Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
This was obviously no slip-up, it was part of a prepared speech. Perhaps, now that none of the official justifications for the invasion of Iraq are still taken seriously by anyone, the Bush administration has decided to be honest. With all of the media attention being paid to high gas prices, maybe the administration thinks that the only way to maintain support for the occupation is to tell people that oil prices (and consequently, the economy, jobs and incomes) will be adversely affected. And it shouldn't be too surprising, considering the reaction to Pat Robertson’s recent call for the assassination of Chavez. The administration probably took note of the fact that while the call for assassination itself was (almost) universally condemned, the fact that it was explicitly linked by Robertson with Venezuela’s importance as a main oil producer didn't even raise an eyebrow. Here are the last few sentences of the infamous quote:
"And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
To me, it is the first sentence in the quote, which was actually edited out of most of the news articles, that is the most remarkable part. If I am interpreting this correctly, what Robertson means to say is that Chavez is a threat much more because of his control over oil than for any other reason and that it is because of this that he must be killed. And maybe this is a stretch, but Robertson seems also to be implying that the Iraq ("$200 Billion") war happened for largely the same reasons. Maybe the Bush administration noticed that nobody seemed to care about this, only about the call for assassination itself.
So the question is: does this mean that the administration (and the propaganda machine in general) has reached a whole new degree of cynicism about the US public? Or, instead, could it be that this reflects an extreme desperation and fear that public opinion is quickly moving against the war, and that it will take something very special to turn things around?
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
What does this mean?
This was obviously no slip-up, it was part of a prepared speech. Perhaps, now that none of the official justifications for the invasion of Iraq are still taken seriously by anyone, the Bush administration has decided to be honest. With all of the media attention being paid to high gas prices, maybe the administration thinks that the only way to maintain support for the occupation is to tell people that oil prices (and consequently, the economy, jobs and incomes) will be adversely affected. And it shouldn't be too surprising, considering the reaction to Pat Robertson’s recent call for the assassination of Chavez. The administration probably took note of the fact that while the call for assassination itself was (almost) universally condemned, the fact that it was explicitly linked by Robertson with Venezuela’s importance as a main oil producer didn't even raise an eyebrow. Here are the last few sentences of the infamous quote:
"And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
To me, it is the first sentence in the quote, which was actually edited out of most of the news articles, that is the most remarkable part. If I am interpreting this correctly, what Robertson means to say is that Chavez is a threat much more because of his control over oil than for any other reason and that it is because of this that he must be killed. And maybe this is a stretch, but Robertson seems also to be implying that the Iraq ("$200 Billion") war happened for largely the same reasons. Maybe the Bush administration noticed that nobody seemed to care about this, only about the call for assassination itself.
So the question is: does this mean that the administration (and the propaganda machine in general) has reached a whole new degree of cynicism about the US public? Or, instead, could it be that this reflects an extreme desperation and fear that public opinion is quickly moving against the war, and that it will take something very special to turn things around?