FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jean, you are a worthless piece of shit! I have never thought a Canadian would be such a good ass-rimmer... But you my friend take the cake.

I swear, not only are you in bed with Chirac, you are his bitch, and like it.

Retire you worthless piece of shit!

Was that Chretien, or just plain CRETIN?

Original Mark : No need to be so retiscent, why not tell us how you
really feel?

Better still, wait till the next election and make sure everyone knows this little tidbit of information.

Yep, and also ask the obviously corrupt CRETIN, how sooo many mid east people happen to be up in the frozen wastes, when they are used to deserts?? HUH.

This came out a couple days ago. I was surprised it didn't get more play.

Chretien looks seriously compromised to me.

When this is all done I predict some serious efforts in investigative journalism are going to give us some new stars. And a scandal a ton worse than Enron.

I think that's a weak case of guilt by association. I get tired of that line of argument. People have friends, relatives, business interests etc., it's unavoidable. Arguing Chretien's son-in-law's part ownership of a French oil company drives his views on Iraq is equivalent to the anti-war loonies saying the war is being fought so Halliburton can win a few contracts.

I guess you haven't heard about paul martin yet, canada's ex-minister of finance, and owner of canwest shipping co. And candidate for prime minister

lets not forget the bush famillies oil intrests either

Bubba is right. The Bushes - and Cheney - are completely tied to the oil industry.

The Republican poohbahs have made so much money from Saudi oil that they look the other way when the Saudis sponsor terrorism. There were no arrests in Saudi Arabia after 9-11, even though most of the hijackers are from there.

Great article in the current Atlantic Monthly by former CIA agent Robert Baer about this.

It's chilling reading. I hope part of the motivation for the Iraq war is to wean America from its dependence on Saudi Arabia, a sick society. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Definitely part of the Grand Plan is to wean us from the Saudis. In fact, I think the Saudis are the real target of the entire campaign. Iraq is just the necessary precursor.

The thing is, we can't pressure the Saudis too hard unless we have alternatives for both their oil and bases. It is hoped that Iraq will provide alternatives, of their own free will. If that happens, expect US pressure on the Saudis to ratchet way up. And no, I don't think the US will use Iraq for this without the free consent of the Iraqis. Time will tell.

"Bubba is right. The Bushes - and Cheney - are completely tied to the oil industry."

Wrong. That is just cheap sound bite thinking.

fred, are you in Anchorage? PGE? John Nelson

"Arguing Chretien's son-in-law's part ownership of a French oil company drives his views on Iraq is equivalent to the anti-war loonies saying the war is being fought so Halliburton can win a few contracts."

But, that's the whole point! With a few exceptions, almost everything I read from the left contains statements like "It's obviously all about oil!," as if the rest of us are too stupid to see the truth.

So, if the left wants to be cynical and assume that Bush and co. wanted to oust Saddam's regime for personal profit, then it's OK to be cynical and assume that countries wanted to keep Saddam in power for personal profit. In other words, they need to recognize that noone is clean, and start equally criticizing all sides, or they need to recognize that there might Bush might not be as evil as they say.

(One criticism I have heard of the right is that is always sees things as black and white, while the left is able to see the greys. But, at least on this oil thing, it's been all grey. I want to hear more of the grey from the left.)

Yes, to all those who whined "It's all about Ooooooiiiiillllll", they may have been right. It was to France and Russia (it's the only way they can get repaid the debts owed by Saddam and friends).

Canada is a bit player in this, the story about the ownership angle to the Prime Minster is sweet irony, but not likely a huge scandal.

Chretien has presented his position as principled since the UN SC didn't approve it.

He forgets to mention that Canada supported NATO (with Canadian Troops and all) in Kosovo WITHOUT any UN approval there.

He panders to the anti-US part of his own party. From polling at the start of the war over 70% of people reported that we should have supported the US/UK effort. He had no interest listening to those people.

News in today's National Post is that Bush will cancel out on his planned May visit. I don't blame Bush for that decision.

For anyone curious, in the last Canadian Federal election in 2000, the Liberals only scored 41% of the popular vote. Doesn't sound like much, but the concentration of votes meant that they hold 172 out of the 301 seats in Parliament.

President Bush and the VP's oil ties are to Texas crude - NOT to middle eastern oil. It's OLD MONEY - not recent. Anyone who argues that "it's about oil" is short on facts and long on DemonRat talking points.

I agree with the theory that Iraq is a precursor to Saudi Arabia. I really believe that 9/11 has deeply affected Bush, and it hasn't escaped his notice that Saudi Arabia played a very significant role in that. If a newly formed Iraq bends over backwards to give us any oil we ask for (which I believe they will if the jubilancy of Baghdad is any indication) it will put us in a far better position to confront Saudi Arabia. Syria, Iran, North Korea, all need to be addressed, of course, but I want Saudi's ass FRIED. The House of Saud must FALL, along with their Wahabbi scumbag bastards cohorts, may they all rot in hell. Fuckers.

11B3,

I suggest you check out the abovementioned article by Robert Baer in the latest Atlantic Monthly. The Bush's and Cheney are intimately tied to the House of Saud. To deny that is to deny basic fact. There's no conspiracy theorizing about it.

Mr. Chretien spent a large part of his first term going after his predecessor in what was called the Airbus Scandal(alors another French Connection- do these folks do anything on the up and up?). We can only hope what goes around comes around. Sadly the threat of an election means nothing to him as he plans to retire. No doubt planning to play golf down in Palm Beach.

w0zz,

Robert Baer? Would that be Robert Baer, the former C.I.A. Middle East operative? Check out one of his last quotes regarding the Iraqi War:

"Everybody {The Iraqis} wants to fight. The whole nation of Iraq is fighting to defend Iraq. Not Saddam. They've been given the high sign, and we are courting disaster. If we take fifty or sixty casualties a day and they die by the thousands, they're still winning. It's a jihad, and it's a good thing to die. This is no longer a secular war."

Would the everybody Baer is referring to be those Iraqis dancing on the broken statue of Saddam in Baghdad? This is the source you use to claim Bush's ever so close and sexy relationship with the House of Saud? Who's next, Scott Ritter?

I'm beginning to think Baer was "compromised" (read, he's now somebody's little bitch) just as Ritter was by either Saddam or some other rich fat Arabic thug to relay more propaganda from the bad guys.

Get real asswipe.

I didn't know Baer was against the Iraq war, and I don't really care. On the Saudi oil issue, he's right. I don't know if Bush is motivated by oil in Iraq. It's likely one of many reasons - good and bad - for this war. But to say that he and his chums aren't waist-deep in the Saudi oil industry is to deny reality. Really.

I don't care about left/right nonsense. I want to understand the world.

"On the Saudi oil issue, he's right"

How do you know he's right? If he was wrong on Iraq, in fact practically relaying propaganda from the regime, what in fuck hell makes you think he's got it all down on Saudi? We don't know who's pocket this guy is in, so I wouldnt go rushig to accept anything he says as gospel truth.

I don't have the appetite to go digging up a bunch of citations to prove my point, but here's a few things to ponder:

1. Osama's brother died in a light plane crash while visiting the Bushes in Texas.

2. Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, has been a guest at the Bush home in Kennebunkport.

3. The company Cheney used to head - Halliburton - does a lot of business in Saudi.

4. Connie Rice used to serve on the board of Chevron, which is doing a lot of business in Saudi.

5. The Carlyle Group - which is loaded with former top Republican officials, and used to have some Bin Laden members - does loads of business with Saudi.

This isn't a conspiracy theory.

The oil industry represents a large part of the US economy. Senior Republicans often have business contacts. Therefore it is not unusual that Republicans have contacts, dealings, even jobs in the US oil industry.

But all the analyses I have seen indicate that the oil companies do not stand to benefit from Iraq. The likely impact of a lower price of oil will in fact damage them.

So the theory that US policy is driven by support for the oil industry is false.

But I can accept that a factor in policy is the prospect of reducing oil prices and thus improving the overall world economy. Plus weakening the reliance on Saudi.

Those two objectives look fine. So long as there are secondary objectives - by-products. And the primary objectives are to hunt down possible WMD, smash the links with terrorism and achieve regime change.

By the way - no-one can accuse Blair of having an oil interest link in this. Or John Howard in Australia.
Maybe that is the clearest indication that Coalition policy is NOT driven by oil.

I think the huge money involved means that the Republicans (and some Democrats) are more than casually involved with K.S.A.

I see your point about the oil companies losing money if the price of oil falls, though. But if they are handling all of Iraq's oil then they would likely come out far ahead.

I'm not saying that this is the case. I don't know. But I think it's worth watching.

I think that before 9.11, that in fact Bush was cozying up to the Saudis, and was trying to ease sanctions on the Iraqis too. But that event changed his thinking. Before then, the US policy was similar to that of France, Russia, Germany, et al. In other words, the racist belief that the Arab world is incapable of self-govt, and that national economic interests trump human rights. The difference being that the UK and the US drew the line in the gulf war.

I judge Bush by his actions since then, not before, and certainly not by the actions of his father. Bush has drawn the conclusion that the root cause of terrorism is the viscious police state regimes that the Arab world lives under. He has set out to change it. We will have plenty of time before the next election to see if he is serious or not.

Incidentally, if you want the stink of Oil, look into Occidental Petroleum, Al Gore and Armand Hammer. Talking about a stinking mess!

I hope you're right Joel.

Er, if you wanted to protect your son-in-law's oil interests in Iraq, wouldn't the self-interested choice to be to suck up to the U.S., which was always gauranteed to influence oil production in Iraq for the forseeable future? So this theory makes sense how?