The article "Oil Price Rise Causes Global Shift in Wealth -- Iran, Russia and Venezuela Feel the Benefits" at
states "High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history.
Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone.
The consequences are evident in minds and mortar: anger at Chinese motor-fuel pumps and inflated confidence in the Kremlin; new weapons in Chad and new petrochemical plants in Saudi Arabia; no-driving campaigns in South Korea and bigger sales for Toyota hybrid cars; a fiscal burden in Senegal and a bonanza in Brazil. In Burma, recent demonstrations were triggered by a government decision to raise fuel prices.
In the United States, the rising bill for imported petroleum lowers already anemic consumer savings rates, adds to inflation, worsens the trade deficit, undermines the dollar and makes it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to balance its competing goals of fighting inflation and sustaining growth.
High prices have given a boost to oil-rich Alaska, which in September raised the annual oil dividend paid to every man, woman and child living there for a year to $1,654, an increase of $547 from last year. In other states, high prices create greater incentives for pursuing non-oil energy projects that once might have looked too expensive and hurt earnings at energy-intensive companies like airlines and chemical makers. Even Kellogg's cited higher energy costs as a drag on its third-quarter earnings.
With crude oil prices nearing $100 a barrel, there is no end in sight to the redistribution of more than 1 percent of the world's gross domestic product.
Earlier oil shocks generated giant shifts in wealth and pools of petrodollars, but they eventually faded and economies adjusted. This new high point in petroleum prices has arrived over four years, and many believe it will represent a new plateau even if prices drop back somewhat in coming months.
"There's never been anything like this on a sustained basis the way we've seen the last couple of years," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Oil prices "are not spiking; they're just rising," he added.
Why do you think Putin and Iran are so openly dismissive of W?
"Russia, the world's No. 2 oil exporter, shows oil's transformational impact in the political as well as the economic realm. When Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, less than two years after the collapse of the ruble and Russia's default on its international debt, the country's policymakers worried that 2003 could bring another financial crisis. The country's foreign-debt repayments were scheduled to peak at $17 billion that year.
Inside the Kremlin, with Putin nearing the end of his second and final term as president, that sum now looks like peanuts. Russia's gold and foreign-currency reserves have risen by more than that amount just since July. The soaring price of oil has helped Russia increase the federal budget tenfold since 1999 while paying off its foreign debt and building the third-largest gold and hard-currency reserves in the world, about $425 billion.
"The government is much stronger, much more self-assured and self-confident," said Vladimir Milov, head of the Institute of Energy Policy in Moscow and a former deputy minister of energy. "It believes it can cope with any economic crisis at home."
With good reason. Using energy revenue, the government has built up a $150 billion rainy-day account called the Stabilization Fund.
"This financial independence has contributed to more assertive actions by Russia in the international arena," Milov said. "There is a strong drive within part of the elite to show that we are off our knees."
The result: Russia is trying to reclaim former Soviet republics as part of its sphere of influence. Freed of the need to curry favor with foreign oil companies and Western bankers, Russia can resist what it views as American expansionism, particularly regarding NATO enlargement and U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe, and forge an independent approach to contentious issues like Iran's nuclear program."
W hates Iran and Venezuela but "Two of those nations -- Iran and Venezuela -- may be better able to defy the Bush administration because of swelling oil revenue. Venezuela has used its oil wealth to dispense patronage around South America, vying for influence even with longtime U.S. allies. And Iran could be less vulnerable to sanctions designed to pressure it into giving up its nuclear program or opening it to inspection."
And W's chum Saudi Arabia, which funds the madrasses which teach the radical, extremist Islamic hatred to the US infidels, "The world's biggest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, is using its rejuvenated oil riches to build four cities. Projects like these are designed to burnish the country's image, develop a non-oil economy and generate enough employment to maintain social stability.
One is King Abdullah Economic City, a mega-project on the kingdom's west coast.
According to Emaar, a real estate development firm in Dubai, the city will cost $27 billion and be spread across an area three times the size of Manhattan. A contractor who works there said a wide, palm tree-lined boulevard cuts a dozen miles across an ocean of sand and ends at the Red Sea. Construction workers in hard hats are navigating excavators, dredging land and digging foundations for a power plant, a desalinization plant and a port. The project will eventually include an industrial district, a financial island, a university and a residential area, and is expected to house 2 million people.
Despite mega-projects like this, Saudi Arabia is running a budget surplus. It has paid down much of the foreign debt it accumulated in the late 1990s and is adding to its foreign-exchange reserves."
Recently Saudi Arabia was asked to forgive Iraq of its debt to them, but like all of W's top 1% chums, they want all of the money for themselves and willingly suffer the disapproval of the world by not letting its Middle Eastern neighbor off the hook.
Impeach now and often!
Remember Clinton. It went a failed investment-Whitewater, to Travel-gate, to Filegate, to illegal collusion between the legal profession regarding one woman who had an affair with Clinton to another who possessed a stained blue dress.
During the Clinton impeachment Trent Lott was asked about it and said the Senate wouldn't be impressed with the mess that the House was dumping on them and the Senate dismissed it within minutes. All of those years wasted for nothing that the Senate told the world wasn't worth their time while the hypocrisy was going on. Clinton couldn't do anything during all those years. Remember how they investigated the tragic suicide of Webster Hubbell? Every time you looked up Dan Burton was investigating some other baseless claim and even after Clinton's term was over he was still trying to impeach him. All of these misinformation missives will be dredged upon again if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democrat candidate for president the GOP will roll out again.
Start an investigation! Let it go wherever it goes. Start with fleshing out Phase 2 of the pre-war Iraq intelligence that W has subverted for all of these years. This phase dealt with how the W crew cherry-picked valid intelligence and devised a fabric of lies to start the Iraq war.
The article "Suddenly, Impeachment Hearings Are Looking Like a Strong Possibility" at
notes that "You wouldnt know it if you just watch TV news or read the corporate press, but this past Tuesday, something remarkable happened. Despite the pig-headed opposition of the Democratic Partys top congressional leadership, a majority of the House, including three Republicans, voted to send Dennis Kucinichs long sidelined Cheney impeachment bill (H Res 333) to the Judiciary Committee for hearings....
Stephen Cohen (D-TN), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is a co-sponsor of the Kucinich resolution, says he thinks that there will be an impeachment hearing in the committee.
The latest polls show three in four Democrats in favor of impeaching the vice president and president, while a majority of all Americans favor impeaching the vice president and roughly half of all Americans favor impeaching the president."
Congressman Obey, who has been around since the Vietnam war, spoke the truth the other day as he clearly said that the Congress didn't withdraw money to stop the Vietnam war until less than 500 troops remained there. Also, W is trying to say that the Democrats are trying to stop helping our troops. That is a lie--the Democrats will help the troops forever, they want to change a failed policy! "The surge" which was really an escalation, is simply "stay the course" with the added disadvantage of added more US troops as IED fodder-even with the US military realizing that this tactic would cause more of our troops to die more quickly-as indicated by the fact that this year's total of US military deaths is the highest in the wars dismal history. It is time to do anything different than "stay the course" another dismal "Mission Accomplished" disaster from W who has always possessed a reverse Midas touch.
The November 09, 2007 article "Iraq withdrawal redux" at
states "The House is expected to rejoin the Iraq debate Friday with a quickly called vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq that caught some Democrats by surprise and was ridiculed by Republicans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the bill calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops at a Thursday press conference, saying its language will parallel the Iraq supplemental spending bill that President Bush vetoed in May.
Republicans, however, attacked Democrats for going to the well once again with votes calling for a withdrawal of troops. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a statement to reporters with the headline "Another 'Withdrawal Date?'"
"What unfortunate timing for Democrats, announcing yet another attempt at a withdrawal date on a day when the papers are filled with encouraging news from Iraq," McConnell said in the statement....
Republicans criticized the plan as cutting off money to troops in the field. They also accused Democrats of ignoring good news coming out of Iraq."
Democrats--this is the mantra, we aren't winning in Iraq and 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq for our soldiers and the military predicted it would be, but sent our youth off to their deaths.
The article "Deaths hit sorry record in Iraq" at
states "Six American troops were killed in bomb attacks in Iraq early this week, the US military said yesterday, making 2007 the deadliest year for the American forces since the invasion.
According to a tally based on Pentagon figures, 851 US soldiers have died so far this year in Iraq, against 846 in 2004, the previous most lethal year for the American military since the US-led invasion of March 2003.
The article "Most deadly year for US in Iraq" at
explains that W's military coldly planned on sending more of our youth to a hellhole of urban guerrilla warfare and PTSD and death as "Military officials attribute the high number of deaths to an initial increase in combat operations, and higher visibility of US troops on the streets earlier this year as part of President George W Bush's "surge" strategy.
The strategy, which saw an extra 30,000 US troops sent to Iraq, included sending troops out of large bases and into more dangerous communities."
What kind of ghoul would have his experts predict that "staying the course" and only adding more IED fodder would cause our boys and girls die at record breaking rates, but still go ahead with it? Big bro 43 has not only gone ahead with a failed war strategy, but he has accused those who disagree with him as being pre-9/11 thinkers.
Returning to "Iraq withdrawal redux" "The $50 billion could be used only toward the withdrawal and other goals laid out in the legislation, Pelosi said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said a bridge fund with Iraq language will be on the Senate floor next week. He said the bill would include language that there be a goal for withdrawal, while Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the goal for withdrawal would be longer than nine months, but less than 15 months."
W won't let any moral matter restrain him from attempting to gain permanent partisan profit for his beloved GOP. He's a sociopath incapable of feeling ethical compunction for his crimes.
The article "Pentagon blocks testimony of former Marine prosecutor who alleges torture" at
explains how the ghouls won't allow hardened military veterans to speak the truth against the fraud commander-in-chief, a.k.a. chief-thief as it states "A former Marine Corps prosecutor was set to testify before Congress on Thursday that harsh interrogation techniques had tainted his case against an alleged Al Quaeda terrorist -- until a last minute email from the Pentagon told him not to.
Lt. Col. Stuart Crouch, a former lawyer with the Marines now working as a military judge, was prepared to tell a House Judiciary subcommittee about his refusal to prosecute suspected terrorist Mohamedou Slahi in 2004 after reportedly discovering that severe measures had been used to extract incriminating statements from the Guantanamo Bay detainee. Crouch considers the methods used by interrogators to be torture, according to the Wall Street Journal, who first reported the story....
House Judicary Chair John Conyers told the paper that he was "outraged that the Defense Department is refusing to allow Lt. Col. Couch to testify before this committee, in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the government, concerning what he saw and heard relating to interrogation practices at Guantanamo." The committee is considering subpoenaing Couch's testimony if the Pentagon doesn't reverse course.
Testifying before Thursday's House Judiciary hearing on the treatment of detainees -- where Couch was originally slated to appear -- a former Navy instructor categorically defined the controversial interrogation tactic of waterboarding as torture.
"Waterboarding is torture, period," Malcolm Nance, an ex-interrogator himself, told the House panel. "I believe that we must reject the use of the waterboard for prisoners and captives and cleanse this stain from our national honor."
He could have built oil fields on the moon as soon as he possessed normal ethical concerns.