one of the few? sorry, a good chunk of us knew just what was going on, and were quite vocal about it.
On Apr 2, 2005 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since science discussion on Vortex is experiencing a holiday these days > and because the world is decaying into chaos faster than science can > repair the problems, I thought some of you might like another view of > the situation, as provided by Scott Ritter. Ritter was one of the few > people who was correct about Iraq, hence is worth leaning from. Many > people voted for Bush without looking any deeper than that he is a > Christian who shared their basic attitude. Apparently, Bush was only the > front man for a more sinister agenda that is now being put into place. > How else can the appointments made by Bush make any sense? People who > lied, who argued against known facts, and who were wrong have been > rewarded while people who told the truth have been demoted. > Accountability has ceased to function in the government while the > ideologies prevail. > > Regards, > Ed > > Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites > By Larisa Alexandrovna > Raw Story > Friday 01 April 2005 > Congressional Catch-22. > Larisa Alexandrovna: Paul Wolfowitz stated prior to the Iraq > invasion that Iraqi reconstruction would pay for itself. It seems that > Mr. Wolfowitz, now charged with handling the World Bank, miscalculated. > > *What is going on with the oil in Iraq? > > Scott Ritter: Paul Wolfowitz was a salesman; his job was to sell a > war.He acknowledged this in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, in > which he acknowledged that WMDs and the threat they posed, was nothing > more than a vehicle to sell this war to America. Now you [get] to the > war itself and selling it to Congress and [the] questions: How long will > this take? Or how much will this cost? Paul Wolfowitz lied to Congress > about the costs of war. There is not a responsible member of government > who thought this would be quick and cheap. There was nobody who believed > that Iraq oil would pay for itself, no one in the oil business thought so. > > *What about oil companies, were they for the war or against it? > > No oil professional in their right mind would support what is > happening in Iraq. This isn't part of a grand 'oil' strategy; it is > simply pure unadulterated incompetence. > > *So they are concerned about their bottom lines, and chaos doesn't > forward that goal. > > Right. Oil company executives are businessmen and they are in a > business that requires long-term stability. They love dictators because > they bring with them long-term stability. They don't like new > democracies because they are messy and unstable. I have not run into a > major oil company that is willing to refurbish the Iraq oil fields and > invest in oil field exploration and development. These are multi-billion > dollar investments that, in order to be profitable, must be played out > over decades. And in Iraq today you cannot speak out to projecting any > stability in the near to mid-future. > > *OK, so now to Congress. They approved the war. I know we have discussed > the post-9/11 reality and the pressure of not seeming unpatriotic. > > Yes, but they also approved the war because Congress had been locked > into a corner by the neocons in 1998. Our policy in Iraq since 1991 has > been regime change. How many times did G. H. W. Bush have to say 'we > will not remove sanctions until Saddam is removed from power?' Bill > Clinton inherited this policy of regime change, but the Bush policy was > not an active policy, it was a passive policy to strangle, as it were, > Saddam. It was not our policy to take him out through military strength. > Saddam, however, was able to out-maneuver this policy, he did not get > weaker he got stronger. The neocons played on the political implications > of this, to box the Clinton administration and Congress into a corner. > When you declare Saddam to be a threat with WMDs and then do > nothing, you have a political problem. The neocons played on this. In > 1998, the Heritage Foundation, Paul Wolfowitz and the American > Enterprise Institute basically drafted legislation [that] became the > Iraq Liberation Act. This is public law. So when people ask why did > Congress vote for the current war in Iraq, it is simply that they had > already voted for it in 1998, they were trapped by their own vote. > > *So your implication is that in our current foreign policy the neocons > have set the tone via thinktanks or supposed thinktanks? > > Yes. Look at who funds the American Enterprise Institute, and the > Heritage Foundation, and I think you'll have your answer. The American > Heritage Leninist What do you think these institutions are trying to > achieve? I know the public claim is conservative values, but there is a > some speculation regarding what appears more like Leninist, even > Trotskyite values, especially given the current domestic government > involvement and control or attempt at control of almost every facet of > society, economy, family, etc. Even the term 'Leninist' was used by the > Heritage Foundation to describe their approach to Social Security during > the 1980s. > A high-level source, a neocon at that, within the system has said > to me directly that 'John Bolton's job is to destroy the UN, Rice's job > is to destroy the State Department and replace it with a vehicle of > facilitation for making the Pentagon's national security policy.' > > *And what of Karen Hughes' appointment? > > Hughes - she is a salesperson; she will sell the policy. She is > irrelevant. She is nothing. Her appointment means nothing. Rice has > already capitulated to the Pentagon and the White House, and Hughes' > appointment is but a manifestation of that larger reality. > The neocons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. > They don't have a foundation. They don't stand for business. They don't > stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own > power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until it is no longer > convenient. They latch on to democracy until it is no longer convenient. > Rice's appointment to the State Department is simply to reshape it > into a neocon vehicle. > > *Why the State Department? Why Rice? > > The State Department still has free thinkers in it. Rice is a > dilettante. Anyone who was there during the Reagan era and her advising > on Soviet policy knows how inept she is. She is not there because she is > a brilliant secretary of state. > The media has bought into this, because the neocons cleverly put a > woman an African-American woman at that, into this position. So when > Rice goes abroad, people do not look at the stupid things she says, they > look at what she was wearing and such. 'Godless people who want power, > nothing more'. > > *So you believe the neocons are elitist parasites? > > Yes, elitism is the perfect term. > > *Do you consider it localized or global elitism? > > The neocons believe in what they think is a noble truth, power of > the few, the select few. These are godless people who want power, > nothing more. They do not have a country or an allegiance, they have an > agenda. These people might hold American passports, but they are not > Americans because they do not believe in the Constitution. They believe > in the power of the few, not a government for or by the people. They are > a few and their agenda is global. > > *You suggest the Republican Party is simply an organizational host. Is > there any vestige left of the host or has the entire party been devoured? > > The Republicans have been neutered by the neocons. > > *Your concept of neocons seems confusing because, using your > host/parasite paradigm, they cannot tell between the host and the > parasite which invades it. > > I know people who have worked for George H. W. Bush, both when he > was vice president and president. Bush Sr. called the neocons the > 'crazies in the basement.' I think it is dangerous to confuse the two, > because there are Americans who love their country and are conservatives > who do not support what is going on. Until the host rejects the > parasite, it is difficult to separate the two. Brent Scowcroft for > example is not a neocon, yet people call him one. Scowcroft worked hard > to reign in the 'crazies in the basement' as did Reagan. Many have > defined the neocon movement based on the highly intellectual, albeit > warped, musings of Strauss and Bloom. Yet one could hardly call the > current leadership intellectual or even capable of digesting this > philosophy. Even neocon thinkers are jumping off the ship. > > *Do you believe this is simply trickle-down Machiavellianism in much the > same way that Communism trickled down as an aberration of its original > intent? > > No plan survives initial contact with the enemy. The neocon > ideology was always hypothetical in its pure application until now. What > we are seeing today is what happens when theory (bad theory at that) > makes contact with reality. You get chaos, through which the neocons are > now trying to navigate > > *Is Karl Rove a neocon? > > Karl Rove is not part of the neo-conservative master group; he is a > host > > *Then who is steering the ship? > > An oligarchy of 'public servant' classes who are drawn from > business, and serve naked economic interests. This is true whether you > are Democrat or Republican. > > *Several insiders have expressed concern over possible oil shortage riots > Would the Patriot Act be put to use, in your opinion, to address such > riots? > > The Patriot Act is simply the neocons putting their judicial agenda > in place by other means. It was a compilation of all of the conservative > initiatives, not neocon initiatives, which the conservative Republicans > have been pushing for, including a more conservative law enforcement > element. This is not unhealthy as long is it is done properly, through > legislation, proper channels of debate and discourse. A lot of this had > been submitted in the past, but was rejected. After 9/11 all of these > initiatives were lumped together. There are some things in the Patriot > Act I agree with, but the Patriot Act requires a responsible society. > The neocons have no interest in a responsible society; they simply used > the conservatives as a vehicle to push an agenda to assault individual > civil liberties. As the Patriot Act is now, how it came about, is > entirely un-American. It is extreme legislation that does nothing to > address the issues it professes to, but moreover, it is, as an existing > law, un-American. What makes it un-American is that no one read it > before they voted for it. So the process was un-American, and the > motivation behind it was un-American. We cannot have a nation that is > governed by fear. The Patriot Act is un-American simply because it exists. > > *So how do citizens address this situation since the very means of > addressing it via Congress seem to have been closed off? > > Congress has ceased to function as a viable tool of government. > What is needed is for leaders of honor to resign in protest. I have had > this conversation with some in Congress and have asked about their > thoughts on shutting down Congress and cleaning house. Their counter is > that they are afraid to 'leave the crazies in control.' They are already > in control. If the people want to heal this country, the people have to > purge the failing of this country. Vote them out. It might take two or > three cycles, but it will happen and it will take time. Everyone who > voted for the war in Iraq should be voted out of office because it > violated article six of the Constitution. Everyone who voted for the > Patriot Act needs to go because they did not represent the people by > voting on legislation they did not read. They have to go, regardless of > party. They have through their actions decided who stays and who goes. > Hope, and worries, for the future > > *You suggest Americans vote out all who voted for these measures. If New > Yorkers voted out Hillary, who voted for both the Patriot Act and the > war in Iraq, and who is also leading the pack of the Democratic Party > for the 2008 nomination, what then? > > Hillary is the manifestation of all that ails the Democratic Party. > She stands for nothing. She has been compromised by her voting record > ... how can she stand for anything worth supporting? And yet she will be > the Democratic nominee in 2008, thus guaranteeing another > neocon/Republican victory. 'Dump Hillary Now' would be the smartest move > Dean could make as the new Democratic National Committee Chair. ... Like > I said, it might take two or three cycles, but it will happen. > > *What about Dean? > > Dean has to be part of the process of rebuilding and that will take > time Dean cannot run for president, because Dean cannot run as a > Democrat - the party is not set up to sustain someone like him. He is > one of the exceptions in a corrupt party. He is also not corrupted by > his voting record. He is someone who represents something, he did not > vote for the war in Iraq, for example. > > *We talked about this current social crisis as a closed loop during the > second installment. Have you ever seen a loop like this throughout the > history of the US? What does this mean? > > The American experiment is much too complex to be destroyed by the > neocons. In the end, the neocons will lose. It may take ten to twelve > more years, and the costs will be horrific, but America will survive. > There will be one hell of a mess to clean up, though, after the fall of > the neocons. > > *Where do you see America, should things continue as is, five years from > now? > > At war, bankrupt morally and fiscally, and in great pain ... and > only half-way through the nightmare. Ten to twelve years is what we will > have to get through, but we will get through it. > ------- > > -- "Monsieur l'abb�, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
