In an email to the Con Man, Reckless G writes:
Dear Michael,
I’ve been following your show and visiting aspenpost.net, ever since Cathleen Krahe submitted the letter from our Iraqi friend. It’s been very entertaining and informative, thanks for providing the forum on your show and blogsite for airing the many different perspectives of people in the valley and surrounding areas.
I generally agree with your perspective, though I do have a few problems that I’d like to address here.
First, this week you’ve learned the importance of referring to the Eagle Valley by it’s proper name, yet you consistently refer to Conservatives as those who deny science, are anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage. Those are not Conservative tendencies; they are the attitudes of the Religious Right. Conservativism is a political leaning that traditionally had nothing to do with preserving America’s “moral responsibilities.” Yes, the Republican Party, the current party of Conservatives, has been hijacked by the Religious Right and appears to be pushing their agenda, but for the sake of true conservativism I wish you wouldn’t confuse the issue by using the term in the context of your conversation about the agenda of the Religious Right.
Second, and this is a beef I have with all media today, not just your show; pundits and the public are still talking about the occupation of Iraq in terms of bringing stability and democracy to the region, as if that was ever the goal. Talking about victory in Iraq without discussing the true goal of the enterprise is like discussing the orange juice business without ever mentioning oranges.
You talk about the hypocrisy of Cheney denying gay rights when he has a gay daughter, but you refuse to address the true hypocrisy surrounding the occupation of Iraq. I’ve heard you say you think we’re there because of oil, but then you dismiss the idea that this fiasco was perpetrated for the exclusive purpose of reaping a profit. I know you hold a dim view of conspiracy theories, but by saying the “war” is about oil, you’re effectively calling it a conspiracy.
The media in general talks about the “war” as if it was botched by inept planners. Please! These men are not stupid. They knew full well the consequences of conducting the invasion and occupation the way they have done. If regular citizens like me could predict what would occur, then how can we be expected to believe that federal officials and those in the Intelligence Community couldn’t?
So the question everyone should be asking is; why did they want to create the condition of continuing chaos in Iraq? Why did they purposely send in too few troops, inadequately equipped, to destroy the Baath Party, the regular army, the infrastructure, and the peace? And why are they now sending in what everyone agrees is too few more troops to secure the country?
You want to know why we’re in this war and why the Bush crew doesn’t seem to want to end it any time soon? Just follow the money! Weapons manufacturers, reconstruction companies, military support industries (such as Haliburton), oil companies, the list goes on. This war is a very profitable venture for those invested in any one of the above. As we know, several of our top leaders and their families and friends have connections to these industries.
You question Cheney’s seemingly inexplicable change from a cautious conservative to a hawkish NeoCon. Again, follow the money! The change occurred after he became involved with Haliburton and joined the Project for a New American Century. Just look at the PNAC’s statement of principles; http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
and who signed it, and it’s pretty obvious why we are in Iraq right now, and soon to attack Iran.
If you study war throughout history, nine times out of ten it will be about profits for the warmongers. Why should this one be any different? The telltale evidence of course is how many times the administration shifted its reason for going to war. In the past, populations might have gone along with their government waging war to enrich their own nation, but not now, here in America. We only go to war for altruistic reasons, because we like to think of ourselves as the good guys.
When a crime is committed, the police look for motive. But we can’t talk about the true motive those in the Bush administration had for going to war, or why they planned so perfectly to fail to achieve stability and peace, because it sounds like a conspiracy theory, which makes us look bad.
Now that’s hypocrisy.
reckless G
Right on reckless G!
You dazzle with brilliance while most are baffled by bullshit!!
Keep up the good work and keep the faith…as they say.
Star Eagle
Right on reckless G!
You dazzle with brilliance while most are baffled by bullshit!!
Keep up the good work and keep the faith…as they say.
Star Eagle
Right on to what?
She/he blasts the ConMan for his “war for oil” theory as conspiracy, and then lays the evidence for his/her own version, vis-a-vis straight up war for money (cut out the pesky Exxon/BP middle man) theory.
Huh?
A little schizophrenic if you ask me.
Right on to what?
She/he blasts the ConMan for his “war for oil” theory as conspiracy, and then lays the evidence for his/her own version, vis-a-vis straight up war for money (cut out the pesky Exxon/BP middle man) theory.
Huh?
A little schizophrenic if you ask me.
OK TDT I see the source of your confusion, but I was commenting on the fact that Michael dismisses others for their conspiracy theories, while harboring his own. That is where the hypocrisy comes in. He and others are dancing around the truth because they don’t want to sound like conspiracy nuts.
The truth is…we are NEVER leaving Iraq. We have 14 military bases already constructed, and are constructing the largest Embassy in the world that will house 5000 US agents. Obviously, we are not leaving, so let’s STOP talking about what went wrong with the “strategy” and how we can change it so we can get our soldiers out. It ain’t happening, no matter how much the American people cry or whine or protest.
(ps I’m female)
OK TDT I see the source of your confusion, but I was commenting on the fact that Michael dismisses others for their conspiracy theories, while harboring his own. That is where the hypocrisy comes in. He and others are dancing around the truth because they don’t want to sound like conspiracy nuts.
The truth is…we are NEVER leaving Iraq. We have 14 military bases already constructed, and are constructing the largest Embassy in the world that will house 5000 US agents. Obviously, we are not leaving, so let’s STOP talking about what went wrong with the “strategy” and how we can change it so we can get our soldiers out. It ain’t happening, no matter how much the American people cry or whine or protest.
(ps I’m female)
Reckless G,
you are correct, wars always cost money, lives and the cost of opportunity lost.
In the Early eighties the secular Saddam Hussein, someone no American liberal would claim or want in their vest pocket, had his national treasury and military embroiled in a pre WWII type of total war against Iran — recently in a state of near chaos from the very disorderly succession from the Shah to Shapour Bakhtiar to Barzagan and then to Khomeini. While many Iranians were not for Khomeini, almost no Iranian was welcoming Saddam Hussein. The attack, publicly meant to seize the Shaat Al Arab for control of oil tanker access. While this would be a worthy military goal (not ethical, moral, or an act of philanthropy), it is much more likely that Saddam saw a nascent Shi’a theocracy next to his Pan-Arabic Ba’athist Socialist Sunni minority and heavily weighted Tikriti dictatorship,(yes I realise Tariq Azizz was Christian) as inspiring to the Shi’a majority, within the former colony cobbled together by Britain, with ethnically separate Sunni Kurds as a wild card. This unified Iranians. The Iraqis were being rolled back. Gerald V. Bull had given the Iraqis the best rifled artillery designs in the world, the Soviets had supplied their best tanks, the French were building the Osirak nuclear facility, now this fellow conservative found a friend in the Reagan administration. Yes, we had a government that aided and abetted Saddam Hussein, satellite surveillence, intelligence, and almost certainly the refined building blocks for chemical WMD.
Some neocons, have been called, in a perjorative way, “zionists,” because of Jewish backgrounds. Hopefully this is what I hope it is — a coincidence. The neocons, were enthusiastic about pitting two anti-Israeli powers and depleting their manpower, and treasuries, and this would be punishment for the embassy takeover and hostage seizure in Iran. Israel destroyed the Osirak effort. Chemical WMD at the time, and even now, are more politically palatable. If anyone can produce a record of Saddam Hussein using chemical WMD before his meeting with Rumsfeld, please publish it. Thanks.
My contention is that there are documents in Iraqi archives that show the nature of the aid given by us. Perhaps the looting of priceless museum artifacts was a cover for document seizure, perhaps those documents if they exist, are still there. Most questionable and dangerous to the neocons would be their names/departments/agencies on any such documents. Coverups, because of willfull intent and premeditation, are always conspiracies.
Enter Halliburton and special private security firms with no oversight. They would serve as great lighting rods, if those documents exist. If this were only about oil from the liberal perspective the taxpayer money being laundered through those contractors would be enough for those connected to the repective entities, would be more than enough for this incursion.
Wars are about power and cost money, lives and the cost of opportunity lost. Starting wars always means conspiracies. Wars are very different from being struck by a drunk driver.
Reckless G,
you are correct, wars always cost money, lives and the cost of opportunity lost.
In the Early eighties the secular Saddam Hussein, someone no American liberal would claim or want in their vest pocket, had his national treasury and military embroiled in a pre WWII type of total war against Iran — recently in a state of near chaos from the very disorderly succession from the Shah to Shapour Bakhtiar to Barzagan and then to Khomeini. While many Iranians were not for Khomeini, almost no Iranian was welcoming Saddam Hussein. The attack, publicly meant to seize the Shaat Al Arab for control of oil tanker access. While this would be a worthy military goal (not ethical, moral, or an act of philanthropy), it is much more likely that Saddam saw a nascent Shi’a theocracy next to his Pan-Arabic Ba’athist Socialist Sunni minority and heavily weighted Tikriti dictatorship,(yes I realise Tariq Azizz was Christian) as inspiring to the Shi’a majority, within the former colony cobbled together by Britain, with ethnically separate Sunni Kurds as a wild card. This unified Iranians. The Iraqis were being rolled back. Gerald V. Bull had given the Iraqis the best rifled artillery designs in the world, the Soviets had supplied their best tanks, the French were building the Osirak nuclear facility, now this fellow conservative found a friend in the Reagan administration. Yes, we had a government that aided and abetted Saddam Hussein, satellite surveillence, intelligence, and almost certainly the refined building blocks for chemical WMD.
Some neocons, have been called, in a perjorative way, “zionists,” because of Jewish backgrounds. Hopefully this is what I hope it is — a coincidence. The neocons, were enthusiastic about pitting two anti-Israeli powers and depleting their manpower, and treasuries, and this would be punishment for the embassy takeover and hostage seizure in Iran. Israel destroyed the Osirak effort. Chemical WMD at the time, and even now, are more politically palatable. If anyone can produce a record of Saddam Hussein using chemical WMD before his meeting with Rumsfeld, please publish it. Thanks.
My contention is that there are documents in Iraqi archives that show the nature of the aid given by us. Perhaps the looting of priceless museum artifacts was a cover for document seizure, perhaps those documents if they exist, are still there. Most questionable and dangerous to the neocons would be their names/departments/agencies on any such documents. Coverups, because of willfull intent and premeditation, are always conspiracies.
Enter Halliburton and special private security firms with no oversight. They would serve as great lighting rods, if those documents exist. If this were only about oil from the liberal perspective the taxpayer money being laundered through those contractors would be enough for those connected to the repective entities, would be more than enough for this incursion.
Wars are about power and cost money, lives and the cost of opportunity lost. Starting wars always means conspiracies. Wars are very different from being struck by a drunk driver.
Pingback: free teen porn
Pingback: free teen porn