posted on February 22, 2002 12:43:52 PM new
"There are whispers and murmurings abroad in the land, accompanied by strange signs and wonders. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward appears on CSpan to discuss his 10-part puff piece on Bush at War, and apropos of nothing, says 'In the past, what were considered to be conspiracy theories turned out to be true.' John McCain gives an interview on the Enron scandal, and finishes with the mysterious, 'This could lead to places we wouldn't expect.'
Colin Powell chooses to appear on MTV, using that forum to advocate condom use; with the added instruction, 'don't listen to that conservative advice.' His message couldn't have been more explicit, both sexually and politically, and would have gotten him fired from the Clinton administration, much less from the Crisco-smeared foreheads of Bush's minions. George W. Bush inexplicably tries to send his Texas Governor's papers to his father's presidential library, where they would apparently be exempt from Texas' tough freedom of information laws. While the
papers sit in legal limbo, not yet safely entombed, a Texas FOI request frees Bush's entire correspondence with Enron - and out pops a letter from Kenny Boy requesting Gov. Bush to please meet with the President of.....Uzbekistan.
"We are negotiating a $2 Billion venture with Neftegas of Uzbekistan and Gazprom of Russia to develop Uzbekistan's natural gas and transport it to markets in Europe and Kazakhstan and Turkey. This project can bring significant economic opportunities to Texas...."
What does it all mean? What are the 'conspiracy theories' currently in circulation? Where could the Enron scandal lead that we wouldn't have expected? Why would Colin Powell seem to be trying to get himself fired? Why would George W. Bush not want us to know he and Enron had interests in Uzbekistan?
The 'conspiracy theories' are only theories in this country, it seems, in the rest of the world they're reported as fact. What the rest of the world knows is that Uzbekistan and the rest of the 'Stans' in the Caspian Sea sit atop what may be the largest oil and gas reserves in the world, the oil and gas that will be used primarily in the coming economic growth of the world's two largest countries - China and India. The rest of the world knows that Enron, Halliburton, Unocal, and other American energy concerns wished to build pipelines through neighboring Afghanistan to
get that oil and gas to market; knows that the Bush administration was negotiating with the Afghan Taliban to build those pipelines, knows Bush threatened war if the Taliban didn't play along.
Hence the whispers and murmurings - what all of Washington knows is that Cheney's Energy Task Force wasn't just about handing the California State surplus over to Enron, that was the least of it; what Cheney was doing was plotting with the largely Texas energy concerns to capture, one way or another, and control the Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves so that they could exercise economic dominance over China and India; displacing Russia from its own backyard in the process. They whisper because of the dark questions that remain unadressed concerning Sept. 11th: the refusal to grant a FISA warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui, even though he had been tagged by French Intelligence as a terrorist, was paying cash for turn-and-bank lessons in
jumbo jets, and had been arrested on an expired visa; the hijacked jets wandering around the eastern half of the country for the better part of two hours without Air Force interception, even though it had taken mere minutes for them to reach the stricken jet of golfer Payne Stewart; the concerted efforts of Bush to be physically absent from Washington in the weeks preceding the
attacks, the same weeks that followed his threat of war against the Taliban. As an oil industry expert observes, 'The strategic considerations of oil supercede all other values.'
They murmur because George W. Bush has gone too far, and rushes heedlessly farther. His Secretary of State has lost the stomach for the crimes envisioned, and is trying to find an honorable escape. The Bush family has stolen the presidency, and doesn't mean to give it back. They're seeking to rule the world by controlling its energy supply, enforced with lawless military supremacy. The whole of Washington apparently now knows this; and the knowledge sits uneasily, because it is the end of the America of the founding fathers. There's the ominous sense that if God has lifted his veil of protection, it is not because of the sins of its citizens, but rather the crimes of its leaders; which crimes compound daily".
posted on February 22, 2002 04:19:44 PM new
"This website www.bushisms.com is currently unavailable due to exceeded monthly traffic quota. Please visit again later."
Must be someone's job in the newly-formed Office of Strategic Information to sit at his desk all day clicking on the site.
posted on February 23, 2002 10:20:02 AM new
Now take Napoleon Boneparte - he was just a tad bit shorter than George Bush, Jr. But the differences end there!
Borillar
"Real friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 23, 2002 11:57:43 AM newNow take Napoleon Boneparte - he was just a tad bit shorter than George Bush, Jr. But the differences end there!
No, I believe Napoleon was French and Bush is not.
I will bet I could find a whole lot more differences, but you wouldn't want me to do that now, would you ?
A question about your signature line
"Real friends don't let friends vote republican"
I guess I do not understand this. If your "friend" is a voter, then you 'friend' is over 18. Now how do you stop them from voting for whatever party, issue, person they want?
I have always kept the issues or person I had just voted on as none of anyones business, even to 'real friends'.
What would you have your 'friend' vote, if that signature line is true? Do you force them to vote the right way, meaning your way?
posted on February 23, 2002 03:38:51 PM new
Canada. However, we studied European history in school - frankly I always found it more interesting than North American history, partly because it covered a much longer period of human history.
posted on February 23, 2002 09:32:04 PM new
I remember how surprised I was, in reading about the reigns of the various kings/queens of England, to discover that unpleasant ones (the tyrants) seemed to be the most effective leaders, the ones that left the most enduring legacy.
posted on February 23, 2002 10:27:57 PM new
Stockticker, I know that it sounds that way. But honestly, the tyrants were better at getting good press than ones that were not tyrants. Just like in today's media, the bad things gets more news headlines than the good things do. Compare Peter the Great of Russia and the millions of peasants that died in his causes to bring Russia into the modern world with that of Stalin, who murdered an estimated up to 60 million peasants because they wouldn't go along with his notions of tyranny. Who deserves the credit for most effective between the two? I just watched a program about how Stalin ordered that the Rusian areospace industry during WW-II to make a replica of the B-29 SuperFortress within two years. The task was formidable: Americans used English Inches, they used senible metric measurements; the Americans used advanced materials, the Russians had to learn FAST. Because if they were not 100% correct, they all expected to get shot. The airplane that they copied had small patches welded to the airframe as repairs and they copied even those repairs exactly, because they were afraid of being shot for not completeing Stalin's orders 100%.
As for me, I'd rather not have a Stalin or a Bush in charge.
Borillar
"Real friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 24, 2002 05:48:09 AM new
Irene,
In:
"we studied European history in school - frankly I always found it [European History] more interesting than North American history, partly because it [European History] covered a much longer period of human history"
you actually did say what you now say in:
"I didn't say the span of North American history was shorter" that you didn't say.
and your initial statement contradicts your attempt to backtrack with:
"just that the portion of that history that was studied in school was shorter".
You made no mention in your initial statement that the material available for study was limited but did say that North American history is so limited.
No doubt North American history would seem to cover a much shorter span if your study of that history was limited to only that short period which involves European adventurers.
Does the history of Northern Asia, of China, begin for you with the travels of Marco Polo and his 'discovery' of the region?
There's no pill for the treatment of Eurocentricism.
posted on February 24, 2002 12:35:48 PM new
If words will suppress the northern doughnut eating masses, then bush will be saved having to prosecute yet another meaningless war.
posted on March 7, 2002 10:09:06 PM new
invade canada ? lets see canada is buying Portection from the USair force problem is the imbeciles closed KI Sawyer. apparently 34 bases in afghanistan and not one in the northern midwest.
