[Gasification] DOE's demonstration gasification project history

Greg and April gregandapril at earthlink.net
Wed May 7 10:26:11 CDT 2008 

I think what we have here, is a problem with you putting your own political 
spin on things ( in part I am sure ), due to the fact that I have proved you 
wrong on a number of things and that casts some doubt on other thing you 
have said.


1)    You tell me to look " at the bigger picture ", and give me a bunch of 
quotes and links to various places.    Then when I " look at your bigger 
picture ", I see that the newspapers  and other links have a history of 
political bias, and when I point this out, you say that I'm bad mouthing 
them and that I shouldn't look at the source, but at the at the words - 
sorry, if an informed judgment is going to be made, then you have to look at 
the source of the words.


2)    You make a flat out statement that the war was illegal ( and 
unconstitutional ), because Bush declared war with the approval of Congress. 
When I documented that Bush did indeed have congressional approval and that 
no sitting President has ever acknowledged the need for approval of Congress 
to start fighting, and that Congress has supported this position, by passing 
referendums ( acknowledging that state of war exists ) after fighting has 
already started, you don't admit your mistake, you sit there and say that 
Congress was duped.


If I was to just ignore the source of the words, and just accept them at 
face value as you suggest, I would be just as guilty as you accuse Congress 
of being.


I have found Mr. Wolfowitz's comment ( to a member of the press that has a 
known political bias ), to be at complete odds with his known position on 
Iraq, and no other low ( or no ) bias source that I have found has 
attributed that same comment to him.    Why is that?


As to Mr. Greenspan, was he speaking from the standpoint of an uninformed 
private citizen or as someone "in the know"?

If it was from the standpoint of someone that believed we got allot of our 
oil from Iraq, he was then totally clueless as to the actual facts.

If it was from the standpoint of someone in the know, then he could have 
provided actual proof in the time since he made that statement - where is 
it?    Even a comment like " It was discussed at a meeting at this 
particular place on this particular date with so-and-so in attendance, and 
that would have triggered a Congressional investigation.


Greg H.

BTW, I did finally track down the original source for the article I couldn't 
find.    Don't you find it curious that it originally came from the same 
tabloid that reported that Israel used an uranium weapon during it's 2006 
fighting with Lebanon ( and proven wrong by several international 
agencies )?




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Redler" <redlerm at yahoo.com>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" 
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:23
Subject: Re: [Gasification] DOE's demonstration gasification project history


>I see you badmouthing Mr. Klare, Commondreams.org and whoever else might
> contradict your position. Even more remarkable, you can't even read the
> Wolfowitz and Greenspan quotes without some kind of spin on it. Can you
> intersperse something more than conjecture? Your defense is built upon a
> strategy of attacking the source instead of what they are saying - which
> speaks volumes. Even your response to the constitutional issues skirt
> the problem of (lack of) an "imminent threat". Congress was duped. Shame
> on them for not doing something about it.
>
> So, OK - whatever. I think your comments should be left as they are,
> from which others can read and learn (about how uninformed and biased an
> opinion can get). No further response is required. You had your chance
> and chose to send me a lot of nothing.
>
> Re: "article not found"
> If you really want to know what the article says, it's easily found with
> a quick Google search, using text from the first line of the article.
>
> Mike
>
> Greg and April wrote:
>> Interspaced between the **********.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Michael Redler" <redlerm at yahoo.com>
>> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" 
>> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 17:32
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] DOE's demonstration gasification project 
>> history
>>
>>
>>
>>> Greg wrote: "Iraq is not and never has been a significant source of oil
>>> for the U.S.,"
>>>
>>> Even if this were on topic, I can't believe that there is still debate
>>> on this issue. How painfully obvious does this have to become?! The U.S
>>> consumes 25% of the Worlds oil production. If, for the sake of
>>> conversation, the U.S. didn't consume a drop of oil, world demand makes
>>> it a commodity which affords the owner almost unimaginable wealth and
>>> power. I suggest you look at the bigger picture Greg.
>>>
>>> 1.) Motive:
>>>
>>> "This new world order will be characterized by fierce international
>>> competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium,
>>> as well as by a tidal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit
>>> states like China, Japan, and the United States to energy-surplus states
>>> like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela."
>>> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/15/8316/
>>>
>>
>> *******************
>>
>> Ah yes, ' Professor ' Michael T. Klare.    Now there is a person, with no 
>> particular political leaning and objectivity.    Every single one of his 
>> books reads like an newspaper editorial, I wonder why?
>>
>> As it is, Common Dreams is continuiously spins it's articals in a way to 
>> present an anti-war immage - you had better believe that they are going 
>> to muddy the waters all they can.
>>
>> *******************
>>
>>
>>> 2.) Action: Military Invasion - Acknowledgment of a (not so well
>>> concealed) crime
>>>
>>> "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what
>>> everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
>>> - Alan Greenspan, Former chairman of the Federal Reserve
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
>>>
>>
>> ********************
>>
>> If everyone knows it, where is the documentation.    Up untill a few days 
>> ago, quite a few people just knew that " Iraq supplied alot of our oil ", 
>> and that just wasn't true.
>>
>> The fact is, all anyone has to do, to undermine the effort and cause 
>> problems is say "It's about the oil" even if it isn't true.
>>
>> ********************
>>
>>
>>> "Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq"
>>> - Paul Wolfowitz, Former US deputy defense secretary
>>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml
>>>
>>
>> ********************
>>
>> Ever wonder why Mr. Wolfowitz would apparently reverse himself on the 
>> Iraq issue - especially in light of him being a firm believer and 
>> advocate of preemptive strikes, and just 2 months earlier was telling 
>> congress that Iraq can pay for it's own reconstruction?
>>
>> ********************
>>
>>
>>> "Oil and War in Iraq have been inextricably intertwined, it seems, in
>>> the war plans of both the Pentagon and the oil industry--otherwise known
>>> as "Big Oil"--long before the recent war in Iraq."
>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oil_and_War_in_Iraq
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **********************
>>
>> I have a real problem with reports based on " insiders " and secretly 
>> obtained information, as you never ever know if it's accurate or not. 
>> Look what happened with the Killian documents, and the mess they caused.
>>
>> Going over the program "The Constatution: That delicate balance" confirms 
>> that many if not most "News agencies" will do anything to get their point 
>> across, and the truth is not always the reason why they write what they 
>> did.
>>
>> **********************
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3.) Securing the spoils of an illegal invasion:
>>>
>>> "Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are
>>> about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil
>>> companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before
>>> the Iraqi parliament within days."
>>> http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=11810&sectionID=15
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **********************
>>
>> I get article not found.
>>
>> **********************
>>
>>
>>> And by illegal invasion (i.e. "crime"), I mean a violation of the
>>> constitution, where the powers of congress were overridden and later,
>>> congress was deceived into supporting the decision to enter into the 
>>> war.
>>>
>>> Article 1, Section 8, clause 11: The Congress shall have Power To
>>> declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
>>> concerning Captures on Land and Water;
>>>
>>> Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of
>>> Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time
>>> of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or
>>> with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in
>>> such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
>>>
>>> http://ivaw.org/member/thomas-j-buonomo
>>> http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ******************************
>>
>> Every single president ( both Democrat and Republican ) has always 
>> declared that Artical 2 Section 2 is sufficent constatutional authority, 
>> Congress has supported this intrepratation of the law with various 
>> resolutions after the shooting started ( and the U.S. Supreme Court ) has 
>> not ruled against them, and congress has even retro activly declared war, 
>> after hostilities have commenced, just by recognising that a State or War 
>> does exist ( Mexican-American War ).
>>
>> Further every single war since WW2 has been formaly authorized by 
>> Congress ( including Iraq - Authorization for Use of Military Force 
>> Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States 
>> Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq 
>> War. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution  ).
>>
>>
>> Greg H.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org

More information about the Gasification mailing list