if you think that a more moderate version of this same opinion isn't growing among many of the left, you are leading a sheltered life.

I don't know about "sheltered", but I generally don't have to avoid someone spitting on me. That person wasn't a "radical", they were the fringe and mental most likely...

No offense to FDR, but he did let millions of his allies die before he decided to get in the game. Imagine how many lives would have been spared if Europe and America would have been more proactive in confronting Hitler. This is one lesson, I guess the appeasers on the left didn't learn.

FDR was an "appeaser" who "let millions of his allies die"??? bizarre...did you miss your history classes?

FDR sent Britian military equip. despite tremendous opposition from the isolationists. FDR had nothing to do with the European politics and Hitler. To call him an appeaser is without any basis in fact.

The issue is if the invasion of Iraq a) was needed in the War on Terror, b) made America safer, either from terrorist or otherwise, c) was needed at the time done.

The apparent answer to A is that there is no connection between Hussein and Al Queda or other radical islamist group.

The apparent answer to B is that we had no threat fro Iraq as they didn't have the means to attack us, and as there is no connection between Iraq and other Islamist we are no safer from terrorist attacks, we are staus quo in that war.

We will never know the answer to C.

No, facism is the use of military power to suppress your own people. Look it up. Using military power to protect yourself is called common sense.

Yes, protecting oneself does make sense. We should have invaded Afganistan.

Sorry madape, you missed on understanding fascism, I was a poli sci major.
From Mussolini's manefesto "What is fascism":
"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality".

I am generally not a patient man, mind you. So if you are waiting on me to go back and dig up quotes where you bemoan fundamental capitalistic ideals such as free-markets, trade, and enterprise, you'll be waiting a long time. .. but I'm pretty sure you've argued against all three.

nope. I'm for open markets, free trade and free enterprise.

[dude1394]

The issue is if the invasion of Iraq a) was needed in the War on Terror, b) made America safer, either from terrorist or otherwise, c) was needed at the time done.

The apparent answer to A is that there is no connection between Hussein and Al Queda or other radical islamist group.

Nope there is plenty. It probably wouldn't stand up in a "court of law" like Kerry would like, but a prudent president would take it seriously.

http://cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/iraq.html

Iraq

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
(AP Photo/Iraq News Agency)
and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. The State Department lists Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction, which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Go get 'em ape....Luverly.

I also like this little bit of conspiracy theory

..

Well I guess there must be at least ONE valid reason since cheney has successfully defended his ability to have private counsel. And what "undisclosed policies". The energy task forces "policies' were right out there in a written report. I think I have some tin-foil for you if you need it.

If Cheney should publish his private counsel then clinton should publish HIS private counsel with Carville and his cronies, there is no difference.

Carville is not setting public policy, he is setting campaign stategy.

This is a group of people who are formulating public policy by the executive branch. Those contributors should be public as to verify any potential conflicts of interest. Standard public policy. The WH released approx. 16,000 pages out of a total 30,000 (and that's after a Freedom of Information lawsuit). Not very cooperative...

John Kerry and other Democrats have been vilifying American contractors in Iraq, especially Halliburton. This seems a fitting time to point out what a despicable bit of demagoguery this is

"vilifying" the fact that there have been 3 seperate instances of pricing irregularities? That's not vilifying, that's being a watchdog.

Nice bit of demagogeury there yourself...

[reeds]

MAVDOG- great posts...right on the money

[dude1394]

Carville is not setting public policy, he is setting campaign stategy.

Says who anyway? Carville was a private consultant providing advice just like the folks in cheney's task force. The output of that group was public. The conversations that were held to develop that policy should not be made public. If the democrats had ANY prooof that something improper was done then they might have a point, but right now (like so many things the democrats throw out there) it's just a witch hunt and a fishing expedition.

John Kerry and other Democrats have been vilifying American contractors in Iraq, especially Halliburton. This seems a fitting time to point out what a despicable bit of demagoguery this is

Junk, they talk like halliburton is the devil. If they were really honest about investigating specific incidents then that would be one thing. The only reason they even talk about halliburton is because they feel it can hurt bush politically.

Besmirching a companies reputation that is putting their employess lives on the line purely for political purposes is disgusting. But I don't expect much more from the democratic party.

[Mavdog]

Let's see what "besmirching" has discovered about these no-bid contracts given to Halliburton:

[b]Problems already identified with Halliburton's business include:

Allegations it overcharged by $61 million for gasoline it delivered from Kuwait to civilians in Iraq. Pentagon auditors say Halliburton did not fully justify spending more than $1 extra per gallon for gasoline delivered from Kuwait than gas it bought from Turkish companies.

A Pentagon audit that concluded Halliburton charged millions for meals never served to troops. Halliburton has repaid $36 million and set aside an additional $141 million to reimburse the military for possible overcharges. The Army Materiel Command had planned to begin withholding 15 percent of payments to Halliburton - up to $300 million - on April 1. The agency gave Halliburton a 30-day extension to May 1 and could give it another 30 days while the company negotiates over the issue. Halliburton officials say problems might have occurred because the number of troops in and near Iraq often changed quickly and drastically.

A Defense Department probe into allegations a Kuwaiti subcontractor paid kickbacks to two former Halliburton employees. The company says it repaid $6 million to the government after it discovered the scheme.

Widespread problems with estimating costs, justifying spending and following federal regulations. The Defense Contract Audit Agency found so many faults with KBR's practices that it warned the Defense Contract Management Agency the company's estimates were unreliable. Halliburton says any glitches were the result of working quickly to establish services in a war zone.

Pentagon and Justice Department investigations into possible overcharging on KBR contracts to support troops in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Federal authorities also are investigating whether Halliburton violated U.S. laws prohibiting deals with Iran, and U.S. and French authorities are probing whether KBR was involved in paying $180 million in bribes to Nigerian officials to get favorable treatment for a natural gas project.

Halliburton reported making $3.6 billion in revenue from Iraq contracts last year. Executives say the company is taking in about $1 billion a month from its work in Iraq, bringing its total revenue to about $6 billion.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394 Well I guess there must be at least ONE valid reason since cheney has successfully defended his ability to have private counsel. And what "undisclosed policies". The energy task forces "policies' were right out there in a written report. I think I have some tin-foil for you if you need it.

If Cheney should publish his private counsel then clinton should publish HIS private counsel with Carville and his cronies, there is no difference.

Wrong.
Here's news that the a Federal Court ruling has determined that Cheney has NOT "successfully defended his ability to have private counsel" but in fact MUST turn over the documents on the super secret Energy Task Force. I wonder how many orders to turn over the docs our VP will ignore, and just what he is trying to hide from the public's view?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Orders Release of Energy Documents
Thu Apr 1, 4:05 PM ET Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The government must release more documents related to the White House task force that Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) convened in private to develop a national energy policy, a federal judge says.

Environmental and government watchdog groups have been seeking records and other information as part of an inquiry into whether energy executives and lobbyists helped draft a policy friendly to their industries early in President Bush (news - web sites)'s first year in office.

The administration maintains that only government employees were members of the task force, which disbanded in 2001, and has fought release of some documents on grounds that they were part of internal discussions.

The private group Judicial Watch has alleged that former Enron chairman Ken Lay and lobbyists Mark Racicot, Haley Barbour and Thomas Kuhn may have participated.

The order Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman covers material that the Energy Department, Interior Department and other federal agencies had refused to produce since a similar federal court ruling two years ago.

Some documents released so far show energy executives met with high-level Energy Department officials, but the records Friedman ordered released now "could be the most telling," said Sharon Buccino, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's kind of the top of the food chain."

A meeting with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites) is significant, Buccino said, "but getting in to meet with Vice President Cheney and the staff of the task force is going to get folks even further in terms of influencing what comes out."

Friedman's order could cover some material that is the subject of a separate lawsuit now before the Supreme Court. That case also involves documents about the inner workings of Cheney's energy task force.

Cheney himself was ordered to produce some documents, and appealed that part of the dispute to the high court, which will hear arguments this month.

The Cheney case was the subject of recent headlines because of a hunting trip that Cheney took with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) weeks after the court had agreed to hear Cheney's appeal. Scalia rebuffed a request that he step aside, saying he had no conflict of interest.

Friedman's order deals with agencies that are subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act. Federal agencies must turn over more documents by June 1 or explain to the judge why they cannot, Friedman said.

The Energy Department and other agencies have turned over some 40,000 documents since another federal judge ordered them to do so in 2002, but have withheld an estimated 100,000 additional documents, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said Thursday.

It is not clear how many of those documents might be covered by Friedman's order. He agreed with agency lawyers that in some instances certain documents were exempt from the FOIA request or may not exist at all.

The judge disagreed, however, that records of communication between federal agencies and the task force are automatically exempt. He also ordered release of records from the task force's director, then a civil servant on loan to the task force from another government job.

"This is a brushback to the government," Fitton said. "I read it to mean we will finally get documents from the heart of the energy task force."

[madape]

I think Cheney's hiding the fact that he's really an alien who breathes oil.

[kingrex]

As high as the oil companies want it to go to cover their costs and still make a profit.

For good or for ill, until we find an alternate source of fuel, we the consumers will have to pay what the market dictates.

[Usually Lurkin]

If you are really think that moose mating grounds are more important than opening up america's oil deposits, then be happy that you get to pay for your principles
or get a better car and quit your whining.

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
If you are really think that moose mating grounds are more important than opening up america's oil deposits, then be happy that you get to pay for your principles
or get a better car and quit your whining.

was this directed at me? Or did I miss someone else's post above?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
If you are really think that moose mating grounds are more important than opening up america's oil deposits, then be happy that you get to pay for your principles
or get a better car and quit your whining.

The United States Geological Survey has determined that the Arctic Refuge contains about enough reserves to satisfy six months worth of U.S. oil demand. That's about how much the world pumps in 6 weeks.

Now that's addressing our long term energy needs...[img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[madape]

The Euros seem to be doing OK with nuclear. I wish the hippies would get over their fear.

[dude1394]

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) updated its estimates of potential petroleum resources in the Refuge in 1998 by re-analyzing the original seismic data from 1984-1985 along with more recent data from seismic surveys and drilling in adjacent areas. Using the updated report and recent oil prices, the USGS estimated in 2000 that, assuming a price of $24 per barrel, there is a 95% chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 Area; a 5% chance of finding 9.4 BBO; and a 50% chance of finding 5.3 BBO. Reported estimates of 16 BBO from the 1002 Area and adjacent private lands and offshore State waters do not factor in the costs of developing the oil field.

And another:

The 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest unexplored, potentially productive geologic onshore basin in the United States. The primary area of the coastal plain is the 1002 Area of ANWR established when ANWR was created. A decision on permitting the exploration and development of the 1002 Area is up to Congress and has not been approved to date. Also included in the Coastal Plain are State lands to the 3-mile offshore limit and Native Inupiat land near the village of Kaktovik.

The USGS estimated:

* a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain,
* a 5 percent probability that at least 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain, and
* a mean or expected value of 10.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the ANWR coastal plain.

EIA postulates two development rates for each of the three USPS probability estimates without specifying the effect of various levels of oil prices and technology advancements, ranging from 250 to 800 million barrels developed per year. EIA projects peak production rates from 600,000 to 1.9 million barrels per day over the six cases, with peak production estimated to occur 20 - 30 years after the onset of production.

Seven to 12 years are estimated to be required from an approval to explore and develop to first production from the ANWR Area. This study uses 9 years, to 2010. The time to first production could vary significantly based on time required for leasing after approval to develop is given. Environmental considerations and the possibility of drilling restrictions would directly impact the time interval to reach first production.

The USGS economic analysis of the ANWR 1002 Area calculates that once oil has been discovered, more than 80 percent of the technically recoverable oil is commercially developable at an oil price of $25 per barrel. The imported refiner acquisition cost in 2020 is projected in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2000 reference case at $22.04 (1998 dollars). At this price, the potential ANWR oil recovered would have a value between $125 and $350 billion (in 1998 dollars.)


Part of the issue is the numbers you site are using $25 dollar/barrel numbers both for estimated benefit as well as economically retreivable oil. When the price goes up obviously more oil can be pumped profitably. Just in 1998 dollars and at 22.04/gallon it's estimated that the value would be $125-350 billion dollars. Obviously as oil moves to $35 that value goes up quite a bit. I'll be glad to NOT drill in ANWAR if Kerry and Kennedy and Cronkite will stop their obstruction of the Wind Farm overlooking their property.

[Mavdog]

The US consumes over 20 million barrels a day, or over 7.2 Billion barrels a year. With what you posted above the ANWR could be as much as a year, most likely only about 6 months of US consumption.

I'll be glad to NOT drill in ANWAR if Kerry and Kennedy and Cronkite will stop their obstruction of the Wind Farm overlooking their property.

How about we put them by your property, too? I don't blame them for being NIMBY about a wind farm, they belong in unpopulated areas.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: madape
The Euros seem to be doing OK with nuclear. I wish the hippies would get over their fear.

The hippies and the oil companies

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Actually I don't believe in wind farms. They are really a stupid idea. But I WOULD put an oil rig on my property!!

[Mavdog]

They are a great idea, they are the cleanest energy production we've come up with, and the power source (wind) is forever "renewable".

Here's some interesting facts:
------------------------------
Ireland has approved plans to build the world's largest wind farm on a sandbank just six miles (ten kilometers) offshore from Arklow, a town about 40 miles (70 kilometers) south of Dublin.

The Arklow Sandbank—a sliver of land 15 miles (24 kilometers) long and just more than half a mile (one kilometer) wide—is one of the windiest locations in Ireland and will seat 200 wind turbines. The wind farm is expected to generate about 10 percent of the country's energy needs by the time the project is complete.

The farm will be capable of generating 520 megawatts of electricity.

Currently Europe leads the world in its use of wind power. Denmark generates 15 percent of its energy needs using wind power with Germany and Sweden close behind. By 2020 Denmark expects to generate 50 percent of it power demands using wind.

Wind energy also receives far greater government subsidies in Europe than it does in the U.S. "In the United States, subsidies for wind energy amount to hundreds of millions, whereas subsidies for coal and gas run in the billions," said atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who is an expert on energy systems.

Currently wind supplies less than one percent of the Unites States' energy needs. But wind is gaining popularity in America, albeit slowly.

Last year the United States spent $1.7 billion installing new wind-generating equipment, half of which supported new wind farms in Texas. This new capacity is enough to supply nearly half a million households and will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide—a leading greenhouse gas—by three million tons and other noxious gases by 27,000 tons, according to the AWEA.

Proponents of wind energy say that it is an emission-free, quiet, and renewable source of energy. And it reduces the country's reliance on foreign oil.

Others argue that wind energy is unpredictable and that the windiest sites in the country—on the Great Plains—are far from coastal regions where the power is needed. Creating a power grid of transmission lines to carry wind-generated power from these sites would be an expensive proposition, said David Keith, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Jacobson counters that greater numbers of wind farms will produce an almost constant source of power. And, unlike coal and natural gas, there are no fuel-transportation costs.

"Everyone loves wind," said Gordon. "But when it comes to building wind farms, no one wants them in their backyard."

The wind turbines look like enormous airplane propellers mounted on tall metal poles that rise out of the ocean. Once the blade is mounted, the turbines reach a height of 130 meters (426 feet). The Cape Wind farm with its 170 turbines is expected to occupy an area of 25 square miles (65 square kilometers).

Brian Parsons of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, believes that 5 percent of the country's energy demands could be met with wind power by 2020. "But it would be a big challenge," he said.

Swisher agrees: "We could supply 6 percent of the energy needs by 2020, and that's a conservative estimate assuming the current growth rate continues and it's business as usual.

"And we could easily do twice as much if environmental issues become more of a concern," said Swisher.

However, the wind industry will be hard-pressed to have such explosive growth this year. A key incentive, the federal wind production tax credit, which expired December 31, was not renewed. Bills to renew the PTC are in negotiations.

[dude1394]

I'm actually a bird lover and they take a terrible toll on them. So I'm against them. I would much rather have nuclear. I guess we could bury the nuclear waste underneath the areas where we don't mind blighting the landscape however. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

The United States Geological Survey has determined that the Arctic Refuge contains about enough reserves to satisfy six months worth of U.S. oil demand. That's about how much the world pumps in 6 weeks.

Now that's addressing our long term energy needs...[img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

so get a better car, or ride a bike, and quit acting so oppressed. You are in charge of your own dependencies.