Re: I get it! Blood for Oil is okay, as long as it's the ONE!...



On Oct 22, 2:23 am, Carbon <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:04:07 -0500, Mickey wrote:
who does the "murdering".

"Within hours of the news, the AP reported 'Gadhafi's Death Clears Way
for Oil Exports,' gleefully explaining that Gadhafi's death will
result in lower oil prices the world over!  Energy crisis is solved!
Recession ended!

Remember the Left's incessant 'No Blood for Oil' smear against
President Bush for the 'illegitimate' wars in Iraq?  According to the
Left, and rarely challenged by the Make-Believe Media, Bush's war in
the Middle east was only about getting oil."

http://bigjournalism.com/sswift/2011/10/21/ap-cheers-gadhafis-blood-for-
libyan-oil/

orhttp://tinyurl.com/3d7xkt7

The United States is automatically interested in the goings on in
oil-producing countries, especially if they are ruled by tinhorn
dictators who won't do as they're told.

It is obviously the case that while they used different methods, both
the Bush and Obama administrations accomplished essentially the same
thing.

Off the top of your head, which one do you think cost more?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Cost? You think any or the entire military budget would be better
spent on baby-mill mothers & single payer health care and government
employee pensions or union member pensions or welfare don't you?
.



Relevant Pages