tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post3856553383476987885..comments2024-01-22T18:22:29.391-08:00Comments on hedera's corner: Doppelgangerhederahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01696592301686568456noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post-72281666969012191112007-09-12T13:37:00.000-07:002007-09-12T13:37:00.000-07:00Of course it was about the oil. Almost nobody dou...Of course it was about the oil. Almost nobody doubts that any more, especially because of all the permanent bases we're building in Iraq. Why would we need those if we were seriously going to turn the country over to the Iraqis?<BR/><BR/>But I think the neocon masquerade that they were taking freedom and democracy to Iraq has, in the end, done them in. "Democracy" means Iraq had an election; an election, in a country that's 60% Shia, means that the Shia community (which has been the majority underdog for generations) now controls the government and parliament. What incentive do they have to pass the fabled oil law that Dubya has made one of their "benchmarks"?? They want to control the oil contracts themselves, of course. They will never pass the law Dubya and "Uncle Dick" want, and why should they? <BR/><BR/>Here's a prediction: the U.S. oil firms will <I>never</I> get the control of Iraqi oil that they thought they wanted. And the main reason they won't will be the democracy that we insisted on installing.<BR/><BR/>Remember another thing about the Iraqi Shias: George I (i.e. George H.W.) screwed them royally after the 1991 war. He let them believe he'd support them, and then stood aside as Saddam gassed and strafed them. Think they don't remember? Iraq may once, before Saddam (and us), have been an educated and civilized country; but the events of the last 15 years have knocked it back to tribalism. Right now the family and the tribe are about all an Iraqi can rely on. Tribal societies carry grudges.<BR/><BR/>Here's another prediction: if we ever do withdraw, within a year Iraq will either be a Shia theocracy ruled by Muqtada Al-Sadr, or it will be a semi-democracy ruled by SCIRI and its Badr Brigade. Either of those governments will oppress the Sunnis the way the Sunnis oppressed them when they were on top; and there will be a continual low-level insurgency because of that. And it will be the U.S.'s fault, for starting this mess in the first place. <BR/><BR/>If we don't withdraw, the existing situation, including the appalling drain on the U.S. treasury for something we are getting NO benefit from (including NO help in the <I>soi-disant</I> "war on terror"), will continue indefinitely.<BR/><BR/>Colin Powell once told Dubya that Iraq was subject to "the Pottery Barn rule" - you break it, you've bought it. Dubya didn't believe him. He should have.hederahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01696592301686568456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post-20774328654112536242007-09-12T10:22:00.000-07:002007-09-12T10:22:00.000-07:00I tend to regard events on the idiological world s...I tend to regard events on the idiological world stage as isostatic: That is to say Bush needs Bin Laden as much as Bin Laden needs Bush. Each feeds off of the other image as a pretext for whatever flavor of idiological point they wish to make at any convenient moment. Pentagon planners had been preparing for a Mideast invasion for at least 30 years, and we know that Cheney & the Wolf met with Bush in Texas to plan out the Iraq contingency when the Florida election thing was still in doubt. <BR/><BR/>9/11 was the perfect occasion to depose Saddam and set up a puppet government which would grease the contracts for Chevron and BP. Unfortunately, the Pentagon didn't look at the problems on the ground: Iraq had been pieced together just like Yugoslavia and wouldn't survive without an "iron-fisted" dictator (like Tito and Saddam) laying down the law. The Iraq campaign was never about democracy or Al Quaida or any of that crap. It was about oil, and it always will be about oil. The Bush family has had a long history of servicing the Royal Saudis. The Bushes (and Cheney) were bascially doing the Petroleum Shuffle the minute they hit Washington. Colin Powell stood that as long as he could and then resigned in disgust. <BR/><BR/>The war also was the perfect opportunity the Republicans needed to further gut the domestic budget and pay off the war profiteers. So much for Clinton's balanced budget. Lower the ceiling and raise the floor. Feeling kind of squeezed? Join the club. <BR/><BR/>Smirk the Jerk learned early how to suck cock. You just get on your knees, open your mouth, and pray to god.Curtis Favillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06213075853354387634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post-41054814623375356392007-09-11T20:25:00.000-07:002007-09-11T20:25:00.000-07:00I caught him on another venue, but yes, he is who ...I caught him on another venue, but yes, he is who inspired this take on these people.<BR/><BR/>Oh, had an FDR been president when the Towers came down. I often comment regarding the Great Depression that we drew FDR and Germany drew Hitler. We were not so lucky in 2000, when we could have had Gore but got the mental midget with the childlike fear reflex.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post-59540694945352164442007-09-08T08:40:00.000-07:002007-09-08T08:40:00.000-07:00Anonymous David, were you listening to Terri Gross...Anonymous David, were you listening to Terri Gross yesterday too? Her interview was with Jack Goldsmith, who was head of the Justice Dept. Office of Legal Counsel for about 9 months before he quit in disgust. Goldsmith quoted some conversations he'd had with David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff (among other posts he's had) - and the things Goldsmith quoted Addington saying made it quite clear to me that your analysis is right. 9/11 <I>terrified</I> these people, it really did unhinge them, and they will do literally <I>anything</I>, including turning the U.S. into an anti-terrorist police state, if they think they can later point to it and say, "It was to keep them from attacking us again." If you didn't hear the broadcast, go pull it down from the archive - it's worth listening to.<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, there are so many things of serious impact that they <I>haven't</I> done (how about scanning cargo containers at ports?), that it's clear they're flailing - but my point was - the terrorists have <I>succeeded</I> with some very highly placed people in the U.S. government. Those people are, in fact, terrified; probably more than you and I. There is no one up there with the balls to say, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."hederahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01696592301686568456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20417751.post-58444607496828455382007-09-08T06:24:00.000-07:002007-09-08T06:24:00.000-07:00Your argument makes quite good sense to me. My sw...Your argument makes quite good sense to me. My sweetie said as soon as she saw the picture that it was not Bin Laden.<BR/><BR/>Be interesting to see how this gets exploited for perceived political advantage. I tend to think that Bush needs Bin Laden, who apparently helped Bush in the 2004 election, so Cheney could well know that Bin Laden is dead, but he has been more useful "alive," even if as wallpaper. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps they were simply driven over the edge by the successful attacks on 9/11, given that on 9/10 Star Wars was important to them and Bin Laden's machinations were not, and somehow in their unhinged post-9/11 mindsets, every simple-minded, Constitution-shredding, reality-devoid action to "protect the American people" was appropriate. It's challenging to try to make sense of people whose actions don't quite seem to make sense, or at least do not add up to any kind of coherent, competent whole.<BR/><BR/>But whatever, they are miserable bastards.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com