Saturday, July 21, 2007

A "Bellyful" of Right Wing Oil Frauds, War Crimes and High Treason

Americans are fed up with Bush and his moribund party. His GOP gang has gotten lazy, crooked, and stupid. But that's old news. More worrisome is the undisguised glee with which prominent goppers describe impending terrorist attacks on US citizens. One of them mused wistfully that Americans would soon have a different view of Bush's quagmire, his agenda, his place in history! Whenever I hear this kind of talk from a Republican, I instinctively grab my wallet and my..uh..my ass! In these times, no one should leave anything hangin' out.

Now --about those predictions of "spectacular" attacks on US citizens over the next several months. Presidential hopeful Ron Paul flat out stated that such attacks might be staged by the Bush government. Republicans, spare me your scripted, parroted remarks about "tin foil hats". Paul is one of your own. Maybe he should know!

The GOP overtly exploited the events of 911 and the 2004 campaign sought to capitalize on America's emotional response. I cannot believe that an innocent, responsible administration would try to restrict public disclosure about what really happened that day. A single term sums it up: cover up! An oil puppet wishing to make war in the middle east would need a pre-text. If anything said about the events of 911 had been true, truth itself would have been the case for war. Conclusion: the truth was covered up because it undermines the Bush case for war.

An 800 page "secret report" prepared by the joint congressional inquiry is said to detail the many intelligence failures preceding the attacks. Congressman Paul, however, raises an equally credible explanation for Bush's every move. It is to be contrasted to the "coincidence theories" designed by GOP consultants and strategists to fool a stunned and gullible public.
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people , and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank , BCCI , Banco Ambrosiano , the P2 Lodge , the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there's no need to rehash all that . That was then, this is now !

That Jonathan Bush's Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama's brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is .

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations .

--The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

We know from our first semester Psychology courses that a conditioned reflex wears thin without reinforcement. Negative "training" even more quickly. The GOP has looked at the polls and have come to the same conclusions --the old 911 magic just "ain't workin' anymore". Who remembers the color codes of the Department of Homeland Security? A "red alert", as I recall, always seemed to come on the heels of a dip in Bush's approval rating. The GOP must surely think us well-trained and conditioned. I have a different view. It is an unimaginative GOP that is trained like Pavlov's dogs to scream bloody terror whenever it begins to look as if Bush is no longer loved. I don't like to think about what might be up their checkered sleeves. I hope Lou Dobbs is correct.
It's beginning to look like the American people may finally have had a bellyful of elected officials who do little more than shill for lobbyists, ignore the interests of America's citizens and perpetuate rather than solve the problems facing this nation.

Lou Dobbs, Lame ducks in a row

The GOP is out of ideas, out of gas, out of its tiny mind. A growing number of people have, at last, figured that out with a lot of help from idiots like Ric Santorum, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch and, of course, Bush himself, role models of what not to be.

George W. Bush committed high treason by deliberately lying to the people, the congress, the UN so that he could take this nation to war. When his every pretext for that war is now established, beyond any reasonable doubt, to have been false, the burden of proof is now on Bush.

A veritable gestalt of black-hearted lies about WMD was but a pretext to begin a war of naked aggression in violation of the Nuremberg Principles and our own US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 War Crimes, which prescribes the death penalty for those war crimes resulting in death. This is not about politics Karl Rove style. This is a capital crime, a case of mass murder.

Certainly, there was no terrorism in Iraq before Bush ordered the US attack and invasion of a sovereign nation. It may be argued that there was no terrorism because Saddam's police state had crushed dissent. Bush, of course, tries to have it both ways: "Saddam was a brutal dictator" and we are fighting to defeat terrorists in Iraq so that they won't "follow us home". The GOP faithful cannot be expected to ask the tough questions: if there are "terrorists" in Iraq, then how and why are they there? The orthodoxy is never questioned.

Check out the poll that I added to my blog recently, an unscientific poll, to be sure. But as I consider visitors to my site to be literate, articulate and critical, the results may not be dismissed lightly. Significantly, no one participating in this poll has indicated that the US is fighting terrorism in Iraq. It is most often described as "resistance".

Tragically, millions of Americans, owned body and soul by big corporations, have willingly followed Bush into Iraq if not hell itself. These millions would have done so even if he had told the truth. Millions more would not have. Millions more would have insisted upon a lawful and free American. Bush dared not tell the truth about Iraq, that is, the US attacked an invaded Iraq because Bush and his oil partners wanted to control the world price of oil. Nothing had changed since Bush Sr ordered Operation Desert Storm. [See: The April Glaspie Transcript]

A decline in oil prices might have been a good thing for car markers and the SUV addicted but it was not a good thing for Bush and his sponsor --the oil companies.
Idaho GOP Sen. Larry Craig stood on the Senate floor late Tuesday night and said:

"What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the US dependence on foreign oil.

He was cut off by the presiding officer, but later amended his remarks to include in the Congressional Record this:
However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.
Craig's Democratic challenger, Larry LaRocco reacted in an interview with NewWest.net
"Craig rose to his feet on the floor of the Senate to say we should not begin a responsible withdrawal of our troops because of oil... it’s an astounding admission, and it’s in black and white.

"This is the kind of rationale that many people have suspected, but now he has confirmed that it’s no longer about security, it’s no longer about squashing terrorists - he’s putting the lives of our great men and women at risk for oil....

"Craig’s silence all along on the Iraq war and his failure to challenge the Bush administration’s failed policies - even after the casualties mounted - led me to suspect there is something else beyond terrorism in his silence. And now we know."

Craig certainly isn't the only Republican who would use oil as the rationale for our continued occupation of Iraq. He's just about the only one who is arrogant enough and unconcerned enough about political repercussions to admit it. I suspect that's an attitude he'll come to regret.

-- Sen Larry Craig says it's all about the oil
Were it not so tragic, I would have found hilarious the fact that millions voted for Bush because they actually believed that he would lower the price of oil. If you are among them, you were duped and should have been. Neither Bush war was about lowering the price of gasoline. It was about keeping both high and the record shows they succeeded! Over the same period of time, America's privileged class has gotten exponentially richer at a time when America is a debtor nation --so what is the source of that wealth? That's another article.

Saudi Arabia and George W. Bush share an interest in higher prices for oil. Because of that, Saudi Arabia has always had a motive for involving itself in some way with pulling off 911. The House of Saud is most certainly a brutal family run dictatorship, a "mob", if you will! Corrupt, intolerant of dissent, it works stealthily behind the scenes to undermine consensus while maintaining the high price of oil. Unlike most Americans, a high price for oil is least among my objections. I support "green" energy sources and oil "ain't" green except for those getting paid for producing it and spreading it around like addicting dope.

Saudi Royals are motivated to conspire with whomever may be planning this new wave of terror that seems so eagerly awaited by the GOP, so conveniently predicted by the "prescient" swamis and seers inside this moribund party of no ideas, no ideals, no hope for America but fascism. I want to know --what ever does the GOP know about what has been planned, what might be in store for the US in the next several months? More importantly, I want to know how they know? Were they tipped off by their partners in oil --the Saudis? Or is the other way 'round?

At last, George Bush still insists Iraq is a "central front in the war on terrorism" --fallacy made flesh. It's a line given Bushies by highly paid consultants, spin doctors, and Rovian war mongers. Once you have learned to suppress your conscience, you, too, might earn six figures writing talking points for venal politicians. The Devil will always make a bargain. For these people, and they devil they bargain with, truth means nothing.

Because terrorism is whatever Bush says it is, it is fair to ask --are there any terrorists at all in Iraq? Why is terrorism ALWAYS worse under GOP regimes? [Also see: The GOP is not a political party. It's a GOP Crime Syndicate]

The US might have declared victory and pulled out. But the time is past for that. Bush invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam's police state. It is easy enough to conclude that because of that, "terrorists" moved in order to "kill Americans" in a ready-made killing field. Sadly, there is no way to know. Because Bush has lied so often and so inconsistently, the truth about Iraq may never be known. The more rational explanation, the one that is most closely consonant with Occam's Razor, is simply this: there were and are no terrorists in Iraq. Bush simply defines anyone who resists his illegitimate occupation of that nation as terrorist! If, indeed, terrorists moved into Iraq --unthinkable under the regime of Saddam Hussein --Bush must be held to account.

Either terrorists are in Iraq or they are not. If they are not, then Bush's attack and invasion of Iraq is without it last rationale and Bush is a liar/war criminal. If there are terrorists in Iraq, then Bush is incompetent boob/moron who should never have aspired to office.

In the end, Bush's only choice is to withdraw US troops. There is no upside that will save him. If Bush should leave Iraq, he will have admitted that his war and occupation failed; that the lives of over 3,000 US soldiers were wasted upon his orders. It is most certainly no one else's fault but Bush's. Moreover, Bush will have lost his pretext to install a police state, a dictatorship of the GOP and the stupid.

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 20, 2007

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.
...
This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency".

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.
In the end, ego and his mad desire to consolidate a dictatorship prevents Bush from making any correct decision. And, as Bush has never made a correct decision, he is cornered, a prisoner of his own devising.

The world knows that Bush has lost Iraq, his "Presidency", his legacy. That he tries to consolidate the powers of a despot merely seal his fate and ensure the judgement of history: the very worst, the most loathsome "President" in American history. Re-writing this history is beyond even the abilities of the omnipresent Homeland Security. Just this evening BBC reports that the Iraqi "government" (if you can call it that) is unraveling. Isn't it time we faced the similiar truth about the US and the illegitimate administration of George W. Bush?

By staying in Iraq, we capitulate the vocabulary of war. If we choose to remain and be targets, the war, indeed, goes on but never won.

An update

Bush tries to put down GOP revolt

By The Washington Post | Saturday, September 16, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush warned defiant Republican senators Friday that he will close down a CIA interrogation program that he credited with thwarting terrorist attacks if they pass a proposal regulating detention of enemy combatants, escalating a politically charged battle that has exposed divisions within his party. ...

Additional resources Discoveries






Why Conservatives Hate America





Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine
Post a Comment