Letters to the Editor
jtanneru
Published Letters: 33 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Oil Revenues
[Read the article: Last refuge of the scoundrel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone who thinks we haven't laid claim to Iraq's oil is not paying attention. Prominent in Bush's recent speech to the nation promoting his surge policy was a "benchmark" that Iraq should enter into an "oil-sharing" agreement which they have since adopted. This agreement guarantees that Iraq's oil wealth will be controlled by private multi-national companies (i.e. companies run by "Pioneers") and not by the Iraqi government, and that the Iraqi government is bound to long-term production-sharing agreements allowing foreign companies to keep much of the the profits from this oil.
An excellent article was published in Alternet in February of this year:
The use of PSAs will cost the Iraqi people hundreds of billions of dollars in just the first few years of the "investment" program. They would be far better off keeping in place the structure Iraq has relied upon since 1972: a nationalized oil industry leasing pumping rights to the oil companies, who then pay royalties to the central government. That is how it is done today in Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC countries.
http://www.alternet.org/story/47489/
I am certainly not in favor of another oil-rich autocracy like Saudi Arabia, but the claim that the U.S. is not in it to secure Iraqi oil is nonsense. Cheney's energy task force report emphasized the importance of American control of Iraq's oil wealth back in 2001. "By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy."
Bush came into office after claiming in the 2000 debates that the United States had "no viable energy policy". Since coming to office, what has his energy policy been, aside from giveaways to oil companies like ANWAR drilling and war in the Persian Gulf? His choice to avoid burdening car companies with CAFE standards so they will be able to hurry up with their fuel cell production?
The Gulf is in flames for the following reasons (1) securing middle-east oil into private corporate hands (2) a delusion of a democracy domino effect (3) destroying an enemy of Israel (4) a cynical ploy to gain political points by appearing to do something about terrorism while painting political opponents as unpatriotic, and (5) because they actually believed it would be easy.
-
Brock, not Brooks
[Read the article: George Tenet, spook for all seasons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]MereMortal - David Brooks has not recanted, yet, and Brock was the one publishing the TrooperGate laws, etc.
-
re-post
[Read the article: George Tenet, spook for all seasons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the above post I meant "lies", not "laws".
-
Aid and Comfort
[Read the article: George Tenet, spook for all seasons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While George Tenet deeply regrets that he was apparently misquoted in his "Slam Dunk" comment, he appears to have remarkably little remorse for the intelligence failure that was 9/11. America was blind to a major terrorist operation until after it happened, and there is still only finger-pointing and weak excuses. Where is the accountability to the nation when a known enemy to the United States is able to pull off a surprise attack of this magnitude? Shouldn't Tenet have fallen on his sword? Shouldn't Rice?
Instead, all we have heard from these people is that someone failed to "connect the dots". Tenet says he advised Rice to invade Afghanistan during the summer of 2001, but didn't mention it to Bush. Rice says he did no such thing. Richard Clarke says no one was interested in fighting terrorism at that time. The media reports that the "terrorists only have to get it right once". What kind of nonsense is that? Every previous failed attack on the United States, such as the "Millenium Bomber" has resulted in a wealth of intelligence. Our defence systems dropped the ball, there's no question about it.
But no one was held accountable at all.
Worse yet, when confronted with an admittedly broken intelligence apparatus, the Bush administration decides to engage in a "preventative" war based on intelligence that was sketchy at best. Lets see, if your intelligence is so bad that you fail to prevent a huge surprise attack from a known enemy, how can you attack a country based on nothing but intelligence that contradicts the opinions of our allies' intelligence agencies?
The whole thing is ridiculous on its face.
In order to dismiss the case against the Bushies as a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory, one would have to accept a jaw-dropping level of incompetence. Stupidity at this level, if that is what it is, borders on treason. How could our enemies be "aided and comforted" more than the unceasing blunderers in this administration have done?
-
What about last month's Harper's Magazine article?
[Read the article: Giuliani's dangerous bluster]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Last month's cover story in Harper's was "A fate worse than Bush: Rudolph Giuliani and the politics of personality" by Kevin Baker. Joe was gentle with Rudy when compared with Baker's article. On the web for subscribers only, but if you have a chance to look at the article it's worth a read.
-
Play Better on the Campaign Trail
[Read the article: One of these things is not like the other]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, does Bush's talk of "coldblooded killers" play better on the campaign trail? Of course it does. But does Clinton's refusal to "lump all terrorists together" suggest that she has thought about the issue in a slightly more penetrating way?
OK, so she's thoughtful when it comes to differentiating between organizations that should receive the label "terrorist". But now she has voted to call Iran "terrorist", giving Bush virtual license to attack that country. How can we reconcile this?
I'm afraid she is thinking about how it will play on the campaign trail to appear to be soft on Iran.