Comments on: Are We Giving Saudi Arabia Nukes?

By: JimTheCynic

JimTheCynic — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:45:32 +0000

Wow. Bandar Bush sure does have him some leverage over the rest of the Bush clan, now don’t he?

Little Georgie must have gone into that very very private palace and pranced for Bandar and begged by offering every orafice he could.

Crude, but necessary. Some one please explain to me why Bush is not being investigated for impeachment. Please. Can we at least do this starting November 5?

ITMFA

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:34:28 +0000

Whoa, you may want to check the video TPM has of Chris Matthews last night on MSNBC exposing an mind-boggling ignorance of a GOP mouthpiece.

Stunning.
This video ought to go in a time capsule, because it helps explain how we got into the trouble we’re in today.
The collasal ignorance of ‘Kevin James: Radio Talk Show Host’ is frightening.

“The Fisher King” may be one of the finest movies ever released in the US.
Kevin James should watch it about 500 times before he opens his mouth.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:24:48 +0000

Keep the water, send the beer, thanks.

Maybe a few of those billions Bush lavishes on military contractors could be spent on improving the efficiency of seawater de-salinization processes. And instead of spending billions priming the aerospace industry’s pumps, keeping them busy building ineffective Star Wars devices, we could spend them on small-scale, community-based alternative energy devices.

We will need a mix of technologies to reduce our dependence on oil. Waiting decades for the magic bullet of fusion or the return of friendly space aliens (the minimum wage rubes Chertoff employs at Customs and Immigration wouldn’t let them in anyway), ain’t gonna cut it.

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:12:50 +0000

The middle east arms race is a likely undertone in the ostensibly peaceful but imagistically macho deal to provide electric generation technology. The quantum escalation around the time US started providing AWACS in that region was an early parallel, except instead of arms merchants the beneficiaries are energy sector. The energy generation industry knows it is facing the need to morph as times change with the emergence of global warming. If reactors remain a tough sell in continental US, hawking them overseas to select strategic partners is a probable next most lucrative way of providing for steady increase in CAGR, compound annual growth rate. In the backwater places where there is still wilderness, the energy sector is at work cutting corners avoiding protective legal shields to obtain licenses for extracting fossil fuel deposits while Bush’s term is in its waning hours. Consider the complaint just filed in AK against the MMS minerals and mining service and Department of commerce, for the granting to Shell and BP a license for undersea airgun-based mapping of deposits BEFORE the EIS is written; the court papers linked on that page are lengthy primers in the marine biologic impacts of the airgun technique; essentially nearlly half of marine life is turned deaf and dies; the sound is louder than a rocket launch, and is conducted continuously for months, driving most mammalian sea life and much of the fish population away, physically damaged. And, speaking of the arid SW, there is an energy sector gambit in CO which will require lassoing a lot of the CO river water to feed a processing facility for extracting oil from shale, river water about which AZ and CA have long been at loggerheads. The processing of oil shale also consumes vast amounts of electricity. For the least moral businesses corrupt science is a tool to subvert law. Bushco has practiced the nefarious arts of gumming the lawworks with hodgepodge science or simply brashly suppressing science since day one in office. Now the state of AK has placed an offer for corrupt scientists to write rebuttals to the new but belated listing of polar bears as endangered. The booty AK is offering is only $2. million for information that leads to hiring of the scientists willing to author the report; one writer declares the Conclusions section already is written. The AK promoters of this scheme might be using the DowningStreetMemo approach.

By: Petrocelli

Petrocelli — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:50:31 +0000

I agree with you that it is wrong but I would go further and say that in an extreme emergency, the Americans would forcefully take it away …

The next administration will do more for energy and water conservation, and healing a lot of rifts … ’til then, I’ll sit back and enjoy some chilled Leffe.

Isn’t it nice of summer to finally drop by … *g*

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:29:13 +0000

I agree with that completely, and I am the one that is going to need the water. My point is simply that as a nation, and along with you and Mexico as a continent, we need to be working on efficiency, conservation and desalinization; and we need to do it NOW before the need is any more dire than it is. If there is one thing more critical than oil, it is indeed water.

Earl @94 - Well said. Screwing us at home and abroad; Bush is making the US the most untenable and non-viable entity humanly possible. An astounding record.

By: skdadl

skdadl — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:21:06 +0000

Just to lighten the mood: a little Tom Lehrer.

By: skdadl

skdadl — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:11:02 +0000

The thing about the water — and please forgive me for being intense and earnest — but it would be wrong. It would be wrong for the planet, not just wrong for Canada.

We have to figure out better ways of coping with current crises than just stealing from the future, which is what mass transfers of water from Canada would mean.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:02:00 +0000

Not surprisingly, given his personal limitations, Bush seems blind to the need for credibility, whether as a predator or a negotiating partner.

He is reducing the power of the US government to act abroad by exhausting its resources, just as he is reducing its power over private capital at home. He wants to go it alone, unmindful of our resource limits as he is disdainful of domestic or international laws. He seems unable to view the law as anything but a grasping tax hand on his family’s trust funds.

The result is a much less powerful American presence, dependent on nominally American corporations both at home and abroad. Is that Disaster Capitalism or capitalism instead of government?

By: Petrocelli

Petrocelli — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:53:13 +0000

We send y’all this stuff so we can have unlimited access to Belgian brew … *g*