Let me say before I post the questions I posted to him, that I would rather he were president right now, and he was probably the best we had since Kennedy or even Truman.
That said, I had to take the opportunity to speak to him as a representative of the party establishment, and ask these questions about Iraq:
- Foreign policy strategists from neocons to Zbigniew Brzezinski have said we must control the strategically important oil regions of Eurasia, which is obviously why we are in Iraq (don't embarrass us more by talking about terrorism, WMDs or spreading democracy). Do you or Hillary support this as a foreign policy goal? Should Iraq be allowed to choose non-US or British contractors to pump their oil or return to a nationalized system or a concession system like the Saudi’s instead of PSAs being forced on them by our oil companies at the point of a gun?
- Some have said we need direct control of those oil fields so our economy can’t be held hostage by dictators like Hussein or religious nuts, and neoconservative Thomas Friedman said before the war that a worst outcome would be OPEC kicking the price of oil up to $60 a barrel or more in retaliation. In reality, we have seen profit-taking to an even higher level by the oil companies, to the detriment of our economy. Do you think at the highest levels, the economic good of the United States and Britain was the primary motivate for the war, or was this simply both of our governments being used for a hostile corporate take over of Iraq's oil?
- What do we get from oil companies in return for our tax dollars and soldiers blood that has been shed so they can pump Iraq's oil instead of the Russians and French?
Okay, now you can rip me a new asshole for not asking these questions of Republicans who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the oil companies.
Pose your questions at:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=457&&&edition=2&ttl=20051201061320