Easy AdSense by Unreal

Conservator Google Feed

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Meta

RSS feedburner feed

Archives

Happy Halloween: the Diabolical lives on in Washington D.C.

Many people have taken note of the President’s appearance lately on shows like John Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, and the View. A comment that seems to be repeated now by the President in this and other venues is the idea that the recovery and change promised will take much longer than expected because… well, recuperation doesn’t just happen over night. The irony here is that this is not what was promised during last year’s campaign for the stimulus package. (It seems that campaigning is something President Obama is really good at.)

A quick eight month turn-around in the economy was imminent, if we bought into the concept of the stimulus package to bring economic recovery, and now, It’s… well what did you expect, miracles? The question that needs to have been asked in all cases is this: So what, Mr. President do you have left in that bag of tricks? There’s certainly no money left…

That’s just a little aside. It has something to do with honesty and honest expectations, something that gets lost in the glarm of Washington politics and promises.

Regarding honesty: I had a conversation with a friend a couple of weeks ago wherein he brought up the notion that the entire 2nd Gulf War was pretty much engineered for the financial benefit of Halliburton. Now, I am able share some insights which could totally change the way one feels about that entire issue. It may not convince you that Halliburton was not selected to be a benefactor of the war spending; it will, however, probably change the way you view the entire situation. My argument or my insight, if you will, is in two parts. Here’s part one:

In 1997 Jim Lehrer interviewed chief weapons inspector David Kaye, and in the interview, Mr. Kaye expressed that one of his greatest concerns was the 89 suitcase nukes that seemed to have gone missing from the Soviet arsenal. Now, remember, that the Soviet Union, after it’s dissolution was in a state that was a little scary for the U.S. because no one knew what would happen to the huge Soviet nuclear arsenal. Equally as dire was the possibility that former Soviet states, undergoing the duress of restructuring would find themselves in a position where selling off fissile material could become a way to gain money. Recognizing this possibility, the U.S. offered a program where we would purchase some of this material to use in Nuclear reactors, etc. It was the ensuing inventory process that gave us a glimpse into what was missing.

Now remember, as much ridicule that President Bush received for never having produced the dreaded weapons of mass destruction, a la nose-cone nukes, the gallery of ridiculers really never understood the situation. Nuclear weapons that could or would have been in the nosecone of a missile would never have been the object of our greatest concern, because, the Iraqi’s didn’t have a missile that could hope to reach the United States. It’s true enough that the valid fear that they could reach our allies in the region was a concern, but a far greater concern for the president who presided during 911 would have been the existence of small portable nukes that might have been easily smuggled into Tel-Aviv or New York. To avoid discovery of these weapons prior to any deployment they could all have been set down inside of an old dry well in the dessert, and never discovered.

Okay, now for part 2:
Put part one up on the shelf. Forget about it for now.
Both before and after 911 the battle in Senate and in the House over whether or not to allow drilling in Anwar raged. For the most part, drilling in Anwar was not supported by Democrats, and, to a lesser degree, it was supported by Republicans. It’s interesting to note that there would have been at least 100 miles of large main pipeline constructed to attach Anwar to the existing Alaskan Pipeline. This doesn’t even begin to touch on all of the rest of the piping and infrastructure that would have to have been put in place. This would or could have been tons of work for Halliburton. It would have represented work in a far more politically stable environment than post-war Iraq, even under the best conditions. It would have been work unthreatened by political shifts in adjoining regions. The work would not only have brought in the immediate construction of infrastructure, but it also would have introduced the issue of continuing maintenance of the pipeline. The scope of the project would have been far greater than anything that is happening in Iraq, especially in terms of potential duration. This is even truer now with incredibly discoveries of natural gas in and near the entire Arctic Circle.

If the Democrats, or anyone, for that matter believed that we were going to war to line the pockets of Halliburton, then that brings up a very important issue: We all know that in Congress there are those unspoken quid-pro-quos. Sort of like: Well, if you agree not to go to war in Iraq to make Halliburton rich, then we’ll yield on the Anwar issue. In other words, ‘we’d be willing to sacrifice the arctic fox, in order to save the blood of some American GI’s.’

Now remember, this argument is only valid if the Democrats believed that that is why we were going to war. Let’s suppose, as some Democratic Senators stated, that they were totally hoodwinked and deceived by President Bush. That somehow, despite the fact that both the inner circles of Congressmen and the President who are recipient to the same high level security information, particularly when hey have decided to go public with it, somehow, the President was still able to pull the wool completely over the eyes of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and many others. Let me get this straight, ‘That old country rube, who can’t pronounce the word nuclear, was more clever than the entire Senate full of Democrats, and he had enough intelligence to outwit them all? I think this brings up the bigger question of why are they even our senators? They must be incredibly stupid….

…or

..or they aren’t incredibly stupid, they knew exactly what was happening, and they voted to go to war, fully believing that it was for the purpose of benefitting a few American Companies, and they made the choice of protecting the habitat of the Arctic Fox from the advances of American energy needs over the life of American soldiers.

There is only one other possibility, logical or illogical, but still only one other possibility.
But first let’s have a look at what we have: The Democrats were all totally deceived by President ‘Nucular’ Bush, in which case they have no business holding office; they weren’t deceived, in which case the bloody turpitude of that is so inconceivably horrible that they…
…have no business holding office, and should be brought to trial simply for what they believed they were agreeing to

…and the third possibility is:

There was no quid – pro- quo. The absolutely immoral possibilities of the Republicans saying (through some secret conversation piece): “well, we don’t really have to go to war”,
and the democrats responding in kind with, “well, maybe the arctic fox isn’t really endangered”, precludes the possibility of any sort of a transaction. And that is real likely, because we all know how averse Congress is to doing anything immoral. (If they have become so upstanding, would it have been better if we were returned to the days when such a backdoor deal could have been struck?)

No wait, there’s a fourth possibility! I forgot the fourth possibility: There was no quid pro quo, the President didn’t urge Congress to agree to go to war so he could secretly benefit chosen American Corporations, the Democrats didn’t walk away from a secret quid pro quo, thusly having chosen the health and safety of the arctic fox over the lives of American G.I.’s, George W. Bush didn’t possess the mental acumen to outsmart all of the Democrats’ brightest, everyone who voted for war (Democrat and Republican) did feel that we had arrived at that undesirable though necessary juncture, and, the President of the United States was concerned about small, portable little nuclear (or nucular) devices entering our country and he was deeply concerned that they might soon be doing far more damage, and causing far more harm than we had ever seen on 911.

Copyright October 31, 2010 by Juan Zapatero


One Comment

 




XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>