Matt McCarten from the Herald on Sunday

Written By: - Date published: 12:23 pm, June 16th, 2008 - 15 comments
Categories: articles, election 2008, john key, slippery - Tags: , , , , ,

Worth a read:

Remember when George Bush’s administration promised the world that the invasion of Iraq would be over in a few weeks? We were assured that the Iraqis would throw flowers at their liberators, the war would make a tidy profit and petrol prices would plummet. Next time you fill up your car think about how that stupidity has added to your petrol bill.

Early on, our own John Key volunteered New Zealand to climb on this wagon, although he seems to have a memory loss about it these days. It’s a bit like his memory loss about his position on the Springbok tour in 1981. Does anyone alive at that time not remember what they thought?

…

If some of us are a bit like Key and don’t quite get the moral implications of invading the Middle East for cheap oil, then at least understand the economic cost. We certainly pay more for oil and arguably for food because of Bush’s decision to occupy Iraq. And Key supported it.

15 comments on “Matt McCarten from the Herald on Sunday ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Felix 1
    16 June 2008 at 12:36 pm

    Of course he did.

    According to Mr Key’s world view, someone’s making a profit out of all this so that’s a good thing isn’t it?

    When all you care about is making money out of moving money around, there’s no need to worry about the price people are paying for anything. As long as money is being made somewhere, that’s good for Johnny.

    And what’s good for Johnny is good for the rest of us too isn’t it?

    Boy this govt just seems so out of touch, it’s got to be time for a change…

  2. Bryan Spondre 2
    16 June 2008 at 12:50 pm

    “It’s a bit like his memory loss about his position on the Springbok tour in 1981. Does anyone alive at that time not remember what they thought?”

    Yes.

  3. Bryan Spondre 3
    16 June 2008 at 12:55 pm

    “We certainly pay more for oil and arguably for food because of Bush?s decision to occupy Iraq.”

    Really ? We have no way of knowing what oil would cost now if the US hadn’t removed Saddam Hussein from power. Arguably the presence of the US military in the Middle East has brought more stability to that trouble place than less. Without the dissuasion of a formidable military power Iran may perhaps have been more actively aggressive.

  4. Felix 4
    16 June 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Jesus Bryan, I was 9 at the time so didn’t have a great deal of understanding of the issues but I can recall my parents, their friends, my uncles and aunties, my teachers – just about every adult in my life having very strong feelings about it and I can still recall who was for and against it as well.

    Any adult knows where they stood.

  5. Felix 5
    16 June 2008 at 1:05 pm

    And yes Bryan, the invasion of Iraq might have nothing to do with oil prices, nothing at all – but only in so far as any possibility has some degree of probability attached to it.

    Very much like your suggestion above that some people might not remember where they stood on one of the defining political events of their time.

    Of course the actual probability of either being true is so minute that no sane person would raise them as serious contentions.

  6. r0b 6
    16 June 2008 at 1:08 pm

    if the US hadn’t removed Saddam Hussein from power.

    Gosh, it all sounds so surgical and tidy when you put it like that. No mention of the million dead, the millions displaced, or the country destroyed. Just “removed Saddam Hussein from power”, snip snip.

  7. Bryan Spondre 7
    16 June 2008 at 1:22 pm

    “January 19, 1981 – United States and Iranian officials sign an agreement to release 52 American hostages after 14 months of captivity.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981

    I’m sure many New Zealander’s do remember the events surrounding the Springbok tour and their personal position on it. However to make a blanket statement that it was a significant event for all of us alive at the time and that if John Key doesn’t remember his position ( even if he actually had a position) he must be (as implied by McCarten) a liar is ludicrous.

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    16 June 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Arguably the presence of the US military in the Middle East has brought more stability to that trouble place than less. Without the dissuasion of a formidable military power Iran may perhaps have been more actively aggressive.

    Fnck that’s stupid.

    Or are you talking about a different Iran from the one that hosted, funded and armed the main party in the current Iraqi Government?

    Your first sentence’s stupidity speaks for itself.

  9. Phil 9
    16 June 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Oil prices responded to the prospect of the Iraq invasion well before it happened – and the market pretty much got the price right at the time. If I recall, it was a progressive rally up about
    $5/bbl.

    The inference that McCarten is making that Bush is to blame for the current price is depressingly ignorant.

  10. r0b 10
    16 June 2008 at 2:28 pm

    The inference that McCarten is making that Bush is to blame for the current price is depressingly ignorant

    Is it indeed?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/oil-a-global-crisis-834023.html

    The invasion of Iraq by Britain and the US has trebled the price of oil, according to a leading expert, costing the world a staggering $6 trillion in higher energy prices alone.

  11. MacDoctor 11
    16 June 2008 at 2:49 pm

    The invasion of Iraq by Britain and the US has trebled the price of oil

    Of course, increased demand, Environmentalists blocking new extraction and speculation have nothing to do with the oil price, right?

  12. gobsmacked 12
    16 June 2008 at 3:02 pm

    I don’t get particularly worked up about Key supporting the war, because he’s a conservative and he was simply reflecting a widespread view.

    What is unforgivable is lying about it, and then lying about lying about it, and then saying it doesn’t matter anyway.

    But never mind, he’ll no doubt do a Don Brash and issue a ‘mea culpa’ after leaving politics, when it’s safe to do so. Just not when it mattered.

  13. Draco TB 13
    16 June 2008 at 3:04 pm

    The inference that McCarten is making that Bush is to blame for the current price is depressingly ignorant.

    Really?

    Oil Surges to New Heights After Israeli Warning on Iran

    Seems that that warning was made with the collusion of Bush.

    Bushs’ War (Remember, it’s still ongoing) may not be to blame for the entire price rise but it certainly has had an effect that cannot be ignored.

  14. Felix 14
    16 June 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Saw a quote somewhere about Bush being an oilman and how suspicious it would seem if the U.S. elected Colonel Sanders as president and the price of fried chicken trebled.

    No freakin way – captcha is “choice texans”

  15. KK 15
    16 June 2008 at 5:51 pm

    “Arguably the presence of the US military in the Middle East has brought more stability to that trouble place than less.” ??

    Al-quida has grown in strength since the invasion
    Afghanistan and Pakistan are less stable
    Israel and Russia has used the ‘War on Terror’ to justify their ongoing aggression
    Hundreds of cities (especially Middle Eastern) around the world have been affected by attacks since the US invasion
    Tensions with Iran have escalated, and also with Hizbollah and Syria
    … the list goes on

    These can clearly be linked to the US’s invasion. And it would be no surprise if they and their oil company mates wanted it this way.

    It’s time for a diplomatic solution. It’s good to see the EU engaging itself constructively with Iran. Come Obama..??