6/22/2004

6-22-04 - 1

6-22-04

Look, the Bush administration intentionally lied going into the war on Iraq. I've written about this before, but you people just don't seem to get it. People still seem to talk about "intelligence failures". Sure, there were intelligence failures, like when the CIA came to Rumsfeld and said they saw no evidence of WMD's in Iraq, and Rumsfeld told them "you're not looking hard enough", which was when they found the so-called "weapons vans". When Colin Powell when to testify before the UN, he was visibly pained, you could tell he was not confident and comfortable with the case he was making. They intentionally fabricated the story about Saddam trying to buy uranium. They intentionally fabricated the supposed "link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, (which, ridiculously, they still claim). The great thing about this administration is that they stick to their guns so thoroughly even when they're obviously caught lying, there's a very "Empereror's New Clothes" aspect of it all; I cam imagine Rummy with blood all over him and a knife in his hand insisting "no, I didn't kill him, I'm given a lot of information that you haven't seen, and I know I didn't kill him, oh and by the way, we've restored dignity to the white house!".

Why in the world did we go to war in Iraq? There were no WMD's, there were no terrorists in Iraq to speak of (not compared to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Lebanon or Indonesia or the Phillipenes, etc. etc.), there was zero immediate threat from Saddam to anyone in the US (except perhaps to big oil business interests). You can't say it was "humanitarian", as we do nothing in Chechnya, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Tibet, Colombia, North Korea, Palestine, and countless African nations where rebels and government death squads roam freely. You can't say it was to prevent terrorism; if anything, it's escelated terrorism; it's rather like poking a tiger with a stick, it doesn't make you more secure, it makes you much much less secure. In fact, we're dangerously close to destabilizing Saudi Arabia, which would be a major disaster. Saudi Arabia is run by a US-backed oppressive monarchy; 95% of the people are Muslim, and' a very large percentage are very militant. The stability of Saudi Arabia is hanging by a thread; if their government is seen to be in cahoots with the US, there may be an uprising. Already terrorists are forming and being recruited from the streets. Hmm... maybe that is the master plan; now, this is pure speculation, but it's amusing. Let's say you have a revolution in Saudi Arabia. Then the US military will have to go in to restore the peace, we set up US Oil Companies and make it a "democracy" (what we really mean by "democracy" is a "free market" controlled by US megacorps). Suddenly the oil profits from Saudi Arabia go to US corporations instead of to the people, as they do now (with a large chunk going to the monarchy).

Who was in Cheney's secret meeting on energy policy? Probably Ken Lay. Perhaps a bin Laden, certainly a few Saudis. Perhaps some military advisers? One of the thinly kept secrets of US government is that our domestic energy policy and our Middle East foreign policy have always been tied; they're generally both led by a few very high up people, not separate groups. This administration is very wise about the use of the stone wall. They know the media are fickle and won't stick to issues if they aren't exciting. The administration just keeps stone-walling and denying, and eventually the issue just dies from lack of interest.

One of the funny things about Ronald Reagan is that the reality of his domenstic policy was exactly the opposite of what his fans think it was. In reality he created a massive tax-and-spend stimulus; his government spent more than all previous governments combined (not inflation adjusted). He also presided over the largest import tarriffs, which provided cozy protection from international competition.

No comments:

old rants