The most dangerous threat to our democracy is the power of AIPAC and its apologists to involve the
United States in wars to promote Israeli interests and diminish American power and resources. The biggest threat to our economic prosperity is the potential for oil demand to outstrip supply. Instead of being the most talked about, written about, argued about subjects in our country, these topics are generally left out of mainstream political and journalistic discourse.
How did this happen? Why has our media and political class avoided the two 800lb gorillas staring us in the face? Only our military has the courage to discuss them publicly. In the last few months the US Military has warned us that we are very close to reaching peak oil, and that the Israeli dominance of our foreign policy is damaging us as a nation. The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the
LA Times don’t like editorializing about the power of AIPAC or Peak Oil. For them it's not news.
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus dispatched a team to Washington to give an unprecedented briefing to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in January, to discuss a "growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel" and that "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." The bottom line: the soldiers were finally telling
US military has been in for seven years and it's important to remember how we got there. The Neoconservatives had been pushing for a regime change in Iraq since the Clinton Administration, but there was no leverage for it. Why did they want to change the regime in Iraq ? Did they see an imminent military, political or economic threat to the US from Sadam Hussein? No. Sadam Hussein posed no threat to the Iraq and they were well aware of that. Did they want to help the people of US live in freedom? Not likely. Why not help Egyptians, Palestinians, Saudi Arabians or North Koreans find political freedom? The main goal of the Neoconservatives was to realign the Middle East for the benefit of Iraq . The Neoconservatives were motivated by a desire to strengthen Israel Israel, not the . United States
The events of September 11 opened a window of opportunity for them. With the excuse of weapons of mass destruction and the willingness of a President fixated on war, they were able to orchestrate the invasion of
. Their strategy was to remove Sadam Hussein from Iraq and install a more open, progressive Shiite regime. The Iranian youth, bottled up under years of religious rule, were supposedly going to overthrow the Iranian mullahs once they saw how their fellow Shiite brothers were fairing in a more open, secular society. Iraq Syria, buoyed by cheap oil from would also fall by the wayside without Sadam Hussein’s placid support. Iraq
Time Magazine’s Joe Klein described the power of the Neoconservatives to form
Retired General William Odom, former NSA Chief for Ronald Reagan said "It's pretty hard to imagine us going into
Iraq without the strong lobbying efforts from AIPAC and the neocons, who think they know what's good for Israel more than knows." Israel
Andrew Sullivan put it this way “
America is not . And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.” Israel
And then there is the Project for a New Amercian Century (PNAC), founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, both hardcore Neoconservatives. PNAC ostensibly pushed for the promotion of democracy in the world, but in reality it was just another pro-Israeli lobby. A week after 9/11 they wrote a letter to the Whitehouse, with the main focus on forcing regime change in
...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.
The war in
Iraq is the brainchild of Neoconservatives bent on changing the face of the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, with little or no regard for the consequences for the . Invading United States Iraq was probably the worst response the could have had to 9/11. The world stood by US America’s side as we hunted down Osama Bin Laden and his cronies in . But once we turned our sites on Afghanistan Iraq, our friends and foes alike understood that this was no longer a response to radical terror, but a strategic war to improve the position of Israel in the Middle East.
United States lost standing in the world, seriously damaged its relationship with Europe and the Muslim world, not to mention the human and material costs of a war fought completely in the interest of . The Israel military bore the biggest brunt of this exercise in Israeli foreign policy. And the US media? Lips sealed like a cheap whore. US
Our democratically elected politicians? Silenced by the fear of being blackballed by AIPAC. In the latest spat between
"We recognize that our government and the Government of
Why did 76 Senators sign that letter, and 333 Representatives sign a similar letter? Why did so many top Democrats including Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer side with AIPAC over their President? According to the Washington Post “Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources”
Apart from the almost treasonous power that AIPAC and its media lackeys wield in
The International Energy Agency (IEA), the quasi official world body for calculating oil reserves, puts its official estimates at reaching peak somewhere around 2020; however, there are important doubts about their calculations. Many oil producing countries use their reserves as collateral for loans, giving them a big incentive to exaggerate.
In a recent report by
Sir David said he was "very concerned" that Western governments were not taking the concept of "peak oil" – where demand outstrips production – seriously enough, while
"The IEA functions through fees that are paid into it by member countries," he said. "We're not operating under that basis. This is objective analysis. We're not sitting on any oil fields. It's critically important that reserves have been overstated, and if you take this into account, we're talking supply not meeting demand in 2014-2015."
On April 10, 2010, another
"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.
It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."
It goes on to say. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest"
Interestingly, neither of these stories was picked up by the New York Times,
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are the two largest energy trading companies in America and according the US Senate up to 60% of the price of oil is purely speculative. With supply and demand steady, Wall Street speculation is the only thing driving oil prices from 147$ to $34 and back to $85 in in less than two years by using all sorts of trading tecniques including hoarding (contango). Peak Profits trump Peak Oil.
What does it mean for a democracy when the only people who can speak the truth are its generals? What does it mean when a foreign government and its apologists control a nation’s foreign policy and send it on military adventures?
When asked what influence Goldman Sachs had in
I will not describe here the details of the Wall Street/Washington Nexus as it has been exhaustively discussed and documented. If you have any doubts, here are two very good descriptions, one by MIT Professor and former Chief Economist at the IMF Simon Johnson The Quiet Coup and the other is by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone Obama’s Big Sellout.
There comes a point when the free market strangles freedom and a democracy becomes hopelessly corrupted by oligarchs. We are dangerously close that point. When one inquires as to why the Peak Oil question is not front page news, you only have to look to Wall Street and the fortunes they have made and will continue to make speculating on oil.
And the citizens of the Republic? As Huxley put it “the really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, news-paper editors and schoolteachers…” Who needs ministries of propaganda when you have Fox News, CNN and The New York Times?
Maybe we should look to the past for guidance.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt “They had begun to consider the Government of the
Let us not forget Mr. Obama's comments regarding the multimillion dollar bonuses for Blankfein and Dimon for the fabolous job they did collapsing the world economy. “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Do we have the courage to say now is the time?
Purchase Robert Bonomo's novels on Amazon