At the end of last month John Kerry took President Bush to task over the increase in gas prices:
"George Bush ran for president pledging to pressure OPEC to relieve high prices, but on his watch the problems have gotten worse and the solution has been surrender," he said.
Kerry is referring to the Bush’s statement in the 2000 campaign that it was the president's job to "jawbone" OPEC producers by getting "on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots." Instead of calling them on the phone, however, Bush recently met with Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the White House and discussed rising gas prices. The Saudis agreed that they wanted to push the per-barrel price of oil, which is now topping $33, to between $22 and $28 a barrel throughout the rest of the year. Such an agreement would help both the American and Saudi economies and be a boon to everyone involved.
So what was Kerry’s reaction?
"If ... it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, tied to a secret White House deal, that is outrageous and unacceptable to the American people," Kerry said during a campaign stop in Florida. "If this sounds wrong to you, that's because it is fundamentally wrong."
Let’s examine the facts to see if they truly are “outrageous and unacceptable”:
“If ... it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election” – Maybe Kerry isn’t aware of it but gas supplies and prices are part of the economy and are therefore necessarily “tied” to the election. Should Bush refrain from taking any steps that would improve the economy since it would boost his chances for reelection? As Prince Bander told Larry King, “"This is nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise."
… tied to a secret White House deal… -- Kerry supposedly got this idea from watching CBS's "60 Minutes" interview with Bob Woodward. But Woodward, along with Prince Bander and President Bush, deny that there is any “secret deal.” If Kerry has some type of evidence to back up his accusation then he should present it to the American public.
The Bush Administration is, admittedly, far from perfect. They have made many missteps and implemented misguided policies for which they deserve criticism. Kerry would be wise to latch onto these issues, offer some substantive solutions, and present a genuine debate. But carping about policy moves that benefit the American people is not a bright idea. If he thinks that we care more about his prospects for getting elected than we do about the economy he is not only mistaken, he’s “fundamentally wrong.”
(Hat tip: King of Fools )
I charge that Kerry is colluding with Ben and Jerry's to push up the price of ice cream.
why is this so unbelievable? i mean bush flew bin laden's family out of the country immediately after 911, and no one has questioned that!
i mean bush flew bin laden's family out of the country immediately after 911, and no one has questioned that!
Really? Do you have a source for that comment or did it just come to you through radio waves picked up by your tinfoil hat. ; )
Joe
"“If ... it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election” – Maybe Kerry isn’t aware of it but gas supplies and prices are part of the economy and are therefore necessarily “tied” to the election. "
Nice spin job, Joe. Unfortunately we all know exactly what Kerry meant and what the issue is. The real issue, as you know, is whether the Prince told George that he would keep prices HIGHER THAN AMERICANS SHOULD BE PAYING until the election approached so that Bush could claim that his administration's policies had brought the prices down and that Kerry's policies would raise them again.
Are we surprised that Bush and the Prince denied this conversation? No. Should the accusations be explored further? Yes. Will there be some kind of a smoking gun? Who knows. Personally I think there's a lot worse stuff going on, plus Americans don't pay enough for gas as it stands. That said, I would enjoy watching another "clever" plan of this stupid administration blow up in their face.
And regarding the flying out of the Bin Laden relatives immediately after 9/11, when no other civilian planes were allowed to fly, surely Joe you aren't denying that happened, are you? That's well documented. Ask any Republican congressman about it. The only question is whether Bush himself authorized the flight. I suspect he did, but we don't know. Yet.
Glen,
And regarding the flying out of the Bin Laden relatives immediately after 9/11, when no other civilian planes were allowed to fly, surely Joe you aren't denying that happened, are you? That's well documented. Ask any Republican congressman about it. The only question is whether Bush himself authorized the flight. I suspect he did, but we don't know. Yet.
Let’s start the debunking with DNB’s statement:
i mean bush flew bin laden's family out of the country immediately after 911, and no one has questioned that!
Point #1 – The idea that President Bush had nothing better to do after the 9/11 attacks than to see to it that bin Laden’s family left the country is so absurd that we don’t even need to address it. If someone has proof then let’s see it. Otherwise, let’s move on to point #2.
Point #2 – The phrase “bin Laden’s family” is misleading. Bin Laden is one of 50 children sired by the same man. The family, which disowned Osama, has thousands of members (many of them very young) who have no connection to the terrorist.
Point #3 – Fearing for the safety of many of its citizens residing in the U.S. (including some of the bin Laden clan), the Saudi government paid for them to be flown back to the home country.
Point #4 – These flights occurred on or after September 14th when normal air traffic was allowed.
Nothing in DNB’s statement can be backed up with evidence. It is simply a conspiracy theory swallowed whole by people who should no better.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
The above link has a thoughtful summary, although information about the Saudi family exodus is still leaking out. I'm not sure if Snopes' page is completely up to date. Also note Snopes' sincere apology for getting the story wrong in the first place -- the way it should be done.
Certainly the Saudi's were allowed to fly IN the country when no one else was. Certainly the Saudi's connections to the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC are MUCH MUCH tighter than, say, Saddam Hussein's connections to those terrorists. If you doubt that any of those people who flew out of the country ever sent money to terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan than your tin hat is exceptionally shiny indeed.
Nevertheless, it looks as if these people left the U.S. without a whole of review by the FBI.
"Fearing for the safety of many of its citizens residing in the U.S. (including some of the bin Laden clan), the Saudi government paid for them to be flown back to the home country"
Well, Joe, how nice of us to allow them to all fly around and assemble together when no one else was allowed to fly so that they could all leave safely. As if there was no where for them to hide in the United States. As if they couldn't afford protection. These people aren't just ordinary tourists, you know. They're incredibly wealthy and powerful people.
"Point #4 – These flights occurred on or after September 14th when normal air traffic was allowed. "
They were allowed to fly on the 13th. They were allowed to fly out of the country on the 15th, which they did, en masse.
cu
joe,
the amerian media has blocked this out 9i guess there were all wearing tin foil hats)
the BBC covers it:
http://www.activeopposition.com/audio-video.htm
other images the amerian media doesn't want you to see of evidence of iraq women, children, and medical personnel killed by US snipers and helicopters:
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20Photos/2003%20News%20photos/Jan-May%2015/March%202003%20News%20Photos.htm
Jesus votes Republican!
Sorry to get in on this so late (job responsibilities), but I heard it reported that Dick "Laser-like Focus" Clarke cleared the departure of the bin Laden family.
Well, I found this site just today, and it always seems odd to me when I see Anti-Coalition on non-moslem websites.
I wouldnt of responded to any of it, however the previous post by "dicknbush" just struck me as seemingly so obtuse I felt someone should.
The links given were the primary reason actually.
First the supposed BBC Video link. You've got to be kidding me. Most of that is complete and utter trash. It strikes "exactly" as the kind of propaganda that came right after 9/11 when the noted French Author of: 9-11, THE BIG LIE, claimed in his book, 9/11 never happened, and it was a U.S. Gov't propaganda front done with the help of California Hollywood Elites to make the American People think on their tv some tragedy happened, so they'd support an invasion of Afghanistan. Instead of planes, it was actually bombs that took the towers down... It all makes sense, eh, right?
Oh, and the Pentagon wasn't hit either, again, bombs, because in photos, we can't see any plane wreckage. Oh, the guy isn't a aviation expert, nor a expert in anything, but please, accept his professional opinion regardless.
And that "AlJazeera" link to supposed "American snipers killing women and children". The only photo of a sniper shows a man on a tank, with a sniper weapon, and the caption says he's targeting Iraqi soldiers. I suspect it was 'during' the war. FYI, whether you want to believe it or not, The Coalition doesn't target women and children. Just trust me on this one.
But the link itself is named correctly, because that truly is the position of Al-Jazeera. American soldiers kill civilians only, and children too, as payback, and sometimes just for kicks. Why any decent American would even consider a link with that uh, news (?) agency's name linked to it gives me pause.