oils well that ends well

October 1, 2007

We can't change the ridiculous world policies on oils and all the stupid wars; all we can do is keep ourselves "oiled" up with our olive oils, and flaxseed oils. Wars are stupid when it comes down to money, oil, and land. They should all concentrate on saving our earth instead. Gigi

fraggle <EBbrewpunx

vegan chat ; TFHB <TFHB >

Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:50 am

oils well that ends well

consortiumnews.com

Bush, Oil -- and Moral Bankruptcy

By Ray McGovern

September 27, 2007

It is an exceedingly dangerous time. Vice President Dick Cheney and

his hard-core "neo-conservative" protÃ©gÃ©s in the administration and

Congress are pushing harder and harder for President George W. Bush,

isolated from reality, to honor the promise he made to Israel to

prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

On Sept. 23, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski

warned pointedly:

"If we escalate tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start

making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war [with

Iran], which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for

us...I think the administration, the president and the vice president

particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is

reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq."

So why the pressure for a wider war in which any victory will be

Pyrrhic-for Israel and for the U.S.? The short answer is arrogant

stupidity; the longer answer-what the Chinese used to call "great

power chauvinism"-and oil.

The truth can slip out when erstwhile functionaries write their

memoirs (the dense pages of George Tenet's tome being the exception).

Kudos to the still functioning reportorial side of the Washington

Post, which on Sept. 15, was the first to ferret out the gem in former

Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan's book that the Iraq war was "largely

about oil."

But that's okay, said the Post's editorial side (which has done yeoman

service as the White House's Pravda) the very next day. Dominating the

op-ed page was a turgid piece by Henry Kissinger, serving chiefly as a

reminder that there is an excellent case to be made for retiring when

one reaches the age of statutory senility.

Dr. Kissinger described as a "truism" the notion that "the industrial

nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which

their economies depend." (Curious. That same truism was considered a

bad thing, when an integral part of the "Brezhnev Doctrine" applied to

Eastern Europe.)

What is important here is that Kissinger was speaking of Iran, which-

in a classic example of pot calling kettle black-he accuses of

"seeking regional hegemony."

What's going on here seems to be a concerted effort to get us

accustomed to the prospect of a long, and possibly expanded war.

Don't you remember? Those terrorists, or Iraqis, or Iranians, or

jihadists...whoever...are trying to destroy our way of life.

The White House spin machine is determined to justify the war in ways

they think will draw popular support from folks like the well-heeled

man who asked me querulously before a large audience, "Don't you agree

that several GIs killed each week is a small price to pay for the oil

we need?"

Consistency in U.S. Policy?

The Bush policy toward the Middle East is at the same time consistent

with, and a marked departure from, the U.S. approach since the end of

World War II.

Given ever-growing U.S. dependence on imported oil, priority has

always been given to ensuring the uninterrupted supply of oil, as well

as securing the state of Israel. The U.S. was, by and large,

successful in achieving these goals through traditional diplomacy and

commerce.

Granted, it would overthrow duly elected governments, when it felt it

necessary-as in Iran in 1953, after its president nationalized the

oil. But the George W. Bush administration is the first to start a

major war to implement U.S. policy in the region.

Just before the March 2003 attack, Chas Freeman, U.S. ambassador to

Saudi Arabia for President George H.W. Bush, explained that the new

policy was to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and be

able to deny access to global competitors.

Freeman said the new Bush administration "believes you have to control

resources in order to have access to them" and that, with the end of

the Cold War, the U.S. is uniquely able to shape global events-and

would be remiss if it did not do so.

This could not be attempted in a world of two superpowers, but has

been a longstanding goal of the people closest to George W. Bush.

In 1975 in Harpers, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger authored

under a pseudonym an article, "Seizing Arab Oil."

Blissfully unaware that the author was his boss, the highly respected

career ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, committed the mother

of all faux pas when he told a TV audience that whoever wrote that

article had to be a "madman." Akins was right; he was also fired.

In those days, cooler heads prevailed, thanks largely to the deterrent

effect of a then-powerful Soviet Union. Nevertheless, in proof of the

axiom that bad ideas never die, 26 years later Kissinger rose Phoenix-

like to urge a spanking new president to stoke and exploit the fears

engendered by 9/11, associate Iraq with that catastrophe, and seize

the moment to attack Iraq.

It was well known that Iraq's armed forces were no match for ours, and

the Soviet Union had imploded.

Some, I suppose, would call that Realpolitik. Akins saw it as folly;

his handicap was that he was steeped in the history, politics, and

culture of the Middle East after serving in Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait,

Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia-and knew better.

The renaissance of Kissinger's influence in 2001 on an impressionable

young president, together with faith-based analysis by untutored

ideologues cherry picked by Cheney explain what happened next-an

unnecessary, counterproductive war, in which over 3,800 U. S. troops

have already been killed-leaving Iraq prostrate and exhausted.

A-plus in Chutzpah, F in Ethics

In an International Herald Tribune op-ed on Feb. 25, 2007, Kissinger

focused on threats in the Middle East to "global oil supplies" and the

need for a "diplomatic phase," since the war had long since turned

sour. Acknowledging that he had supported the use of force against

Iraq, he proceeded to boost chutzpah to unprecedented heights.

Kissinger referred piously to the Thirty Years' War (1618-48), which

left the European continent "prostrate and exhausted." What he failed

to point out is that the significance of that prolonged carnage lies

precisely in how it finally brought Europeans to their senses; that

is, in how it ended.

The Treaty of Westphalia brought the mutual slaughter to an end, and

for centuries prevented many a new attack by the strong on the weak-

like the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003.

It was, it is about oil-unabashedly and shamefully. Even to those

lacking experience with U.S. policy in the Middle East, it should have

been obvious early on, when every one of Bush's senior national

security officials spoke verbatim from the talking-point sheet, "It's

not about oil."

Thanks to Greenspan and Kissinger, the truth is now "largely"

available to those who do not seek refuge in denial.

The implications for the future are clear-for Iraq and Iran. As far as

this administration is concerned (and as Kissinger himself has

written), "Withdrawal [from Iraq] is not an option." Westphalia? U.N.

Charter? Geneva Conventions? Hey, we're talking superpower!

Thus, Greenspan last Monday with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:

"Getting him [saddam Hussein] out of the control position...was

essential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not as

important. But it's clear to me that, were there not the oil resources

in Iraq, the whole picture...would have been different."

Can we handle the truth?

"All truth passes through three stages.

"First, it is ridiculed.

"Second, it is violently opposed.

"Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

--Schopenhauer

When the truth about our country's policy becomes clear, can we summon

the courage to address it from a moral perspective? The Germans left

it up to the churches; the churches collaborated.

"There is only us; there never has been any other."

--Annie Dillard

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the

ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an analyst

with the CIA for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran

Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). His e-mail is

RRMcGovern (AT) aol (DOT) com.

wargasm wargasm one two three

pit bull, pit bull, one two three

wave those flags high in the air

as long as it takes place over there

Check Out the new free AIM® Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

October 1, 2007

the thought that "we can't change" anything is what keeps them in business, and keeps the world chugging off the abyss...

they can only do the things we let them

alas...most people will let em...

veganfitness Oct 1, 2007 1:48 PM Re: oils well that ends well

We can't change the ridiculous world policies on oils and all the stupid wars; all we can do is keep ourselves "oiled" up with our olive oils, and flaxseed oils. Wars are stupid when it comes down to money, oil, and land. They should all concentrate on saving our earth instead. Gigi

fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>vegan chat ; TFHB <TFHB >Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:50 am oils well that ends well

consortiumnews.comBush, Oil -- and Moral BankruptcyBy Ray McGovernSeptember 27, 2007It is an exceedingly dangerous time. Vice President Dick Cheney andhis hard-core "neo-conservative" protÃ©gÃ©s in the administration andCongress are pushing harder and harder for President George W. Bush,isolated from reality, to honor the promise he made to Israel toprevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.On Sept. 23, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinskiwarned pointedly:"If we escalate tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we startmaking threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war [withIran], which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster forus...I think the administration, the president and the vice presidentparticularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that isreminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq."So why the pressure for a wider war in which any victory will bePyrrhic-for Israel and for the U.S.? The short answer is arrogantstupidity; the longer answer-what the Chinese used to call "greatpower chauvinism"-and oil.The truth can slip out when erstwhile functionaries write theirmemoirs (the dense pages of George Tenet's tome being the exception).Kudos to the still functioning reportorial side of the WashingtonPost, which on Sept. 15, was the first to ferret out the gem in formerFed chairman, Alan Greenspan's book that the Iraq war was "largelyabout oil."But that's okay, said the Post's editorial side (which has done yeomanservice as the White House's Pravda) the very next day. Dominating theop-ed page was a turgid piece by Henry Kissinger, serving chiefly as areminder that there is an excellent case to be made for retiring whenone reaches the age of statutory senility.Dr. Kissinger described as a "truism" the notion that "the industrialnations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on whichtheir economies depend." (Curious. That same truism was considered abad thing, when an integral part of the "Brezhnev Doctrine" applied toEastern Europe.)What is important here is that Kissinger was speaking of Iran, which-in a classic example of pot calling kettle black-he accuses of"seeking regional hegemony."What's going on here seems to be a concerted effort to get usaccustomed to the prospect of a long, and possibly expanded war.Don't you remember? Those terrorists, or Iraqis, or Iranians, orjihadists...whoever...are trying to destroy our way of life.The White House spin machine is determined to justify the war in waysthey think will draw popular support from folks like the well-heeledman who asked me querulously before a large audience, "Don't you agreethat several GIs killed each week is a small price to pay for the oilwe need?"Consistency in U.S. Policy?The Bush policy toward the Middle East is at the same time consistentwith, and a marked departure from, the U.S. approach since the end ofWorld War II.Given ever-growing U.S. dependence on imported oil, priority hasalways been given to ensuring the uninterrupted supply of oil, as wellas securing the state of Israel. The U.S. was, by and large,successful in achieving these goals through traditional diplomacy andcommerce.Granted, it would overthrow duly elected governments, when it felt itnecessary-as in Iran in 1953, after its president nationalized theoil. But the George W. Bush administration is the first to start amajor war to implement U.S. policy in the region.Just before the March 2003 attack, Chas Freeman, U.S. ambassador toSaudi Arabia for President George H.W. Bush, explained that the newpolicy was to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and beable to deny access to global competitors.Freeman said the new Bush administration "believes you have to controlresources in order to have access to them" and that, with the end ofthe Cold War, the U.S. is uniquely able to shape global events-andwould be remiss if it did not do so.This could not be attempted in a world of two superpowers, but hasbeen a longstanding goal of the people closest to George W. Bush.In 1975 in Harpers, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger authoredunder a pseudonym an article, "Seizing Arab Oil."Blissfully unaware that the author was his boss, the highly respectedcareer ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, committed the motherof all faux pas when he told a TV audience that whoever wrote thatarticle had to be a "madman." Akins was right; he was also fired.In those days, cooler heads prevailed, thanks largely to the deterrenteffect of a then-powerful Soviet Union. Nevertheless, in proof of theaxiom that bad ideas never die, 26 years later Kissinger rose Phoenix-like to urge a spanking new president to stoke and exploit the fearsengendered by 9/11, associate Iraq with that catastrophe, and seizethe moment to attack Iraq.It was well known that Iraq's armed forces were no match for ours, andthe Soviet Union had imploded.Some, I suppose, would call that Realpolitik. Akins saw it as folly;his handicap was that he was steeped in the history, politics, andculture of the Middle East after serving in Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait,Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia-and knew better.The renaissance of Kissinger's influence in 2001 on an impressionableyoung president, together with faith-based analysis by untutoredideologues cherry picked by Cheney explain what happened next-anunnecessary, counterproductive war, in which over 3,800 U. S. troopshave already been killed-leaving Iraq prostrate and exhausted.A-plus in Chutzpah, F in EthicsIn an International Herald Tribune op-ed on Feb. 25, 2007, Kissingerfocused on threats in the Middle East to "global oil supplies" and theneed for a "diplomatic phase," since the war had long since turnedsour. Acknowledging that he had supported the use of force againstIraq, he proceeded to boost chutzpah to unprecedented heights.Kissinger referred piously to the Thirty Years' War (1618-48), whichleft the European continent "prostrate and exhausted." What he failedto point out is that the significance of that prolonged carnage liesprecisely in how it finally brought Europeans to their senses; thatis, in how it ended.The Treaty of Westphalia brought the mutual slaughter to an end, andfor centuries prevented many a new attack by the strong on the weak-like the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003.It was, it is about oil-unabashedly and shamefully. Even to thoselacking experience with U.S. policy in the Middle East, it should havebeen obvious early on, when every one of Bush's senior nationalsecurity officials spoke verbatim from the talking-point sheet, "It'snot about oil."Thanks to Greenspan and Kissinger, the truth is now "largely"available to those who do not seek refuge in denial.The implications for the future are clear-for Iraq and Iran. As far asthis administration is concerned (and as Kissinger himself haswritten), "Withdrawal [from Iraq] is not an option." Westphalia? U.N.Charter? Geneva Conventions? Hey, we're talking superpower!Thus, Greenspan last Monday with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:"Getting him [saddam Hussein] out of the control position...wasessential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not asimportant. But it's clear to me that, were there not the oil resourcesin Iraq, the whole picture...would have been different."Can we handle the truth?"All truth passes through three stages."First, it is ridiculed."Second, it is violently opposed."Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."--SchopenhauerWhen the truth about our country's policy becomes clear, can we summonthe courage to address it from a moral perspective? The Germans leftit up to the churches; the churches collaborated."There is only us; there never has been any other."--Annie DillardRay McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of theecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an analystwith the CIA for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of VeteranIntelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). His e-mail isRRMcGovern (AT) aol (DOT) com.wargasm wargasm one two three pit bull, pit bull, one two three wave those flags high in the air as long as it takes place over there

Check Out the new free AIM® Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

wargasm wargasm one two three

pit bull, pit bull, one two three

wave those flags high in the air

as long as it takes place over there