Chris
Sanders really lays it on the line. He's rested, and on a roll.
Linda
http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sanders/Newsmanager/Index.aspx
His
beautiful mind
August
31, 2005
The
corpse of American democracy is still twitching in Crawford, Texas,
where a lone woman’s vigil in protest of the Iraq war has captured the
imagination of millions (see Linda Minor, Blogging
Truth,
SRA Issues and Answers). Cindy Sheehan, mother of one of that war’s
estimated 2,000-9,000 KIAs, is demanding a meeting with President Bush
and an explanation for her son’s death. As Sheehan’s vigil has
lengthened, the President’s approval ratings have fallen, just desserts
for a politician too stupid to meet with the poor woman in the first
place. This should not surprise anyone; after all, he is the son of
George senior, who is said to have referred to the population that he
governed as “useless eaters” and Barbara, who apropos of body bags and
war casualties memorably said
“Oh, I mean it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind
on something like that?”
The
President needn’t worry about his beautiful mind; indeed for many of us
it would be a relief to know he has a mind at all, as rumours of
increasing presidential mental and emotional instability multiply. He
interrupted his Crawford vacation to make a speech to the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, in the course of which he promised to stay in Iraq for as
long as it takes. His generals in Iraq meanwhile said that they were
going to declare victory and withdraw next year. As far as we know,
they have not yet been charged with insubordination, underlining the
irrelevance of the buffoon in the White House, and increasing the
confusi on of the pro-war press and the War Party, neither of which
likes discordant notes.
The
generals would be wise to withdraw, as the army that they lead is
beginning to disintegrate,
just as we forecast it would. But the announcement of withdrawal
beginning in 2006 made by General Douglas Lute, chief of operations for
Centcom, seemed to be contradicted by statements from the Pentagon
itself, where the Army Chief of Staff, Peter Schoomaker,
said that the Army was prepared to maintain curr ent troop levels until
2009. Schoomaker was a retired special operations officer who was
dusted off and brought in by Rumsfeld to replace David Shinseki, who
bluntly told Rumsfeld and Co. in the run up to the invasion that
victory could not be had with less than 300,000 troops. Schoomaker was
prepared to do it Rumsfeld’s way, not the Army’s way. So much for a
unified command.
|
10 Good
Reasons Why America Should Attack Iran
-
Has some of
the world's largest oil & gas reserves
-
Due to
launch Tehran Petroleum Exchange 03/06
-
Mullahs
sport long beards
-
Government
frowns on narcotics trafficking
-
Pistachios
tastier than California's
-
Can't be
trusted to sell their cultural heritage
-
Women have
terrible dress sense
-
Stupid
enough to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
-
Sells oil to
China
-
Parliamentary
democracy
|
Rumsfeld
is apparently utterly committed to the use of “special operations”
solutions to conventional problems, so much so that he has countenanced
the unprecedented use of mercenaries from roles ranging the spectrum of
logistics to combat in Iraq. No one knows how many, but we estimate at
least 25,000 are now deployed there. With salaries as high as a quarter
of a million dollars yearly on offer in the “private sector,” American
soldiers are doing the sensible thing and leaving the military to get
the money. This is not only leading the military to offer unprecedented
six figure reenlistment bonuses driving the cost of war astronomically
higher, but is destroying the military itself. This week don’t miss
Stan Goff, in the first of a two part article, Bounty Hunter Culture,
SRA Issues and Answers.
The
impression of America deranged is heightened by the antics of the
infamous Reverend Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, a most un-Christian thing for the
right reverend to recommend. He is only pandering to a political class
in Washington all too eager to something of the sort he is
recommending, and indeed, if Chavez is to be believed, has already
tried. Washington’s hostility toward Chavez is utterly irrational on
the face of it, which undoubtedly explains the incoherence of the
people responsible for Latin American policy when talking about him. It
isn’t oil; he sells all it wants to the US. It can’t really be
democracy; Chavez is the legally elected leader of his country. It
can’t be human rights; Chavez has demonstrably improved education and
medical care for the poor. In today’s debased political discourse, this
apparently is proof that he is a “leftist,” proving, if proof were
needed, that the political labels we grew up with no longer have any
meaning at all.
|
10 Good Reasons Why America
Should Kill Hugo Chavez
-
Democratically elected
-
Stupid enough not to have
nuclear weapons
-
Wears Che Guevara t-shirts
-
Best friend is an old Cuban
with a beard
-
Arms troops loyal to him and
not to the US
-
Repays his country's debts
-
Even worse, proposes to repay
other countries' debts
-
Provides medical care to
useless eaters
-
Prepared to sell oil to China
-
He's a lot smarter
than Bush
|
As
oil prices pushed toward and through $70 a barrel, the tragedy of war
gave way to the theatre of the absurd as New York Times columnist John
Tierney publicised a bet with
investment banker Matt Simmons that oil prices would fall. Simmons bet
him that in five years oil prices in 2005 dollars would hit $200 a
barrel, generously giving Tierney ample room to hang himself. Tierney,
who candidly professes to know nothing about the subject, invoked the
shade of Julian Simon, deceased dean of the Pollyanna School of
Perpetual Glut, who would have rather trusted the market than his own
head.
Tierney
should read the papers, in which the oil industry and OPEC are warning
of looming structural shortages. Indeed, even the most optimistic of
forecasts of the global oil production peak do not deny it, they just
say it is thirty years away. Tierney is right about one thing: prices
will certainly fall at some point. But what he is wrong about is that
then they will shoot up again as volatility increases to new highs,
while the average price of crude inexorably grinds higher. Of course
one way in which he might win his bet is if high prices cause an
extensive economic collapse, a very real possibility given the total
dependence of the world industrial and agricultural economy on
hydrocarbons. And then he can say, I told you so.
Gosh, to
be able to make money without thinking. Now why didn’t we think of that?
Chris
Sanders
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
