07-04-2004, 12:12 AM
Ok, far be it for me to expect logical thought from everyone, but just a touch would be nice. The thinking for some people is that Bush went into Iraq to control the oil there right? Sieze the oil, and/or set up a puppet regime to control the oil for us so his cronies in the oil industry could get a cheap source for their refineries. Nifty theory. But for the last several months, oil companies/refineries have been paying through the nose for oil. Highest cost per barrel in history. The exact OPPOSITE of what were supposedly went into Iraq to achieve. Must be bad news for Bush's cronies....or....not. Exxon, Shell, BP, etc have been recording record profits over the last few months. The high cost of oil has allowed them to bump their own oil prices and the price for gas to similar record heights. So...apparently...the situation of LESS oil, and HIGHER prices is apparently MUCH better for them than MORE oil, and LOWER prices. So getting Iraq back up and running, and the sanctions lifted will mean that in a few years Bush's buddies will be making LESS money than they are now, or even when Iraq was under sanctions, since more oil will be flowing into the market from there. Come to think of it, if the drilling in Alaska is allowed the same thing will happen as well. Combine the two and oil prices could REALLY come down, bringing the profits of the oil companies with them. Hmm. Bush must REALLY be an idiot for going into Iraq and trying to go into Alaska then. Come to think of it, the oil companies that "own" him must be run by idiots as well. I mean, that's the only logical answer if we are to assume that he went into Iraq to sieze it's oil, and WANTS to drill in Alaska to get that oil as well. Wow.