But it’s buried because we treat fossil like a commodity governed by the likes of supply and demand. Fossil is a limited resource, and many (most?) geologist says we’ve hit peak; and yet we continue to treat it as a commodity – up to $140 a barrel one day and down to under $60 the next (based on the “law” of supply and demand). No new refineries were started up; no new oil field discovered and pumping. So, why? Again – supply and demand when in fact we are working with something we don’t make, whose source is limited and virtually non-renewable.

Point, it doesn’t stop the machine from moving forward. And a little problem with debt and deficit aint going to stop this imperial empire. And Obama sure as hell isn’t. Perhaps the gig will be up in another 4, 8 years. But when the gig is up it won’t be in Obama’s hands to do anything. The demand for fossil is so great, and growing expotentially, that we can’t barely fathom what will happen – empire? That could very well be the “good ol’ days”.

There are solutions, but Obama and his admin won’t have them. The system is the problem and he is of, by and for it, no matter his “intentions”.

Look, the US is an imperial empire. All foreign policy flows from there regardless of who’s in the WH. Obama is NOT going to dismantle the empire.

But to Kennedy: Bay of Pigs, escalation of Vietnam that positioned US for all out aggression in an occupied sovereign nation, the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, the build up on South America of the first death squads (RE: Empire’s Workshop, Greg Grandin), the embargo, etc.

But, let’s give JFK the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say it was the rogue CIA and some steps by the previous administration. Ok, so what’s the lesson? The lesson is that the US is an imperial empire that functions as a preditory nation regardless of the President and partisans.

The Dem congress is fairly conservative, and hawkish. There is little to suggest that Obama will stay way from the neolib/Clinton usual suspects (the jury is some what out, but each decision – Zionist Joe Biden and now Emanuel). We can come up with all kinds of – but he’s smart – as was Clinton and look what we got?

I think Scott you’re skepticism is well found. Porter was skeptical before the election but has fallen in line with wishful thinking. Not saying anyone knows exactly what Obama will do, but to date we got some record and using JFK as the basis for anything is just plain out of sync with the reality of history.

Uh… Are we talking about the same Gareth Porter here? This Gareth Porter has yet to substantiate anything? Come on.

And no, he never “swore” anything close to war with Iran being a sure thing. If you listen to any or all of my dozens of interviews with him since Jan or Feb 07, you will hear that that is the case.

“Time to reconsider Porter as having creds.”

Sorry, I think you’re overreacting. I agree that Obama means to keep Iraq, but I also agree with Gareth that with the SIIC and Dawa saying get out and the economy breaking, that he may not have a choice but to leave.

We’ve borrowed our way into Iraq and it’s not going to stop anytime soon. Yes, it will be de-escalated – which is what is happening now – but he bases going?? That’s pure fiction based on either a partisan mind or a desire to create political foreign policy whole cloth.

He’s yet to substantiate anything. It’s just talk talk talk. Wasn’t it Porter who swore Bush would be attacking Iran before the end of his administration.

This talk of “Obama is too smart” makes not sense as the basis for expecting Obama not to continue the “war on terrorism” which is the basis for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq.

Time to reconsider Porter has having creds.