Democratic Underground  
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."

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage