Election Strategy: Bomb Iran

Why Did the Chicken or the Egg Cross the Road First?

Iranian Missle Tests: The Axis of Evil Comes to Call 40

As suggested in the title, it is occasionally difficult to determine whether certain phenomena are the cause of the effect. In some cases it seems straightforwrd enough, but in others no amount of careful thought seems to render any sort of reasonable decision at all.

Moving forward from that abstraction, we will consider the “phenomenon” of Iran’s sudden and intensely aggressive posture with respect to us. This most recent event isn’t really that mysterious. Our “Axis of Evil” talk a few State of the Union speeches ago, our undoubtedly disconcerting habit of “parking” nuclear aircraft carriers either a little closer or a little farther from Iran at various times, the provocative presence of the US army in the oil swamp of Iraq and the “entirely spontaneous” Isreali public position of its open retaliation are more than enough to inspire Iran’s actual government’s interest in being threatening in response. By “actual government” we mean, of course, the slightly medieval Islamic religionists who replaced the Shah, that is, our Shah Palavi.

Recent history sheds little light on this puzzle. About the time we decided to invade Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden, essentially this same Iranian government was quite cooperative. We were told that the Taleban, a group bearing an amazingly similar DNA profile with Al Queda, was a “blood enemy” of the Shi’ites in Iran. Given the prevailing competition between Sunnis and Shi’ites throughout the region, this media presentation was pretty palatable for our domestic consumption. We literally "gobbled" it down.

Yum.

However, not too much later, our “ally” during the Afghan incursion had converted itself to the “Axis of Evil.” The new media presentation is that these Iranians hate America and have done everything possible to make trouble everywhere they can in the Middle East.

A problem arises from all this. Of course, we can hardly wish to spend any more time considering the news reports. Their credibility has long ago been castrated by a terrified administration that fears and distrusts the American people more than the Iranians, or anyone else. This leaves us quietly speculating about what the actual situation might be, more or less isolated from any information that could possibly help in our considerations.

All that would be comfortably academic if a “certain somebody” weren’t still considering “nuking the hell” out of these people in our name then staggering out of the White House having accomplished the ingestion of a treasonous “poison pill” for our national security. The 9/11 attack, regardless of which conspiracy actually delivered it, has been this administration’s closest, and now, only, friend, but the burning World Trade Centers have become a bit road weary. Still, even though a dismally slow learner, Mr. Bush did notice that there was simply nothing more politically valuable than an insane enemy. After convincing half of the voting population that Sadam had bombed those buildings, a Texas style hanging in Baghdad has left the “cupboad bare” with respect to his next adversary.

Meet Iran.

The question: Does this disaster have anything to do with George Bush’s lies about it? There is the possibility that even in his twisted, self-serving statements, some kernel of fact has actually sneaked through and that these Iranians are, perhaps, as crazy and intractable as he proposes.

On the other hand, it is perhaps equally likely that the Iranians are responding to him. Now, now. Yes it stinks, but a proposition such as that one really must be an exaggeration! The enmity expressed toward us by Iran couldn’t possibly have been caused by a single American, not even one holding the Presidency with such calloused credentials. Even if this were a factor, the inertia of these events is still far greater than any possible Iranian response to a single man. George Bush could not possibly have precipitated this colosal disaster on the sole strength of his creepy character alone.

Well, perhaps not in a population like the one here in this country, but the government and the population of Iran simply don’t know him that well. It would be very nice to be able to tell them, “Although President Bush may be rather unsettling, please, he isn’t going to just attack someone out of mid air based on no more than his own secret (oil) reasons.” We might continue with, “The United States is a nation of laws. Sure, the President is very powerful, but something as egregious as this would simply be beyond even his most blood thirsty ambitions.”

But would that be honest on our part? He really might attack them based on the exact personality defects they fear the most. He seems to have purposely created the crisis to replace the lackluster memory of New York. He has certainly learned that his disasterous military adventures usually look pretty good to the American voters, at least until he starts losing again. And, finally, the time line is almost perfect. An attack on Iran might actually look fairly successful for the period between here and the election.

None of this is particularly calming to the Iranians. Darn, we were only trying to reassure them that we weren’t all as brutally selfish and ambitious as our alleged President. You know. Just like all Muslims aren't terrorists.

The "Art" of "Knowing" about Iraq

Can We Penetrate the Nature of the Iraqi Government?
Can We Do It Even Under A Media Blackout?

It’s high time to start with our version of the W.W.II German disclaimers, only we will need to smooth out some ruffled feathers with our national behavior in Iraq rather than declaring a lack of knowledge about “death camps.” Of course, we can only know what we have been told about the invasions and the subsequent occupation. How could we be held responsible for events about which we were never informed?

Frankly, if we place all that we have been told in one column on the right, then add a column on the left noting our inescapable other conclusions about the same topics, we would be facing a “loose brick” in our wall of presumptive innocence. Although the administration, with the help of its trained monkeys on AM radio, has carefully crafted a position for us about the whole affair, a position which provides a wonderful foundation for our “complete innocence,” those among us who can still claim to “know nothing more” is a dwindling population.

Our “innocence” has grown a little frayed, a little “road weary.” We can no longer wear our white wedding dress quite so effortlessly. The nagging alternative to this blissful blind faith grows into a more and more inevitable observation every time we add one of our famous “but’s” to the argument. “Well, they said this and this and this, BUT, what about that and that and that?” The innocent image the administration has offered to us tasted pretty good at first, but the bitter contradictions just seemed to keep on coming after those first few delicious, vengeful bites.

So, we admit it. We can no longer assume that we have ever known what was actually happening in Iraq.

As for self-deprecation, during the formal invasion I proposed loudly that we would never be able to just steal the oil. Such a blatant crime would collect too much international baggage even for someone as implacable as Dick Cheney. Instead, I suggested, American “looters” would nibble away slowly, imperceptibly, at the Iraqi fortune with truly awful oil field service contracts, bad distribution agreements and the like, all benefitting respectable corporations such as Brown and Root and Halliburton.

I was wrong. After spending five continuous years reporting on Iraq, from Iraq, NBC’s Chief Foreign Correspondent, Richard Engel, estimates that around 500.000 barrels of Iraqi oil are pilfered every day. At $125 per barrel, that amounts to roughly $62,500,000 worth daily or about $24 billion per year.

Jumping right beyond this unaccounted-for-oil, let’s return to the question of what we know about what’s happening in Iraq. What do we know about our partners in democracy, the people running the Iraqi Government? Again, we have the “official” version of who these folks are. The administration would like to depict them as amateur but enthusiastic “founding fathers,” making possible all the wonderful things that Iraq will become if we just “stay the course.” Veritable copies of Thomas Jefferson or, perhaps, Ben Franklin, honest, hardworking nation builders eminently deserving of our respect and support.

Never mind the five year long argument about reconciling the country, never mind the idea that millions of Iraqi’s are possibly less than pleased with monthly death rates of 1,000, 2,000 or worse, depending on the moment. These same stalwart democrats continue to give their all to this mission of theirs, year after year without any progress, lucky breaks or inspired results.

Don’t be too critical. The model of democracy offered up as an example for them to follow was none other than a United States government reeling from every sort of corruption, lack of oversight and ridiculous ideology. What did we expect?

As for the missing oil, pause for a moment and consider the material reality of stealing half a million barrels of oil every day. Sure, these clever Iraqis have developed some very sophisticated tricks. Under filling and over reporting oil tanker loads in Basra. Undetected diversion lines from the main oil pipelines (undetected?). Outright criminal corruption done in the broad glare of the Iraqi daylight.

Yet, we are led to think that the noble Iraqi government leaders, in their daily struggle in Baghdad to form a new democratic nation, somehow remain aloof from such a dirty business. They learned from their American sponsors that a position in government is akin to a natural resource, a birth into a privileged nobility or a generous trust fund, suddenly discovered.

Now, years later, we have managed to create a class of politicians cast in the exact mold of the Republican Party that has run our own country, full of subterfuge, excuses, convenient confusion and graft, not to mention outrageous hubris. We taught our Mexican neighbors how to hold crooked elections. We taught our Iraqi partners how to perfect corruption.

Thank you, President Bush. Perhaps you and the Secretary of State can retire to a refurbished Chevron oil tanker, the Condalezza Rice, docked at some friendly port in the Persian Gulf once you have finally finished with us.

Capitalism Stinks? No, it smells like gasoline, though.

Unthinkable Socialism. A Law We Can Live With.
When Capitalism Becomes Corruption, What's Next? 27

First, a primer for those too young to remember all the high-borne logic of the Cold War days. There were the “falling dominoes.” There was the chilling destruction of the churches, of family values. (Children turned in their parents in Stalin’s evil time.) There was the “brutal suppression” of every sort of freedom in Russia, in captive Europe, a wave of outright savagery blanketing the entire place from Kamchatka to Georgia.

But, worst of all, there was GODLESS COMMUNISM! The creepy, uni-browed megalomaniacs in the Polit Bureau wanted to export this misery everywhere. The mechanism of this evil plot would be none other than “CREEPING SOCIALISM!” This well adjusted child (Kansas) made a nutritious snack from all this. A tasty sandwich constructed of two slices of great American “white bread” with a generous slice of “GODLESS COMMUNISM,” an additional treat of “CREEPING SOCIALISM” and a pleasing dollop of “DUCK AND COVER” (grade school version) to add flavor.

This introduction is provided here to forcefully eliminate any possible suspicion that these words are the ramblings of some irrational, generational “lefty.” I always thought Ike was a great President. I contributed to Ronnie Raygun’s campaign. I happily voted for every Republican Presidential candidate right up until George Senior. The only reason I jumped ship then was because he looked so tired. No substantive ideological considerations at all to dirty the water.

So. Let’s talk socialism. Settle in your own private thoughts whether or not this might be the CREEPING variety. Hartmann (May 12/13, ‘08) suggested that the speculation burden on oil prices was around 20% or greater. To remain at all palatable, we will need to make a dignified detour around Chelsea Clinton’s job as an commodity trader (commodity here is spelled “O I L”) and Connie Rice’s (Chevron) oil tanker. We’re talking socialism, not low rent politics.

This speculation on oil futures is adorably close to every idea which might be called a “FOUNDATION OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM.” These brave entrepreneurs risk their hard earned dollars taking a chance on oil’s future prices. Oh yes, of course they manipulate things every once in a while, but who wouldn’t?

I personally feel honored to participate in their fearlessly capitalistic work. The risks they take, somehow, are the very underpinnings of my comfortable future as a gasoline consumer. Without them, the whole thing would simply collapse, right? American enterprise is based on risk taking. This is why they can very reasonably reap their 20% profit extracted daily from the oil prices. It is a small price to pay for such hard work and willingness to sacrifice.

When can an old capitalist like me start talking about socialism? Well, here it goes.

I would like for my government to take a few billion (trillion?) right out of the general fund, CREEP into the Chicago commodities future market and start RISKING some of my Federal money to compete with these oil futures traders. Of course it is risky! National oil consumption could collapse! Middle Eastern OPEC monkeys might lower their prices overnight for no reason! This proposition is stuffed full of threatening (risky) possibilities!

Why, we could lose everything! Chicken Little (spelled: “C H E N E Y”) might be right on about the FALLING SKY concept! Why, we could see the “WAGES OF CREEPING SOCIALISM!” At the gas pump.

Trimming the claws of this energy futures speculation mafia could lower the price (not the cost) of a gallon of gasoline by around $1.20 or so. What a crazy, bad, un-American idea!

When capitalism becomes opportunistic cronyism, the taste of socialism grows less and less bitter. Those pesky old founders we like to quote so much thought profit should come from competition, not control.

I’m “done” with paying an extra dollar a gallon for the “risks” these parasites take “in my behalf.” If 2008 is going to be a year for dumping old ideas, toss this one on the list.