FIRST TIME I'VE EVER PAID OVER $3 FOR REGULAR GAS
















This was on New Year's Day, just outside Gulfport, MS...and whaddya know, oil hit $100/barrel today!


Very interesting info from Americans Against Escalation In Iraq:

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE CLAIMED THEN VS. WHAT THE FACTS ARE OF OIL AND IRAQ TODAY

Wolfowitz: “[Iraq] will finance itself relatively soon” with oil
revenues

“The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100
billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of
claims on that money, but… We are dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” [Institute for Policy Studies, Paul
Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

US Spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, But in 2003 Gov Officials
Insisted Iraq Will Not Require Sustained Aid

“The White House projected yesterday that postwar Iraq will not require
long-term U.S. aid, in part because of oil reserves that the Bush administration
contends will offset many of the costs of reconstruction. "The United States is
committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require
sustained aid," said a report from President Bush's Office of Management and
Budget.”” [WP, 3/29/2003]

Colin Powell “Iraq will not require the sorts of foreign assistance
that Afghanistan will”

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a similar point Wednesday on
Capitol Hill. "Iraq will not require the sorts of foreign assistance Afghanistan
will continue to require for some time to come," Powell said, explaining that
Iraq's talent and resources will be "put to productive uses, instead of buying
and manning weapons and palaces for Saddam Hussein." [WP, 3/29/2003]

Let's remember our lesson: (War + Iraq)Republican President=Record Gas Prices!

Oh, and apparently, it turns out that the more troops we send in to this quagmire, the more we lose as it now turns out that 2007 was the deadliest year for American troops.

WHY THEN DOES BUSH HOLD THEIR HANDS? AND KISS THEIR CHEEKS?

Aren't we often told that we have to support Israel above all else when it comes to foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East? And aren't we also told that those who wish harm to Israel are our enemies simply because of their antipathy for Israel? And that states shouldn't sponsor terrorism? And that countries that treat women badly are backwards? And that theocratic, fundamentalist absolute monarchies are anathema to us?

If that's so, why does George Bush stroll hand-in-hand with representatives of Saudi Arabia? After all, we are reminded in an AP report today that:

"Olmert specifically called on Saudi Arabia on Sunday to take the lead in holding a regional conference, the first time Israel has made such a request of the Saudis, who maintain a state of war with Israel but are pushing for a peace deal."

A few facts about Saudi Arabia

Fifteen of the 19 supposed 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Here's a description of the restrictions on women in Saudia Arabia from Human Rights Watch:

"In interviews with roughly 100 Saudi women academics, educators and medical professionals, Human Rights Watch documented how male guardianship of adult women denies women the right to employment, education, health, and freedom of movement. Government policy often explicitly requires male consent for a range of everyday activities. This system, premised on the idea that women have limited or no legal capacity to act on their own behalf, affects all Saudi women across economic or social divides. While guardianship is construed as a form of protection for women, in fact, it fails to protect some of their most basic rights."

Here's some info from Amnesty International on Saudi Arabia's medieval system of law enforcement:

"There are still scores of political prisoners and possible prisoners of conscience. Saudi Arabia continues to use flogging and amputations as punishments. Executions, beheadings with a sword, occur regularly and are disproportionately carried out against foreign nationals. Foreign workers are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, particularly female domestic workers, who have virtually no protection at all."

And here's some info on Saudi Arabia's relationship with Israel:

"However, the fifth Arab nation contiguous to Israel, Saudi Arabia, now the dominant nation in the Arab League, remains in a formal state of war with Israel, having never agreed to any armistice or any semblance of a peace agreement with Israel. Instead, Saudi Arabia has consistently funded all terror groups at war with Israel, from Hamas to the 10 PLO terror factions based in Damascus.

Saudi Arabia has earned the distinction as the first nation since the Third Reich which is officially "Judenrein" - Jew free. By law, no Jew may visit or live in Saudi Arabia."

Let's Recap

Saudi Arabia is a known state sponsor of terror and yet is one of the U.S. defense industry's biggest clients.


Saudi Arabia has never made peace with Israel and forbids Jews to even enter their country.

Saudi Arabia calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestianian territories and a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capitol.

Saudi Arabia oppresses women and has a horrible human rights record. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and makes no pretense of being one--they don't even have demonstration elections.

And according to the official 9/11 story, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

But the Bush admininstration considers Saudi Arabia to be a strong ally in the war on terror. What the fuck is wrong with this picture?



Many of the things we've established about Saudi Arabia were also true of Saddam Hussein. Many of the arguments neocons used to condemn Saddam Hussein (or Arabs and/or Muslims generally) are true of Saudi Arabia. So why was Saddam demonized while Bush holds hands with Prince Abdullah? I would sum up the difference in one word: Petrodollar.

P.C. ROBERTS IS RIGHT: THE DOLLAR IS OUR WEAKNESS

Great piece by Roberts. I'm not sure that the average American is hip to this--I say that because I wasn't until recently. But he makes great points, in this piece called "How The World Can Stop Bush: Dump The Dollar!:

The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime's military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime's two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the "sole superpower" myth would burst like the bubble it is.

The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government's ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America's will.

The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.

And the first part of the piece is really informative as well...

IRAN: LISTEN BETWEEN THE WORDS

Oh, that's a relief. Whew! I could've sworn we were going to somehow attack Iran, but nope, apparently that's not what's happening:

At his news conference, Gates also said that the decision announced in January to send a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region does not mean the United States is planning for a war with Iran. He said the purpose was to underscore to U.S. allies as well as potential adversaries that the Gulf is a vital interest to the United States.

"Nobody is planning, we are not planning for a war with Iran," Gates said.

Gates said the United States' main aim with regard to Iranian influence inside Iraq is to counter what he called networks providing explosives used to make roadside bombs that are powerful enough to destroy a U.S. tank.

I wonder how they'll explain away that quote later this year or next. Gates says "nobody is planning, we are not planning for a war with Iran." Well, listening to what the words don't say, I hear at least two things:

1). "We are not planning for a war with Iran" means Israel is planning for a war with Iran. That really means we are going to war, but Israel's drawing up (or already has drawn up) the plans.

2) Maybe the Iran war has already been planned, and it is therefore technically accurate to say today that "we are not planning for a war with Iran."

3) Maybe we're already at war with Iran, having raided one of their consulates and been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer [of 2004]".

4) We're simply going to bomb Iran, not "go to war" with them, silly!

5) He didn't say there wouldn't be a war, he just said they're not planning a war. In other words, there will be a war, it'll be a total improv piece, a freeform war, a "jazz odyssey" type of conflict, just like Iraq, and look how great that's worked out.

Hmmm...

OK, I was wrong

I had been writing last year that the way the Iran War would be sold to the public was by painting Iran as irrational and unreasonable for not taking the "offer" to stop enriching uranium. Well, apparently we're way past worrying about any of that at this stage. But here's where I wrote about it:

IRAN & "REASONABLE" OFFERS

BUSH & "REASONABLE" IRAN OFFER: SPRINGING THE TRAP



Now it seems clear that the way that the Bush adminstration wants to widen the war is to convince us that Iran is helping kill our soldiers in Iraq. Which is a shame, to be sure, but then again, we should've never gone to Iraq in the first place.

But wait! Just to be fair to myself, I did also begin to catch on a couple days later:

"And this, along with Iran's certain eventual refusal of "the offer," will be the talking point: Iran helps the violent terrorists in Iraq, so we have to invade (or bomb, or do regime change, or whatever).

But what evidence is there for this charge except Casey's say-so? Would a Bush military man help convince the public of something that Bush wanted him to even if there was scant, conflicting evidence with many caveats to support that general's claim? Perish the thought.

We're doomed..."

OLBERMANN LEADS THE WAY

I know everyone says this, but it really seems to be true--there is no one else in the corporate media who submits Bush administration claims to scrutiny and openly challenges the administration's motives and veracity...

BOMB IRAN?

Of the three options, I like the last one the best and always have:

"The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said."

And people are now openly saying in national newspapers that we should bomb Iran?

You should read the words "bomb Iran" as "kill innocent people." This kind of bullshit is despicable--I spit on this vile, disgusting hatemongering. Bombing doesn't stop terrorism--bombing is terrorism.

And the only thing Iran has done to provoke our corporate masters is to threaten to diversify their currency holdings (and I hate linking to WorldNet, but ya gotta do whatcha gotta do), shifting more toward the euro. Hmmm...didn't another Middle Eastern country that has "I-R-A" as the first three letters of its name do something with euros before we decided to kill their innocent people in an illegal, immoral war of aggression?

William Clark has been on this for a while now, and it wouldn't hurt to read his words again:

"In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market."

We don't hold all the cards, you see. In fact, as we spend more and more on our stupid, unnecessary, indefensible war in Iraq, we get deeper and deeper in debt and consequently more and more susceptible to the kinds of things Clark is talking about.

Way to go, neocons!

Why War Fails

Don't forget, not only is war a racket, but it doesn't even work:

"The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations. Even though the United States dropped more bombs in the Vietnam War than in all of World War II, it was still forced to withdraw. The Soviet Union, trying for a decade to conquer Afghanistan, in a war that caused a million deaths, became bogged down and also finally withdrew.

Even the supposed triumphs of great military powers turn out to be elusive. After attacking and invading Afghanistan, President Bush boasted that the Taliban were defeated. But five years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country. Last May, there were riots in Kabul, after a runaway American military truck killed five Afghans. When U.S. soldiers fired into the crowd, four more people were killed."

War is terrorism, and terrorism is big business, and big business is only concerned with profit, not people's lives.

Good night.