Set America Free

The Washington Times ^ | March 8, 2005 | Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi recently said he expected the price of oil to remain at unconscionably high levels of between $40 and $50 per barrel through 2005. Ironically, every American should be grateful. Such gratitude is not, of course, due the Saudis — who, we are endlessly told, are among our most reliable "friends" in the Middle East — for working to drive down the price set by the OPEC oil racketeers. The Saudis seem content to keep prices exorbitantly high, though they are well aware of the adverse effect of such artificially inflated costs on the financial well-being of their principal protector, the United States. Rather, we should appreciate what should be the proverbial camel's back-breaking straw: A final wake-up call, one that establishes unmistakably it is neither in the United States' strategic, national security nor economic interests for this country and other industrialized nations to continue relying on imported oil from those who wish to do us harm.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Good ideas, but whether we'll do them is another matter. He is certainly right about the Saudis, they and OPEC are racketeers. Capone could have learned a thing or two from them.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ping!

[hflynn]

In the meantime why not let the Arabs drink oil martinis while we get all our oil from ANWR and Mexico?

[wolfpat]

If the price gets too high, we'll just find an alternative. For example, the soy bean folks are making diesel fuel. Maybe some of those alternatives the liberals are always harping about will become economically feasible.

[Red in Blue Maine]

America is in an abusive relationship with the Saudis and OPEC. We call the cops but we don't press charges...we wear sunglasses to conceal our economic bruises, we vehemently assert to our friend and family that THIS time we will leave OPEC...but we always go back. And as in all abusive relationships, OPEC will eventually kill us.

Its been 30 years, e'nuf is e'nuf.

[Nexus974]

The alternative we need is right here...
http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp

[Nexus974]

The alternative we need is right here...
http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp

[Convert from ECUSA]

You've got that right, we should have nipped it in the bud with the Saudis and OPEC back in 1973, when they first started their racketeering. We didn't and we have paid, and continue to pay, a very high price. Enemies boycott each other, not friends.

[Bombay Bloke]

It's amazing to see Frank Gaffney join the growing ranks of people supporting a radical change like this in US energy policy. Perhaps it's too early to tell, but it appears that there is a new consensus emerging on the crucial importance of junking our dependence on oil for all sorts of reasons - security, economy, environment. This is a project that has the potential to get agreement across left and right in the US and could start to bring the US and the rest of the world a little closer together. If anyone can do it, Bush can. But how will the oil industry respond to the call?

[Convert from ECUSA]

Yeah, but Mexico isn't a whole lot better than Saudi Arabia and the sheiks.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Good question. I guess it would take a sense of national emergency comparable to WW 2 and a determination of the level of the Manhattan project to get it done. I think Bush and many in his administration may understand that, but I don't think the public-at-large does. Doing something like what I'm suggesting would involve overcoming the radical environmentalist-hippie-left-over groups, and telling the country sacrifices would be required to accomplish the goal. We don't have the union or consensus now that we did in 1942.

[DM1]

Memo
To: Frickin Kerry, Lieberman and McCain
YOU VOTED DOWN ANWR DRILLING YOU SCHMUCKS now we plebians have to pay at the pump for your special interest votes
thanks a bunch DNC

[Convert from ECUSA]

DMI,

I like your style! You nailed it on the head! BTW, there is a "special" set of gas pumps on the Hill where the "senators" and "representatives" get gasoline at very cheap prices. This was made public back in 1979 when we had the second oil shortage crisis after Khomeini took over and took our people hostage.

[DM1]

"I like your style! You nailed it on the head! BTW, there is a "special" set of gas pumps on the Hill where the "senators" and "representatives" get gasoline at very cheap prices. "
Thank you sir. As for these "special" prices i feel that Theresa should subisdize the rest of the nations gas prices since her idiot wife voted to keep us slaves to the Saudis. We should also consider a referendum to have these lawmakers buy their own electric cars and save the gas for those of us who really work for a living

[txroadhawg]

Mexico has oil?
Could have fooled me.

[massgopguy]

It's time to remind the Saudis that there are no rivers to irrigate their land. Where do they get their food? Let's see how long they can last without importing food. If they want a trade war. Give them one.

[Red in Blue Maine]

Ping!

This issue cuts across political, cultural, and sociodemographic lines. Might an even be a louder rallying cry than 9/11. Neocons standing shoulder-to-shoulder with ex-hippies...absolutely.

How would the oil industry respond to the call?
Hopefully by negotiating longterm contracts with ADM and other agribusiness giants....leaving an opening for family farms and smaller conglomerates to get back into the food production business.
But in the end, you are right:

Only Nixon can go to China.
Only Bush can go to Houston.

[Iscool]

If anyone can do it, Bush can. But how will the oil industry respond to the call?

That's true...But if anyone won't, Bush won't...Do you really think Bush, or Congress for that matter, would push to restrict their personal fortunes for the average American??? Not on your life...

[hflynn]

Mexico has the third-largest proven conventional crude oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere after Venezuela, and the United States.

[Bombay Bloke]

"Only Nixon can go to China.
Only Bush can go to Houston."

Great line! :)

The more I think about it, the more I think that undertaking a 'geo-green' project like this would be the most courageous and radical act of Bush's presidency, more even than the decision to invade Iraq. The question is whether he has the balls to piss off some very wealthy and powerful people in the process.