N
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
Guest
"...What's good for Exxon ...
Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Whadda you mean "we," Mr. TV Pundit? When you say "we" are doing better in Iraq or, even more absurd, that "we" were right to invade that country in the first place, are you lumping Joe Blow American in with the top officers of Exxon, which made $40.6 billion in profit last year thanks to the turmoil in the energy markets? That royal "we" is good for the royals who control our government, but its persistent use embodies a pernicious lie that betrays the core ideal of
representative democracy.
Ever since "we" invaded Iraq, most of us have got nothing to show for it, other than an enormously increased national debt that we will be paying off for decades to come and an economy that is sputtering into recession. Oil sold for $22.81 a barrel the year before we launched the war against a country with the world's second largest oil reserves. The average price per barrel last year was almost three times that, at $64.20.
With oil bouncing up to $100 a barrel in the fourth quarter of 2007, Exxon Mobil Corp. recorded the highest corporate quarterly profit ever. Chevron, the country's second biggest oil company, saw net income rise 29 percent that quarter, contributing to an enviable profit of $18.7 billion for 2007. Clearly, what is good for Big Oil is not good for most Americans, few of whom would look back on 2007 with favor.
It is easy for the Bush administration big shots to equate the fortunes of Big Oil with that of the nation. After all George W. Bush only got to be president because his failed career in the Texas oil industry nonetheless exposed his charms to the big energy guys who then bankrolled his political career. Vice President Dick Cheney was an out-of-work defense secretary when he was picked to be CEO of Halliburton Energy Services, which has profited mightily from its dealings
with Exxon, not to mention running the Iraq franchise.
And the image we should all recall is of the Chevron tanker named Condoleezza Rice. Only in America would we think it not a conflict of interest that Rice was paid handsomely for being on the board of Chevron Corp. from 1991 until she resigned to go work in the Bush White House, first as national security adviser and then as secretary of state. How worried can she be about the deteriorating position of the United States in the world when her oil company buddies are doing
so well?
We are conned since early childhood to look with dark suspicion upon anyone who points a finger of accountability at the robber barons of the corporate world. It is for that reason that Exxon's outrageous profits, derived from exploiting an energy crisis that has hurt so many ordinary Americans, barely elicits media outrage of any sort. Nor does such profiteering get much play in the presidential race. To her credit, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham
Clinton took umbrage over Exxon's record-setting annual profit of $39.5 billion for 2006, stating last year: "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund ... that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."
From the hysterically negative response of the media, you would have thought she had hailed the second coming of Karl Marx. No wonder this year, with even higher profits reported, there was no similar outcry from any of the leading presidential candidates. They should be outraged because the taxpayers they are supposed to represent are forking over a lot of money for the military in order to make the world safe for Exxon.
The lifeline of Exxon is not its oil-drilling skills but rather the power of the U.S. government, particularly the military, which can be marshaled to intimidate those other nations who would dare challenge Exxon's right to profit exorbitantly. Whether it is about pushing for a pipeline across Afghanistan or tying up Venezuela's foreign assets in international courts, as Exxon managed to do last week, the U.S.-based oil giants strut with the full confidence that Uncle Sam
will back them up.
But who will back up Uncle Sam except ordinary American soldiers and taxpayers who sacrificed to fight and fund battles that have nothing to do with their national interest? What a sorry record U.S. oil companies have compiled in places like Venezuela, Nigeria and the Persian Gulf down through the decades. But throughout those imperial adventures backed by U.S. gunboat diplomacy, there was the illusion that the plundered loot would be shared with the folks back home.
Remember the $40.6 billion Exxon got the next time you fork it over at the gas pump, and you will get the point that "they" and "we" are hardly in the same boat.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...199A.DTL&hw=what+good+for+exxon&sn=002&sc=820
Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Whadda you mean "we," Mr. TV Pundit? When you say "we" are doing better in Iraq or, even more absurd, that "we" were right to invade that country in the first place, are you lumping Joe Blow American in with the top officers of Exxon, which made $40.6 billion in profit last year thanks to the turmoil in the energy markets? That royal "we" is good for the royals who control our government, but its persistent use embodies a pernicious lie that betrays the core ideal of
representative democracy.
Ever since "we" invaded Iraq, most of us have got nothing to show for it, other than an enormously increased national debt that we will be paying off for decades to come and an economy that is sputtering into recession. Oil sold for $22.81 a barrel the year before we launched the war against a country with the world's second largest oil reserves. The average price per barrel last year was almost three times that, at $64.20.
With oil bouncing up to $100 a barrel in the fourth quarter of 2007, Exxon Mobil Corp. recorded the highest corporate quarterly profit ever. Chevron, the country's second biggest oil company, saw net income rise 29 percent that quarter, contributing to an enviable profit of $18.7 billion for 2007. Clearly, what is good for Big Oil is not good for most Americans, few of whom would look back on 2007 with favor.
It is easy for the Bush administration big shots to equate the fortunes of Big Oil with that of the nation. After all George W. Bush only got to be president because his failed career in the Texas oil industry nonetheless exposed his charms to the big energy guys who then bankrolled his political career. Vice President Dick Cheney was an out-of-work defense secretary when he was picked to be CEO of Halliburton Energy Services, which has profited mightily from its dealings
with Exxon, not to mention running the Iraq franchise.
And the image we should all recall is of the Chevron tanker named Condoleezza Rice. Only in America would we think it not a conflict of interest that Rice was paid handsomely for being on the board of Chevron Corp. from 1991 until she resigned to go work in the Bush White House, first as national security adviser and then as secretary of state. How worried can she be about the deteriorating position of the United States in the world when her oil company buddies are doing
so well?
We are conned since early childhood to look with dark suspicion upon anyone who points a finger of accountability at the robber barons of the corporate world. It is for that reason that Exxon's outrageous profits, derived from exploiting an energy crisis that has hurt so many ordinary Americans, barely elicits media outrage of any sort. Nor does such profiteering get much play in the presidential race. To her credit, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham
Clinton took umbrage over Exxon's record-setting annual profit of $39.5 billion for 2006, stating last year: "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund ... that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."
From the hysterically negative response of the media, you would have thought she had hailed the second coming of Karl Marx. No wonder this year, with even higher profits reported, there was no similar outcry from any of the leading presidential candidates. They should be outraged because the taxpayers they are supposed to represent are forking over a lot of money for the military in order to make the world safe for Exxon.
The lifeline of Exxon is not its oil-drilling skills but rather the power of the U.S. government, particularly the military, which can be marshaled to intimidate those other nations who would dare challenge Exxon's right to profit exorbitantly. Whether it is about pushing for a pipeline across Afghanistan or tying up Venezuela's foreign assets in international courts, as Exxon managed to do last week, the U.S.-based oil giants strut with the full confidence that Uncle Sam
will back them up.
But who will back up Uncle Sam except ordinary American soldiers and taxpayers who sacrificed to fight and fund battles that have nothing to do with their national interest? What a sorry record U.S. oil companies have compiled in places like Venezuela, Nigeria and the Persian Gulf down through the decades. But throughout those imperial adventures backed by U.S. gunboat diplomacy, there was the illusion that the plundered loot would be shared with the folks back home.
Remember the $40.6 billion Exxon got the next time you fork it over at the gas pump, and you will get the point that "they" and "we" are hardly in the same boat.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...199A.DTL&hw=what+good+for+exxon&sn=002&sc=820