Thursday, April 01, 2004

More on oil!

Perhaps the best way to stick it to our OPEC buddies is to raise taxes on gasoline. Maybe now isn't the best time (with gas prices at a record high), but it would cut demand and give auto companies further incentives to research fuel efficient cars. The Washington Post has something on Kerry's proposal in the early 90s.

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

War for oil?

Apparently not...

OPEC (news - web sites) will cut its production target by 4 percent as scheduled, several oil ministers said Wednesday — a move that analysts say could drive crude oil prices higher even as U.S. customers are already facing high gasoline prices.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which pumps about a third of the world's oil, will reduce its output ceiling by 1 million barrels per day.
(From Reuters)

The OPEC cartel does not seem to be phased by our aggression in the region.

Cheering in Iraq!

Today was one of the first instances of cheering I've seen in Iraq (I think we were promised more).

Except...they're cheering about the charred US body strung up on the bridge behind them...

Why would Bush and Cheney testify together?

From Talking Points Memo:

Only three scenarios or explanations make sense to me.

The first -- and most generous -- explanation is that this is simply another way to further dilute the Commission's ability to ask questions.

If, say, the meeting lasts three hours, that's three hours to ask questions of both of them rather than three hours to ask questions of each -- as might be the case in separate meetings.

That wouldn't be any great coup for the White House. But it would be one more impediment to throw in front of the Commission's work, which would probably be a source of some joy for the White House.

From here the possible explanations go down hill -- in every respect -- pretty quickly.

Explanation number two would be that this is a fairly elementary -- and, one imagines, pretty effective -- way to keep the two of them from giving contradictory answers to the Commission's questions. It helps them keep their stories straight.

(It's a basic part of any criminal investigation -- which, of course, this isn't -- to interview everyone separately, precisely so that people can't jigger their stories into consistency on the fly.)

The third explanation is that the White House does not trust the president to be alone with the Commission members for any great length of time without getting himself into trouble, either by contradicting what his staff says, or getting some key point wrong, or letting some key fact slip. And Cheney's there to make sure nothing goes wrong.

These last two possibilities do, I grant you, paint the president and his White House in a rather dark light. But I would be curious if anyone can come up with another explanation for this odd demand.

State by state update

Could the Democrats take Florida? It's looking increasingly likely. Kerry has pealed some Veterans' votes away from Bush, and recent polling suggests that Kerry is out ahead early. At the very least, Bush will be forced to spend top dollar in Florida. In 2000, the GOP spent more money in Florida than any other state (For Al Gore, it was #5 I believe...imagine if he'd allotted just a bit more...).

Another close state in 2000, West Virginia, looks like it might actually be up for grabs as well. Recent polling shows a tie.

Missouri has trended towards the Republicans, as usual. Minnesota and Wisconsin will be close again, simply because so many people will vote for Nader. Don't believe me? Look at how well Dennis Kucinich polled in these states during the primaries. Over 10% in each one.

Who's in charge?

The White House has taken great pains to often reinforce the liberals conspiracy theory that Bush is not actually in charge. When he took office, he stressed how he'd delegate responsibility like a CEO and leave many major decisions to his staff. He also stressed that Cheney would have a large role in the administration (and he has). Now this release from White House Council Alberto Gonzalez:

I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.

Why would the commission meet with both Bush AND Cheney together? Why can't they be interviewed separately? Can't Bush handle tough questions about 9-11? Isn't terrorism Bush's strongest issue? What does he have to be afraid of?

Maybe the "Bush isn't in charge" conspiracy is more than just a theory...

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Clarke

I haven't had much to say about this whole thing because the Administration's counterattacks caught me off guard. I've never seen so many lies advanced into the public discourse by an Administration. Ever.

Bush at War

From Bob Woodward's book:

“I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.”

Bush believed Iraq was involved in 9-11?