Comments on: Fight terrorism with efficiency

By: Curtis Redgap

Curtis Redgap — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:41:34 +0000

Carter had no means to provide definitive leadership. He was even mocked by people in his own administration. Most remember the near comic antics of his brother, Billy, than can recall what his administration accomplished, other than the failed Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt. He continues to reinforce his “non” image by being a “non” ex President, including breaking laws with his visits to terrorist implicated nations that have accomplished nothing except giving publicity to those that seek to destroy western civilization.

Agree entirely about Iraq. Saudi Arabia still remains as the leading supporter of terror by paying them off and paying for them, period. Have to thank the Bush family going back to the 1920s when they began to pay them for oil and oil exploration. Which leads to the ultimate oil President, the one we have now, and his equally important oil administration. With near criminal acts, they have said to big oil, which unfortunately remains as the 800 pound gorilla in the room, go for it! Blow the tops off those barrels of oil! Soak the poor, more, more, more! The excess is staggering, with no control or let up in sight. It has been so good, that the leader of the band, ExxonMobil is selling off it’s gasoline outlets, being NON profitable to them. Which just means that the so called “meager” earnings for selling gasoline is going to (and already has) be coming from elsewhere. More investment in oil futures, keeping the barrel price UP and UP!

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:05:56 +0000

“However, again, for discussion, is it not feasible that the Bush Administration already had Iraq on the mind.”

Since we know that they were discussing how to invade Iraq long before September 11, the answer to that is very definitely — otherwise, why attack a country with absolutely no ties to Al-Quaeda instead of, say, Saudi Arabia, which produced nearly all the hijackers?

I agree with you completely, though I will make one exception - Jimmy Carter tried very hard to lead us to adult behavior with regard to energy. Unfortunately, faced with making responsible choices and living within our means, we, led by our irresponsible Congress (both Democrats and Republicans, though at that point mostly Democrats) fought and rebelled, and when simple, unworkable solutions (cut taxes while increasing spending) were proposed, we snapped at them and laughed Carter into history.

Carter’s impossible faith in his fellow man certainly didn’t help. He was not much of a politician, and I mean that partly as a compliment, but I wish he’d had more of Truman’s “faith after proven innocent” in his fellow man.

By: Curtis Redgap

Curtis Redgap — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 01:28:06 +0000

Perhaps for the sake of discussion, I would agree with you that we did have a great opportunity to stifle the flow of foreign oil, and put more of our control over it. However, again, for discussion, is it not feasible that the Bush Administration already had Iraq on the mind. As I recall, one of the talking points advanced by Cheney was that when we “freed” Iraq, we would take over their oil production, using that to pay expenses we incurred for sending in our troops to make them “free”. But hindsight is wonderful and fully 20/20. Where IS the Iraq oil BTW? Is it in production or being subverted elsewhere. Real leadership was lost a long time ago. In my estimation this country took a big turn for the worse on November 22, 1963. The level of mistrust, has only continually increased since then.

Real leadership would have focused upon the foreign oil imports ages ago. I suggest that the Shuttle Diplomacy of Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger lead to a lot of the oil importation, seeking to mollify the Saudis and other Arabs. Oil prices began a steady incline around 1972, along with the formation of OPEC that seems comprised of countries NOT operating with our best interests in any way. Back then perhaps a little sacrifice would have resolved things in a way that would have prevented the current situation.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:53:29 +0000

“No, the average consumer shouldn’t be labeled a terrorist. When gas was 1.50 or 2.00 no one really paid attention to this problem. But today, with gas at 4.00 I think patriots should consider whether we want to keep enriching countries like Saudi Arabia, and keep running these trade deficits, and keep diluting the value of our currency. ”

Actually, Bill C. and I both paid attention, but nobody wanted to listen. Had the White House, on 9/12, proclaimed that America would starve out terrorism by refusing to buy from terrorist supporting nations, people would have slashed their fuel usage. However, the White House instead said the most important thing for us to do was not give up any of our little luxuries or, as some put it, “our way of life.”

Leadership is important. It’s one of the things that made the difference between the hoarding and profiteering of World War I and the shared sacrifice of World War II.