|
Eric AltarBoy
WHORES Fred Barnes
NON-PIMPS
Robert Dreyfuss*
|
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You know full well who the whores are, the ones who polly parrot the Bushitter regime's propaganda and make big bucks by lying to the public and obfuscating the real situation as developed by the powerful and moneyed interests. But in case you don't know who the A-List Whores are, they comprise such as shown to the left beneath the list of PIMPS who make really big money from whining about the whores. It is our contention here at MWPO that all news of these trying days has to be seen through the prism of truth, the truth that (1) democracy died in America in December of 2000 when the corrupt Supreme Court installed GW Botch as President, thereby handing the movers and shakers (bribers) of the Republican Party complete control of the governmental processes of the USA, and (2) oil is the driving economic force of the 21st century, and every action by the now totalitarian government of the USA is directed at controlling as much of the world's oil supply as it can do, using all the full force of arms available to it. You also know this: no American forces would ever venture into the mideastern world for one day, were it not for the oil beneath the desert sands of those fortunate lands. We surely would not risk American lives and spend American wealth to go dabble in the affairs of a bunch of bearded brown men unless they comprised a direct and imminent threat to the lives of the rich people in America, had already done something to the security of America . . . . . . or had oil. Even if these brown, bearded bastards did do an act of terrorism to rich Americans, we would not INVADE them, we would DESTROY them; we'd bomb their principal city to rubble; we'd destroy their command and control networks, and we'd vaporize whatever weapons of any description they might have amassed at that point . . . . . . . unless they had oil---in which case, we'd invade them and take their oil. So . . . since the pimps won't talk about oil, since the pimps won't talk about a government which is effectively a dictatorship, and since the pimps are far too busy gathering dollars to spirit away to off shore accounts for the day when America goes bankrupt, we intend to examine the actions of the Bushitter regime in terms of oil and totalitarianism. It really is the only way to make any sense of the news of the day . . . who can explain the US and UK going to war in the mideast with no reason given but some transparent lies? Who can explain cutting taxes to the extent that our country goes bankrupt? Who can explain why a postal clerk can't get a bank account for saving money which even keeps pace with inflation? Who can explain why a fine medical insurance system can be got by the same postal clerk, but none is available to the poor children of America? Well, the pimps could, but they won't because it might interfere with their own agenda which is to make as much money as they can for attacking the whores while the getting is good. So watch this space for an analysis of the news in terms of the real reasons for going to war and the real reasons for cutting taxes and the real reasons for hiding even the names of people who attended energy meetings. Oh, and one other thing to watch for: we contend that the puppet in the White House has never had a cogent thought; we'll be inviting anyone to dispute that assessment of the intellect of the moronic President. Oh, and this may amuse you, though I frankly don't think that there is any chance of a fair or meaningful election this November or any November. V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V [May 26--one by one] On the House floor last week Jim McDermott <http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/52388/> gave a five-minute speech which got no press, no network, and no cable attention at all. Just like Rangel and Kucinich before him, his words were ignored and sent into the msm memory hole where all mentions of Iraq's oil are stored. Keith Olbermann made a pretty speech too, but he failed to mention oil, didn't he? And what is far worse is that he refused to talk about why we have to steal oil, and what is apt to happen in the good ole USA if we do not steal oil from some country somewhere on earth. In case you missed it, there are but two necessary verities:
If they want to end it, all they have to do is tell Bush that there will be no more money coming at all. They can REsubmit the same legislation he vetoed, and tell him either sign it and move on with flagged "benchmarks," or ask for money with which to REMOVE the goddamned troops from Iraq altogether IMMEDIATELY. He can get one or the other, but he can't ever get money without having to make a plan for withdrawal of the troops. And if he decides to leave them there without any money, then the Congress can pass a law appropriating money for their retreat and if he doesn't want to sign the law or spend that money, then he will be killing the effing troops himself, the stupid son of a bitch. How can the Demoncraps say they want to end the war and then give Fuquad a blank check to keep it going until 2020? Now don't think I am so stupid as to think that most of the Congresscritters know exactly what they are doing and WANT the war to continue forever and ever so that they can continue to thrive and prosper with the borrowed dollars made possible by our control of the Iraqi oil reserves. All I want is for someone to force them to ADMIT it---along with making the Bushitter gang of thugs admit it too. [May 18--requiem for Chris Floyd] the new site by Kastelein (Atlantic Free Press) is off limits to ME personally; I used one of my aol accounts to go there, so it isn't unavailable, just off limits for my browser on my regular ISP . . . Why? I wrote Floyd to complain that he had stopped mentioning oil in any context, and got a reply from Kastelein saying I was an asshole. I pointed out that I might be, but I hadn't written to him and didn't need any of his shit, and that is how I got nixed from his web site. (It could be that he has good reason for wanting me gone: I have no compunction about mentioning oil, and if I were to issue comment after comment complaining about their lack of interest in oil, it could look bad to their publishers who would not have any control over me any other way.) I will miss old Chris, nonetheless. I won't miss Kastelein, who is a surly churl who means nothing to me and never will. The truth is though that Floyd has joined the pimps, if not the whores, and no longer does any writing about oil, just about the dirty Bushitters and how bad they are, but never WHY they are so bad, and nothing about them being coveting, lying, murdering, thieves. You see, Floyd once worked for the Moscow Times, an english newspaper in Moscow, Russia, and he got fired, likely for talking about oil honestly, as did Bob Scheer (by the LA Times, an english newspaper in Los Angeles, USA), as have others I'm sure. But they both seem to have learned from the experience, and so neither now risks his book contracts or possible ones by even breathing out with the smell of vinegar and oil on his breath, let alone saying the word, "oil," aloud where it can be heard. I think they learned more than was there to be learned, because there is a great need today for the truth, and hiding it is simply not the right thing to do, no matter how much money you make or save thereby. They are like Mark Twain's cat who sat on a hot stove lid and never ever sat on any stove lid again, hot, warm or cold. But it is true that people like Al Franken and Joe Conason and Gene Lyons all eschew the word oil like it would bring plague to their families, and perhaps curtailing the loss of revenue would be worth the departure from the truth to a never never land where oil is not important. Indeed, in the US Congress, both houses, I have heard only ONE member admit that we went to Iraq for oil, Charlie Rangel, and I only heard it one time from him. Dennis Kucinich, who wants out of Iraq badly, won't say why he thinks we are there, let alone what will happen if we don't steal control of the Iraqi oil. There are doubtless other Congresscritters who, like the American public, want OUT of Iraq, and don't particularly care why we went there in the first place, but surely they all know it, and surely so does the Noo Yawk Times and the WaSHITon Post, but not once has either of them ever mentioned it except for ONE time that Bob Herbert said so in a column. In any event, I have enjoyed the output from Chris Floyd over the past five years, and I will miss him, as I do Conason and Lyons, and as I do Molly Ivins who at least has the excuse of being dead for not mentioning oil. Why do all these people REALLY think we went to Iraq, if not for oil? How many of them are stupid enough to think we would have invaded and occupied an oil-less Iraq-----OR that even if we had a perfectly valid reason to invade and occupy them, that we would remain there in the current environment were there no oil there for capture and exploitation? I don't think any of them are stupid; only venal. [May 16] I started this particular blog in January of 2004, approximately two years and a half ago, mostly because the one blog which made perfect sense gave up to the Bushitter gang of thugs and decamped. That blog was called Media Whores Online, and they developed some excellent information, but they failed entirely to note the importance of oil, and they also failed to understand that the reason George W. Bush was SELECTED over John McCain to run for President in 2000 was because Bush is a moron and incapable of ever BEING President, where McCain though vain and eager enough to be President to lie his head off, was still smart enough to TRY to make decisions on his own, and that would not do for the Bushitter gang of thugs. Media Whores Online dropped out of sight and I suppose accepted an offer they couldn't refuse, perhaps like McCain was also forced to do. I stopped posting to the blog about six months later, because it occurred to me that I only had two true statements to offer, and try as I might, I could only observe in so many ways that (1) it's about oil, and (2) Bush is a moron. I am about to begin again posting, not because those two things are not still the only real truths that matter, but because it has become increasingly apparent that not only the Bushitter gang of thugs, but also the now Democrat controlled Congress, and the big money controlled media all are failing completely in their duties to the American people, duties which involve keeping them safe and telling them the truth about their government. Charlie Rangel is the only Democrat member of Congress I have heard mention oil, let alone recognize that it and it alone is the only reason our soldiers and marines are in Iraq. There is a reason for the Congress and the media not talking about oil. To admit that we invaded and occupied Iraq for her oil is to admit that we coveted, lied, murdered, and stole in the process of turning Iraq into a killing ground for terrorists and religious factions alike. And it would be a terrible thing for the world to go into the economic tank because the USA is so far in debt it cannot get out, even WITH the stolen oil, but needs to steal it anyway just to buy some time before our Enronization or Argentinization comes and with it the depression we must suffer because of the profligacy of every President and Congress since Eisenhower. Another reason for my returning to the fray is that our media seems to be fixated on finding and proving lies told by the Bushitter gang of thugs. Yes, it is doubtless better in their minds than admitting our guilt for all the world to hear and know, but it is my contention that the lies and the telling of them is not important; no, it is the TRUTH which is important, and no one seems to want to face it. Attorney General Gonzalez has lied his head off in Congress, but the plain fact is that his Department of Justice has been turned into a political dirty tricks gang of thugs that would have made Nixon proud as a peacock.It's not whether the US Attorneys were fired for prosecuting Republican criminals or failing to prosecute Democrats in high office---of course they were; but the media seems to think that what is more important than that is that someone lied about it. Of COURSE they lied about it. Certainly no one in his right mind would expect them to tell the truth about it? And the "surge" was so obviously another Bushitter lie that it only wastes our time talking about whether or not it will "work," or not, because the point to the surge was more than likely to supply crack military outfits to guard the oilfields and pipelines, and NOT to defend or secure Baghdad at all. Baghdad probably got the less proficient troops who were tasked with guarding oilfields and pipelines, and the increase MIGHT make Baghdad slightly safer at that, but the whole point to a "surge" was never to make Baghdad safe at all, but to guard the oil more proficiently. You have to understand that we are not there to make Baghdad safe. We are there to steal oil, and that is what we do. No, not to sell it, but to keep the dollar safe and used as the medium of exchange for opec oil. And we are not there to make a democracy in Iraq. And we are not there to quell a civil war in Iraq. And we are not there to fight terrorism, which only came there because WE were there and open to attack. And another thing: AL QAEDA. There probably never was any such real organization as an al Qaeda or al Qa'ida . . . until John O'Neill, the FBI counter-terrorism chief, found that name mentioned and started calling the nameless cells being financed on occasion by bin Laden and other Saudi money sources by that name. If someone did use that name, it could have been either side in the battle because BOTH needed it for different reasons: the terrorists could use it to deflect terrorist hunters with a fake organization which never really existed, and the Americans could us it to DEFINE a scary bunch of evildoers who were far more scary by being secretive and unknown. Name your enemy, and then you can go after him, but let him remain a nebulous and unorganized group of terrorists dedicated to the destruction of America, and the UNKNOWN enemy puts fear into the hearts of the bravest of our fighters. The "al Qaeda in Iraq" group came there under Zarqawi with another name and no visible connection to the al Qa'ida supposedly associated with bin Laden, who himself may well have died as early as 2000, long before the nine eleven attacks were planned or executed. Colin Powell told us he would bring us the proof of the al Qa'ida connection to nine eleven; he never did, nor did anyone see fit to prosecute any of the supposed planners in absentia, mainly because there was no known connection between Mohammed Atta and any al Qaeda organization. The hijackers got money from a fake charity which got the money from the Saudi Princess, wife to the ambassador, Bandar. As far as I know, there have been no al Qa'ida attacks on Americans since someone named them responsible for the African Embassy bombings. The only other attack they might have made was something to do with an Israeli airplane shot at with stinger type missiles also in Africa. Every other terrorist plot has been done by groups who are said to be "associated with" or "associates of" al Qa'ida, but since no one knows where al Qa'ida is or where its bank is or where its leaders are or how to find ANY of them, I remain convinced that the name, an inoccuous arabic phrase meaning only "the base," is nothing but a name used to describe arab terrorists generally but not specifically. Tony Blair did put up a web site to "prove" that al Qa'ids did nine eleven, and his proof consisted entirely of the statement, "Who else could it have been?" So what I plan to do is to search through all the communications coming from any sources I can find that might have some truth in them, and keep on asking the question, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? and the other questions, "what does it have to do with oil?" and "why blame poor George Witless? he's just a moronic puppet." Incidentally, if you think GeeDubya is smart, then tell me one intelligent thing he ever said on his own, and one cogent thought he ever had in his miserable life. I can tell you one thing I believe with all my mind and heart: nothing of any signal importance in any field was ever decided with George W. Bush in the room. Nothing. I've put the old blog in an archive which can be accessed here.
Prior to the mwpo blog, I had another one, a "SamBlog" dating back to 2002,
prior to the Iraq mess. What did I have to say then? Check here
to see.
(August 4, 2005) Necessary Lies the liberal media, and I do mean the liberal media like AA and Salon and The Nation and the Huffingandpuffington blog are obsessed with talking on and on about the lies the Bushitters told to get us into the war in Iraq. A point I've not seen made anywhere else by any other iconoclastic curmudgeon is that of course they HAD to lie. Just for fun, let's see what the Bushitters would have said had they not lied. "Listen up citizens, we're headed for a boondoggle in Iraq to steal oil, not exactly steal it, but the same thing as, because we are in such a tight spot economically that we have to nab something to make our currency and credit believable in the world, and believe you me, if we don't sell the world on it, we'll go down like Enron or Argentina in less than a month. As you might figure out on your own, there is very little of enough value in the 21st century USA to support our half trillion dollar trade deficit, and so we have to prop up our dollar with something, and that something is going to be stolen oil. I'm sorry if some of your children and relatives and friends are going to die in this war for profit, but when they signed on with the military they took that chance. We will lose fairly few soldiers in what will be a fast and decisive war, but the aftermath will be messy as hell because we don't intend to fix anything we broke, just control the oil." That's just for starters . . . they then would have to explain why they ought to be allowed to covet, murder, and kill, but they wouldn't be doing the hat trick of lying at the same time. But my point is valid: they HAD to lie; telling the truth about it would be unthinkable. Instead of spending all our time castigating the Bushitters for lying, we ought to be concentrating on the real problem, which is that we are headed down the tubes if we let the arabs control all the oil on the planet, or about half of it anyway, and we have to find a way to wrest control of that oil from its rightful owners. And it's not a question of conservation and alternative energy sources . . . it's not really about energy at all. If airplanes or computers were as important to as many industries and populations as oil, then we could try to corner those markets instead, but in the 21st century there is no other commodity which commands attention and butresses failing economies like oil. Oil makes pharms, oil makes pesticides, oil makes fertilizer, oil heats us in winter and cools us in summer, oil moves us and our products from place to place, oil lights our homes and ballparks, oil flies our planes, oil runs all of our heavy construction equipment; oil makes our plastics without which we would be lost; oil is not the most important thing in the 21st century, it is the ONLY thing in the 21st century that is important. So Conason and Lyons are right; and so is Molly and so is Arianna . . . and I am wrong. The American public and the world won't accept the truth, no matter if I will and Gore Vidal will and Nick Kristoff will . . . so sorry, but denial or ignoring the issue is the way they handle it to keep us from a deep depression. Now that I've written this, I'm in a deep depression.
|