Is this the real reason we are at war? Maybe not, but it sure looks bad...

[Stoid]

Before I plunge in, let me first say that I am not accusing George Bush of creating this situation. All I’m doing is questioning what I (and others, obviously) see as an unbelievable conflict of interest. Even if this conflict is in no way whatsoever having an effect on Bush’s decision-making, it behooves him to do everything in his power to see that even the appearance of impropriety is stamped out. And until he does that, I’m not gonna give him the benefit of the doubt. Sue me.

With that said, I go forward…

First, let me link you up to a speech that speaks my feelings pretty damn well, given by a (drum roll please) ** Republican Congressman from Texas ** Ron Paul:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm

(Please read the whole speech, I agree with just about everything he has to say, this is just a particularly pertinent quote. In fact I urge anyone who is interested in this subject to read the whole of all the links I am giving. Each piece is extremely interesting. None are especially long.)

**
Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president’s other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.
**

Sounds good to me.

Here’s a quote from a right-wing columnist suggesting what this might look like:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,36051,00.html

**
Paul is not the only one advocating this strategy. In his essay “Let Privateers Troll for bin Laden,” Larry Sechrest—a research fellow with the Independent Institute—argues for a return to privateering. He quotes Thomas Jefferson as saying, “Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering (against an enemy) in time of war.”

What would such a private venture look like today? Perhaps it would resemble the $5 million dollar bounty—raised solely through private funding—the FBI has posted on Usama bin Laden. Another sample of present day privateering is the $1 billion dollar bounty currently being raised by a group of high-tech executives for the leaders of Al-Qaida.

**

Of course, she’s also calling for everybody to have guns, but we can’t have everything…

Here’s a page that has tons of links dissecting the idea of “letters of marque and reprisal”, along with many other related issues:

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/010915Terrorist.html

(Look at the bottom of the page)

Here’s another excellent essay about whygoing to war to stop criminal behavior maybe isn’t such a great idea:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=317

**
One of the objectives of terrorism is to provoke the ruling elites of a target regime into disastrous overreaction. <SNIP>

Carlos Marighella, the Brazilian guerrilla leader whose writings influenced political terrorists in the 1960s and 1970s, explained why. If the government can be provoked into a military response to terrorism, he wrote, this will alienate the masses, causing them to “revolt against the army and the police and blame them for this state of things.”

The overreaction doesn’t necessarily have to alienate only domestic “masses.” If we inflict great misery on innocent people in the Middle East, there will almost certainly be what the CIA refers to as “blowback,” unintended negative consequences of our actions. Vacillating supporters of the terrorists might be drawn into commiting to terrorism. Moderate governments throughout the Islamic world, especially in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, would almost certainly face growing internal dissent and could even be overthrown.
**

Okay, so that’s some words on why the all-out war may not be such a great idea and possible alternatives to it.

But I ended up at all these links and reading all this stuff because I started reading about something much more alarming: Daddy Bush’s * personal investment in companies that are connected to people and companies being investigated in connection with the 9/11 attacks. * Simple sum up? ** Our president’s actions at this moment could have an enormous impact on his personal wealth. ** There is a horrific conflict of interest going on, and very few people are talking about it.

See the following:

http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/10/11/index.html

**
The Carlyle connection means that George Bush Senior is on the payroll from private interests that have defense business before the government, while his son is president. Hmmm. As Charles Lewis of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity has put it, “in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration’s decisions, through his father’s investments. And that to me is a jaw-dropper.”

Why can we assume that global businessmen like Bush Senior and Jim Baker care about who runs Afghanistan and NOT just because it’s home base for lethal anti-Americans? Because it also happens to be situated in the middle of that perennial vital national interest – a region with abundant oil. By 2050, Central Asia will account for more than 80 percent of our oil. On September 10, an industry publication, Oil and Gas Journal, reported that Central Asia represents one of the world’s last great frontiers for geological survey and analysis, “offering opportunities for investment in the discovery, production, transportation, and refining of enormous quantities of oil and gas resources.”
**

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press_release.asp?pr_id=1624

**
…The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least twice. (Other top Republicans are also associated with the Carlyle group, such as former Secretary of State James A. Baker.) The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been “disowned” by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and is a major investor in the senior Bush’s firm. Other reports have questioned, though, whether members of his Saudi family have truly cut off Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the Journal also reported yesterday that the FBI has subpoenaed the bin Laden family business’s bank records.

SNIP

“This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President’s father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
**

http://www.globalexchange.org/september11/flanders101801.html

**
Hidden behind President Bush’s war to avenge the victims of September 11, could there be an Oil Agenda? Michael Klare, author of “Resource Wars,” has suggested that the long-term Bush/Cheney plan is to establish a Pax Americana in Central Asia and secure the vast oil resources of the Caspian Basin.

U.S. oil companies have been negotiating with the post-Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan for access to the oil for years, but have been stymied by political instability in the region. Oil conglomerates were torn between two possible pipeline routes to Western markets: west through the war-torn Caucasus Mountains to Turkey, or south through war-torn Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.

SNIP

Backing the Caspian plan is none other than Vice President Dick Cheney, who, as CEO of Halliburton was successful in winning contracts from Caspian Sea states to be part of any future development.

SNIP

The Amarillo Globe-News reported on a 1998 talk to oil executives in which Cheney said that “the current hot spots for major oil companies are the oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region. Former Soviet states Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan all are seeking to quickly develop their oil reserves, which languished during the years of Russian domination.” The stakes in that region could be as much as 200 billion barrels of oil and natural gas, he told the crowd.
**

A final quote from Nina Burleigh:

**
So many business deals, so much oil, all those big players with powerful connections to the Bush administration. It doesn’t add up to a conspiracy theory. But it does mean there is a significant MONEY subtext that the American public ought to know about as “Operation Enduring Freedom” blasts new holes where pipelines might someday be buried.
**

And just as a little bonus, turns out Daddy’s company is the 11th largest contractor to the Federal Government. Golly gee fuckin’ whiz.

U.S. Department of Defense

This bugs me. I think it should bug everybody. In addition to affecting his personal wealth, George’s actions at this juncture can have an enormous impact on the wealth of all of his best friends and supporters…the folks who put him where he is today.

If anyone thinks this is all no big whoop, can you express why in a manner that does not amount to one of the following:

a) Accusing me and/or my source material of being traitors for even thinking to question the ethics of George during this Dark Time When We Must Back The President No Matter What or

b) Just dismiss most everything out of hand * simply because * it comes from the left?

Stoid

PS: Even among people who basically support George, doesn’t it bother you even a little that he’s so heavily tied to oil interests, and that so many highly placed members of his administration are too?

I also heard a brief reference by one of the guests on Politically Incorrect the other night about Bush saying something recently to the effect of “Congress needs to pass my energy bill now to help win this war” WTF? Does anyone know what they were referring to?

[Monty]

Are you high? Did you eat a pound of crack for breakfast in the morning?

We all know you don’t trust either facts or the federal government worth a hoot, but this thread takes the cake!

So it wasn’t good enough for you to accuse FDR of murdering the victims in Pearl Harbor, you do this?

God, not only is it tacky, but sad, incredibly sad.

[minty_green]

So what, even if every single word of it is true? Does that obviate the necessity of kicking terrorist ass? If not, then it’s irrelevant.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**So what, even if every single word of it is true? Does that obviate the necessity of kicking terrorist ass? If not, then it’s irrelevant. **

Didn’t you read the begining, minty? I started with a Republican’s suggestion of how we could kick the terrorist’s asses * without * kicking the asses of everyone else in a thousand mile radius, that would be the point.

If yer gonna post, ya oughta at least read the damn thing.

sheesh.

stoid

[elucidator]

Damn! Why do all these dribbling morons have to be from Texas! Its embarrassing!

Stoidey, my dove, your post is overloaded with contentions. As far as the “privateer” stuff, that can most likely be safely ignored by considering the source.

As to the scenario for the new Peckinpah movie, “Bring Me the Head of Diego Bin Laden”, thats all show and bluster, ain’t nobody gonna write a check. Suppose some guy drags in front of a CNN camera and yanks out some sandy, raggedy-ass head out of a bag and says “This is it! Small bills, please, and a green card, if its not too much trouble” How’s anybody going to know? Frankly, that scenario would be dandy by me: declare victory, hand out a bunch of medals and skeedaddle.

As to conflict of interest: in a Republican administration, you would be hard pressed to find someone without “business connections”, hell, thats why they’re Republicans in the first place! People with a deep and somber appreciation for the sanctity of property rights tend to have property.

The Day is coming. The Wall is waiting. The List gets longer.

[Guinastasia]

Why don’t you just come right out and say that Bush planned the September 11 attacks, already?

[Stoid]

Originally posted by elucidator *
** As to conflict of interest: in a Republican administration, you would be hard pressed to find someone without “business connections”, hell, thats why they’re Republicans in the first place! People with a deep and somber appreciation for the sanctity of property rights tend to have property.*

Business connections are one thing, this is really over the top. Would it kill Daddy Bush to divest himself of his interest here?

**
The Day is coming. The Wall is waiting. The List gets longer.
**

Ya lost me, bubelah.

Stoid

[erislover]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
As to conflict of interest: in a Republican administration, you would be hard pressed to find someone without “business connections”, hell, thats why they’re Republicans in the first place! People with a deep and somber appreciation for the sanctity of property rights tend to have property.

The best thing about tautologies and good conspiracy theories is that they cannot be proven false.

[Little_Nemo]

Stoid, Lord knows I’m no conservative but I think you’re off base on this one. I agree that Bush is way too far in bed with the oil business as well as other corporate interests, but I have to concede the man is doing the right thing in Afghanistan. Unless you think the September 11 bombings were a set-up, you’ll have to agree bin Laden is responsible for attacks against the American people. The Taliban has been offering sanctuary and support to bin Laden for years. Bin Laden has been using this to launch repeated and escalating attacks against the United States. The reward on bin Laden has been on the table for a long enough time to give any mercenary who was interested time to collect. Apparently no one’s interested. After September 11, the Taliban was offered a last chance to toss out bin Laden and refused. So be it.

At this point, I see no reasonable alternative except to demolish bin Laden’s organization and the regime that supports it. Invading Afghanistan seems to be the best way to do this. As a bonus, I think this war has a good chance of improving the lives of the average Afghani; the Taliban after all has killed more Afghanis than Americans. I’ve always followed the Augustinian belief in what defines a just war; one which ends more suffering than it creates. By that standard this is a just war.

[Guinastasia]

What I don’t understand is so many people, who consider themselves leftists, are so against getting rid of the Taliban, a truly evil regime. My GOD, imagine what it would be like to be a woman living in Afghanistan. Not that the Northern Alliance is much better, though.

[elucidator]

When the Day comes, the List of the Ruling Class Running Dog Jackal Enemies of the Proletariat will go to the Wall. (No, not the movie…that would be too cruel!)

[Note to the Grey Men: the author of this post is kidding.]

But, shitfire, darlin’…you’ve really stepped in it this time. Kind of reminds me of my cousin from Lubbock, liked to stick a cherry bomb in a fire ant mound just to stir things up! You’re a natural born shit-disturber. I say that in all admiration.

Hunker down, this is likely the friendliest post you’re gonna see for quite a while.

(News just in…the CIA has been unleashed! Bet ol’ OBL is shitting his lentils now!)

[Milossarian]

Stoid, your ability to sift through all the information out there and find only liberal dreck is astonishing. I commend you.

Is there some secret links page that only you, curious george and mswas know about?

To rebut your “argument,” especially your offensive thread title, I say this:

1. Go watch a CNN videotape dated Sept. 11, 2001.
2. Note the subsequent investigation, indicating connections to Osama bin Laden and his organization.
3. Note the subsequent investigation, indicating Osama and his officers are being harbored by the Taliban government.

That’s “the real reason we are at war.” And I’ve love to see you attempt to poke holes in it.

Search your super-special, secret links site long and hard.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
Didn’t you read the begining, minty? I started with a Republican’s suggestion of how we could kick the terrorist’s asses * without * kicking the asses of everyone else in a thousand mile radius, that would be the point.

If yer gonna post, ya oughta at least read the damn thing.

And if you’re gonna do a cut and paste OP, perhaps you oughta read it? To wit:

This effort [i.e., the almost-certain-to-be-ineffective “privateers” idea] would not preclude the president’s other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.

Pot, paging Kettle. Come in, Kettle . . .

[december]

Stoid, I don’t know where you live, but if it’s feasible, I recommend that you spend an afternoon at Ground Zero, as I did yesterday. I had access to the 28th floor of a building across the street, where the magnitude of the disaster could be seen. The World Trade Center was a small city – with shops, bookstores, exhibits, restaurants, and where thousands of people worked. All is totally, totally gone.

And, the smell! There are still fires burning underground. These spots are being continuously hosed down.

And the posters of missing people. Just imagine what it must have been like for these men and women trapped on high floors above where the airplanes hit. Many of them must have been burned to death – a horrible way to go.

Stoid, your OP is not only dumb, it’s horribly offensive.

[Larry_Mudd]

Stoid, let me first say that politically I’m relatively left-ish, (like all good Canadians.) I am basically a knee-jerk pacifist. That being said, I don’t doubt for a second that military intervention in Afghanistan is, if not exactly a “good” thing, certainly the lesser of two evils. It would be unthinkable to allow a brutal regime like the Taliban to remain in place regardless of the attack on the United States. Although I would feel more comfortable if Gore had got in, I don’t think that the reaction would be significantly different from a Democrat administration. What other reaction is there?

That being said, there is a clear conflict of interest. Most corporations have conflict-of-interest clauses in their employment contracts to prevent their employees from allowing their personal interests to effect their actions on behalf of the company. There should be more stringent controls in place for government.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Little Nemo *
** I agree that Bush is way too far in bed with the oil business as well as other corporate interests, but I have to concede the man is doing the right thing in Afghanistan. Unless you think the September 11 bombings were a set-up,*

Which I of course do not, and anyone who accuses me of that will be justly ignored. (I’m not saying you did, BTW)

*Originally posted by Little Nemo *
**
At this point, I see no reasonable alternative except to demolish bin Laden’s organization and the regime that supports it. Invading Afghanistan seems to be the best way to do this. As a bonus, I think this war has a good chance of improving the lives of the average Afghani; the Taliban after all has killed more Afghanis than Americans. **

Okay so far as it goes. I’m no fan of the Taliban, and I think getting rid of them is actually a good thing. But the question is: just how far will it go? What exactly is the goal, precisely, specifically? How will we know when Bin Laden is killed? Will we, can we? WIll this war be dragged on beyond the stated goal of making Afghanistan an inhospitable place for Al Qeada (I never remember how to spell that) to exist? Will we even know if it is? Who is going to take over, are we going to support them?

There’s an awful lot of questions that are not even being asked while everyone cheers this war on. I’m troubled by people’s unwillingness to even ask the questions, to treat the questions as treason itself. Are we supposed to believe that because we were the victims of a horrendous attack on our civilian population, that all the actions of our government are now completely pure and untainted by any agenda which is not confined to making us secure from such attacks in the future? That our government is suddenly immune to seizing an opportunity to kill several birds with one stone? Is it even * reasonable * to assume that? What government, right or left, isn’t looking to see what the possible consequences, both positive and negative, result from its actions?

I haven’t said, and I’m not saying that what we have done so far is necessarily wrong. I’m saying we shouldn’t accept anything and everything the government does without question in the name of chasing down terrorists.

stoid

[El_Kabong]

If part of the premise of the OP (and, as usual, I’m a bit confused) is that the US is only attempting to topple the Taliban so that Chevron and partners have clear sailing for a pipeline out of the Caspian; well, that’s beneath contempt.

I work for a service company in the oil and gas industry. The Caspian is only one of dozens of active oil provinces, and the potential reserves there are dwarved by the already proven reserves in the Middle East, and by those in many other locations.

Why is the US not trumping up wars in Nigeria and Angola, where political turmoil and government corruption cause all sorts of difficulties for American explorers and producers?

As for conflicts of interest: Is Bush Sr’s company an active partner in exploration in the Caspian region or in the pipeline company that would benefit? If not, then it’s going to be hard to make a case.

Absent some kind of definitive information, maybe it’s time to put that particular conspiracy theory in the circular file.

[Michael_Ellis]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**What I don’t understand is so many people, who consider themselves leftists, are so against getting rid of the Taliban, a truly evil regime. My GOD, imagine what it would be like to be a woman living in Afghanistan. Not that the Northern Alliance is much better, though. **

Finally, someone else says what I’ve been thinking since September 12th. Christ people, the Taliban are assholes and we should get rid of them, bin Laden or no.

[Scylla]

If anyone thinks this is all no big whoop, can you express why in a manner that does not amount to one of the following:

                     a) Accusing me and/or my source material of being traitors for even thinking to question the ethics of George during this Dark Time
                     When We Must Back The President No Matter What or

                     b) Just dismiss most everything out of hand simply because it comes from the left?

Are there a c) and a d) and how many lifelines do I have left?

[Little_Nemo]

Okay so far as it goes. I’m no fan of the Taliban, and I think getting rid of them is actually a good thing. But the question is: just how far will it go? What exactly is the goal, precisely, specifically? How will we know when Bin Laden is killed? Will we, can we? WIll this war be dragged on beyond the stated goal of making Afghanistan an inhospitable place for Al Qeada (I never remember how to spell that) to exist? Will we even know if it is? Who is going to take over, are we going to support them?

Our goal is to eliminate the al Qaeda organization and the Taliban regime that supports it. We certainly can kill bin Laden; it’s not like he’s Dracula or something. Presumedly, we will know when he’s dead (if nothing else, I imagine those around him will be anxious to let us know). Once the Taliban is removed, the subsequent government of Afghanistan is an issue for Afghanis.

As for whether or not we’ll exceed this mission, we can’t read the future. No one should forego a good plan just because they can conceive of the possibility of failure. The United States has usually stayed within the limits of its stated military goals. If Bush does not stay within these limits, he’ll have to answer to the American people.

Stoid, we just went through eight years of listening to a number of Conservatives who automatically assumed anything Bill Clinton did must, by the fact he did it, be wrong. While I did not vote for George Bush, I don’t choose to be as willfully blind as that. I will look at what the man is doing and judge whether or not it’s right or wrong on a case by case basis. In this case, Bush is doing the right thing.