Wednesday, January 24, 2007


How humble he sounded, last night!  But don't be deceived: lurking in the uncleared brush of the Bush farm was a statement that portends more for the future than the sweet talk about education and health care.  It was only one sentence, but that sentence should be investigated by those who know how.

The sentence announces the creation of a civilian volunteer corps for Iraq.  He - or his advisors - realize there's potential for trouble with the number of civilian contractors making big decisions and big bucks in Iraq.  So, ispo presto, they are to become a civilian volunteer corps!

As for how the speech was received by the Dems, first, a word about Obama's first name, since some are trying to exploit his middle name (Hussein): I don't know whether it's authentic Arabic, but a colloquial expression in France, with its large North African population is "la baraka", meaning good luck.  I'm sure most Americans would take the bearer of "baraka" over the inventor of "makaka" any day.

BUT, Obama "recognizes" the "crucial interests" we have in the Middle East without spelling out the words "OIL" - or big business.  I don't know whether Edwards did any better - too late for me to watch.

Not even "The Nation"'s ringing cover editorial suggesting we may no longer be a constitutional republic talks about our government's plans to take over the world, one economy at a time.

And yet, when we intervene in strategically located Somalia, having taken over the base of neighboring Djibouti after the French lease expired, and when we arrest five Iranians who are in Iraq by invitation of the Maliki government, can a reasonable observer doubt that's the agenda?

Would bringing stability to Iraq be so difficult if the only problem was the Sunni/Shia antagonism, which has been going on for 1400 years? No government that buys into the economic dismemberment of its country can retain the loyalty of its citizens, whatever their religious stripe. It's not about what share of oil revenues the different religious communities will get,  but about whether Iraqis are going to own their own oil. That's why we have a "quagmire' in Iraq.

The American people don't think foreign oil companies should own Iraq's oil reserves either, but how can we to resist those plans if our elected officials are as ambiguous as the Iraqi's?  One of my commentators suggested a general strike.  Any more ideas out there?

No comments:

Post a Comment