However, the possibility of abuse at some point in the future doesn’t merit an accusation in the present.
I note that the OP stops short of an outright accusation.
How then do we take it? As a warning? Why are we positing a fox in the henhouse when we still have all our chickens.
Clearly though the OP is correct that Bush’s wealth can be impacted by the actions of war.
This too, could be said about many President’s who posessed a great deal of diversified wealth before they took office.
And, the point is, that it is diversified wealth.
The Bush family is extremely wealthy. The war isn’t going to change that one way or the other.
A charge of of profiteering could be collosally damaging to that wealth. Bush would risk losing it all by engaging by profiteering, as well as a jail sentence.
After all, lining your pockets by getting US citizens killed is a pretty heinous crime.
Assuming for the moment that Bush is mercenary enough to consider such a scenario it seems reasonable to conclude that he would dismiss it as the risk to reward is highly unfavorable.
By that same token, I am a highly insured individual. My wife stands to receive a large amount of money if I meet an untimely end.
Is this in and of itself grounds enough to suspect her of wishing to murder me?
I don’t understand all of the rancor against Stoid nor the selective misreading of her posts.
There simply aren’t that many individuals of extreme wealth, and they all have a nasty habit of congregating together. It is therefore unsurprising that the Bush family should have some economic interests in Central Asia. What the family should be doing, in my opinion, is taking public steps to alleviate any and all concerns of conflicts of interest. The Bushes ought to flee all appearance of impropriety. I do not believe that ignoring this problem is a sage solution.
Rereading the OP, I realize Stoid was rasing an issue that got lost in the subsequent arguments over Bush, namely whether means other than military action could achieve the same goals. In my opinion, the answer is “probably not.”
As I posted before, the money on bin Laden’s head has been available for several years. The fact that no one’s collected it so far would indicate no one’s likely to in the near future. As for hiring mercenaries to attack al Qaeda and the Taliban, what would be the advantage? If soldiers are going to fight, I think regular professionals will do a better job with less collateral damage than mercenaries would. And I’d be a lot more worried about a private army answerable only to whomever is writing the checks than I am about a army composed of volunteers who took an oath to defend the Constitution.
There’s two sides to that coin. The other side is that the Bush family’s financial interests mean that the President has a large interest in the well-being of our country.
Switching over to the dark side for a moment, got two words for ya: military contractor.
Whenever I used to go to the Paris Air Show, I’d always get a chuckle out of it: on one side of the field, vendors displaying the latest and greatest in warplanes. On the other, vendors displaying the latest and greatest means to shoot them down.
I’ve gotten tired of that brand of Bush-bashing that begins with a patronizing statement about how anyone who registers support for Bush or his decisions is simply refusing to question authority.
The limitations placed in the OP (especially that bit of business about the “Dark Time When We Must Back The President No Matter What”) and what you’re implying about those people who just happen to disagree with you are pretty insulting.
And about as freakin’ fair as calling someone a traitor because they criticize Bush or his policies.
Stoid, you’ve repeatedly said that you’re not going to bother to engage or debate with someone who makes or even implies that kind of an accusation.
So I guess you’ll understand, now, why I’m about to do likewise, by ending my post having completely ignored the substance of your OP.
I do believe I missed your point before, Scylla. I can’t speak with any authority, but I can only imagine that most of the Bushes’ wealth is tied up in American corporations. I would respond that it is my sincere belief that what is good for the upper economic echelon of America is not necessarily good for America. Due to my own peculiar prioritization of America’s interests, I have no reason to believe that there is a direct relationship between Bush’s economic investments in America and the correctness of his policies.
This is, of course, oil for another pipeline.
Blacksheepsmith, what in the quantum megaverse is your point?
The point is simple. Things that are good for the economy and big business aren’t necessarily bad for America in general. In fact, there should be a high degree of consilience (right word I think) between the two.
So, if you wish to suggest a danger posed by the as yet unrealized (and no reason to think it will) potential of abuse of power/profiteering by George and Co, then one must also concede that what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. That is, that some of what’s good for George’s bottom line is also good for the country in general. If interests are aligned there is no conflict. One must readily concede that this is the case to one degree or another. It’s nice to pretend that big bad business is a blight upon America, but the actuality is that business is a part of America and her interests.
The other reason that Dubya might be more than a little tempted to push the war farther than it needs to be pushed is oil. Remember, he’s an oil man, Cheney’s a major oil man, the administration is riddled with big oil people, and Dubya is mighty beholden to oil men. Those oil men would like to have easy access to the oil in Central Asia (Cheney’s opinion, not mine, so no need to argue the value of the oil reserves there with me.) Is it so unimaginable that GB and Co. might sit around the big table convincing themselves that as long as we’re at it, we might as well keep going and make the world safe for cheap oil?
And yes, this is about a warning. It’s about keeping our eyes open. It’s about not * blindly, unquestioningly * rubber-stamping our approval of anything Dubya wants to do so long as he invokes the memory of the 6000 who died and claims that it will keep us safe from “the Evildoers” (god, I hate that term).
While I won’t deny that I have an extra-special industrial-strength lack of faith in Dubya in particular (which didn’t magically disappear on September 11, and I can’t imagine why it would have) I have a well-founded lack of faith in government in general. I’m 43 years old. I remember Vietnam and * Cambodia. * I remember Watergate. I remember Iran Contra. I grew up with a firm understanding that the government, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office, is doing stuff they aren’t exactly announcing on the evening news, and that it’s entirely possible that what they are doing isn’t necessarily for the benefit of America. (And some of us don’t buy that “What’s good for big business is good for America”) I grew up understanding that it behooves us to pay attention, to get our information from as many sources as possible, and not just sit back and trust that CNN will tell us everything we need to know. They won’t.
So if we’re going to be tossing bombs around, killing people, getting our own soldiers killed, and dragging other countries into it with us, spending gazillions of dollars, I think we have to keep a sharp eye on exactly what’s going on, and demand accountability and honesty. And demand that all appearance of anything improper be stamped out.
Hells bells, folks, weren’t some of you ready to believe the “wag-the-dog” scenario with Clinton, that he would drop bombs on people out of the blue just to * distract * us from talking about his blowjobs, but you can’t imagine that Dubya might drop a few * extra * bombs during an already-approved-of war to help enrich virtually everyone he knows (and owes!) ?
Stoid, In this case, it’s my semi-informed judgement that your’e being too paranoid on this one.
Evidence: Senior Bush left So-Damn Insane in power, when he clearly had opportunity, motive, and capability in place to be done with him. Why? Because it would have gone down poorly with the regional governments. Oh, sure, he took a potshot, but that one was the best he could do.
Same story now, except that opportunity and force are also lacking, even if there was a tempting motive (and I kinda think not: Big business likes predictable business enviroments, which Afganistan certainly ain’t).
I hope to hell you’re right about my paranoia… but it certainly doesn’t hurt to remain alert, does it?
And as for the situation being the same as the Gulf war: hardly. 6000 innocent American civilians hadn’t died. Those lives bought us a whole lotta license. Ginormous difference.
No one will deny that we might at times make the world “safe” for big oil.
When you step in as President, you have ties to all sorts of business, contacts, etc. The President, if he acts in any way at all, could be accused of protecting his interests directly or indirectly thousands of times. The President didn’t live in a cocoon prior to his presidency - the possible connections are endless…but tying those connections to presidential decisions that are some of the biggest in history is a stretch to say the least.
I could tell you that Cheyney is a military guy and Bush is a auto industry guy, and you could find ways that going to war will benefit both, and you could find ways that not going to war benefits both.
Overall, when the situation gets THIS serious, some things are just more obvious…like our intentions to protect our country…sometimes these intentions are the only ones.
Now, I would reserve doubt for much smaller scale things, but would still debate them for facts. However, in a situation like the one we’re in, on this scale and with the threat we face, you almost have to sense that the only motivation is preservation of this country…and that is good for everyone…worldwide.
I don’t believe that Clinton dropped bombs in order to distract people from whatever the hell it was he and Monica did in the hallway to the White House watercloset.
The idea’s absurd. Blowjob distraction is not a valid military objective. At least, not the kind people in the know are going to (if you’ll excuse the expression) keep their mouths shut about.
I suspect if that was the real reason for the bombing, we’d have had a Deep Throat letting the press in on it.
The idea’s as dumb as the one being put forward in the OP. But I could just as easily apply the same kinds of limitations and assumptions to the Blowjob-Bombing-Scenario as the Evil Man #1 Bush & His Family of Oil-Sucking-Dogs theory. Hmmn. Let’s see:
Don’t reject it just because the idea came from the right wing.
I’m not a traitor for putting the idea out there. People are all the time questioning my patriotism just because I view the president with a skeptical eye.
Would you please put aside your belief that the President Is Always Right for one minute and at least consider the possibility?
I’m always amazed at how willing people on the left are to believe anything their man has to say. Why can’t you question authority or open your eyes a bit?
If you don’t think that’s why he ordered the bombing, then you must be a left winger, love Clinton, and embrace everything he stands for.
Please avoid the inevitable bashing of the right wing. I know that’s your only defense, but we’re trying to look at this logically.
Well, damn! I thought we was just do it Texas Style! have a big Barbecue, get lots of bombs, money, and guns, git all likkered up, everybody load up what you can in yer pickup trucks and just take a ride down to Afganeestan and blow the shit out of some towel heads, and hey, if you happen to step in a puddle of oil on the way, finders keepers.
Yeah, that’s the way I thought we were gonna do it, but shee-it! now that mention it maybe that’s not such a hot idea after all.
All I can say Stoid from the bottom of my heart is thank God you showed up and warned us of this, or who knows what kind of foolishness we might have gone off and done!
You be sure and keep an eye on Dubya here and make sure he doesn’t go and get… you know ::nudge nudge:: too overzealous here on us, 'kay?
You just let us know if you think he gets that greedy ole glint in his eye.
Hey Jeb!!!
Can you believe that we were just gonna go off and spend money and throw a great big war and blow people up and stuff, but we forgot to keep track of things?
Can you beleive we were just gonna leave all those guns and money, and oil and bombs lying around without paying any attention to who was taking 'em or what they were using them for?
That’s what I said! We probably oughtta probably oughtta at least lock up the money at night! Who knows who just might wander in and grap a pile.
Thank God almighty that Stoid girl showed up and warned us, or who knows what mightta happened!
Accountability and honesty! Sheeeeeeee-----ittttt woman! This is America! What do you think this is, Commonist Russsia?
This is America Baby, and we don’t brook none of that accountability and honesty around here! No Sir. We’re all about Haphazardnous and Deceit! Shit! You’re a democrat, you oughtta know that. Wasn’t your boy Billy bob Clinton hanging around the White House the last few years?
Double Shit! I didn’t like that man’s politics, but yessiree that boy could haphazard and deceive with the best of us. Best look into his family tree, I’m sure you’ll find a Texan in the brushpile.
You sure as shit never heard brother Billy calling for accountability and honesty, nope. Not in this country.
Oh come on! That’s just going too far. When do we get too have any fun? That would just be boring. I know I for one get turned on by a little “improper appearance” in my ladyfriends. Who wants their women to look like nuns? A little improper appearance adds a little spice and excitement to an otherwise humdrum police action, what do we we got to be stamping it out for.
How about a compromise? Jeb, Dubya, Dick and I will just go ahead and do whatever we want, but we promise to make it look good. Would that be Ok?
::Sigh::
They can’t share operational intelligence since that would be useful to the enemy, and therefore you can’t have full accountability till after the fact.
Unfortunately you have statements in the OP like “Is this the real reason we are at war?”, “horrific/unbelievable conflict of interest” and “it sure looks bad”, and intimations based on no evidence whatsoever that Pres. Bush is ready to sacrifice lives to fatten his own pockets and those of his cronies. It then becomes obvious that Stoid is interested not in raising our level of awareness of potential big money-related abuses in this crisis, but rather in saying “Hoo-hah! Here’s some unsubstantiated dirt to fling at Dubya! Let’s see if we can get something to stick!”
If you want to make a case that no wealthy person should be elected to office because of the chance that their policies could benefit them personally, go ahead. List all the politicians on both sides of the aisle whose finances could be affected by votes on this issue. Present relevant facts to back up vile accusations.
Yes, I remember there were people who claimed Clinton’s foreign policy moves were aimed at distracting attention from his adultery. You resemble them markedly.
Stoid, did you italicize Cambodia as a reference to genocide committed by the Communist government there? (The reason I ask is that I recall some people remarkably found a way to blame the US for atrocities committed by our enemies.)
You don’t buy it? Well, crap that just rebutts my argument entirely. Here I spent all this time building up this great big lie, and she don’t buy because like everybody knows the interests of the country as a whole and big business in general are always a hunnerpercent diametrically opposed.
And here I was trying to lie and pretend that sometimes, or once in a while, big business and the country sometimes share the same interests, but nope she ain’t buying.
Dammit! How am I ever gonna get the price of Evilmonolithiccorp stock over $10/share if you just keep seeing through our deceptions?