  |
|
| |
|
|
|  Out How: The Economics of Ending WarsPosted on Jul 27, 2007Michael D. Intriligator Ten points of Michael D. Intriligator, professor of economics, political science and public policy, UCLA, and vice chair of Economists for Peace and Security: 1. On the economics of ending wars, the decision to prolong a war or to terminate it in various possible ways can be studied using the economic tools of cost-benefit analysis and expected utility theory. One of the belligerents, such as the U.S. currently in Iraq (and also in Afghanistan) will continue the war if it sees the potential future benefits exceeding the costs, where each is weighted by its probability of occurrence and future benefits and costs discounted to the present. On the costs of the Iraq War, the most detailed study was done by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, presented at the 2006 ASSA meetings and published in the Los Angeles Times. They recently updated their study, which they published as “Encore: Iraq Hemorrhage, Update of “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War,” in The Milken Institute Review, Fourth Quarter, 2006, pp. 76-83. They estimated the total price tag for the war as $2.267 trillion, a stunning figure. Future costs will probably continue at more or less the same rate, depending on whether the U.S. changes its strategy by, for example, a surge in troops committed to the war. As to the benefits, one must consider the real reasons for the Iraq war, in contrast to the reasons given by Bush and others that were excuses, rationales, or simply wrong. The ostensible reasons given by Bush were 1) Iraqi possession of WMD, 2) to fight terrorism, 3) retaliation for 9/11, and 4) building a democracy in the Middle East that would spread throughout the region. The real reasons, however, were: 1) retaliation for Saddam’s attempted assassination of President Bush’s father, 2) desire for U.S. bases and influence in the region, 3) protection of Israel. In my view, retaliation was the main motivation for President Bush while U.S. bases and influence and protection of Israel were the motivations for the “neocons” in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), Century (PNAC), many of whom became important players in the Bush Administration, occupying many high offices. They were able to use Bush’s powerful personal grievance against Saddam in 1) to convince him to invade and occupy Iraq, as they had been planning for many years when they were out of office, during the preceding Clinton Administration, when they planned the operation as part of PNAC. In fact this plan came up in the very first meeting of President Bush’s Cabinet, to the surprise of some who had not been members of PNAC. None of these neocons had direct personal military experience and thus they were all “armchair generals.” They also had no deep knowledge of Iraq or the region as a whole and did not consult with people in the State Department and CIA who did know the country and region. The neocons had no appreciation for a culture that they did not understand and they had no opposition in the White House or Pentagon. Many people have alleged oil was the real reason for the invasion, but, as I see it, this was only a secondary reason for the neocons as well as for President Bush. Of course, it is hard to quantify the value of these benefits based on the motivations for the war, and some were achieved, including the overthrow of Saddam and his execution as well as the establishment of U.S. bases in Iraq. No WMD were found, and as to the fight against terrorism, Iraq has become a training base for terrorists, which it never was under Saddam, and these terrorists are now much closer to Israel. It is hard or impossible to justify the continuation of the war based on these past and potential future costs and benefits. 2. Historically, most wars end when one of the belligerents is defeated, as in World Wars I and II or the Vietnam War, but some lead to a stalemate or a truce, as in the Korean War and the Iran-Iraq War. In others, one of the belligerents withdraws, as in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Iraq War may, in fact, follow the pattern of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, involving the invasion of a poor and powerless Muslim nation, a neighboring country to Iraq, by a superpower. After many deaths on both sides, the Soviet superpower eventually withdrew without making any gains and left a civil war in its wake. The Soviet Union invaded in December 1979 and withdrew 10 years later, in 1989. If the current Iraq War follows the same course then the U.S. will withdraw in March 2013, ten years after the 2003 invasion without making any gains and leaving a civil war behind. Of course, 10 years for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan does not automatically imply 10 years for the U.S. in Iraq, but this war could drag on much longer than anyone is now considering. Recall that in the Vietnam War large numbers of American combat troops began to arrive in 1965 and the last left the country in 1973, with the war finally concluded on 30 April 1975, with the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese forces. Thus the U.S. involvement also lasted some 10 years, just as in the case of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. 3. The Harvard philosopher George Santayana stated in a book published in 1905 “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner’s, 1905, p. 284, and this seems to be applying to the Middle East, such the U.S. establishing a puppet government in Iraq much as the British did in the 1920’s modeled upon their own government with a disastrous outcome. We are repeating the British experience in Iraq. They set up a mini British constitutional monarchy with a young King Faisal on the throne. After Britain granted Iraq independence in 1932 the country fell into a period of strife. A military strong man overthrew the monarchy in 1958, and Saddam Hussein eventually deposed him. This may be the most likely future course of Iraq, not a democracy or civil war or partition or a continued U.S. presence, but rather an eventual takeover by a strong man, the leader of one of the militias, perhaps Moktada al-Sadr, who is the strongest militia leader today and has credibility based in part on the legacy of his father and family. There are earlier historical precedents as well. 4. A point I have been making in recent talks builds on one of the recommendations of the recent Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, which advocated negotiations with Iran and Syria. Many others have been suggesting the use of diplomacy such as these negotiations for some time, including me. What these proposals omit is the agenda for such negotiations. My proposal would be a “Grand Bargain” under which Iran, is very influential in Iraq, could help us exit gracefully from Iraq, while the U.S. in return as a quid pro quo could make a deal with Iran similar to the one that we made with India. Under it we would help them with nuclear technology for energy production and other peaceful purposes but they would have to continue as a non-weapons state member of the NPT and sign on to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA, involving full-scope IAEA safeguards of their nuclear facilities, which would help guarantee that they develop only nuclear energy, as Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad has stated is their avowed goal, and not nuclear weapons. Whether such a “Grand Bargain” will emerge or not it is important for other nations, particularly those in the region to see that we are willing to talk with Iran and Syria. (For a related proposal see Abbas Maleki and Matthew Bunn. “Finding Compromise in Iran.” The Boston Globe, 15 June 2006).
As to negotiations in general, the U.S. has largely avoided them in recent years other than negotiations with friends and allies. Vice President Dick Cheney has refused to negotiate with Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizbullah, etc. saying, “We do not talk to evil.” During the Cold War as well as earlier and later we regularly negotiated with our ostensible enemies, including the Soviet Union, even when President Reagan had denounced it as an “evil empire.” We even negotiated with China at the time when we did not have diplomatic relations with the PRC, through our ambassadors in Warsaw. In the current Bush Administration we have replaced negotiations with enemies by unilateral demands, ultimatums, economic and political sanctions, and ultimately military invasion and occupation, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be value, however, in negotiations with Iran, Syria, and other states. There would also be value to direct negotiations with North Korea to resolve issues on the Korean peninsula and finally put an end to the Korean War after more than 50 years of a truce. Survival, security and independence are paramount issues to the DPRK and also to Iran, especially after President Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech of the Union address and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, leaving only these two nations untouched so far.
In an interview in the New York Times of Dec. 22, 2006 Secretary of State Rice said of the Iraq War, ‘’I don’t think it’s a matter of money. Along the way there have been plenty of markers that show that this is a country that is worth the investment, because once it emerges as a country that is a stabilizing factor you will have a very different kind of Middle East.’’ If the reverse falling dominos theory applies, however, once Iraq emerges as a country that is a destabilizing factor, leading to civil wars in Lebanon, Palestine, and possibly elsewhere we will have a very different kind of Middle East, but one that is much worse than the one that existed prior to March 2003. 6. Bob Woodward’s latest book State of Denial makes the point that President George W. Bush is living in such a state, but one should ask why he is in this state. I believe that President Bush cannot tolerate the thought of possible failure, a situation that goes back to his days in trying to run an oil exploration business that failed when they found no oil and running for Congress but failing to win a seat. When he was asked at a recent press conference what mistake he had made he said that he couldn’t think of any but would get back to the reporter, which he apparently never did. This psychology of President Bush is important in understanding how the current Iraq war will end: he will never admit defeat and thus is likely to try some desperate moves, such as a surge in troops, which is not likely to work, and then wait it out for his successor in January 2009 to take over, presumably to pull out. He can emphasize training the Iraqi military and police but U.S. officers familiar with both the military and police have noted that the problem is not lack of training but rather lack of loyalty. A fundamental problem is that President Bush refuses to lose “face” in the light of his commitments and previous statements. Of course, no U.S. President like to lose a war but some have withdrawn to cut their losses, such as Reagan in Lebanon and Clinton in Somalia. 7. Some have drawn analogies between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War, but there are essential differences between the two. In the case of Vietnam there was a well-established government in North Vietnam ready to take over South Vietnam, which is what ultimately happened. In Iraq, by contrast, there is no “North Iraq” prepared to take over the country, so there is no simple way out of the conflict other than the devastation of the country in an all-out civil war or its takeover by a strong man, each of which is a real possibility today. In addition, the government of South Vietnam was a puppet of the U.S. while in Iraq the government that was initially a puppet of the U.S. has evolved through democratic processes into is a puppet of Iran through the Shia-dominated government, police, and militias. In fact, the Iraq problem is an even bigger one than Vietnam. A lesson from Vietnam was that the domino theory was bogus because the U.S. could withdraw without negative strategic implications, whereas the U.S. faces negative strategic implications if it stays OR withdraws from Iraq. 8. The way out of the Iraq war: Neither: 1) President Bush’s earlier mantra of “stay the course;” nor 2) President Bush’s opponent’s “pull the plug,” or “cut and run;” nor 3) adding more troops and resources to the effort, as some have, suggested, such as a “surge” of troops into Baghdad; nor 4) gradually reduce our commitments there until eventually we will be totally out, as others have suggested; nor 5) additional training of Iraqi troops by U.S. troops, None of these options would work, however, as they all have the common denominator of unilateral U.S. decision-making. I suggest that the best option at this point would be to avoid such unilateralism, which got us into this quagmire in the first place, where we have, in effect, painted ourselves in a corner. Rather we should replace it by multilateralism, talking with the neighboring states, including not only our friends in Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia but also Syria and Iran. A model might be the multilateral process in Afghanistan that also involved its neighboring states in the Bonn conference and also the 1995 Dayton accords on Bosnia. 9. After the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. President George W. Bush declared a “War on Terror” that was later broadened to a “Global War on Terror (GWOT)” There is no clear enemy in this war as terror is in the mind of the beholder and also that there is no clear end to such a war, as the tactic of terror has existed throughout history. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote the essay “Perpetual Peace” in 1795 in which he considered the possibility of such a peace if states were small and democratic, later analyzed by current political scientists as the theory of “democratic peace.” By contrast, the “Global War on Terror” is one of “Perpetual War” and thus a fundamental threat to global security that must be overcome by global collective action. 10. Following is President George Herbert Walker Bush’s statement on why he did not occupy Baghdad. It’s unfortunate that his son, President George W. Bush did not review this before his own invasion and occupation of Baghdad:
“Trying to eliminate Saddam… would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
Originally delivered as a speech on Jan. 5, 2007, at the ASSA Conference’s Economists for Peace and Security Roundtable in Chicago.
Previous item: Scandal Fatigue Next item: Sun Shines Again on Chez Vidal Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Republican Economic Theories Don’t Add Up
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By atheo, August 5, 2007 at 2:07 pm #
Juicy Grape,
It is amazing, the lengths they go to to deny wars for Israel.
Report thisBy Juicy Grapefruit, August 5, 2007 at 10:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You are grossly overstating the importance of GWB’s hatred of Saddam as a driving factor in this war. Under the Clinton administration we bombed Iraq on average every other day for ten years. We imposed sanctions on Iraq that killed 100’s of thousands of children and refused to lift them even though we had strong information that Iraq had no WMD’s. We even launched Operation Desert Fox, which according to Scott Ritter, had nothing to do with targeting ostensible WMD infrastructure and everything to do with decapitating Iraq’s regime. We even enacted legislation that formally made regime change our stated goal in Iraq.
When the next war begins with Iran, one would expect this writer to attribute the war to GWB’s alleged Christian Zionist beliefs. Of course that would hardly explain why the major candidates of both parties have voiced support for such a war and are unwilling to “take any option off the table” - even if those options include nuking Iran witha preemptive strike.
The bottom line in both cases is that the Israel lobby is driving force behind war, regime change, remaking the map of the middle east, and creating a permanent american military presence in the region. Everything else is just windowdressing.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 1, 2007 at 4:24 pm #
#91464 by Skruff on 8/01 at 1:07 pm
Thanks Skruff, for this rundown on the petrol usage. Makes sense to me, and pretty much fits with anything else that I’ve read. Matter of fact, the part about China and India’s increased usage, definitely fits with the globalization of the past few decades. (It was leading up to this), butthe profits of the past 5 years are even more remarkable.
And, to that extent, I suppose we do “use” some of what China and India are using, if in fact we wind up buying the stuff here, right off the shelves of Wal-Mart. So now, we just pay THEM for the stuff, but the energy industry still makes an enormous profit, no matter WHO they’re selling to.
Report thisBy atheo, August 1, 2007 at 2:31 pm #
Ender,
Report thisYou seem to be diseminating warmongering islamophobic myths. What solid evidence do you have that M.E. oil proceeds go to fund terror? What evil trash you spew! To diminish this phony threat you propose that we risk contaminating the Earth for an eternity. Vile!
By Skruff, August 1, 2007 at 1:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
91409 by ender on 8/01 at 9:55 am
“consumers of 50% of the petrofuel energy”
With all due respect for your right of free speech; You can no longer make people believe any falsehood you choose to post. Your whole thesis is incorrect, but I haven’t the time to contridict point by point.
What I will do is challenge one point and people can take the other points to the internet for themselves.
The USA does not consume 50% of the worlds petroleum. It was at its highest precentage of consumption in 1960, when it consumed 45.9% of the worlds supply. it as a precentage has steadly declined since then. Today we use 24.8% of the planet’s petroleum recources (2005 figures)
This is not due to our “restraint” it has to do with 3 basic factors.
China and India which together hold almost 40% of the worlds population are emerging as major players in the petroleum import markets. They use petroleum for all those little plastic products you buy at Walmart. The increased use in Asia and the subcontinent have allowed US oil companies to gain a fantastic profit over the past five years.
Many new sources of petroleum have been discovered since 1960. The oilshale in Canada, The vast new fields in what was the Soviet Union, and the Coal to oil process developed by the Chinese. Even thye off-shore leases have developed since 1960.
Finally, since the embargo of 1973, the Iranian shut-down of 1979, and the gulf war price increase of 1991, big utilities have moved from oil fired plants to coal, natural gas, and even wood. Look for further precentage drops if we return to nuclear.
Report thisBy ender, August 1, 2007 at 12:49 pm #
You may want to read up on the current state of electical power generation in Scandinavia. They are way more diversified than we are. They’ve invested heavily in geothermal and hydroelectric power lately and made great strides. Personally, I think we would be better off dealing with some future problems with disposing of nuclear waste in exchange for less greenhouse gas and more starving terrorist. If BIG OIL didn’t control our energy policy, we could have set the world standard with the trillions we’ve invested in the war against iraq. And, the middle east can’t eat oil, and if the US and Europe stop buying it from them, they can’t really afford to finance world wide terrorism. They’ll be to busy dealing with their own internal problems to think about world domination for Islam and the great caliphate.
Report thisBy bobbylon, August 1, 2007 at 11:59 am #
Vice President Dick Cheney has refused to negotiate with Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizbullah, etc. saying, We do not talk to evil.
=====
Wow, if this statement isn’t the pot calling the kettle black.
Report thisBy atheo, August 1, 2007 at 11:28 am #
ender,
Chaos does not benefit the oil industry which requires stability. It does however serve to allow Israeli expansion.
Report thisThe “socialists” that appeal to you in Europe have been building nuclear power plants that will saddle thousands of future generations with the task of safeguarding their wastes.
By ender, August 1, 2007 at 9:55 am #
The closest Iran has come to getting invaded by the US was when it attempted to start an oil bourse, or consortium, based on the Euro. As consumers of 50% of the petrofuel energy produced in the world, the USs economy has come to be based on petroleum products. It is the most heavily traded commodity, and gold is just a shiny trinket with little intrinsic value.
Yes, the xtian right wants the terrorist state of Israel to control all of Jerusalem and rebuild Solomons temple so their EODays myth can come to fruition. Evidently, god needs our assistance with these things. However, there is no great love for Jews, but rather for the upheaval and discord their existence keeps boiling in the Mideast.
The tactics used by the US and UK to create Israel, by forcibly removing 800,000 thousand people, and supporting Israels ouster of a couple more hundred thousand, were specifically done to create unrest.
From the other side, the Islamic nations use Israels existence, their land grabs, and the Palestinian refugee problem to keep their own populations angry at the west, and Israel. They dont want them looking too closely at the corruption and totalitarian systems of the Islamic rulers.
Just as most US citizens were easily co-opted into the administrations scheme to attack Iraq because we wanted our pound of flesh and oceans of blood for 911, war is the best tool of any govt to prevent its population from looking to closely at the monster in its own back yard, by focusing the attention on the monster on the outside.
The US buys very little oil from the Middle East. But prices are based on the world market and supply. Profits from oil are funneled to our ruling economic class by their portfolio of oil supplies where they receive some percentage of the profits. During the period between wars against Iraq, the amount of oil out of Iraq was cut drastically, but the big problem was the profits did not flow into the correct coffers. Likewise, our CIA attempted to overthrow the democratically elected govt of Venezuela, because the interfered with the flow of profit.
We have seen the enemy and it is US. Americans are 17% of the worlds population and consume 50% of its raw materials. We drive oil hog vehicles, shun public transportation and live in homes that would house extended families of 30 or more in much of the world. Our economy is based on oil, but fueled by conspicuous consumerism.
The Democrats are no different than the Republicans. They serve the same masters. The oligarchies of the wealthy that are the real power in the world are not exclusively American by any means. The Federal Reserve that controls the US money supply has as many Europeans on its executive board as Americans.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, folks, but the Socialist nations of northern Europe are making serious inroads into eliminating the consumption of fossil fuel, have universal healthcare, more time off work and are generally happier with their lives than we are.
Americans have confused political systems, democracy vs. totalitarianism with socialism vs. capitalism for way to long.
We will continue to be pawns of the moneyed elite until we change our ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Until our govt exists to serve us, instead of moneyed few Kings of Capital, 93% of Americas wealth will stay in the hands of 1% of its citizens.
And our sons and daughters will continue to die to maintain the flow of wealth and power into the hands of a very few.
We are already a socialist state, providing welfare to the top 1% of our population, and maintaining their positions of power.
The only way to change this system is for a democratically elected socialist govt to nationalize the most critical systems. Healthcare, energy, transportation and utilities should be run by the people, not run over the people.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, July 31, 2007 at 9:45 pm #
#91190 by Louise on 7/31 at 4:12 pm: “...It is alleged that one of the Bush Brothers is president. George Walker, I think. However there is credible evidence that a man named Richard Cheney is the actual functioning president .....The Bush Brothers father, a man named George Herbert Walker Bush was president a few years back. His was only a four year reign, during which he demonstrated the ability to know when to go in and when to get out....”
Oh, thanks, Louise, I knew it must have been something like that. Wasn’t the older Bush dude related to somebody “Hoover”? Oh, no, he was the head of the CIA wasn’t he.......??
Then, wasn’t this G. Walker Bush an airline pilot ....or something like that? Kinda reminds me of that McCain guy who said he used to in the airforce and bombed Iran....... They would make great presidents ...of a home for old air pilots.
Report thisBy SapphireCity, July 31, 2007 at 6:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
While it is truly tragic and horrifying that thousands of US soldiers have died in Iraq, and the amount of money spent on the war is ludicrous, there are even further costs of the war. It has diverted critical attention and funding from other projects on which the lives of millions depend.
For example, the funds spent so far in Iraq could have gone to support the fight against global poverty. 1.2 billion people in the world are trying to survive on less than a dollar a day, and it would only take $19 billion more a year to help them. This is an insignificant sum when compared to the US military spending budget.
Imagine if the billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq so far had been directed towards giving people the ability to feed their families, access to clean water and healthcare, and a basic education.
These missed opportunities for making a real difference in the world are another high cost of the war in Iraq.
Report thisBy Louise, July 31, 2007 at 4:12 pm #
#91146 by Douglas Chalmers on 7/31 at 1:19 pm
“One of these guys is the president of the United States, right???”
***
It is alleged that one of the Bush Brothers is president. George Walker, I think. However there is credible evidence that a man named Richard Cheney is the actual functioning president.
The Bush Brothers father, a man named George Herbert Walker Bush was president a few years back. His was only a four year reign, during which he demonstrated the ability to know when to go in and when to get out. Something his sons seem to not grasp. And as I recall, he did seem to have the ability to think standing on his feet and not miss-speak every time he spoke.
Apparently the aforementioned Bush Brothers take after their mother.
***
“And you cant hijack a plane with box-cutters!”
***
And it’s a good thing too!. Because if criminals and terrorists knew it was that easy to gain control over hundreds of people they wouldn’t need guns or bombs, or any kind of WMD and then where would that industry be?
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, July 31, 2007 at 1:19 pm #
#91112 by Louise on 7/31 at 11:02 am: “...When we watched the Towers collapse the ripple, how could that happen? went round the room. .....That scene played out all over the world. How could that happen? Because the senses say a single airplane could not have done that. And all over the world millions had the same sense. Which was why it was critical to get the fake story planted in the minds of the masses before the sun went down....”
And you can’t hijack a plane with “box-cutters”!
#90847 by Louise on 7/30 at 10:06 am #90779 by cyrena on 7/29 at 11:46 pm
Didnt know Neil Bush was trapped in a phone booth in downtown Manhattan.....
Did I say that? ........or why Neil Bush was trapped in a phone booth in down-town Manhattan....
Yes I did! ......cyrena, I owe you an explanation ... and a big fat apology.....!
It was not Neil Bush stuck in Manhattan it was Marvin Bush......!”
One of these guys is the president of the United States, right???
#90848 by John Borowski on 7/30 at 10:06 am: “...Since the eighties Japan has existed in a covert state of economic depression. While financial writers are telling us all is well, the opposite is occurring....”
Check the “yen carry trade” (free money -stolen from ordinary people in Japan) and work out what will happen to the USA when it finally unwinds - in to a black hole! “Jim’s Formula” - http://www.jsmineset.com/home.asp?RQ=EDL,1&sPID=0& amp;linkid=3806 - or, if you can study pages 1 - 4 for some real economic history and analysis, see the quotes of “Another” from the last financial crisis at http://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/another1.html
Report thisBy Louise, July 31, 2007 at 11:23 am #
You might also want to visit ...
FEMA Whistleblower Exposes 9/11 Conspiracy
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid= 89&contentid=3905
And ...
BYU Physicist Confirms Demolition Cutter Charges At World Trade Center
Report thishttp://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Jonescuttercharges1.htm
By Louise, July 31, 2007 at 11:02 am #
Shaped Charges and the
World Trade Center Collapses
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html
When we watched the Towers collapse the ripple, “how could that happen?” went ‘round the room.
That scene played out all over the world. How could that happen? Because the senses say a single airplane could not have done that. And all over the world millions had the same sense. Which was why it was critical to get the fake story planted in the minds of the masses before the sun went down.
Which is why a man nobody knew suddenly showed up in front of a camera and told the world “how” what happened just happened.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
Which is why another man nobody knew on the other side of the world sat down and wrote the “pancake” theory, which went into rapid circulation. http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Then the powers that be proceeded to get rid of as much forensic evidence as possible, sighting the total destruction making it impossible to conduct a thorough investigation. Destruction that magically produced a passport of one of the alleged perps, by the way.
The senses told us we had just witnessed controlled demolitions.
Why was the administration absolutely determined to not go there?
[Because that is exactly what we saw!]
Maybe the terrorists imploded the buildings ... lets look into that possibility?
Well, we cant. Because if we did we would have to find out how they were able to get into the places in the Towers they would need to get into without ID. How they were able to shut off the electricity to accomplish whatever wiring might be required without drawing attention. How the volume of manpower required to do that exacting and time-consuming work so quickly, could move in and out of the building without raising suspicion ... and we cant do that. Because the only group that fits that description is the sub-contractors hired by the security company with ties to the Bush’s and the Saudis who were working on the security system, up until 9/11.
And that’s why the 9/11 Commission should have asked, “Marvin why were you in Manhattan?”
Seems he was in Manhattan for legitimate “business” reasons.
[well as legitimate as anything the bushes do]
It’s those other connections the 9/11 Commission did not want to highlight, because I’m sure they knew.
And I’m equally sure they knew if the general public knew they would regard it as a truly startling coincidence worthy of some sort of explanation.
9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html
Then go to http://www.whatreallyhappened.com [an excellent source] and scroll down to 9/11 on the left hand side. Read all the posts and follow all the links.
For anyone who thinks that rigging the towers collapse would be too elaborate, please read this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
And these “smart” folks wonder why so few believe the “official” story.
By the way, how much do you suppose these corporate wonders paid Osama bin Laden for the “rights” to use his name in promoting their cause? Or, is that when they did him in ... when he showed up to collect the cash?
And finally aside from Larry Silverstein, the corporate war profiteers, the oil monopoly, the Saudis, the Bushes, the coffin makers, and Cheney and his buddies, who benefited MOST from 9/11?
The president would have been laughed out of office in 2004 had it not been for 9/11.
Report thisBy cyrena, July 30, 2007 at 8:30 pm #
#90847 by Louise on 7/30 at 10:06 am
Louise, you are more than forgiven seeing as how this doesnt seem like that monumental of a mistake, (Neil v Marvin theyre all Shrubs to me) but I appreciate that you corrected it, just because thats how we keep some measure of integrity in our postings. (and yes, an editor is definitely appreciated for these things, but all of those professionals are harder and harder to come by these days, which is why I frequently feel like a one-armed wallpaper-hanger, getting paid by the room, instead of by the hour.)
Anyway, thanks for posting that correction, as well as the connections to the participants in the broader scheme.
Meantime, youve all probably heard by now, that Chief Justice Roberts has had a seizure, which prompted a fall, where he suffered minor injuries. Thats not the news (at least for me), since the injuries were minor, and its not like he was in court or in chambers. Nope, the real news (again, at least for me), is that it occurred at his summer home in MAINE!!!
So, it just caught my attention, that yet ANOTHER one of them has a Maine residence, where there seems to be a place for ALL of the Cabal. Last year, I traced Noah Feldman there, (in an attempt to find out how a basic nobody lawyer/philosophy scholar came to be involved in the CPA that Bremer put together as the initial occupation government) and now theres this Roberts guy, and of course others that I cant call to mind right now.
So, all of these dudes have either always had, (or recently acquired) summer residences, in Maine. How much ya wanna bet theyre located in or around, -Kennebunkport?
And, if Osama IS still alive, how much ya wanna bet that he doesnt live there too?
Meantime, John wrote this:
#90848 by John Borowski on 7/30 at 10:06 am
If I were running the show, I would have women from government put the 1000-yen bills on top of the womens toilet bowls. For sure, the women would run to the shopping malls to drop till they shop. That would be exactly what the government wants them to do.
John, Im gonna give you some free advice .this would be a wrong calculation. I would agree that leaving the money for the women to collect, would be a far more efficient way of running the show, but youd be disappointed if you thought they would all for sure run to the malls to shop until they drop. Thats the LAST place Id head with the money.
Report thisBy atheo, July 30, 2007 at 7:04 pm #
Correction to my post below:
Report thisThe name of the Canadian regional jet manufacturer is Bombardier. My most recent domestic flight had two legs, one on an Airbus and another on a Bombardier.
By atheo, July 30, 2007 at 4:52 pm #
Basho,
On top of the outsourcing and joint production arrangements, the US shares it’s cutting edge fighter jet technology with Israel which then makes minor modifications to guidance systems etc… and sells the technology on the global market. This is one reason why our figures on “aid” to Israel are vastly understated. At the present, the US can’t produce a regional passenger jet product that competes with Brazil’s Embraer though high wage and socialised medicine Montreal produces Canadair jets that sell well here in the US.
Report thisBy nonsequitor, July 30, 2007 at 11:44 am #
#90600 by atheo on 7/29 at 7:48 am
No argument from me on the importance of arms sales to the US trade balance, however recent offshoring deals between Boeing and China do pose an eventual threat to even this industry.
atheo-
Report thisthen there is the boeing-russia connection. 1000 folks in russia helping to design the boeing dreamliner, as we speak.
By John Borowski, July 30, 2007 at 10:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Since the eighties Japan has existed in a covert state of economic depression. While financial writers are telling us all is well, the opposite is occurring. After the days work of producing TVs, VCRs, and other electronic toys at their factories they are surreptitiously buried at the local dump. The latest ploy carried out by government officials to juice the sick economy is to have their people go to the mens toilet and put 1000-yen bills on top of the toilet bowls. Unfortunately, their society is very different from ours. In our society, the men would take it to the saloons and drink it up. In their society, the men turn it in to the police. If I were running the show, I would have women from government put the 1000-yen bills on top of the womens toilet bowls. For sure, the women would run to the shopping malls to drop till they shop. That would be exactly what the government wants them to do.
Report thisBy Louise, July 30, 2007 at 10:06 am #
#90779 by cyrena on 7/29 at 11:46 pm
“Didnt know Neil Bush was trapped in a phone booth in downtown Manhattan”
Did I say that?
#90770 by Louise
“or why Neil Bush was trapped in a phone booth in down-town Manhattan”
Yes I did!
cyrena, I owe you an explanation ... and a big fat apology!
It was not Neil Bush stuck in Manhattan it was Marvin Bush!
When Barbara Bush appeared on Larry King live shortly after 9/11 she mentioned her boy MARVIN was stuck in a phone booth in Manhattan when 9/11 happened.
It wasn’t until later when I learned Marvin was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport, that her casual comment came back to me.
As to why I said Neil instead of Marvin I cant say, other than it was late, I was tired and rushing and I don’t have an editor on the premises. An editor would have red-lined that in a heart beat, I would have gone duh and fixed it.
[Which points out why editors are so important.]
My simple goof could lead to completely discrediting everything I say in the future. Hope you all can forgive me.
You may have known Marvin was in Manhattan that morning, but in case you didn’t here’s a brief run-down.
According to Barbara’s book ‘Reflections’ Marvin was in a subway when the towers came down, and eventually had to walk 70 blocks back to his hotel room. So, which is it a phone booth or a subway?
I guess we’ll have to ask Marvin.
In any case, Marvin was a principle in the company Securacom. And why is that important to know?
Because the company was engaged in a security “upgrade” in the Towers in the weeks prior to 9/11.
The company lists as government clients “the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice,” in projects that “often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites.”
According to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. Securacom, now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a “completion contract” to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center “up to the day the buildings fell down.”
I have to get back to work! I’ll post more on this later.
Again, forgive my monumental goof!
Louise
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, July 30, 2007 at 9:56 am #
re: Santayana and repeating history if you ignore it. Isn’t history basically repetitive the last several millennia? If you’re greedy and have the power, you can take whatever you want, even if it means exterminating millions of innocent people in the process. Spare me the empty quotes, please. I bet Truthdig in 3007 will be discussing the same shit.
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, July 30, 2007 at 7:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hey, what’s $2.5 trillion among friends? That’s not even $8500 for every man, woman and child in America (legally)! We’ll add it to the $29,479 each and every American already owes (for federal misspending) then hold it out of your next paycheck.
Truly,
Your Federal Government
Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock
Report thisBy Leefeller, July 30, 2007 at 7:08 am #
Ok Folks,
What ever happened to the new world order? Thought Bush and company were planning on creating one wold order, heard that someplace, and looks like that is what is happening. Big Business, special interests with no countries only one big world, making money, pulling the strings.
Spending money like a drunk Sailor, Commander Cod Piece is a dandy for the job. .
Report thisBy Skruff, July 30, 2007 at 4:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
90782 by Outraged on 7/29 at 11:55 pm
“But, my take is this, corporate America is DEEPLY involved. Let me say that again: DEEPLY INVOLVED! I wouldnt consider corporate America complicit. I WOULD CONSIDER THEM THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS CAMPAIGN.”
My only difference of opinion centers on two issues. Energy does not equal “oil” A small point maybe, but it helps to be aware when the system begins exploiting Hydrogen, Coal, and nuclear.
Second people say “corporate america” as if there is some non-corporate america. If you don’t make any money, don’t eat and commercial food, don’t take any welfare benefits, wipe your ass with dry leaves (etc) then and only then are you part of non-corporate america. BUT as long as one is even sleeping with cardboard between them and the grass, they are part and complicit in “corporate america”
Report thisBy Outraged, July 29, 2007 at 11:55 pm #
In reference to Skruff:
“To say OIL is to over simplify.
Energy to run a capitalist system which requires a 3% gain in customers yearly, but doesnt average the increase over decades.
This is called GREED, and in my humble estimation is the true reason for Iraq, Afganistan, The 9-11 debical, and our acceptance of Bush/Cheney who most folks realize, are in office without legal foundation.
Folks wont budge from their lounge chairs, or put down their remotes UNTIL they are denied beer and chips.
I hate to say this, but it is (again) my impression that most folks see this fight (Bush ve the American people) as entertainment.”
Skruff:
I partially agree (I mean I really like my beer and chips, you wouldn’t deny me, REALLY, would ya?) and also with your later post. I guess in a nutshell you’re saying “the forest is bigger than the trees.” Or did I misunderstand. Anyway yes, it’s about steel, power, computerization, knowledge, ignorance, money, domination, and the like. I’m gauging that you see where I’m going with this.
However, there’s always a bottom line. That “what’s in it for me mentality”. So Cheney (among others) uses Bush to get power, think Heinrich Himmler. Then GW’s thinking is; in the end he’ll get the oil. So, in a “sense” it is about the oil, because GW just doesn’t want to “not get his” after the whole mess has gone awry. Also, no, I don’t think MOST people find it entertaining, although there are sadists out there.....yeah, there are.
So, while it may seem simplistic, it doesn’t mean it isn’t factual, whereas it concerns GW. But, my take is this, corporate America is DEEPLY involved. Let me say that again: DEEPLY INVOLVED! I wouldn’t consider corporate America complicit. I WOULD CONSIDER THEM THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS CAMPAIGN.
Great comment though; I think we’re on the same page. Have a good one!
Report thisBy cyrena, July 29, 2007 at 11:46 pm #
#90770 by Louise on 7/29 at 9:35 pm
Louise: You are such a valuable source of information, and its always so well articulated. Now, I had no idea about some of this stuff..
.Or why the CIA cancelled a meeting in the Towers scheduled for the 11, or why Condi and others warned friends and associates to stay off of airliners for a while, or why Neil Bush was trapped in a phone booth in down-town Manhattan when the Towers fell, or why ...
Didnt know Neil Bush was trapped in a phone booth in downtown Manhattan, (or why they woujldnt have just left him trappen in it) and I didnt know about the meeting that the CIA cancelled either. On the warnings to stay off of airliners for a while I didnt get that memo directly either, though there were certainly signs that it had been given. The airports were ghost towns, and I (having NOT been forewarned) just barely escaped direct involvement in the disaster myself. (THAT is one of the events in my life that has sustained me at the agnostic position, rather than an adoption a full atheist stance.) As a matter of fact, in the weeks and days preceeding the 9-11 catastrophes, it would almost seem, (thinking back) that the memos I was getting, were actually SENDING me into the fireballs, or at least taking a real good chance that Id be in one of them. (maybe just my own paranoia). The lottery on that, turned out to be on my side, (I think) so I havent spent too much time agonizing over it. I am grateful though.
And, grateful for these other tidbits as well. No, the commission does mention any of this, and of course my main question, (since day one) what happened to those airplanes. Not a sign of debris, not a sign that they were ever even where they were claimed to have wound up. The Eastern Seaboard of the US is NOT a Bermuda Triangle, and so .where did they go?
Report thisBy cyrena, July 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm #
#90600 by atheo on 7/29 at 7:48 am
No argument from me on the importance of arms sales to the US trade balance, however recent offshoring deals between Boeing and China do pose an eventual threat to even this industry. In the final analysis, the club doesnt seem as attached to the US as to Israel.
Atheo,
Thanks for the response, and for pointing this out. I hadnt even thought of the offshoring deals between Boeing and China. NO, actually, I wasnt even aware of them, but Im not at all surprised. (Thanks for mentioning it though).
And, I appreciate your analysis on the club. In all honesty, I had in mind the elite members of the US branch of the global club, which is the establishment that has produced most of our political actors of the past several decades, leading to the point we agree on, (I think) which is that in reality, there is little difference between the two parties here, or the members within. At least not historically speaking, because all of this military industrialization and the rest, has been promoted as much by Dems as Republicans. Matter-of-fact, Ive always referred to Bill Clinton as my favorite Republican, and of course that would offend him. But in fact, he is a centrist, and for what I believe the role of a U.S. president to be, I was generally impressed with his job, though he made a few policy decisions that pissed me off.
At the bottom line though, my point was that most of these current (US) actors are part of that global club you reference, and for the most part, theyre all operating on the status quo that demands a continuation of the military complex, as well as all of the other ventures.
And yep, its sure hard to know who the client state actually is .US or Israel. Thats problematic, since Im satisfied to just have my single US citizenry, and deal with the rest of the club on an independent basis. I never asked to be part of a merger with Israel. I guess most of us didnt, eh?
Report thisBy cyrena, July 29, 2007 at 9:46 pm #
#90619 by Paolo on 7/29 at 9:12 am
There is no clear enemy in this war as terror is in the mind of the beholder and also that there is no clear end to such a war, as the tactic of terror has existed throughout history.
Paolo!! Excellent post. I like this quote, (and the entire post) and it is very helpful to me. Matter of fact, its another that Id like to share with my circle that has not quite managed the workings of the blogosphere, for all of the wealth that it contains, especially in posts such as these. For them, this breaks through the propaganda that were fed, in a way that can be effectively understood by the average person. Especially this:
The beauty (from Bushs perspective) of this war is that it can literally go on forever! There is no authority to surrender to us. In like manner, there is no one for us to surrender to! (Which points out the absurdity of Republican claims that withdrawal from Iraq equates to surrender to the forces of evil.")
As Randolph Bourne stated: War is the health of the State.
Another way that Ive tried to break it down in conversation with those who have been terrorized-by-fear, (and we ALL have been of course, but some havent come to yet) is to ask them who the enemy is, or who they believe the enemy to be. At least thats the question Ive been posing to a handful of them, for some years now. The WHY are we there, (wherever it might be) fighting, dying, and killing.
Its been a slow process; the attempt to bring each other, (as gently as we can) out of that sort of mass denial. But, I do think its happening. Actually, blogs like this prove to me that it is, and so Im grateful.
On the other hand, I think there is a ray of hope if parents started really valuing their children and did everything in their power to keep them from being thrown into the meat grinder.
Imagine if parents taught their children, at an early age, that war, above everything else, is the thing in life most to be dreaded? What if they explained to their kids the stupidity of Hollywood war epics that depict war as heroic?
This would be best. And, this too .is in the works. At my own middle-age, I can claim at least 30 members of my family, (most of them passed on now) who have served in the US military, over the past 7 decades. (Ive had literally dozens of uncles/aunts/cousins not to mention two sets of parents, and all that it entails). So, we middle-to- oldsters KNOW of what you speak, and have done everything that we can, to teach a different way. My own parents actually did the same with us, even though they were actively involved in these wars combat- (or, maybe because of that). So, weve been able to pass along those basic concepts to our own next generations, and they do seem to get it.
That is, war is never the solution for peace, and it cant buy that kind of security. And, when we follow the thread of the so-called national security that the propaganda tells us is security, we discover that security to be somebody elses whatever- it may be. Oil, water, fish, land, gold, drugs, and the list goes on of course. But, thats what the wars nearly always have their root, and they provide the ultimate prize to the victor, which is the POWER that comes with all the loot. But in a created war such as this, built on this existential fantasy-fear of a global boogie-man called terror , theres never a victor, (besides the moneymen) and so the masses just lose.
So, I think were finally getting the message across, at least to some. And, we can only hope that it will spread at least as fast as the propaganda. Its like we need an on-going antidote to this stuff.
Which one of our presidents said “A lie can get half-way around the world before the truth even gets his pants on”?
Report thisBy Louise, July 29, 2007 at 9:35 pm #
#90541 by Ernest Canning
“Louise, the reason the 9/11 commission did not stop the real terrorists in their tracks is because they were located inside the sealed vault that is the vice presidents office.”
Right you are, Ernest! That’s what I meant when I said, “the 9/11 commission didnt even go there.”
And there were a few other places they didn’t go.
They never asked how come the secret Service didn’t whisk Bush off the minute the second plane hit.
They never investigated the people working in the Towers a few days prior to the collapse “installing a new security system” or why Rumsfeld asked the emergency response directive be re-written making it impossible for anyone to take action in the event of a hijacked airplane without his specific authorization, or why he wasn’t asked, or never left his office until the attack on the Pentagon.
Or why Bush was instructed by his then press secretary Fleischer, “Don’t say anything”
Or why none of the physical evidence at the scene was preserved for forensic investigation, or why Rice and Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld etc. all played dumb about having been warned about a possible attack on a financial center.
Or why the CIA cancelled a meeting in the Towers scheduled for the 11, or why Condi and others warned friends and associates to stay off of airliners for a while, or why Neil Bush was trapped in a phone booth in down-town Manhattan when the Towers fell, or why ... oh, you know. Too much never investigated. To many why’s and the 9/11 commission never, ever asked what we were all asking!
The 9/11 commission didnt even go there.
But the congress, being largely misinformed are trying to gain brownie points with the “be very afraid” crowd and seem anxious to implement the 9/11 commissions recommendations. Which must please Bush enormously ... since they mean so little, what with it being quite impossible to fight a swarm of mosquitoes with a bunker buster, but oh well. Apparently unmindful of the anxe in their base because of the “off the table” remark, among other stuff ...
Report thisThe dems boldly go where everyone else is hiding.
By atheo, July 29, 2007 at 8:29 pm #
Paolo,
The perpetraters aren’t getting much oil and what they are getting is costing them over $1,000/barrel. Yet the occupation goes on.
Scruff,
Report thisIt may interest you to know that Iran’s economy is one of the most capitalistic and privatised in the world. Hezbolah also respects private enterprise above public. Syria’s energy industry is completely penetrated by multinationals. Saddam Hussein wanted to sell all the oil he could at the prewar price of $18/barrel. At that price the war has already cost the US twice the value of all of Iraq’s proven reserves.
By gerry issokson, July 29, 2007 at 7:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
i have to believe that one of the reasons was an attempt to help the saudis with their al qaeda problem, by redeploying our “infidel” troops out of their country. i seem to recall wolfowitz actually citing this as one of the more important reasons for this tragedy
Report thisBy Paolo, July 29, 2007 at 4:12 pm #
The German word for war, “Krieg” comes from a root word meaning, “to acquire” or “to get [something].”
Folks, that’s what war is all about. At least the Germans acknowledge that fact linguistically. When nations go to war, it is ALWAYS to “get something” to which they are not entitled, morally.
In the case of Iraq, the Bush Crime Family wanted to “get” some cheap oil. Along with that, they wanted to “acquire” hegemony in the Middle East for the USA and its client state, Israel. [Some might argue that the USA is Israel’s client state. Good point.]
And of course, they wanted to “get” all the “political capital” that comes with propagandizing a population into supporting a war under the threat of being “unpatriotic” for raising a voice of dissent.
Methinks they may have miscalculated. At least, I hope to God they have.
Report thisBy Skruff, July 29, 2007 at 2:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
90676 by atheo on 7/29 at 1:00 pm
“People never warred over coal, palm oil, wood, or whale oil, although, they were traded globally. Outside of the 20th century, nations have never fought over petroleum either. Wars are generally fought over real estate, which is much more valuable than commodities.”
Actually, when looking at the history of the world far more wars have been fought in the name of various “gods” then for all the commodities (including real estate) listed above.
I’m not sure our presence in Iraq is not as much about Islam/Xtianity as about oil. The muslim way of life does not fit with our blend of interest capitalism. AND the Saudis live on “Sun Time” rather than a specific time zone.
In a world where the Swiss flag’s shape and size almost kept the country out of the European Union, DIFFERENCE matters, and usually is unacceptable....even if we are different having “civilized” later than the Arabs and Persians.
Report thisBy atheo, July 29, 2007 at 1:00 pm #
People never warred over coal, palm oil, wood, or whale oil, although, they were traded globally. Outside of the 20th century, nations have never fought over petroleum either. Wars are generally fought over real estate, which is much more valuable than commodities.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, July 29, 2007 at 12:40 pm #
#90639 by andsoitgoes on 7/29 at 11:14 am: “...Before the oil...it was...”
Actually, is was palm oil before the ‘mineral’ oil and whale oil before that .... and so it goes…
Now, it is back to ethanol from oilseed crops and sugarcane, etc etc! Still all producing CO2’s!!!
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, July 29, 2007 at 12:34 pm #
The economics of ending wars should translate into lower taxes, men and women back home with their families, less gas and oil being expended by the war machine.
Sounds like good economics to me.
Report thisBy andsoitgoes, July 29, 2007 at 11:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Before the oil
it was wood.
Before the wood
perhaps it was salt.
Before the salt
maybe it was the women....
soon it will be water
Report thisBy Paolo, July 29, 2007 at 9:12 am #
Point 9:
“There is no clear enemy in this war as terror is in the mind of the beholder and also that there is no clear end to such a war, as the tactic of terror has existed throughout history.”
And as a libertarian (and registered Democrat) I have to add: “What more could a tyrant ask for?”
The beauty (from Bush’s perspective) of this war is that it can literally go on forever! There is no authority to “surrender” to us. In like manner, there is no one for us to “surrender” to! (Which points out the absurdity of Republican claims that withdrawal from Iraq equates to “surrender” to the “forces of evil.")
As Randolph Bourne stated: “War is the health of the State.”
As James Madison pointed out, war should, of all government activities, be the most feared, because it is the quickest road to tyranny. In war, the State demands higher taxes, total acquiescence to the official party line, and (of course) the lives of young men and women who have barely reached maturity.
Yet it seems people fall for the propaganda, every time, year after year, throughout history. Kinda depressing, isn’t it?
On the other hand, I think there is a ray of hope if parents started really valuing their children and did everything in their power to keep them from being thrown into the meat grinder.
Imagine if parents taught their children, at an early age, that war, above everything else, is the thing in life most to be dreaded? What if they explained to their kids the stupidity of Hollywood war epics that depict war as “heroic”?
Then, we could really experience the line from the old song: “What if they had a war, and nobody came?”
Report thisBy atheo, July 29, 2007 at 7:48 am #
Cyrena,
No argument from me on the importance of arms sales to the US trade balance, however recent offshoring deals between Boeing and China do pose an eventual threat to even this industry. In the final analysis, the “club” doesn’t seem as attached to the US as to Israel. The “club” (international finance) has switched empires on many occasions through history. Spain to Holland. Holland to the UK. The UK to the US. Each time they seek a fresh population to provide cannon fodder for the enforcement of their capital expansion. While they utilise the nationalism and racism of their host, their primary loyalty is elsewhere.
Report thisAs for arming Israel, the Democrats are every bit as guilty as the Republicans. It’s not just the “small stuff” but the bombers and fighter jets also. Even the nuclear technology was provided by the West(with no particular connection to the Republican party).
By Scott, July 29, 2007 at 7:39 am #
Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.
- George Herbert Walker Bush, from his memoir, A World Transformed (1998)
I wonder if the Shrub even bothered to read Pappy’s memoirs.
Oh well, I certainly don’t expect the Democrats will display anymore finesse. The foundations for any excellence in government have probably been undermined beyond repair. Does anyone seriously believe the Democrats will uninstall any of the new powers that now come with the job of ruling the most powerful rogue on Earth?
I don’t think so.
Report thisBy cyrena, July 28, 2007 at 9:54 pm #
#90395 by Don Stivers on 7/28 at 9:47 am
He landed on an aircraft carrier and strutted around like a peacock in his flight suit.
Don, I have just a crouton of trivia for you on this. Actually, the Shrub did NOT land on that aircraft carrier. That was all staged, right down in San Diego. It took them a long time, (with really tricky logistics) to get that big thing situated in the ocean, so that the signs and stuff didnt show it the background .Welcome to San Diego. So, they managed to set it up, against a backdrop of Palm trees and the Pacific Ocean. Whos gonna know it isnt really Iraq, or that he just walked on stage?
And Don, its probably just as well. Can you imagine ANY of our pilot troops, being willing (or forced) to fly with him at the throttle? Oh no. Youd never get ME in an airplane with that imposter.
Report thisBy cyrena, July 28, 2007 at 9:36 pm #
#90510 by Louise on 7/28 at 6:16 pm
I very nearly choked on my bagel I was laughing so hard.
Cheney rushed to the hospital because ... his battery went dead!
Louise, you know that SOB doesnt have a real heart problem!! He had a little scare 12 or 15 years ago, and just immediately had the hardware installed. Hes just a wimpy hypochondriac like Osama bin Laden, except that Osamas ailments were legit, (which is why I dont think hes still alive).
Still, cheney never goes ANYWHERE without his bullet proof flack jacket, and a team of doctors, and there has to be these permanent hospital-like facilities set-up anywhere hes likely to be, in case his alleged heart skips a beat. Its really more like a vampire needing to make it back to his crypt before daybreak. And, since he travels so much, he has to have a crypt available everywhere he goes.
Hes the essence of evil, run on a battery.
Report thisBy cann4ing, July 28, 2007 at 9:35 pm #
Louise, the reason the 9/11 commission did not stop the real terrorists in their tracks is because they were located inside the sealed vault that is the vice president’s office.
Report thisBy nikto, July 28, 2007 at 8:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Great analysis.
Man, The Truth sure is hard on Conservatives.
And Truth is absolutely devastating to the Neocons!
Report thisBy cyrena, July 28, 2007 at 7:27 pm #
#90423 by atheo on 7/28 at 11:47 am
Cyrena
I have to disagree with the notion that this bipartisan warmongering is real politick. The public had to be propagandized for these aggressions. No mass of the electorate pushed Hillary to take her pro-war positions .. ..
Atheo:, Im a little confused here. Maybe the confusion is in my understanding of real politick (which is political expediency) and that is pretty much EXACTLY what youve described here, in your excellent rundown on the particulars of each one of these people youve spoken about. That Kerry and Bush are old Skull n Bones frat brothers, and we know theyre all corporate backed, and most of them, (with the exception of Obama) have some kind of elitist roots. We know that. NO argument from me on some of this stuff, although I would quibble with you on some of the same extensions that youve made to Obama, which dont fit the mold of these generations old political elites.
But, that isnt really the point. More to the point is that this bipartisan warmongering is VERY MUCH about the true meaning of real politick, which has nothing to do with US, -the electorate-, which is exactly why its real politick. It has nothing to do with the ideology of the electorate, and EVERYTHING to do with all of the politicians, doing what they have to do for themselves and each other.
Consequently, theres no connection between the electorate, and Hillary or anyone elses warmongering. Of course it wasnt the electorate that encouraged her to take the stand, although .you might consider that there is certainly a percentage of the populace that DOES support this warmongering, because their continued personal wealth depends on it. And yep, that would be that top gang thats ranking in all the money, and HAS been raking in all of the money, for a good long time now. NONE of them is interested in ending any wars, and that includes dems as well as repubs. We know that.
And, the headlines tell us that CONGRESS has just approved the selling of billions worth of ARMS to Saudi Arabia, and were continuing to arm ALL sides of the Iraq conflict, so that what they dont get from us, they can just make themselves, but it sure saves a lot of work, when the enemy brings you weapons to fight them with. And of course we arm Israel, (at least with the small stuff, those cluster bombs that they used last summer on Lebanon..special delivery from US, and this is pretty much habit for us, anytime we have a Republican administration) The plan now, is that WE, will just ARM the whole damn world, and theres a bunch of real politick involved there, because its our MAJOR EXPORT!!! The economy would fall completely apart, if we couldnt sell our weapons, since its like our biggest GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT. Weapons and defense systems. (and, thats not to say that its not gonna fall apart anyway)
And, none of this is new, and none of the players are either. (well, a few junior Congresspersons and politicians, but not a big enough change). Still, this has been mostly the American way for a very long time. Warmongering is certainly not new to these particular boomers and not the oldsters either. So, that makes it all real politick to me, and it has nothing to do with us, and everything to do with holding together that long established club.
Report thisBy Louise, July 28, 2007 at 6:16 pm #
#90384 by cyrena
“All of that combined, forces me to accept the very high likelihood of your second statement. I may not be the least impressed by Tapleys ilk, but I take the Cheney doctrine even more seriously than he takes his alleged heart problems. (and, Ive heard rumors that he really doesnt have a heart problem at all...he just wants to live forever)...Ergo, the device that hes having switched out again, even as I beg the robber barons to pay for at least a portion of my ulcer meds.”
***
Caught a news blurb looking for a weather forecast.
While explaining Cheney’s recovery, the commentator said,
“They had to replace his battery.”
I very nearly choked on my bagel I was laughing so hard.
Cheney rushed to the hospital because ... his battery went dead!
***
“And NOW...my news reader has just popped up with a headline: Pelosi Touts Progress on 9/11 Bill. What the hell could THAT be about?”
***
She used the Democrats’ weekly radio address Saturday to explain the dems passage of legislation to implement major recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Which does virtually nothing to stop the real terrorists in their tracks, since the 9/11 commission didn’t even go there, but it’s good for brownie points with the voting repubs.
Report thisBy Jethro H, July 28, 2007 at 4:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It is time we took responsibility for a war that never should have starte