Friday, October 26, 2007

Talk about a case of the obvious

This article was in the Washington Post, the headline of which is "Strike on Iran Would Roil Oil Markets, Experts Say"

The first question is does it really take an "expert" to know that this will be the case? I think a high schooler with a good grasp of world events (if there is such a thing) could have made this prediction. If this is the work of so-called "experts", how stupid and ill informed have we become?

This line below suggests that the supposed "experts" haven't really been paying attention to the Bush Administration and their penchant to take action without regard to history or geopolitical realities over the past six years:

"A U. S. military strike against Iran would have dire consequences in petroleum markets, say a variety of oil industry experts, many of whom think the prospect of pandemonium in those markets makes U.S. military action unlikely despite escalating economic sanctions imposed by the Bush administration."

U. S. military action unlikely. That is rich.

In the last post, I had mentioned sayings by the President on WWIII (a supposed rhetorical flourish), and comments by the Vice President warning of extreme consequences to Iran. Now within the article above is this little gem from the Secretary of State:

"Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Bush is "committed to a diplomatic course on Iran," but she added that U.S. patience is "not limitless, and allies need to know that."

All of the key players are telling you it's going to happen. The only matter is when. When it does happen, they can say, "we built our case, we got "approval" from Congress, we have "tried" diplomacy and sanctions and they haven't "worked". Now the only option is military action.

Then, this piece of doublespeak that George Orwell would truly be proud of. The headline is "Iran Sanctions Are Meant to Prevent War, Bush Aides Say".

A gem from this article is:

"Both publicly and privately, White House and other administration officials have expressed frustration over the talk of war, emphasizing that Bush remains convinced that his strategy of nonmilitary pressure can work. They described yesterday's actions as essential to that approach."

I think what is most frustrating is that this time, there are people who are actually making the connections in the signs to a run up to war this time, and the signs to a run up to war with Iraq. And in asking those questions, they are turning on the lights, and hopefully making people think, and ask the questions for themselves.

The truth of the matter is that all this has nothing to do with Iran having nuclear weapons and everything to do with regime change. Same as Iraq.

Are we so far gone that we can't put all this together to know that the two current ongoing wars are unmitigated disasters and quagmires, and one more war might be the knockout punch to this country? This knockout punch will come in the form of the toppling of our economy (which I have mentioned before is based totally on the premise that energy will always be cheap and plentiful). It could also come in blowback to our military forces in close proximity to Iran.

Certainly, only a very few courageous representatives in Congress are asking the questions (even though in their votes on Iran, they may have given the Administration "permission" to attack Iran if it ever comes down to it), very few in the mainstream media (mostly the questions are being asked on sites like and - which of course the Administration, Fox News, et al will say aren't "real" media outlets).

Now we remember from high school reading Nineteen Eighty Four that the parties motto was: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

War is peace. Sounds about right.

Is there anything that can stop this madness?

No comments: