Prager: Calls like these make it all worth it
Published by Mike Stark March 20th, 2006 in Podcast, Dennis PragerI’ll be the first to admit that I don’t really completely understand the appeal of this site… most of my calls are just two partisans arguing about the issues of the day. You can see that on any cable tv channel.
Sure, every now and then I’ll catch hold of something truly noxious and it’s exposure will cause y’all to recoil in fascinated car-crash horror… but for the most part, I’m not saying anything you haven’t already heard and neither is the other guy…
This call falls into that category… but… This call was about Iraq. Prager was trying to say that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. Before I got on, he went as far as to say that anyone that thinks the war in Iraq was about oil is simply a leftist conspiracy theorist…
Never mind the fact that EVERYBODY ON THE FRIGGIN PLANET knows that without cheap energy, we don’t have national security. That access to cheap oil is of paramount importance to our way of life… that supplies are diminishing while demand is increasing…
At every single turn in the first half of this call, I made Prager flounder and squirm. He managed to turn the dynamic around later in the call by changing the subject, but I think I held my own pretty well there as well…
I actually enjoyed this call. I hope y’all get a decent chuckle out of it.
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Excellent work Mike! You could just see him squirming in his seat.
Mike said, “We are not there because Iraq was a threat.”
There was a person who thought Iraq was a threat, Mike. Who was it? Here is what former President Clinton said about Iraq on Feb. 17, 1998:
“These “predators of the twenty-first century,” he said “will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this THREAT than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
Further, Clinton signed a LAW that made it the policy of the United States to remove Saddam from power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
In that act it says:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Mike, face it. You are an unemployed and very bored person who thinks he is somehow accomplishing something with these pointless calls. You have all this time to prepare for the calls since you are unemployed and you don’t even make good points. You don’t use any sources, facts, articles or anything to help make any of your “points” on air and almost never on the website. And your “points” are easily destroyed with a 10 second search of the internet for sources, speeches, articles, etc. that cripple whatever you said in the call.
Mike also said “We want a military outpost (in the Middle East).”
Mike, we had military “outposts” all over the Middle East before the War in Iraq began.
In 2002 we owned bases in Bahrain, Oman, UAE, and Turkey.
http://www.doublestandards.org/bases2003.html
We obviously had troops in Afghanistan before the War in Iraq as well.
Our Navy docks at various ports such as Bahrain, Dubai and Diego Garcia.
http://www.nsa.bahrain.navy.mil/
www.nctsdg.navy.mil/main.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060316/pl_afp/uaeusiraqport_060316163833
Once again, Mike’s “point” that we invaded Iraq for a “military outpost” has been defeated by the facts which are we had various ports, airfields, and bases in the region long before the war in Iraq started so it is simply illogical to state we went to war in Iraq because we wanted a “military outpost.”
But Chuck, he had no such weapons. And no, not “everyone” thought he did. Scot Ritter, Anthony Zinni, the Mossad, among many others, did not believed he had WMD & said so before the war. More generally, Saddam was not a threat. Don’t take my word for it. Take Colin Powell’s or Norman Schwartzkopf’s.
We had regional bases, but DG & Turkey are too far away. With the exception of Kuwait, none of the others allowed us to set down a sufficient foot print to dominate the area. And none of the bases were in safe, client states where we could be assured of sticking around for 20 years. Well, maybe Afghanistan, but alas, they had no oil.
And yes, to over simplify, we’re there for oil. Saudi, land of Mecca and the world’s largest petroleum reserves, is tenous. We can’t invade it because it occupying the “holy land” would lead to the insurrection of 1bn muslims. Saddam sat on the world’s second largest reserves and he… he had no friends. Perfect.
This is not some complex conspiracy theory. It’s just blocking and tackling. Don’t believe me, don’t believe Mike. Believe Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith. They laid it all out in the Project for a New American Century.
“We had regional bases, but DG & Turkey are too far away”
Turkey shares a border with Iraq.
You commit the usual mistakes of Mike. You say Zinni, the Mossad, and Ritter said Iraq was not a threat, yet you cite no sources, offer no proof.
“I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The THREAT of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is REAL, but as I said, it is NOT new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox FAILED to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.”
Those are the words of JFK. (John F. Kerry).
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
Who knows why the Bush administration went into Iraq. If it wasn’t about oil it sure should have been. History will record this era as the oil age and with good reason.
Regardless of the owner of the oil the US has controlled the oil market. Oil is enumerated in dollars and we the people of the United States owe a great deal of our standard of living to this factoid. Is that worth fighting for? Is it worth going to war in order to secure our position in the oil age? I don’t know you tell me.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq’s oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq’s oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn’t matter. The key thing is what’s inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will “enhance its relationship with OPEC.”
–Greg Palast
Regarding the comment about Clinton calling Saddam a threat - DIFFERENCE is, he didn’t start a “pre-emptive” disasterous war.
Try to focus, buddy.
chuck2, you might want to completely read your sources:
chuck….read the pnac report
iraq is the centerpiece
your ignorance is astounding
yes, the dems did overstate sadaams threat, but they did not call for a preemptive war….he was boxed in, and would have remained that way until today
OSL8
The Iraq Liberation Act did not authorize the use of military force, you are correct. That’s why Bush went to Congress to obtain this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
which says in part:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Here’s a voting list of those who voted for it:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Notable names voted Yea:
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea . Harkin (D-IA), Yea. Schumer (D-NY), Yea . Kerry (D-MA), Yea . Reid (D-NV), Yea. Edwards (D-NC), Yea. Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea. Nelson (D-FL), Yea. Cantwell (D-WA), Yea. Biden (D-DE), Yea. Bayh (D-IN), Yea.
chuck2
Yes, votes based on overstated threat assesments provided by the current administration.
Who was the CIA director in 2001-2003? George Tenet. Guess who hired him? Clinton. The administration does not fire everyone at the CIA and put its own partisans in each time a new president comes in. The intel operation is supposed to be a non-partisan venture.
Ascribing to the conspiracy theory, based on no direct facts just your own bias, is very unwise. Clinton himself said, in the posts I have above, Saddam was a threat and even launched a military operation himself.
You and those on your side simply cannot operate in the world of facts and evidence. You simply believe what you want to, and when challenged just ignore or reject any challenge to your worldview. And I thought liberals were supposed to be so tolerant and understanding? Apparently not. You and your side cannot take challenges. Thats why all your left wing blogs have ‘troll rating’ etc that eliminates comments that challenge the left wing view of the world.
Finally this new book states how deceptive Saddam really was. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11828408/from/RSS/
“First, on weapons of mass destruction: The authors say Saddam created the impression he had the weapons to scare his arch enemy, Iran.
“Cobra II’s” co-author is retired Marine Gen. Bernard Trainor. He says Saddam “created what he called ‘deterrence of doubt’ — not against us, but against the Iranians.”
Saddam, says Gordon, didn’t tell his own generals there were no weapons of mass destruction until just before the war.
“He said, ‘I don’t have it,’” Gordon says. “The generals were stunned and rather demoralized.”
And this has what to do with the price of rice in China?
What conspiracy theory?
Project much?
Gosh Chucky, where is your daily tirade against Mark for violating floriduh statute?
Did you finally get it through your thick skull that your claims are (like you) full of it?
Do you guys ever bother to respond to the posts I have full of links and sources that defeat the points might made on the air? Can you people ever respond with an intelligent post, with thoughtful points and sources to back up your points? No, the only time you people but comments down is when the exchange turns into a childish temper tantrum. It’s pretty sad that you people simply ignore the fact, source filled posts above and only respond with childish, immature comments instead of trying to engage someone who does not think like you in a thoughtful discussion. Frank made the best attempt at a thoughful response, unfornately it was rather weak and offered up no proof or sources for his vague points. But I give credit to him for trying and not simply putting up a childish rant. You people, including Mike who makes horrible points given all the free time he has, should learn something from Frank.
Sean
My claims? I provide sources for the points I have made if you were to read the posts above. Why can you not respond to those posts with anything of substance? Why do you just make a snide remark and that’s it?
This news article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11828408/from/RSS/
States that a book written by a retired general says Saddam’s own generals did not have WMD. If they did not even know they had no functional WMD, I think that is a piece of evidence for the explanation as to why our CIA along with the intel agencies around the world got the intel wrong on Iraq. That is not some wild ‘claim.’ It is a point made with a credible source to back up the point. That style of argument seems to be way above your head Sean.
So you make posts like this:
And now you want to hide behind the skirts of civility?
Can you respond to JUST ONE of my posts at the beginning of this section where I defeat the points of Mike? The vast majority of my posts have been civil. Only a few have not been civil but I have not used profanity or cussed anyone out. However, many people directed profanity and other insults at me in the “cant believe my ears” post which shockingly generated 62 comments. I guess the only thing people respond to on this site is inflammatory comemnts. One of you went so far as to fake my name, by posting an inflammatory comment under the name “chuck2″ when my name is “chuck 2.”
I already did, here and here.
Your post here seems to be a good indicator of the dishonest way in which you will debate these issues.
But you left off this relevant part:
And you still haven’t answered the questions I posed here.
We had military bases in the region therefore we could not have wanted more. You’re very proud of all the links you provide but they don’t make your argument any less fallacious.
OSL8
I responded to your point that the Iraq Liberation Act refused to give the president the authority to use military force. This makes perfect sense. Joint congressional resolutions for the Authorization of Military Force or AUMFs usually authorize the use of force. Bush submitted such an authorization to supplement the policy set forth in the Iraq Liberation Act to Congress to meet the threat of Saddam which Bill Clinton stated. Congress debated the resolution, looked at the intelligence and voted overwelmingly for it. Once this occurred the policy set forth in the Iraq Liberation Act (which had been voted on by Congress and signed by President Clinton)was supplemented.
“We had military bases in the region therefore we could not have wanted more.”
You made my point for me. Thank you.
chuck2
What the hell are you talking about? Are you retarded or this some sort of hilarious act?
chuck2, do you believe that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil or military bases? Do you believe that the only reason we invaded was the misconception that Iraq posed a threat to the US?
OSL8
I think it’s more important to hear what you believe and what your beliefs are based on. From your question, it would seem to indicate you believe the Iraq war was ‘just about oil and military bases’ so just provide the sources and evidence that back up those beliefs. If your beliefs are otherwise, then tell us and provide sources and evidence that back up whatever beliefs you hold. After we see where you stand and WHY, then we can talk about what I believe and why.
Chuck, I really don’t mean this as a personal “attack”; were you to call it an unjust, inappropriate commentary, that may be fair, but here goes: You’re either:
1) sociopathic - in a clinical sense: you’re not retrospective, have no conscience, refuse to hold yourself or those that espouse your interests to account. You don’t believe what you’re saying but belief is of no consequence. Advancing your interests is what counts.
2) disingenous - publically deny but privately know that we’re write and your defenses to date are disingenuous, or
3) deluded - you really believe in what you’re saying, refute all evidence to the contrary, for reasons known (or perhaps unknown) only to you.
Anyway, here are various bits from the horses’ mouthes that Saddam was not a threat, that oil is what mattered, that bush lied, and is an incompetent liar at that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27
Norman Schwartzkopf, pre invasion:
The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?” he says. “Now, having said that, I don’t know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, ‘Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,’ I guess I would like to have better information… I have picked up vibes that . . . you’re going to have this massive strike with massed weaponry, and basically that’s going to be it, and we just clean up the battlefield after that,” he says. But, he adds, he is more comfortable now with what he hears about the war plan than he was several months ago, when there was talk of an assault built around air power and a few thousand Special Operations troops. He expresses even more concern about the task the U.S. military might face after a victory. “What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That’s a huge question, to my mind. It really should be part of the overall campaign plan.”
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Colin Powell, at a press conference in Egypt, pre invasion:
“He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”
“The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There’s no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.”
Condi, pre invasion:
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm
Wolfi, post invasion:
“Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”
Don’t forget lowering the bar for the resort to force. The example we’ve set in Iraq, if it holds, is that the US can arbitrarily attack weaker enemies. So I’d say the war was about controlling oil, establishing bases, and dissolving conventional restraints on violence.
So what about Cobra II? I would hope our intelligence agencies could point to something more real and tangible than the mistaken beliefs of Iraqi generals when assessing foreign threats.
Colin Powell’s speech to the UN had the same effect. A reporter from Iraq was on NPR the other day and he said that after Powell’s speech there were Iraqi military personel who KNEW there were no weapons but nonetheless found themselves second guessing whether Saddam had WMD afterall. So there’s your next bunch of Iraqi generals who don’t know anything that you can cite for Cobra III.
Frank
At least this guy makes an attempt at civil and constructive discourse. The Powell quotes do not support your argument because you have misinterpreted them.
“He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”
This statement means he has not developed new or more advanced weapons in addition to the ones he already had which Powell notes here:
“There’s no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control,”
Second, these statements took place before 9/11. If you read carefully, you understand Powells comments mean the Iraqi army is not strong enough to launch a convention military attack against Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.
“He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”
However, after 9/11 the way of thinking about Iraq had to change. Why? Because the US govt as a whole failed to connect the dots, as your side said over and over again in 2004. Powell even says that, “We should constantly be reviewing our policies.” The policies were reviewed after 9/11. The policy of containment was deemed insufficient because while containment stopped Saddam from a conventional attack against Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, the policy did nothing to prevent him from helping out other enemies of the US.
No Frank, the policy did everything to prevent him from harming the US.
You’re promoting (yet another) alternate reality, that you don’t (though possible may genuinely) believe in; here, that Saddam could have helped AQ. This has undoubtedly taken the form that Saddam helped AQ in the past. I’m certain that you will periodically resusitate it. But anyway, Saddam never helped AQ. Since you believe so much of what bush says, take his work for it and not mine. As to whether he one day may have? Never say never, but for these purposes… never.
And if you insist on assigning it some possibility, of all the threats, potentialities and risks we’re exposed to: smuggles nukes from Russia, port security, North Korea, Bird Flu, etc, it ain’t in the top 500. And you don’t see us doing much to address these other, clear and present risks, do you?
Haha, you’ve got to be kidding me. “not developed any significant capability” means “not developed any significant capability.” You’re just looking for a game of grabass.
Bird Flu:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/02/MNG0DFHNR91.DTL
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/06/ap/strange/mainD8FJRN5G1.shtml
Russian nuclear material:
http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/NonProliferation/gaoreports.htm#general
http://www.iss.niiit.ru/sobdog-e/sd-193.htm
North Korea:
“U.S. and North Korean officials met earlier this month to discuss the evidence Washington says it has of illicit activities by the North. Those activities include money laundering and drug trafficking as well as counterfeiting currency.
“We hope that North Koreans have realised all the serious implications of all these illicit activities,” the minister said. “It seems to us the North Koreans are also very much interested in making a breakthrough in this stalled, deadlocked situation.”
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-23T151123Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-241850-2.xml
Port Security:
“Coast Guard Port Security Units (PSUs) are Coast Guard units staffed primarily with selected reservists. They provide waterborne and limited land-based protection for shipping and critical port facilities both INCONUS and in theater”
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PSUs.html
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mp/GMPWebpages/index.shtml
“Here CBP enforces the import and export laws and regulations of the U.S. federal government and conducts immigration policy and programs. Ports also perform agriculture inspections to protect the USA from potential carriers of animal and plant pests or diseases that could cause serious damage to America’s crops, livestock, pets, and the environment.”
http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/ports/
Frank says:
Well Chuck, lemme through one at you:
“Where’s your proof?”
Just linking, for example, to a site that explains that we indeed HAVE a program to secure Russian nukes hardly goes against the claim that shrub & his cronies have underfunded and undermined it:
The Pentagon Endangers Nunn-Lugar (that’s the program to secure old Russian nukes)
The Pentagon is trying to cut already underfunded programs that seek to disarm Cold War nuclear sites and materials.
“To free up money for the Iraq war, the Pentagon recommended late last month that funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, or CTR, be cut by $46 million next year, about a 10 percent reduction in the military’s post-Cold War efforts to destroy excess Soviet weapons of mass destruction, lock up other deadly materials, and help find civilian work for weapons scientists,” reports The Boston Globe.
Preventing nuclear arms and fissile materials from falling into the hands of terrorists is the national security issue of our time. The Pentagon should find places to cut funds in its own budget.
Source: The Boston Globe, “Cut in funds for Securing Nuclear Materials Rejected,” Bryan Bender, 1/7/05
“President George W. Bush Feb. 11 offered a strong endorsement of U.S. programs to safeguard or destroy the arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materials formerly possessed by the Soviet Union. However, in his fiscal year 2005 budget request to Congress, released just a week earlier, Bush did not substantially increase funding for these programs and actually proposed cuts to the Department of Defense component as well as suggested spending shifts in programs in the Departments of Energy and State.
…
“The nations of the world must do all we can to secure and eliminate nuclear and chemical and biological and radiological materials,” Bush said.
…
Bush is seeking $409 million in fiscal year 2005 for the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program—about 10 percent less than the $451 million allocated for CTR activities in fiscal year 2004. Most of the proposed difference comes from slashing spending on the destruction of Russia’s chemical weapons stockpile by more than 20 percent, from $200 million to $158 million. This would slow spending on the controversial Shchuch’ye chemical weapons destruction facility, whose funding has long been a bone of contention between Lugar and Republican conservatives in the House and the Pentagon.”
Source: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/NunnLugarFunding.asp
These were among the FIRST links I got in a one minute Google search. Because they undermined your disingenuous claim, you ignored them.
As to Port Security, gimme a break. You know as well as I that we’re inspecting
hmm, guess there’s a limit on the length of these replies… As I was saying:
As to Port Security, gimme a break. You know as well as I that we’re inspecting
Thank you for the opportunity to post a message.
First, I would like to make it very clear that I do not understand “all” the issues to the extent of either the caller or prager.
However, I am(at least) able to recognize when someone is squirming and/or arrogant.
To say that prager was squrming in this situation is laughable. He was not squirming. He answered all of the questions. He even conceded near the end that the caller and he agree on “values” over oil.
Therefore, I am confused as to why he is deemed “arrogant” and/or “condecending.”
Yet, I am not confused in that its a joke to say he was squirming because he surely was not. That, at the very least, is quite obvious.
That is not to say the caller did not make “good” valid points. Yet, call a spade a spade.
Prager was not squirming.
I didn’t read all the posts, but here are the reasons we are in Iraq:
1. Raise oil prices. The supply of oil under an occupied and chaotic Iraq have been put into doubt and prices, as a result, have skyrocketed. The price has tripled since the invasion. Oil companies have been making record profits. We’re not there to take the oil. We’re there to suppress world oil supplies just enough to raise prices just enough.
2. Prevent Saddam from selling oil for Euros. This is also the reason we are hearing so much about Iran right now. Saddam wanted to sell oil for Euros once the Euro for formed and especially once the Euro became stronger than the dollar. The hegemony of the petrodollar is vital to the US economy. The UN sanctions were to be lifted in 2003. Saddam was about to flood the market with cheap oil and accept only Euros for it. That would have been devastating for Big Oil. That could not happen.
Well, I’ll just leave it at those 2 economic reasons. Without those, there’d be no war in Iraq. But it’s a common fallacy promoted by ‘them’ that we are in Iraq to get the oil. We are in Iraq to suppress supplies and to maintain petrodollar supremacy. Clinton? Gore? Kerry? You think they are in favor of scrapping the fiat dollar and give up on taxing the world through petrodollar hegemony? Get real. Saddam and Iran are threats for sure. Economic threats.
We get most of our imported oil from Canada. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are way down on the list.
he he “Of course we want outposts!” he he
Chuck 2:
“We had regional bases, but DG & Turkey are too far away”
Turkey shares a border with Iraq.
But we can’t do whatever we want from Turkey. They wouldn’t let us invade Iraq from the North from our bases there.
The key thing is what’s inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will “enhance its relationship with OPEC.”
–Greg Palast
Yes, because we have a deal with OPEC to exclusively sell oil for dollars.
And all of you others are arguing D’s good - R’s bad.
D = R people, at least when it comes to the ultimate goals of US foreign policy.
Wake up.