Tag Archives: war on terror

The terror bankers

Methanol, as currently produced and sold, is a losing proposition, most energy analysts will tell you, requiring huge government subsidies: Big Corn replaces Big Oil. That wouldn’t be the case if all we could get was methanol, as this analysis contends. Of course, that could only come about by government mandate and the Bush administration–indeed, most Republicans, except Nixon and his price controls of yore–don’t like issuing mandates. Besides, the terror bankers, meaning "our friends" the Saudis, have their hands in too many high political pockets for anyone to seriously commit to such a course. So get used to the war on terror, folks. Its explosives’ and weapons’ purveyors get a fresh boost everytime we buy gas.

Blame the drug war, etc.

As with so much else, you can blame the irrational War on Drugs for the undercutting of privacy that we’re so often told is the nefarious work of the Bush administration. Executive power, which he also is frequently accused of overusing, likewise predates the war on terror, as explained in this good analysis by Glenn Reynolds.

Catching fleas

"We get the sense the Saudis grin and kiss us on both cheeks when we walk into their palaces, then spit on the ground the moment we leave."

When you sleep with the oil ticks, you rise up with fleas. Little mixey metaphor there.

Adios Rummy

I like him and will miss his gruff disdain for stupid questions from the news media. I hope he just got tired of wearing the bullseye, rather than Bush caving to the hysterical and getting rid of him, but we’ll know what happened in time.

Meanwhile, there’s a good postmortem on him and the elections by military historian VDH.

Rumsfeld, VDH says, "Tried to take a top-heavy Pentagon and prepare it for the wars of the postmodern world, in which on a minute’s notice thousands of American soldiers, with air and sea support, would have to be sent to some god-awful place to fight some savagery—and then be trashed live on CNN for doing it."

UPDATE  Rummy spoke today at Kansas State U.

"As we look back on those critical years during the Cold War, so too our grandchildren will one day look back on this time as a defining moment in America’s history. History will judge whether we did all we could to defeat a vicious extremist enemy that threatened our security, our freedom, our very way of life. Or, if we left it to the next generations to try to fight an enemy strengthened by our weakness, and emboldened by our lack of resolve."

Set-recs

Set-recs, for "set the record straight" is what the old time newspapermen called corrections, which were always plentiful although frowned upon.  After five years of pummeling from the not-always-accurate MSM’s preferred war narrative, it’s about time the defense department entered the set-rec business, here.

They’re also into argument for their side of the issue, even when rebuffed.

"Second, the issue is not Newsweek’s position versus the ‘government position.’ The issue is that your readers were given a one-sided, opinion-laced article on Afghanistan based on falsehoods—which is something that journalists and editors are usually concerned about. Your dismissive reply is disappointing, to say the least.”

More, please. 

Via Op-For