“The Best Thing in The World for Big Oil”

…Bobby Kennedy and Palast on why Saddam had to go.

    “This war in Iraq has been the best thing in the world for Big Oil and OPEC. They’ve made the largest profits in the history of the world. The interesting thing about your book is you show how it was all planned from the beginning. The story is like a spy thriller.” — Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Listen to RFK and Greg Palast on Iraq, a 20-minute conversation about blood and oil, the podcast of ‘Ring of Fire’ from Air America.

The following is part of the story referenced in their discussion:

THE JERK: WHY SADDAM HAD TO GO

by Greg Palast

Excerpt from ‘Armed Madhouse‘

The 323-page multi-volume “Options for Iraqi Oil” begins with the expected dungeons-and-dragons warning:

    The report is submitted on the understanding that [the State Department] will maintain the contents confidential.

For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq’s oil. They told us so in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving that, and getting a copy, became the near-to-pathologic obsession of our team.


This is a fascinating read. Ever wonder why Iraq was invaded on flimsy evidence of WMDs and why no one talks about the role big oil played in the decision even though it was the only one to profit from it. It appears it was all about oil even though the left, supported by CFR, kept arguing it was the Jooz who got the US to do it for Israel. It appears that Baker, not the neocons, was behind the strategy of taking Sadaam down in concert with Saudi Arabia and OPEC. Just as Baker pointed the finger at the Jooz then, he and his ISG Report are doing it again now. Just force Israel to make concessions and peace will be at hand.

So when Baker recommended talking to Iran, rest assured it was all about oil. So when Bush finally announces US plans, keep in mind, it is all about oil and Saudi Arabia.

January 7, 2007 | 15 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

15 Comments / 15 Comments

  1. Nathan

    Everyone knows about CFR, the Bilderbergers, etc. These are among the most scrutinized groups on the planet. If as David Rockerfeller reports, the NY Times and others were present and used discretion in what they reported, this can only be becuase nothing of note was discussed.

    The fact that there might be secrets should not surprise us. It is a delicate balance that a free society must meet when determining how much information to keep secret and how much should be revealed. There is a danger in having top secret information fall into the hands of very dangerous enemies.

    I also suspect that Russian officials or Islamic terrorists would be very much interested in infiltrating the meetings of top officials within the US and the EU. Russia views the US as its main enemy and Western civilization, as a whole, as its second most important enemy.

    Again CFR, while very influential, does not have the power to control the actions of non Allied countries nor can it even control the actions of allied countries. If CFR were to become anti “big oil” and anti coroprate, they could gain favor with the main stream media. This would give them more of an ability to engage in a psy ops campaign.

    As for CFR not wanting Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, this is no big surprise. Many major policy makers in Europe, the US, and even Israel do not want an attack on Iran. This is the same spirit of appeasement that gripped the world in the 1930s.

    Very briefly let me explain what will happen when Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities. America, Western Europe, and any one else nominally allied with them will be attacked by Iranian terrorist proxies. The death toll will be huge. If Israel is forced to act within the next year or so, I have no doubt that the West would emerge victorious, as long as they can keep Russia and China from supporting Iran. Even if Russia and China jump in on the side of Iran, the West will still probably win but it becomes even more dicey. At minimum, the loss of life and property will be huge. It is understandable why some folks will want to avoid this. What these folks do not understand, at least as I’m typing this, is that war with Iran and the broader Islamic world is unavoidable. Islamic extremists and their terrorist allies will make sure that war happens.

    If we are to assume that there is a “New World Order” group, they will eventually have to support an attack on Iran out of necessity. Iran poses a huge threat Israel, America, and Western civilization and, if left alone, would completely derail their New World Order plans. This is a case where their desires along with the desires who support the continued survival of Western civilization would mesh.

    In summary, CFR could only get away with opposing an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities because they could find support for this policy among the anti-war left and the anti-war left’s allies within the main stream news media!! Also, a policy of restraint seems to enjoy considerable support within the Israeli government. This probably helped CFR even more.

    Israel should move to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities sooner rather than later regardless of what CFR, the anti-war left, the American Congress, the White House, or the New York Times says. As Michael Leeden might say, faster please!!

    The most dangerous domestic enemy of the Western world is the anti war left. To the extent that CFR dances to the tune of the American left, they can have substantial influence in a psy-ops campaign. In other words, they would have to be anti big oil. Big oil is one of the top enemies of the anti-American left.

    Big oil does not even have the power to counteract the myth of man caused global warming. This myth is being used to hamstring the economies of the US and the Western world. Russia, China, and others display no concern what so ever about this. Since big oil cannot even mount an effective defense against the man caused global warming falsehood, they do not have the power to do something far more difficult like get the US and its allies to invade Iraq. As stated earlier, they may have supported it for their own reasons. Others also had their own reasons. Those reasons happened to mesh. Again, the primary problem with Iraq was not the invasion itself. The primary problem has been the execution.

    Finally, the left has successfully vilified the oil industry as greedy thieves. This is the incorrect way to think of them.

    While many oil executives are quite rich, it is best to think of oil as a vital commodity. A modern civilzation cannot function without it. The oil producers should be fairly compensated for providing this commodity. A country that does not do its best to ensure that it has access to this very valuable commodity is being grossly negligent.

    Due to the influence of enviro whackos much domestic supply of oil has been placed off limits. Inroads are being made in accessing some of this domestic supply but much work needs to be done. Eventually a “New World Order” group would have to support more domestic drilling because a non allied producer like Venezuela could derail their plans, however, to get the support of the main stream news media one would have to be anti big oil and anti big business!!

    So effective has been the anti war left in getting their agenda out through their allies in the main stream news media that most of the people in the Western world including the US would support a complete withdrawl from Iraq. Most of the Western elites now seem to support a withdrawl from Iraq. If Iraq is left to Iran and Al Qaeda, this will mean the end of any major influence of CFR and others. Not only this but the very survival of the US and Western civilizaiton would be placed in grave danger.

    When CFR urged Israel to not attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, they actually undermined their own position. This is quite a psy-ops campaign by the anti war left in getting a major group to work against its own interest.

    If CFR takes a position contrary to the main stream media, we can expect them to be vilified like anyone else. Supporting big oil or a one world government controlled by Western banking or Western oil interests would be a position that the main stream media would not support.

    The most dangerous internal enemy of Western civilization is the anti-war left. I think they would like to see us running after CFR and the Bilderbergers etc. I’m not suggesting that we should not keep close tabs on this group but at present they do not pose much of a threat by themslves. They are a danger to the extent that their ideas mesh with the anti war left.

  2. See also comment#5 here at Israpundit for further info on the Nazi origins of Bilderberg and the EU.

    See also comments #9,#10,#27,#28,#30 here on Randy’s recent terrific article “anti-Semitism & Collectivism” for how these very same internationailsts helped bring Hitler to power in the 1920’s & ’30’s

    No wonder Daniel Pipes very recently began to seriously question his membership of the CFR after seeing how it was helping the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people (comment #5).

    See also comment #5 here for how in mid-2004, the CFR succeeded in urging Bush to put pressure on Israel to sabotage her own self-defense by saying “NO” to pre-emptive air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, giving the Islamofascist mullahs a badly needed respite and breather: 30 additional months to develop their genocidal nuclear weapon capability.

  3. My thanks to R.A.Sprinkle (RandyTexas) for his brilliant articles on his blog “Skarbutts” for inspiring me to research this topic in depth (my thanks also to Peter Robert North for directing me to Randy’s blog to begin with).

    Consider this quote:

    What Moscow realised in 1988 was that globalism represented a final opportunity to rescue communist structures, if not communism itself, from collapse.

    At the same time, the World Economic Forum, host to annual international summit meetings in Davos, launched, under the names of members of the Bilderberg Group and of the Trilateral Commission, a series of economic plans, to which Moscow was only too willing to subscribe.

    The aim of these plans was not to liberate Eastern European sovereignty and democracy, but to engineer, together with the USSR, the domination of Europe by a supranational regime.

    This aim was identical to that enshrined in the terms of the Soviet-German Treaty of 1939 – a correspondence, which is conveniently ignored by commentators today.

    However, if we understand this correspondence, we can easily understand the words of Marcel Déat, as published, in 1943, under German supervision, in his daily newspaper, L’Œuvre [i.e. “The Task”] Déat said:

    “It is a question of creating one great European Economic State…The new Europe will either be socialist or it will not exist at all.”!

    Here is the beginning of understanding the hidden history of modern Europe – not a Europe which could combine free countries while preserving their sovereignty (i.e. without imposing a supranational state) but that of Jean Monnet, whom the CIA financed in order to create a system of European governance, just like that which Walter Funk, the Nazi Minister of Finance, actually designed.

    For decades, the so-called “Fathers of Europe”, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Jacques Delors, and others, spread their hatred of sovereignty and democracy through their powerful adherents in the media, and kept quiet about themselves and their ‘godfathers’ in the Fabian Society, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
    the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and so on; namely, Joseph Retinger, Otto Abetz, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, Ernst Aschenbach, Paul-Henry Spaak, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Rockefeller et cetera, all of whom have worked, in effect, to blend Nazi pan-Europeanism with Communist Internationalism to create the global, oligarchic, corporate system, we see emerging today.

    As shown in the Congressional Record – on 15 December 1987, Jesse Helms dropped a bombshell in the US Senate.

    He denounced “the State Department, the Trade Department, certain banking and financial groups, multinationals and tax-exempt foundations [saying that they were effectively controlled by] organisations such as the CFR, the RIIA, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth and Bilderberg Meetings, the Aspen Institute and the Atlantic Insititute” ,which are, he said,

    “using them to spread and coordinate plans for a so-called New World Order, serving the business and financial channels of the political world…”

    Indeed, Senator Helms, whose high degree in Freemasonry, suddenly became a matter of dispute with the Grand Order, ventured to go further still. On the morals of what he called “this secret system of government” ,he said,

    “The world views of these insiders are characterised by atheism and materialism. All that matters to them is to maximise their profits, by wielding the twin-weapons of debt and monopoly. That is absolutely not true capitalism, and it is not surprising if the insiders of these clubs – while vying with each other – are also plotting together to join forces with Kremlin leaders, whose vision of the world is also that of atheistic, materialistic profiteers.”

    Helms also described what he called “the destructive role of Fabian socialism”, specifically deploring the fact (and I quote) “that Europe has lost its identity and sense of mission as a bastion of Western civilisation, whereas Marxism, in all its forms, is replacing the culture and the traditional values of the nations of the Old World”.

    How is it possible that so few people know about these powers and their role in shaping Europe and the World since the War? There are two reasons: the first is that foreign correspondents in the United States, are snowed under by government press-releases and trivia, and rarely find time to examine the Congressional Record, let alone to listen to speeches in the Senate or House of Representatives.

    The second, and more cogent, reason is apparent from a speech, given in Essen, West Germany, on 8th June 1991, by David Rockefeller, the President of the Bilderberg Group, and of the Trilateral Commission, and one of those who control the media through their financial interests. He said:

    “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

    It would have been quite impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, now that the world is more sophisticated, it is prepared to march towards a world government and accept the supranational sovereignty of an intellectual and financial elite, which is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries…”

  4. B. Poster, I, just like Ted, very much appreciate your valuable contribution to this subject. Much of what you say about Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, having been a threat to the US economy as a “swing producer” of oil is true. Like Ted, however, I beg to differ on some points you make about the domination of the internationalists in the CFR and the mainstream media.

    First of all, where you write:

    CFR, while influential, does not have the power to manipulate the governments of our allies to the degree you seem to suggest.

    My dear friend B.Poster, the CFR (and its sister internationalist organization Bilderberg) is the government in Washington and Brussels (EU-NATO)! It gets worse: the CFR and Bilderberg is the mainstream media!

    Is the undeniable fact that these members of the CFR & Bilderberg et al – both past and present- happen to be in key positions of power in the US & EU governments for over half a century a “conspiracy theory”?Is their ownership and membership of the corporate media, banking,finance,NGO’s etc. a “conspiracy theory“? Absolutely not. It’s a simple irrefutable fact, not a theory.

    So, is what these internationalists currently do and have been doing since before World War 2 a “conspiracy”? That depends on how you define the word “conspiracy”.

    Let’s see: Do these people meet in secret? Yes, they most certainly do (annually or bi-annually in different hotels every year for over half a century where all of the regular hotel staff are cleared out before each meeting, replaced with their own security vetted & approved staff and where normally unheard of military scale security is enforced). Do they endeavor to keep everything they discuss a secret? Yes, absolutely, it’s written into their organization’s constitutions – and where not written explicitly it is implicitly understood by all members (on pain of ostracization -being made a pariah – and complete ruin of a member’s political career and aspirations). Do they want to create a global supranational collectivist (corporate) system of government (a.k.a “one-world government” or “New World Order”) sacrificing the individual sovereignty of nation states like Israel and the US into a global supranational collectivist system or “one world government”? Yes, they have even admitted it and bragged about it amongst themselves for decades!

    Not that any genuine leaks (not the phony ones)concerning their collectivist agenda to the so- called “free press” would get publicized anyway, since the mainstream media is run by mega-corporations whose board members and/or key journalists are in most cases are themselves members of Bilderberg,CFR,Trilateral Commission, RIAA, and other globalist collectivist internationalist groups ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

    Here is a list of all CFR members in government,banking,finance, media,education,NGO’s and big business corporations for 2006 and their identities. (If the link fails, click on http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:EfMcvbp7U0MJ:www.geocities.com/zembmor98/cfrroster2006.html+CFR+2006+roster&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1)

  5. Ted

    Thank you for the response to my post. You write: “People and countries can be manipulated by psy-ops. CFR is a master at it.”

    CFR, while influential, does not have the power to manipulate the governments of our allies to the degree you seem to suggest. Countries, such as the US, Israel, Canada, Britain, and other democracries have simillar groups. For example, Israel has groups like Peace Now.

    Sometimes these groups will have unethical intentions. At other times, their intentions will be noble. When they get to far out of line, there is a free press who will expose them. One of the favorite past times of the American media is to harm big business. If CFR wishes to engage in a conspiracy theory, especially one to benefit big oil or US corporate interests, they will face the constant threat of exposure from a free press. In America, conspiracy theories are very difficult, if not impossible, to implement and maintain.

    It may be possible that CFR along with simillar groups within our coalition allies wanted Iraq invaded because of the tremdous damage that an enemy “swing producer” like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq could have done to all of our economies. If there is a group striving to bring about a “New World Order,” Hussein and his country’s swing production would have been a huge threat to this. Such a group, also might have wanted Iraq to be invaded. Also, Hussein’s Iraq was a huge national security threat to the US. People who are genuinely interested in American national security would have had good reason to support an invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq represents a situation where a variety of interests may have converged. In addition to this, all groups would have or should have had an interests in deciding what to do about the swing production represented by Iraq’s oil to ensure that it does not fall into enemy hands. To date, the primary problem I see with the Iraq invasion has been in the execution.

    A far more likely conspiracy theory would involve the Russian FSB, which used to be the Soviet KGB. The Western media heavily leans toward Socialism. This makes them easy targets for manipulation by the Russian FSB. Without a free press to hold them accountable within their home country and a Socialist foreign press, if they wanted to engage in a psy ops campaign against the US and the West, they would have a far easier time than the CFR ever would or ever could.

    Other possible conspirators might be extreme environmental groups like Green Peace and the Sierra Club. By limiting US domestic oil production, they have served to severly hamper America’s ability to deal with enemies and potential enemies. Inroads seem to have been made in rolling back the influence of these groups but more work needs to be done. These groups backed up by a sympathetic media have far more influence over US policy than big oil has ever had. A legitimate question to ask might be are these groups working for foreign powers, however, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the main stream media to ask this question. Chasing after someone like CFR is much more fun and fits much more closely with their true agenda. CFR simply is not in a postion to do what you suggest.

    Finally with regards to Iraq I think our strategy going forward should be two fold: 1.)Contain Iranian influence within Iraq and to eventually eliminate its influence within the country. 2.) Contain and eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq and to eventually its influence within the country. I’m not sure if commiting more troops to the country or getting more involved in Iraq’s Civil War helps us here or not. I’m inclined to think this is a situation where we could use proxies.

  6. The Globalist assault on Iraq has virtually nothing to do with oil. Certain oily agendas are served, however. Iraqi oil has been largely kept off the market, leading to increased prices and shortages and giving credibility to the “Peak Oil” myth. Don’t be surprised if this or a similar myth is deployed as a cover story for Middle East policy.

    The CFR is one of many Globalist instruments – it’s actually one of the more open ones. The Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, aka Chatham House) and the Tavistock Institute are just a few others.

    It’s important to realise that while the elitists who run these outfits and play their little games seem powerful, they are not really. Once a critical mass of people around the world choose to willfully assert their Sovereignty, these “powerful people” will seem as useless as the slippers under their beds (which are no longer of any use as there’s no servants left to put them on 🙂

    Sovereignty is the key……

  7. I must confess that I have never considered Israel to be a “buffer zone”, but a member of the Western alliance. However B. Poster is right, that is how it is considered by the West. It explains the inconsistent and unreliable support by the West.

  8. Ted, you are correct – And it is of note that every President except Reagan since 1921 has been a member of the CFR and has had their cabinets filled with CFR members.

    I would not accuse everybody that is a member of the CFR of being diabolical but there is usually an elitist mindset that is shared by most of them. This is an internationalist mindset which by the nature of the organization’s goals and agenda puts members in the position of being geo-politicians.

    If you are unacceptable to CFR as a candidate you can forget about being U.S. president, you will never have the money or support needed to become viable.

    Sure, we the people get to vote, but the candidates are pre-chosen and approved before they get the big money, support and major endorsements it takes to make a realistic run at it.

    Like corporate capitalism, it is a controlled monopoly feigning free operations but choices are ever the more limited. Not only so, but political powers and economic powers both keep merging and consolidating thus becoming more monolithic and more powerful. Now add to that, that the politicians and corporations have a civil union thing going on between them where support and money flows to the politicians, and the politicians repay with favorable political policies.

    This is actually a mild form of fascism, but be warned, the power the corporations and politicians gather unto themselves is robbed from the people. At some point (if we have not passed it already) we have pseudo-free enterprise and a quasi-democracy that becomes weaker and weaker.

    The truth is that this has been going on for years and as Nathan has pointed out in his comments it was a force in financing and building Germany in the ‘20s and ‘30s – Some even continued throughout the war by shipping oil and other goods to Argentina which were then transferred to the Third Reich.

    I don’t like the way things are shaping up globally but Israel is in the position to break the internationalists’ bonds on the Jewish state if the citizens would dump their internationalist politicians and put some Zionist in charge. Nationalism is a major component in survival, not just for Israel but for all of us. Without it even if we survive someday we will not be free.

  9. B. Poster

    Your thoughts are much appreciated but I differ with this

    Big oil might have wanted Iraq invaded to keep oil prices stable. Major policy makers within the US might have gone along with this because if a “swing producer” could drive the price of oil too high they could destroy the American economy, however, America’s coalition partners would not have supported this to protect America’s economy. In other words, the Americans never could have gotten thirty countries to agree to support this in any way and the UN would not have passed any resolutions condemning Iraq. In addition to this, big oil, while it is influential, lacks the ability to direct American policy in such a way as to get the country to invade Iraq or anyone else.

    People and countries can be manipulated by psy-ops. CFR is a master at it.

  10. In my previous very lengthy post. I neglected to mention that of course there would be a plan for an invasion of Iraq. Even pre dating the attacks of 911 many people correctly understood that Iraq presented a major threat to American national security interests. To not have a working plan to deal with Iraq would have been gross negligence on the part of the American government.

    There are only three valid reasons that I know of to deny that such a plan existed. These are a.)you don’t want the plan plastered all over the front pages of every major newspaper in the world, b.)you don’t want the plans to fall into the hands of the enemy, c.)you wish to placate the anti-American left. Perhaps all of the above played a role. In the case of trying to placate the anti-American left, this will never worked. In this regard, they are very simillar to terrorists and communists. These people can never be appeased nor placated. They can only be defeated.

  11. Was Iraq invaded for the benefit of the Jews? Was Iraq invaded to benefit big oil? Was Iraq invaded because of neo conservative designs to transform the middle east? Did all three play a role?

    Clearly Iraq was not invaded to benefit Israel or the Jews. Perhaps Israel might have wanted Iraq invaded to eliminate an existential threat to their country but they do not have that much clout to direct American policy. In fact, of all the groups here the Jews and Israel are the least influential of them all.

    Big oil might have wanted Iraq invaded to keep oil prices stable. Major policy makers within the US might have gone along with this because if a “swing producer” could drive the price of oil too high they could destroy the American economy, however, America’s coalition partners would not have supported this to protect America’s economy. In other words, the Americans never could have gotten thirty countries to agree to support this in any way and the UN would not have passed any resolutions condemning Iraq. In addition to this, big oil, while it is influential, lacks the ability to direct American policy in such a way as to get the country to invade Iraq or anyone else.

    The neo conservatives recognized that in order to ensure America’s long range survival as well as the long range survival of Western civilization the Middle East will need to be reformed. Neo conservatives correctly view Israel as a part of Western civilization and they understand that Israel is a vital buffer between the West and its enemies. Generally speaking they correctly understand that if this buffer is weakened the US and the West become much harder to defend. For them Iraq seemed a good place to start. Also, at the time of the invasion, a large number of people and countries understood the danger posed by Iraq and many people understood the need to transform the Middle East. This made it easier for neo conservatives to find forums to explain their views.

    Unfortunately neo conservatives do not have the clout to direct American foreign policy to get it to invade Iraq. I say this is unfortunate because had the neo conservatives directed American foreign policy and planned and executed the invasion of Iraq it would have gone much better. Iraq would be a stable country and Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern despots would at least be contained. This would even have the added benefit of stable oil prices.

    The real reason for the invasion was to eliminate Iraq’s WMD programs and weapons that now posed a threat to the US. These weapons may still pose a threat to the US. The US had every reason to believe that Iraq had WMD that they would directly use against the US or its interests. Also, it was very likely that these weapons would be transferred to Al Qaeda or other terrorists groups to use against the US or its interests. Far from being flimsy the evidence for Iraqi WMD was very solid.

    Instead of “Bush lied” diatribes the media should be asking “where did these weapons go” and “what went wrong with the intellegence?” I think the biggest problem was a lack of good human intellegence. The most likely locations for these WMD are Syria or Lebanon’s Bekaa valley. I think this is a case where Bush derangement syndrone, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, or a combination of all three of these cloud common sense.

    This is a bit off topic but Greg Palast assumes the US was behind the coup in Venezuela back in 2002. If this is true, this would be sound foreign policy on the part of the US. Venezuela is a major threat to the US. A report was done by World Net Daily’s G2 Bulletin that provided evidence that this coup was staged by Hugo Chavez to point a finger at the US. Tyrants, such as Chavez, need external enemies to draw the anger of their oppressed populations away from them. This statement by Palast is an example of anti-Americanism. Things are just assumed to be true because America’s enemies say they are or because an America hater within the government says so.

    If James Baker or the American government really are just trying to protect Saudi Arabia or the oil supply, this is a very good case for invading Iran. If Iraq falls to Iran, this is a grave threat to Saudi Arabia. The goal of the Iranian leadership is for Shia Islam to rule the world. Due to its close proximity to Iran, Iran is arguably a greater threat to Saudi Arabia than it is to the US. If Iran is allowed to gain control of Iraq and eventually Saudi Arabia, this would be an unmitigated disaster for the US, the Western world, and for big oil. Iran would be in a position to bring down big oil and the economies of the Western world any time they felt like doing it.

    Baker’s idea of talking to Iran is stupid. The price Iran would demand would likely be more than the US is able to pay. If the Saudis think talking to Iran right now would work, they are deluded. This would likely be a case where anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, or some combination of these things clouds common sense.

    None of this is to imply that I am defending President Bush. Frankly I think he should be impeached. His decidely pro-Palestinian policies are unacceptable and his failure to defend the US borders are unacceptable. As I think it has been said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This may be the case with the Bush Administration. To date, his intentions whether they have been noble or not have been disasterous. There is still time to get this right but time grows short. We should pray that American and Western leaders will have the wisdom to make the correct decisions.

    If we ultimately fail in Iraq, the survival of Western civilization will likely be placed in grave danger. If this occurs, the bulk of the blame will ultimately be assigned to the Jews and the neo conservatives. This will not be because they are responsible but because they lack the clout within the media to mount an effective defense. As it stands right now, the folks who will not be blamed will be the anti-war activists. These folks have acted to undermine our efforts almost from the beginning. Instead of “Bush lied” they should have been asking “what happened to the Iraq’s WMD?” “Why was the intellegence wrong?” “Why were to few troops commited to secure Iraq or its WMD sites?” “Why has the US not institued a draft?” The anti war group has asked all the wrong questions and they have undermined American security and its image around the world and all of this for what? So they can get back at their arch enemies, George W. Bush, the Jews, and the Republicans. These people along with their friends in the main stream media are the most dangerous threat of all to Isreal, America, and the Western world.

    We currently face enemies who are far more dangerous than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever were or ever could have been and we have a completely irresponsible media. Some how this will need to be changed. The Bush Administration along with Tony Blair could be more aggressive about getting the facts out. Frankly they are not being aggressive enough. With regards to the elimination of the Hussein regime the facts are on their side.

    While the media continues to be irresponisble, the former Iraqi regime’s WMD are God only knows where to be used by God only knows who and God only knows when. Perhaps the WMD stockpiles did not exist but the media are not asking the right questions about this nor or are they asking the right questions of American and Allied leaders.

    While big oil has benefited from the increase in the price of oil, they are still at the mercy of more powerful producers and they lack the clout to control American foreign policy. To date, the biggest benefactors of the Iraq war have been Russia and Iran. The most dangerous country to Israel, America, and the Western world is Russia. Clearly policy changes are needed. At this time, the top priorities need to be containing Iran and eventually eliminating the regime and containing and destroying Al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

    Policy changes could begin by being more consistent. For example, the US goes to Afghanistan and Iraq to eliminate terrorists and the regimes who support them. They should do this. Then Israel attempts to eliminate “Palestinian” terrorists and their moves are blasted as “unhelpful.” Israel is fighting the exact same enemy that the US and its allies are fighting. Until the policies of America and its coalition partners become more consistent, we are probably headed for a very rough time.

    I think the inconsistencies are largely due to the fact that some people have refused to recognize that we are in a large war for the survival of our civilization. They prefer to try and fight this like it is a limited war. When some people find reality uncomfortable they prefer to construct a new one. Policy makers will need to face reality.

    Finally the loyalty shown to the Bush Administration by some neo conservatives and by some members of the so called “Religous Right” is misplaced. The Bush administration and the Republicans do NOT share their values. If the Bush administration will get things right in the GWOT and with regard to the Israeli/Arab war, then they should be supported in these limited areas but neo conservatives and the Religous Right need to understand that neither the Bush administration nor the Republican leadership share their values.

    I suggest that neo conservatives and Christians distance themselves from the Bush administration and Republicans because Christians and the neo conservatives have the geatest understanding of what we face than anyone else. It may fall to them, with the help of God, to save Western Civilization. They should not be encumbered by the Republican party. As for Isarel, God guarantees their future.

    It is in every one’s interest to support Israel not only becuase their cause is righteous but also because they are the apple of God’s eye.

  12. Uh, quite a bit of chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

    In addition Saddam was using his oil income to reconstitute the programs. In addition he had outsourced his nuclear weapons program to Libya.

    Let me repeat: Saddam outsourced his nuclear weapons program to Libya.

    That program came to light as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

    It is the “no WMDs” which is the cannard. Once you buy into “no WMDs” you have to go looking for something else. Oil.

    Then the side effect of higher oil prices becomes the central “reason”.

    OTOH higher oil prices have brougt $70 bn. in investment into oil shales by just one company. Is this good for the OPEC folks? Consider that the investment is taking place in the USA.

    Then we have the current Israeli work on its oil shales.

    And Canada which is already producing.

    It would seem that for OPEC etc. the ideal price for oil would be a price that made developing oil shales uneconomic. Well maybe not. Perhaps the oil folks convinced OPEC that high prices would be in their long term interest. Master connivers. Better than the Joooooos even.

    You guys at Israpundit have become the mirror image of the “Protocols” believers. Except for you it is America and oil.

    Sad. But most amusing.

    Here is my take: idiots are every where. Top to bottom. Each has its own motive. Somtimes the motives mesh. Sometimes they clash. There is no big conspiracy running the world. Not America. Not the North Eastern establishment. Not the oil barons. Not OPEC. Not even the Jews.

    Let me ammend that it could be George Soros who is behind it all. LOL.

  13. Laura

    I agree. But the left were knee jerk is heir criticism and were are odds with their criticism that the Jooz were responsible. Obviously you can’t have it both ways.

  14. Actually the left also said the Iraq war was about oil. I’m pretty sure Greg Palast is part of the anti-Israel left.

Comments are closed.