Reply #70: Yes, but Clark gave an overview of interests generally accepted as legitimate

[Tom Rinaldo]

As one of the world's major economic powers the United States will continue to consume large amounts of oil for the immediate forseeable future, even if we do move strongly toward conservation and renewable resourses as Clark and many other Democrats advocate strongly for.

So the question of relative legitimacy hinges on the definition of "its share", who is using that term and what their true agenda is. The United States under President Thompson would seek to insure that it was able to get it's share of Middle East oil. And so would the United States under President Edwards. When mom serves apple pie after dinner no one would argue that every kid shouldn't get their share. It might be a different story though if one kid thought his share was 90% and he threatened to beat up anyone who touched "his share."

Clark was reviewing a relatively constant and widely accepted late 20th century/early 21st century definition list of basic American interests in the Middle East. He was commenting at the meta level there, not getting down to the level of strategic policy. That's where the major differences lie. For example it might be the policy of a President Edwards to enter into fair and mutually respectful contracts with Middle Eastern nations to purchase oil that is essential to our economy at fair market values, while working to reduce our dependency on oil. It might be the policy of a President Thompson to extort Middle Eastern nations into giving American firms sweetheart deals which allow them to control and profit from their oil resourses, while undermining domestic efforts inside the United States to develop alternatives to Middle Eastern Oil.