The
Energy for War
October 10, 2002
By Bridget Gibson
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that
'Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil
to international markets from the Middle East' and because
this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention'
is necessary. Vice President Dick Cheney, who chairs the White
House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report
on 'energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy,
a thinktank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary
of state under George Bush Snr." - The Sunday Herald
(Glasgow, Scotland)
What lies within the documents that have successfully (to
date) been squirreled away from the prying eyes of anyone
who should be entitled to see them?
Three judges have ordered Dick Cheney to release documents
relating to our National Energy Policy. Judge Gladys Kessler
directed the government (by March 25, 2002) to turn over the
"vast majority" of the documents that will expose the names
of participants, dates of meetings, and the topics discussed.
On March 26, 2002, of the 11,000 pages that were released,
most of the pages were blank.
The secretive meetings and discussions that were held in
the earliest sessions of Dick Cheney and his energy commissars
may hold many keys to why we, the people of the United States,
are held hostage to the bellicosity of the Bush administration.
Are we rushing headlong into war for all the wrong reasons?
Yes, I know that Saddam Hussein is a bad man, but does his
badness have anything to do with the war being called 'inevitable'?
On November 28, 2001, George Bush was ecstatic in his praise
for the pipeline that grew from the Caspian Basin to span
across the northern area of Afghanistan and the 'cooperation'
that had been formed with "Russia, Kazakhstan, and Oman,
and their consortium partners, for the commissioning of the
Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). U.S. firms, notably ChevronTexaco
and ExxonMobil, have played leading roles in this project."
This - after we had invaded and destroyed the ruling government
of Afghanistan, the Taliban, (although fifteen of nineteen
of the hijackers of September 11, 2001, came from Saudi Arabia)
- seems to have been what George was in search of. Today we
have a disarrayed Afghanistan, one that is unstable and needs
constant protection and has seen far too little in the way
of 'nation building.' Are we now to meekly take George at
his word that Osama was never the goal and that freeing the
Afghani people from the Taliban was the objective for this
military exercise?
Do not forget that, as those who hawk (and 'hawk' was never
so appropriate as here) the product of war become more finely
synchronized to the market, you are being sold goods intended
all along to roll out after August. Remember that new products
are never unveiled in August. Any savvy marketing director
knows this and the marketing office of Karl Rove has its keen
ear to the way to sell this war in every fashion for every
reason. If you don't like one pitch, it will be discarded
and another excuse will come into use in the next news cycle.
You will be sold this war until you have bought it and are
willing to pay for it with your life or the life of your firstborn
son or daughter. You might even buy it because you just can't
stand to tell the salesmen "no" and are too weak
to keep up the resistance to the unending pressure.
It's hard to say "no," but it is necessary that
it be said each time and very loudly and distinctly. Your
response must be clear and convincing. Say "no"
when they say that Saddam is thinking about breathing. Say
"no" when they say that Saddam has to go to the
bathroom and you might be in the toilet. Say "no"
when they say Saddam has to go to the grocery store to buy
peas and flour. Say "no" to whatever the reason
de jour that Karl cooks up.
Just say "no."
|
