Do Hillary and pro-war Dems support oil hegemony?

[yurbud]

The foreign policy establishment of both parties seem to be on the same page as far as wanting to control the oil in the Middle East, just as they are largely on the same page on neoliberalism.

I'm wondering if Hillary or any of the other moderate/DLC leaders have openly said this, and if so, cite the link if you have it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. That's a key issue, isn't it?

Here is an interesting article by Alex Steffen of "WorldChanging" on the subject of John Kerry's "blueprint for energy independence":

"John Kerry's blueprint for energy independence doesn't suffer from lack of ambition. In early August, he'll unveil an energy plan that he says can break America's addiction to foreign oil, revitalize the U.S. auto industry, help farmers and coal miners, fight global warming, and create jobs -- all for just $2 billion per year. "We can live in an America that is energy independent," Kerry promises....

"Yet strip out the over-the-top rhetoric, and Kerry's emerging plan is both a good starting point and a welcome contrast to the Bush Administration's focus on drilling for more oil. Kerry sets the right goals: significantly increase energy efficiency and use of alternative fuels. And he uses tax incentives, rather than relying solely on regulations, to help meet those goals."

More at:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000989.html

I tried Kerry's own URL that they cite, and the page is said to be missing.

[yurbud]

2. yes. If they do, the war won't end, and there will be more

just done with more finesse than Bush

[yurbud]

4. I'm going to write some of the Air America hosts who have Dems on

regularly, and see if I can get them to ask.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Not openly

does ANYBODY actually come out in the open and say that promoting and preserving our insane car based way of life is sufficient justification for invading countries, killing people and controlling how and to whom they sell their oil?

Since forever, assholes have made jokes about nuke their ass and take their gas, but our politicians put it into action without saying one honest word about what they're doing. That certainly includes members of both parties. They may not even admit to themselves what they're doing. I can't drive 55 is the American consensus, and I won't admit what I'm up to (nor the consequences that will befall the coming generations) is also a central part of that consensus.

But just because they don't openly advocate the policy of resource theft with mass murder on the side doesn't mean they aren't morally responsible for it. Hitler didn't say a whole lot in speeches or written documents about exterminating the Jews but he talked endlessly along the lines that led to it and he bears the responsibility for it.

[yurbud]

7. Read PNAC stuff or Zbigniew Brzezinski? They say it pretty plainly

It's just a matter of what forum they say it in. It isn't secret, it's just not widely known.

[kenny blankenship]

9. They're not posturing in front of the people

like retail politicians, Hillary, Lieberman and other Hill figures. Not even Republican elected officeholders openly say, "we're going to take control of their oil with a military presence in the Gulf region, to make sure we always have preferential access."

It's what we're doing, but nobody wants to admit it openly.

[yurbud]

11. it's not even for preferential access--it's for the oil companies

I had a chilling thought recently. Up until the end of World War II, we were Saudi Arabia, the number one exporter of oil in the world--and was the income from that structured in a way that benefited the country as a whole, even during the Great Depression? No.

If they screwed us then, why would they be more compassionate and patriotic now?

[mattclearing]

5. I tend to think that they do.

I don't think that anyone is that open about the United States' policy of oil hegemony, but ultimately, yes, I think the Democrats are fairly similar to the Republicans, if a little less well-informed and less eager to exploit.

[PATRICK]

6. If so it would have to be

stupid and shortsighted in just about every way. If they hold to some impressive comic book version of the oil economy they will continue to ignore that the real interests of oil hegemony are not national but for the core and capital of a right wing clique and them alone. Not even the oil companies necessarily want to get involved in nation or empire building but to think one can blandly be businesslike and statesmanlike in perpetuating the con game imposed by the Bushistas and other oligarchs over the decades one would have to be a complete undiscerning tool. Which is something our responsible, semi-idealistic, semi-"pragmatic" New Democrats think themselves to be. A lot of smart wisdom and inner circles tell them they have to make the Bush disaster work for the phony principle that makes its end an evil con in the first place.

Had a president Gore staggered by sidesteps into this oil hegemony quagmire we might be arguing its merits still(since the destruction of Iraq and democracy would not be in the equation necessarily) and not now shaking our heads in dismay at the swiftly obsolete Beltway futurists who have learned nothing from the all-revealing Bush catastrophe.

[yurbud]

8. yep. read Greg Palast's interviews with oil guys about Iraq

they didn't give a crap about democracy or occupation. they just wanted Saddam replaced with someone who knew how to follow orders, preferably another dictator who took over in a quick coup.

While that's less bad for us, it's kind of chilling to think of the implications for Iraqis--they get fucked either way, Saddam, his dictator replacement, or by us.

[mmonk]

10. Yes, that and

"securing the rhealm".