Sunday, January 14, 2007

More notes on the 'surge'

More notes on the ‘surge’ and Iraq:

    1. A number of people have commented how nervous and uncomfortable Bush looked while giving the surge speech.  Wouldn’t you feel nervous if you’d just told the American Establishment – you know, the guys Noam says rule the world – to fuck off, eat shit, and die?  Bush mentioned Baker’s suggestions and then made fun of them.  What kind of powerful hold do the Zionists have on him that Bush is prepared to give up the help of the people who have provided him with everything, up to and including a major league baseball team and the Presidency of the United States?
    2. There is still no chance of an attack on Iran, at least not by the United States (Olmert is in the middle of attempting, without the slightest success, to get Russia and China to agree to an Israeli attack).  Note what a tiny mention of Iran and Syria did.  Everybody is now on the Iran war talk bandwagon, meaning that the real Zionist aim, civil war in Iraq provoked by the American attacks (and the new, even more violent, terms of reference), will skate by unnoticed.  ‘Progressives’ in the United States will be able to slap themselves on the back for preventing an attack on Iran, while such an attack was never in the cards.  Bill Kristol is one smart speechwriter.
    3. The mere discussion of an attack on Iran – an attack which everybody knows can only be blamed on one group – is ushering in the Golden Age of Anti-Semitism.  Wesley Clark used code words for the Jewish Billionaires Club (“New York money people”), and got shushed, but the floodgates are opening quickly.  This might as well be a ‘last call’ to the North American Jewish community to stop being so tribal or face the inevitable wrath.  Once the genie of anti-Semitism is out of the bottle, it will take another holocaust to put it back in.
    4. I’ve been reading that the Bush Administration is all about oil grabbing.  This so flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary that I am now beginning to see articles wondering why the Bush Administration is unsuccessful at oil grabbing.  Enough already!  Put your big theories aside and look at the facts (for once).  The only evidence that Iraq was about oil comes from Judicial Watch (nuff said).  Now I’m reading over and over that the newest oil grabbing laws in Iraq prove that the war was about Big Oil obtaining Iraqi oil on easy terms.  One inconvenient question.  What oil?  There is no available oil in Iraq for the oil companies to grab, no matter how exploitative the concessions that they can obtain.  For the foreseeable future, sectarian unrest in Iraq, ordered by the Zionists, will mean that nobody is going to exploit anything.  If it was about oil, they would have brought Iraq back into the fold just as they brought Libya back into the fold, and kept Saddam on to keep the peace enough to protect the oil pipelines.  Big Oil never wanted the attack on Iraq, because it knew the consequences (and the even longer term consequences, a complete civil war across the Middle East, would end the gravy train for everybody).