[Dialogue] Thanks Jim Baumbach re "Petrodictators"

[jim rippey]

Jim , 

Thanks  for your much needed insights on Friedman's "Petrodictators" article.  You were right on target, particularly spotlighting the interest Big oil (all big business) has in getting a GOP Congressional majority reelected so Bush can continue to reward the rich with huge tax cuts (never mind the deficit or the poor) and sabatoge regulations needed to deter business outrages.
.  
Never mind that continued one-party rule will embolden Bush to continue  espousing torture, subverting the Constitutional division of powers, destorying U.S. credibility in the world and  to "Stay the Course," no matter how many innocents die or how many new terrorists are created in response.

And don't be surprised if oil prices climb back up after the election, no matter who wins.

Friedman, however, is truly a maddening paradox.  On August 18, he wrote an even worse column, "War on Daddy's Dime," I thought it his worst ever.  

But then, two days earlier, on Aug. 18, he savaged Bush and Cheney, and lauded several prominent Democrats for making far more sense on Iraq than Bush and his accolytes can manage.

Maybe all we can do is attack his idiocies, as you have done, and listen and applaud when he makes sense.

I include both columns below.

Jim Rippey in Bellevue, NE

---------------
  
August 18, 2006
War On Daddy's Dime 
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I'm not sure yet who's the winner in the war between Hezbollah and Israel, but I know who's the big loser: Iran's taxpayers. What a bunch of suckers. 

Isn't it obvious? As soon as the reckless war he started was over, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, declared that Hezbollah would begin paying out cash to the thousands of Lebanese families whose homes were destroyed. ''We will pay compensation, a certain amount of money for every family to rent for one year, plus buy furniture for those whose homes were totally destroyed,'' said Nasrallah. ''These number 15,000.'' 

Nasrallah also vowed that his organization would help rebuild damaged houses and businesses, promising those affected that they will ''not need to ask anyone for money or wait in queues'' to get relief funds. To paraphrase the All-State commercial, ''You're in good hands with Hezbollah.'' 

But wait -- where will Hezbollah get some of the $3 billion-plus needed to rebuild Lebanon? Last time I checked, Hezbollah did not have any companies listed on the Nasdaq. The organization doesn't manufacture anything. It doesn't tax its followers. The answer, of course, is that Iran will dip into its oil income and ship cash to Nasrallah, so that he will not have to face the wrath of Lebanese for starting a war that reaped nothing but destruction. 

Yes, thanks to $70-a-barrel oil you can have Katyusha rockets and butter at the same time. When oil money is so prevalent, why not? Hezbollah and Iran are like a couple of rich college students who rented Lebanon for the summer, as if it were a beach house. ''C'mon, let's smash up the place,'' they said to themselves. ''Who cares? Dad will pay!'' The only thing Nasrallah didn't say to Lebanese was, ''Hey, keep the change.'' 

In the cold war, Russian taxpayers were the suckers who rebuilt Arab armies every time they got crushed by Israel. Now Iran's citizens will foot the bill with their oil income -- assuming the ayatollahs actually put their money where their mouth is. (Iran was always happy to spend money on Hezbollah rockets. Let's see if it will pay for schools and clinics.) 

This is why I am obsessed with bringing down the price of oil. Unless we take this issue seriously, we are never going to produce more transparent, accountable government in the Middle East. Just the opposite -- we will witness even more reckless, unaccountable behavior like Nasrallah's and Iran's. 

Been to Syria lately? Why do you think it can afford to shrug off U.S. sanctions? It also is not making microchips. It is, though, exporting about 200,000 barrels of oil a day, and that is what keeps a corrupt and antiquated regime in power. The Syrian regime subsidizes everything from diesel to bread. As in Iran, almost half of Syria's people are teenagers, and without real economic reforms, widespread unemployment and unrest are just around the corner -- but for now, oil money postpones the reckoning. 

Ditto Iran. Iran is OPEC's second-largest producer, selling the world about 2.4 million barrels of oil a day and earning the regime over $4 billion a month -- the government's main source of income. To buy public support, Iran's regime subsidizes housing, gasoline, interest rates, flour and rice. 

According to an Aug. 2 report on Bloomberg.com, ''Iran spent $25 billion on subsidies last year, or more than half the $44.6 billion it collected through crude oil exports.'' But Iran actually has to import more than one-third of its gasoline, because it can't refine enough itself. This became so expensive the regime wanted to ration subsidized gas but feared a public backlash. No wonder. Bloomberg reported that subsidized gasoline in Iran is 34 cents a gallon. 

Repressive governments like Iran's and Syria's use oil money to buy off their people and insulate themselves from the pressure of political and economic reform. When oil prices get high enough, they can even buy a monthlong war in Lebanon. Why not? It's like a summer sale: ''Now, this summer only: 34 cents-a-gallon gasoline and a war with the Jews and new living room furniture for Lebanese Shiites! Such a deal!'' 

If we could cut the price of crude in half, it would mean that all of Iran's oil income would go to subsidies -- which would be unsustainable and therefore a huge threat to the regime. It would also make Iran's puppets, like Nasrallah, think three times about launching wars with Israel that might ravage Lebanon again. 

Too bad we have a president who tells us we're ''addicted to oil'' but won't do anything about it. That sort of hypocrisy just makes Nasrallah's day. 

  a.. Copyright 2006 The New York Times
----------------
Big Talk, Little Will
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 16, 2006
The defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman by the upstart antiwar Democrat Ned Lamont has sparked a firestorm of debate about the direction of the Democratic Party. My own heart is with those Democrats who worry that just calling for a pullout from Iraq, while it may be necessary, is not a sufficient response to the biggest threat to open societies today -- violent, radical Islam. Unless Democrats persuade voters -- in the gut -- that they understand this larger challenge, it's going to be hard for them to win the presidency. 

That said, though, the Democratic mainstream is nowhere near as dovish as critics depict. Truth be told, some of the most constructive, on-the-money criticism over the past three years about how to rescue Iraq or improve the broader ''war on terrorism'' has come from Democrats, like Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Bill Clinton. 

But whatever you think of the Democrats, the important point is this: They are not the party in power today. 

What should really worry the country is not whether the Democrats are being dragged to the left by antiwar activists who haven't thought a whit about the larger struggle we're in. What should worry the country is that the Bush team and the Republican Party, which control all the levers of power and claim to have thought only about this larger struggle, are in total denial about where their strategy has led. 

Besides a few mavericks like Chuck Hagel and John McCain on Iraq and Dick Lugar and George Shultz on energy, how many Republicans have stood up and questioned the decision-making that has turned the Iraq war into a fiasco? Had more of them done so, instead of just mindlessly applauding the administration, the White House might have changed course when it had a chance. 

(Rippey Note:  Hagel, McCain et al have since apparently caved in on torture and on a permissive low to let the President label anyone, (even an American citizens) as "enemy combatants" and just make them disappear FOREVER....  no lawyer, no Bill of Rights, no court approval, no explanation of why...  but torture quite likely.)

(Friedman continues) Not only is there no honest self-criticism among Republicans, but -- and this is truly contemptible -- you have Dick Cheney & Friends focusing their public remarks on why Mr. Lamont's defeat of Mr. Lieberman only proves that Democrats do not understand that we are in a titanic struggle with ''Islamic fascists'' and are therefore unfit to lead. 

Oh, really? Well, I just have one question for Mr. Cheney: If we're in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you ''tough guys'' fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine -- just enough troops to lose -- and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could you send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias? 

Mr. Cheney, if we're in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why have you and President Bush resisted any serious effort to get Americans to conserve energy? Why do you refuse to push higher mileage standards for U.S. automakers or a gasoline tax that would curb our imports of oil? Here we are in the biggest struggle of our lives and we are funding both sides -- the U.S. military with our tax dollars and the radical Islamists and the governments and charities that support them with our gasoline purchases -- and you won't lift a finger to change that. Why? Because it might impose pain on the oil companies and auto lobbies that fund the G.O.P., or require some sacrifice by Americans. 

Mr. Cheney, if we're in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why do you constantly use the ''war on terrorism'' as a wedge issue in domestic politics to frighten voters away from Democrats. How are we going to sustain such a large, long-term struggle if we are a divided country? 

Please, Mr. Cheney, spare us your flag-waving rhetoric about the titanic struggle we are in and how Democrats just don't understand it. It is just so phony -- such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that you have never risen to the challenge of this war. You will the ends, but you won't will the means. What a fraud! 

Friends, we are on a losing trajectory in Iraq, and, as the latest London plot underscores, the wider war with radical Islam is only getting wider. We need to reassess everything we are doing in this ''war on terrorism'' and figure out what is worth continuing, what needs changing and what sacrifice we need to demand from every American to match our means with our ends. Yes, the Democrats could help by presenting a serious alternative. But unless the party in power for the next two and half years shakes free of its denial, we are in really, really big trouble. 

Copyright 2006 The New York Times
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060928/9e640823/attachment.html