Locomotive Mule

The Bandar Oil Deal Gaggle…

If it smells like BS, sounds like BS, looks like BS then it must be….

A blog entry: Issues with Objectivity

John Kerry thinks he’s found a friend in Colin Powell. Woodward’s new book portrays the secretary of state as having misgivings about occupying Iraq because of the complications – the complications, Kerry’s ilk believes, we are now facing.

Gee - maybe Secratary Powell had a bit of foresight? Maybe the Secratary had a small understanding of what we were getting in to. It is his job after all, to understand and advise on international issues.

And Steve Murphy, who managed the presidential campaign of Representative Richard A. Gephardt, said: “The strongest criticism of Bush is that he did not have a plan for the aftermath of the war. And that was exactly what Powell was pointing out to him. He is a credible source. This intensifies the backdrop between Bush and Kerry.”
The logic that liberals want you to follow is that (a) Bush didn’t have a plan for the occupation of Iraq once it was conquered and therefore (b) we are facing problems because we weren’t prepared. Okay. There is no doubt that is a possibility.

A possibility? Let’s assume that there was a plan: it was horribly ill-conceived. It may have been executed perfectly, but its underlying concepts were obviously wrong. So either way, no plan or a well defined plan - this administration has completely blown the job. Either way, their gross incompetance is on display for all to see. As an American, I’m embarrassed.

On the other hand, it is just as likely that the logic is as follows: (a) seeking UN approval, and being denied, established official dissension in the international community and therefore (b) we are facing problems because terrorists are emboldened by their de facto ally the “international community.”

We are not facing problems because the terrorists are emboldened by the “official dissension in the international community”. We are facing problems (nice euphemism by the way) because we unilaterally and illegally invaded a sovereign nation against the advice and consent of the international community. And the people in that country are really pissed off about it. By not aligning ourselves with the international community we’ve shown ourselves to be a rogue, imperialistic nation. Blaming the current problems in Iraq on the “terrorists and their de facto allies” is far too simplistic and naive. We are occupying a nation in the guise of saving it - that’s why we’re having problems.

Which is more likely? Well, that’s up to you to decide, but the way it’s being reported in the media, you would think that only the liberal logic existed. I’m shocked. Really. However, considering both that, by any historical or objective standards, the Iraq war and occupation has been expertly executed and that the international community has recently been offered an olive branch by al Qaeda (which would not have happened had al Qaeda not seen potential allies in the nations of Europe), it seems that the international community is more of a liability than an asset. That is, if we had universal international support (or a “plan") before going into Iraq as liberals wanted, we would no doubt still be facing the same problems we are now in Iraq. However, if international support had not turned into international condemnation, we might be not be facing problems of such Islamist fury. The lesson that should be learned from Iraq is that the international community can hurt us more than it can help us.

Yes the war may have been executed flawlessly - I would expect nothing less from our military. That fact does not make it any more right or just.

In offering an olive branch, al Qaeda has simply shown its guile. Before condemning the international community as an ally of al Qaeda or a “liability”, you must acknowledge the fact the the “offer” was unanimously rejected. To characterize the Europeans as “allies of terrorists” simply because the offer was made is disingenuous at best.

The international community decided that invading Iraq was not the right thing to do at this time and so stated and acted. We, in deciding to reject the international community in an adventure of such magnitude, have shown ourselves to be outside of the international community. WE, not they, are not playing well with others. WE are the ones that are not being respectful of our friends and allies, not them. WE are the ones that arrogantly delivered the ultimatums, not them.

Yes, WE were attacked on our own soil. But we are not alone in that. There are many nations in the international community that have been attacked in similar fashion, and yet we don’t support any one else in preemptively attacking “terrorist states” (except for Isreal, but that’s another discussion).

But the media have already decided that anything that goes wrong in Iraq is due to lack of international support, and so that’s what they’ll report—even though it is not the lack of international support on our side but rather the presence of international support on the side of terror that is most troublesome.

I seriously doubt that any thinking person would believe that the international community supports terrorism. This is simply the “you’re with us or against us” mentality. By condemning the rest of the world simply because they do not agree with us is as wrong as supporting this administration simply because “he’s the President”. Dogma in any form is always unflattering.

If you were to think this through a bit, I believe you’ll find that terrorism is an international problem and needs to be dealt with at that level. We cannot do it alone, we cannot do it without the help of friends and allies. If we anger them and isolate ourselves, then the terrorists have won that all important first step of “divide and conquer”. The world must stand united against the terrorists (regardless of their motives) and work together. And as we learned in kindergarten, working together sometimes means not getting your own way.

Most conservatives (yourself included) have a simplistic and knee-jerk reaction to liberals. If you’re true to the conservative ideals, then you owe the opposition the respect of investigating their issues, arguments and ideas with an open mind. And if you were to do so, rather than blindly swallowing the party swill, I believe you’d find that your “conservative president” has failed you miserably.

UPDATE : several hours later

But the media have already decided that anything that goes wrong in Iraq is due to lack of international support, and so that’s what they’ll report—even though it is not the lack of international support on our side but rather the presence of international support on the side of terror that is most troublesome.

Is it possible that the current problems in Iraq just might be our own damn fault? We all (Americans) need to look in the mirror and see if we’re as innocent as we’d like to believe. The fact that we don’t is what’s most troublesome. The fact that Mom, The Flag & Apple Pie are all that’s needed to justify the killing of thousands of innocents is what’s most troublesome. The fact that the President of The United States is allowed to mislead the world and send AMERICAN boys to their deaths on a personal crusade - that’s what should be most troublesome.

Chase, you can blow me off as a linguinni spined liberal, that’s your prerogative (ha! if you only knew). But I strongly recommend that you do some investigation into what the Bush administration has done to this country. From shredding the remnants of the Constitution to their hubris in dealing with the American people and our representatives (Congress that is). It’s shameful and any thinking American should be horrified and extremely embarrassed about the things that have been done in our name.

Saudi Envoy Promised Bush a Drop in Oil Prices Ahead of Election

WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. has promised President George W. Bush the Saudis will reduce oil prices before this November’s election to help the U.S. economy, according to Bob Woodward, author of a new book about the Iraq war.

Oil prices are “high, and they could go down very quickly,'’ Woodward said last night in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes.'’

“That’s the Saudi pledge,'’ said Woodward. “Certainly over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.'’

If this is true then the campaign issue should not be the price of oil, but the blatant manipulation of the economy for personal political gain. If Bush is making deals with the Saudis he should be in jail.

The Terror of Bush’s War on America

There stand Messrs Bush and Blair on the White House lawn, vowing eternal devotion to the “historic struggle” for democratic victory in Iraq. They’ve been there before. Last time Bush declared that “every nation in every region has a decision to make - either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. But now we’re beyond nations and shadowy forces lurking in Tom Clancy’s dreams. Who are these unwelcome, individual Iraqis on our TV screens, protesting, rampaging, shooting and often dying? Why, says George, they’re terrorists. Yes indeed, echoes Tony. He who is not for us is a terrorist. He can and will be killed unless he falls silent. He can and may be locked up indefinitely (like the 762 aliens in US jails) so that silence enfolds him.

Those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty” while criticizing the Bush administration’s methods of fighting terror at home and abroad provide “aid to terrorists”. That’s attorney general John Ashcroft testifying to the Senate after 9/11. “See how dissent terrorizes democracy while political quiescence promotes peace and security,” says Ivie dryly. “Democratic dissent has turned oxymoronic.”

But that is exactly what George Bush says. Crisis means mute obedience. To protest is to betray the master rhetorician reading Dick Cheney’s script. He is a leader defined and protected by “war”. He must not be troubled by voters protesting in Ashcroft’s “free speech zones”. Nuance is his enemy. He dare not stop to think.

Read it and weep.

Voting for Bush II will support and perpetuate what amounts to a full-blown, political cult -a fanatical political predator with fundamentalist religious fangs and moneyed, special interest claws. The religious right’s cult mind set has corrupted our country’s current leadership, which has, in turn, further deformed an already dysfunctional foreign policy into an empire-building rogue state.

With characteristic religious cult missionizing, Bush II and his inner group of fundamentalist crusaders, who have commandeered Republican minds, are intent upon “blessing” the Moslem world with “Almighty God’s gift of freedom” while fundamentalist Islam is equally intent on “blessing” the West with Allah’s Islamic theocracy. Two ideological cults at war with each other-two sides of the same coin: lethal groupthink-outmoded, medieval, brutal and dehumanizing cult behaviors that could easily drag the civilized world back into the dark ages.

Mr. Goldhammer precisely and succinctly defines what we’re seeing - he gives it a name:

Here’s the whole piece: Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush