Thursday, November 30, 2006

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Vlad the Impaler, and George W. Bush

Wag the Dog

Vlad the Impaler, the real-life Dracula



There have been no presidents in history, including Nixon, who were actually willing to trade blood for any personal goal. There have been proofs of presidential lying (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”), and of presidents exaggerating in order to get the U.S. into a war they felt needed to be waged. However, there has never been a demonstrated “wag the dog” scenario. Yes, Johnson used the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident to get the U.S. more deeply involved in Vietnam, but he did this to fight what he believed was a just war. Nixon was willing to execute the war in Vietnam on a grander scale than he was admitting to the public, but he was doing this, he thought, to win the war, and hence to save lives. So, even the evil Richard Nixon was never as demonic as conspiracy loving liberals imagine.

War for Oil

One theory of the whacky left (including the insane Michael Moore) that they believe wholeheartedly is that Bush entered the war in Iraq for oil. You see these loons at any peace demonstration carrying their inane signs that say “No War for Oil.”

click to show/hide the rest of the post


In order to posit this you have to believe that a church-going, family-loving man would knowingly slaughter American soldiers so that he could increase his already large fortune, or that of his friends. Or, that the most powerful man in the world believed somehow that he didn’t have enough power and wanted to start taking over the world. The guy would be worse than any mafia don. He would go around smiling while he was sending soldiers to their death for money or power.

The Theory

What is the basis for these whacko beliefs? Bush is an oilman, and Cheney. Plus, their buddies, like Halliburton and other oil related companies, have contracts in Iraq. And, the Bush family has connections with Saudi Arabia.

That’s it. That’s their proof. Since Bush knows oil, and oil people, and has connections with Saudi Arabia, he is guilty. He is sending people to their death for oil. Case closed.

Refutation

I’m not going to go into the whole proof why this conclusion is absurd. I’ll just make a couple points.

First, it’s good that Bush and Cheney are oilmen. Their knowledge, expertise, and connections in this area are one thing that has helped keep the world’s oil flowing in such dangerous times. Thank God they are oilmen. We ought to elect people who know business and oil and commodities, and are well-connected, as these are important to America.

Second, if we were after the oil in Iraq, we would have just conquered the country and taken over the oil fields. We could have built an impenetrable base around the oil fields, forgot about the rest of the country, guarded the pipelines, and took the cash flow. The heck with trying to help Iraq install a democracy. Who cares? We could have justified this by saying it was payment for our monetary and personal sacrifices in freeing Iraq. Instead, every dime of Iraqi oil goes to the Iraqis, and from them to the world market, not to the U.S; and the U.S. meanwhile spends more of its own money on Iraq than on Vietnam.

Yes, oil companies and weapons companies make money. This, I argue, is because we live in a dangerous world. We were attacked on 9/11, remember? Defense companies were going to make money in this environment anyway, without Iraq. Oil companies too, as the price of oil always goes up when there is international tension. 9/11 guaranteed the tension, without Iraq.

Third, Halliburton is the only company that can do some of the things they do. They are the best in their field. They will always get their share of government contracts whether the president is an oilman or not. Simply, the world needs what they do. Because Cheney was on their board before his election as vice president does not mean they need him to intercede for them in order to win contracts. They will win contracts in any free market system.

Delusions

Anyone who believes the War for Oil theory is worse than delusional. These people are guilty of projection. This belief is more of a reflection of their own personal problems than any guilt on the part of Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. (This is one reason why Michael Savage can write the book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.)

The Slogan that Kills

The sad thing is that War for Oil makes an effective slogan for simplistic minds. Unfortunately, seeing this slogan on placards all over the world gives succor to terrorists as they sleep at night planning to bomb babies. Without meaning to, the perpetrators of this vicious myth are guilty of the crimes they accuse the president of doing—namely, of killing hundreds of thousands of people all over the globe. I am being more kind to these people than they are to the president. They accuse him of being a knowing murderer and terrorist; I accuse the holders of these theories as being unwitting accomplices in the death of human beings.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)



click to hide most of this post



4 comments:

SGT DUB said...

Rock, first I believe you are being to kind, I believe some such as Michael Moore and his crew know exactly what they are doing and they still don't lose sleep at night. Secondly, what is interesting is that oil was one of the main reasons why France, Germany and Russia did NOT want to support the war. They feared it would interrupt the flow of oil from Iraq to their countries, causing severe damage to their own economy. As always, keep up the good work.

paz y amor said...

Hmmm,

"First, it’s good that Bush and Cheney are oilmen. Their knowledge, expertise, and connections in this area are one thing that has helped keep the world’s oil flowing in such dangerous times."

Personally I think war vets make better presidents in times of crisis. They know first hand the cost of sending troops into battle and are more apt to use diplomacy to it's bitter end and warfare as a LAST resort. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Bush was dealing with the Bay of Pigs crisis rather than Kennedy? Bush and Cheney's "expertise" in the area has got us, by your own admission, in one hell of a mess and now they're outsourcing bipartisan advisement to get us out. Smart move if you ask me. It's about time!

It's interesting how many conservatives are ALSO conspiracy theorists, yet you never make mention of that. Do you know how many times I've heard about "Clinton's blood trail" (Vince Foster, Ron Brown et al) that supposedly led to his ascendency to the White House and continued through his presidency? I, as a person who liked Clinton and thought he did some great things for the country, find it hard to believe- although I acknowledge that it's completely possible and in fact, had he not been fond of cigars and horny interns, I'd believe it even less!

I'm not one to believe that the Iraq war is solely based on a mission to procure oil for the administration and it's friends, but there's some interesting connections that you can't ignore simply because the WH mouthpiece tells you it's hogwash. You can say "I believe what they tell me" all you want, but dirty government deals large and small aren't made for public interest, benefit or awareness so you WON'T hear of it. Just as I'm biased towards "Dirty" Bill, you're partial to "Dirty" George, but you seem to completely disavow any possibility that a "church-going family man" like Bush is corruptable. Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson and Tom Delay were all church going family men too!

Do I believe GW is sending soldiers into Iraq specifically to kill them? No, but do I believe there are some ulterior motives involved, Yes! No administration in the past has gone to war on such sketchy evidence and reasoning. We KNEW Saddam invaded Kuwait, we KNEW Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we KNEW Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, we KNEW Hitler was taking over Europe, GW and Co. ASSUMED Saddam was culpable for 9-11 and have since used all kinds of other rationales to justify the recent war. There is no direction, no aim, just meandering goals and shifting foci- unlike all other wars in the past.

Speculative as it may be, there are a lot of unanswered questions that point to the idea that there may, MAY be other elements at work regarding the war.

How is it that people who protest using the slogan, "War for oil" causing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Who's pulling the trigger?

Rock said...

Sgt Dub, good to hear from you. You said:

Rock, first I believe you are being to kind, I believe some such as Michael Moore and his crew know exactly what they are doing and they still don't lose sleep at night.

If you're right, then Mr. Moore is worse than any demon Bush he creates for the world.

Secondly, what is interesting is that oil was one of the main reasons why France, Germany and Russia did NOT want to support the war. They feared it would interrupt the flow of oil from Iraq to their countries, causing severe damage to their own economy. As always, keep up the good work.

Great point. Oil for food scandals, disappearing money, oil deals. And the libs wanted us to have worldwide support, and support from the U.N. to take care of Saddam--it's like asking the mafia to help police drug trafficking.

Thanks Sgt. Have a great week.

Rock

Rock said...

Paz, great to hear from you. I hope all is well in this holiday season. You said:

Hmmm,

"First, it’s good that Bush and Cheney are oilmen. Their knowledge, expertise, and connections in this area are one thing that has helped keep the world’s oil flowing in such dangerous times." 

Personally I think war vets make better presidents in times of crisis. They know first hand the cost of sending troops into battle and are more apt to use diplomacy to it's bitter end and warfare as a LAST resort. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Bush was dealing with the Bay of Pigs crisis rather than Kennedy?

You make a good point. However, I’d cringe to see any present-day Democrat at the helm of the Cuban missile crisis. Can you imagine Kerry? “I said, Mr. Khrushchev, that we were going to bomb you before I decided not to. Besides, it was only a joke.” Seriously, Kennedy and Johnson were the last Democratic presidents strong on defense. No foreign power will ever take America seriously in a crisis with someone who hates the military in power. I’d like ex-military people as president too—like Patton, McArthur, Eisenhower.

Bush and Cheney's "expertise" in the area has got us, by your own admission, in one hell of a mess and now they're outsourcing bipartisan advisement to get us out. Smart move if you ask me. It's about time!

The war, paz, has not been fought well, I agree. Part of the reason for the loss, however, is because the liberal media gives the insurgents their talking points—which rallies the world against the war effort.

It's interesting how many conservatives are ALSO conspiracy theorists, yet you never make mention of that. Do you know how many times I've heard about "Clinton's blood trail" (Vince Foster, Ron Brown et al) that supposedly led to his ascendancy to the White House and continued through his presidency? I, as a person who liked Clinton and thought he did some great things for the country, find it hard to believe- although I acknowledge that it's completely possible and in fact, had he not been fond of cigars and horny interns, I'd believe it even less!

Conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists to me, paz, Democratic or Republican. I don’t buy the process of imagining what’s going on behind closed doors and treating it as truth. I don’t mind the speculation, but basing decisions on conspiracy theories is just wrong. Oswald killed Kennedy, and this has been scientifically proven, despite all the “magic bullet” speculations. It’s all been explained, but tell that to the guys who write the phony books saying otherwise, or to Oliver Stone.

I'm not one to believe that the Iraq war is solely based on a mission to procure oil for the administration and it's friends, but there's some interesting connections that you can't ignore simply because the WH mouthpiece tells you it's hogwash. You can say "I believe what they tell me" all you want, but dirty government deals large and small aren't made for public interest, benefit or awareness so you WON'T hear of it. Just as I'm biased towards "Dirty" Bill, you're partial to "Dirty" George, but you seem to completely disavow any possibility that a "church-going family man" like Bush is corruptible.

What I’m looking for, paz, is evidence—not speculation. I don’t believe Clinton was a murderer, because there is no evidence of it. I do believe he raped or at least sexually harassed women, because there is evidence of it. I believe he lied under oath because I saw him do it. Those Republicans who preached that Clinton murdered Vince Foster are idiots.

Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson and Tom Delay were all church going family men too!
How does this apply to Bush? Again, where is the evidence? Besides, not one of these people was a murderer. 

Do I believe GW is sending soldiers into Iraq specifically to kill them? No, but do I believe there are some ulterior motives involved, Yes! No administration in the past has gone to war on such sketchy evidence and reasoning. We KNEW Saddam invaded Kuwait, we KNEW Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we KNEW Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, we KNEW Hitler was taking over Europe, GW and Co. ASSUMED Saddam was culpable for 9-11 and have since used all kinds of other rationales to justify the recent war.

9/11 changed everything, paz. The threshold for war was lowered. With the danger of somebody attacking us, with Saddam wanting WMDs, with Saddam paying suicide bombers to kill babies in Israel, and with Saddam hating America and developing relations with terrorists, he had to go.

There is no direction, no aim, just meandering goals and shifting foci- unlike all other wars in the past. 

Speculative as it may be, there are a lot of unanswered questions that point to the idea that there may, MAY be other elements at work regarding the war.
I disagree with you, paz, but at least you use the word MAY, which I find reasonable.

How is it that people who protest using the slogan, "War for oil" causing to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Who's pulling the trigger?

I’ll give one example out of hundreds. We captured secret memos from time to time of terrorists admitting to each other that the U.S. was winning the war. Then, some whacko leftist group, or the liberal media, would publicize the opposite, that the war was a fiasco, and was evil. The terrorists took heart from this and used it as a rallying cry for their disheartened troops to keep on fighting. The result? More dead Iraqis and American soldiers. The left are giving aid and comfort to our enemy.

Thanks for your comments, paz. We agree on a little at least, but remain respectfully representative of the left and right. Have a great weekend.
Rock