Iraq


Today Al-Qaeda number two al-Zawahiri was calling insurgents to overthrow the government of Pakistan.

After this and many other proves, does anyone still believe that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not natural enemies and the Bush' claim of the opposite was not a lie, blatant lie?

This post could surprise many of my anti-Bush friends, but I claim that Bush will end the war in Iraq sooner than later.

First thing to understand is that Bush has almost no strategic politics on his own, he's left to decide only tactical questions and methods to do things. He's a puppet in fat cats hands and he's not smart for his own policies anyway. Essentially, in the first days in his office, he was visited by his fellow "Skull and Bones" friends executives of Exxon, BP and Shell and told:

Listen Bush. We need a war with Iraq and we stand for our business. You screw yourself and you do it, but keep your own fingers dirty. You can claim that Saddam has some ties with terrorists or WMD, you may let terrorists to blow up few buildings in Manhattan, but keep your ass away from us when you do that. Dismissed.

Nobody else made a sound against it, because most of other big guys are pretty neutral to war. Who cares?

Not anymore. The recent developments in interest rates and inflation point to lose-lose situation in the capital markets. Let read the good illustration of the problem:

First, suppose that Citibank gets money from its depositors at a floating rate, and lends to mortgage borrowers at a fixed 6%. Now GM issues bonds yielding 7%, and enters a swap with Citibank, in which Citibank pays GM 5% fixed in return for floating. (Specifically, both parties agree on some notional principal, say $100 million, and each makes payments to the other, determined by multiplying a fixed or floating interest rate by that principal amount. The market for this sort of transaction is huge).

Well, now GM is paying an actual interest rate of floating + 2% (pay 7% to bondholders, get 5% from Citibank, pay Citibank floating). Meanwhile, as compensation for the credit risk it has accepted all around, Citibank earns a fixed 1% margin regardless of interest rate movements (pay depositors floating, get 6% from mortgages, pay 5% to GM, get floating from GM). Neat. And since Citibank is federally insured at the depositor level, and too big to fail at the institutional level, Uncle Sam is now a counterparty that effectively shares the risk in the case that GM or homeowners default. Similar transactions serve to swap risky corporate and mortgage borrowing into safe government agency paper issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Now make no mistake, there is little question that bank deposits and agency debt are safely backed by the U.S. government and that this is a good commitment. However, the holders of stock in banks or mortgage companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may not be so secure. It's just excruciatingly difficult to perfectly match risky assets and liabilities at extremely high levels of leverage. Ask Long Term Capital. Indeed, were it not for accounting rules that allow Fannie Mae to keep balance sheet losses out of earnings, it would be clearer to investors that last summer's 5-month duration mismatch cost Fannie nearly a year of earnings. Similar derivatives-related issues are at the core of Freddie Mac's recent difficulties.

In short, further increase of interest rates can trigger a catastrophic reaction on financial markets, but it will be no better if the inflation starts. So, to avoid too much of economics and jump straight to conclusion, there is no other way to solve the situation than to dramatically cut federal expenses, and the simplest way to do that is to stop the war. Now we have some other (not from Skull and Bones) executives to visit Bush and say: "Mister Bush, we urge you to cut federal budget costs by huge margin. We expect you to finish deploying your solution by the time we schedule to meeting to discuss Congress campaign contributions."

After this strange things start to happen. The US withdrawal from Iraq is discussed. President is talking about alternative fuels (helps Saudi to pump more). L.A. Times Editorial calls for Cheney's ouster. Expect more like that and understand that this is very big money who are speaking. And Bush has to listen.

My answer to this post, claiming that the latest Fitzgerald filing is invalidating the case against Bush, because uranium claim was not so important.

I'm sorry ma'm, but you have no clue. Nobody is suing anyone for leaking classified or rather quickly de-classified information. The event that triggered the investigation was the blew-up of the fake front company that was pretending to be an energy materials trader and operated on Pakistan and Iran black market, specifically focused on Iran nuclear efforts. The cover was blown up and the company ceased to exist.

The investigation was set to determine the source of the leak to cut hairy tails quickly. The Bush, Cheney and Co denial of involvement had suggested that there is a real problem with classified information. Someone somewhere just knows too much. That damages the whole net of operations, because you don't know what the other side knows anymore.

If the secret service knew from the day one that the source of the operation blew-up is just this stupid idiot Bush, they would cut the damage more efficiently than otherwise. But Bush went onto denial and misled them.

The crime is not the leak. Big deal, we know what kind of idiots are located in WH, so we can expect them to do stupid things. The crime is obstruction of investigation. This whole crowd: Bush, Cheney, Card, Rice, Hadley must be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice, as soon as possible. Let them leak besides the bars.

Libby disclosure left few words about how the Iraqi nuclear thread was unrolled:

Mr. Libby also inaccurately described the CIA report on Mr. Wilson's trip, saying the former ambassador reported information about an Iraqi delegation visiting Niger in 1999 that was "understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium." In fact, Mr. Wilson said he was told that a Niger official was contacted at a meeting outside the country by a businessman who said an Iraqi economic delegation wanted to meet with him. The Niger official guessed the Iraqis might want to talk about uranium, since Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger in the mid-1980s. But when they met, no talk of uranium took place.

So some little-thinking Iraqis requested a meeting with a Niger official and did not disclose in advance that they are not going to speak about uranium. As a result, they got their country destroyed and 100,000 people killed. Ups, sorry about that folks :-). Next time just watch your mouth.

Few days ago the "Simply put" show on Bloomberg radio rose this question again: Tom Moroney argued that leaving Iraq will slide that country into blood bath; Michael Goldman called to remove most forces except those that will protect Kurds. While I see valid points in both sides, I
have to disagree with both. While I clearly understand that the real reasons of this war are not WMD and terrorists, but oil, I call to stick with our official
position, which calls us “liberators” and not “occupants”.

Iraq has now its own elected parliament, which is supposed to be responsible for the country future. Should we ask first this college of representatives about the future of American forces in their country and deliver the answer to the American public? Should we also conduct public polls
to get the answer on the question if Iraqi public regards us as liberators or occupants, and what they expect us to do to be more liberators and less occupants? And just to lift the concerns of the liberals (as myself) that we (thanks to right wing and m**rfucker Bush) came to Iraq for oil, should we make
all steps to return the control over oil fields back to Iraqis?

I have similar accusations toward left wing as well. Why do I see photos of Cindy Sheehan with the 2245 number on her T-shirt? Are her boobs too small to fit the number of 100,000 (or something like that) dead Iraqis, choked with the democracy we had showed into their throats? Are they,
according to Sheehan, second-grade animals, not worth counting in their mass graves? If we just leave right now, will the Iraqi civil war sink the country into bloodbath, which we can and must prevent? And if another 2245 Americans have to die – its their duty and our responsibility is just to train them better and deploy wisely.

What I want to see is the Iraqi representatives, and not Rumsfeld and Sheehan, to decide should we leave or should we stay, and if we stay – where exactly we should stay and how exactly we should behave.

Dispite all the concerns about security implications it seems that Bush is eager to press the deal very hard. It seems strange, as usually this administration lives in peace with congress majority, do not vetoe anything and is in general very passive in actions, especially in reacting to terror attacs and hurricanes. What happened?

Let examine Bush ties with UAE. It seems that Bush is participating in some special financial circles that are linked, particularly, to UAE. And UAE is linked to oil, if you know, and oil is linked to money. Should we dust off the Skull and Bones society again? From the arcticle, interview with Yale President:

Tang: The most mysterious society is Skull and Bones?

Levin: Yes, I know. The great majority of organizations at Yale are public and open to anyone to join. Unlike most student societies, Skull and Bones is secret, selective of its members.

Tang: Skull and Bones was founded in 1832. Every year only 15 best students are allowed to join. All Bonesmen, as they’re called, are forbidden to reveal what goes on in their inner sanctum, the windowless building on the Yale campus that is called The Tomb. Notable Bonesmen include former President Taft and both current and former Presidents Bush. Apart from presidents, Bones has included cabinet officers, spies, Supreme Court justices, statesmen and captains of industry.

Levin: I don’t know very much about that. You probably know more than I do. (Laugh)

Tang: Are you a member of that?

Levin: No, I am not.

Tang: what is the implication of Skull and Bones to American institutions of higher learning and American society?

Levin: Very little.

Tang: But there is a conspiracy theory about Skull and Bones. According to the theory, members of Skull and Bones are controlling America and even the world.

Levin: I think it is kind of media distortion. In fact, they are just students getting together to talk about each other’s life and aspirations. It is not a secret power of American society.

Tang: So It is just for fun? We don’t need to take that seriously?

Levin: I agree.

Yeah, a lot of fun. Especially in Iraq.

Yesterday has probably to marked as the first day of the full fledged civil war in Iraq. I’m still looking for conspiracy theory explaining the bombing, but it is totally clear that situation is out of control, occupational forces will have to retreat back to safe bases and watch Iraq breaking into three separate states engaged in war among each other.

I would agree with this blog that the majority of population will not support and participate in civil war. The sectarian tensions are not the most important things in average Iraqi mindset. But those who will chose to participate could not be stopped by any force.

I’m predicting the large investments into national security in Turkey and Iran.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 (UPI) — The U.S. government is questioning why an Australian television network aired old images of Iraqi prisoner abuse after soldiers have already been tried.

Should we stop making movies about WWII because the war is over? Should we forget holocaust too?

This picture is 60 years old.

This post says:

This women has repeatedly used the tragic death of her son as a tool to self-promote herself

Imagine: your son died and you know the person resposible for his death. Imagine that person is not running, not hiding, he’s actually totally ignorant of what he did, he is rich, he has bodyguards and lawyers and there is nothing you can do with him… except maybe pointing your finger at him and yell, and cry until your brain fails…

Just for exercise, let’s try to pick the real reason for Iraq war. The suggested reasons are:

  1. Iraq was close to producing nuclear weapons. This report of International Atomic Energy Agency states that “after three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq?
  2. Bush said “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa?. There are evidences that, apparently, the evidence supporting Bush’ claim was forged by CIA officers
  3. Bush linked the Iraqi regime with terrorists and 9/11. At the secret briefing in ‘01 Bush was informed that Saddam regarded Al Qaeda as a potential threat to his secular regime
  4. Iraq has 11% of world oil reserves

The homework: please try to pick the most likely reason for the war

After you do, please join NoR11

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.