You might wonder: What could be worse than a President claiming virtually unlimited power, a Congress that seems unable or unwilling to stop him, a foreign policy that has brought us the scorn and hatred of most of the world, and an erroneous and useless war that is killing Americans and even more innocent Iraqis?
[1] The same Bush that lied his way into Iraq could lie his way into attacking Iran. He would claim the reason to be Iran's refusal to stop nuclear development. This would be a lie. Consider the logic: even if they were intending to develop nuclear weapons, why would this be worth starting another war now, when we cannot afford it? It wouldn't. Iran could not use nuclear weapons offensively, nor allow them to be used by others, for the same reason that, throughout the many years of the Cold War, the USSR could not. Doing so would justify a massive reprisal by the US. In Iran's case, their entire nation could be destroyed quite one-sidedly.
So why, then, might Bush attack Iran? There is a very credible theory that in Iraq and potentially Iran, Bush is trying to save the petro-dollar. According to this theory, Sadaam's transgression had nothing to do with weapons, but was his switch to Euros rather than US dollars as the accepted currency for oil. This switch would make the USD a less desired and needed currency throughout the world, which would strike a major blow to the US economy. Reportedly, Iran plans the same switch, and organizing other oil-producing nations to follow.
So if there is a strike, probably bombing, conceivably nuclear, it will be intended to prevent the monetary change and warn other nations not to attempt such a move.
Would petro-Euros actually devastate our economy? I don't know. Ask an economist. But by now we should know from experience not to trust any foreign policy action by the Bush Administration.
[2] Whether or not the USD loses value internationally due to a petro-Euro, our economy is on very thin ice due to our record national debt and record budget deficits brought to us courtesy of the Iraq invasion and extended warfare. There are signs that severe economic depression and resulting extreme inflation might be anticipated by the Bush Administration. Have major banks been quietly prepared for orders not to allow major withdrawals from safe deposit boxes without Homeland Security approval? In the event of extreme inflation, such a plan would prevent depositers from accessing their gold and other precious metal investments.
[3] The official version of the September 11 events has become increasingly subject to doubt. At the very least, as highly qualified engineers have attested, controlled demolition was used to bring down three World Trade Center buildings, including one that was never struck by an aircraft. This, of course, required that the explosives were placed well before the event.
Whether there was an actual terrorist attack that was anticipated and allowed to happen, or whether the entire thing was staged, is not important. Either way, the horrifying truth must be that the Bush Administration is itself responsible for thousands of deaths, its ulterior motive being to take unprecedented executive power, virtually suspend parts of the Bill of Rights, and wage unprovoked war for econimic purposes.
[4] The recent tape alleged to be Osama Bin Laden, threatening another attack and offering a truce in return for withdrawal from Iraq, leads to some interesting questions:
[A] Doesn't it come at a very convenient time for Bush? What better a propoganda tool could the Administration ask for but a taunt from the presumed enemy?
[B] If it were genuine, Bush's reaction was easily predictable. If Osama wanted the US out of Iraq, it would have been more logical to say nothing. If he made the statement, then logically he wants the US to stay in Iraq and continue to inspire new recruits for his terrorist organization.
[C] Is there any reason for us to believe the tape was genuine, merely because Bush claims the CIA verified it? I can't think of one.
I believe the answer is: Yes, it can get worse. There is good reason to think it is already worse than we think it is. Remember that it took a year for the New York Times to report the warrantless wiretapping. What else don't we know? What we do know is that there are solid grounds to impeach the President, and more than enough evidence to show that it would be dangerous to allow him to stay in office.
--captain rat, Jan. 2006