George W. Bush: A recycled petroleum by-product

[H2O Man]

Petroleum By-Product: George W. Bush

How much does a gallon of gasoline cost? What price will this nation pay to heat their homes if George Bush remains in the White House? These are questions that democratic operatives, grass-roots activists, and other DUers should be asking the general public to consider as we enter the final months leading to Election 2004.

"A national effort is underway, " the 1-13-04 Oneonta Daily Star reported, "to staff local Selective Service boards in the event that a military draft is needed." Considering how the war is going in Iraq, as well as the resumption of hostilities in Afghanistan, it is important for all "draft age" voters to consider the likelihood that another four years of Bush would mean a draft. It is likewise important for the parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles of draft-age men to consider this when they are deciding on who they will vote for.

"The American Beauty Rose can only be coaxed to the degree of splender and fragrance that enchants us by sacrificing the other buds growing around it. In the business world, the same operation is the result not of an unhealthy trend, but simply of a law of nature and of God."
-John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil

Oil has been the #1 industry in the world for over 150 years. The military-industrial complex runs on oil. The American government's executive branch is composed of representatives of the largest oil companies on earth. The oil industries' budget is far greater than that of our federal government. And while American interests used to control an estimated 80% of the global oil markets, the situation has turned to where the global oil markets dictate the American government's international policies. The right-wing media, for example, has not responded to the part of Michael Moore's "F 9-11" that shows the US Secret Service providing "protection" for the Saudi "royalty" that controls 8% of the American economy.

Yet this is not new. Since as early as 1860, the oil industry has exerted an unwholesome influence on American politics. The most important example is the history of the oil industries using the American militaryand intelligence to control and exploit the oil resources of the Middle East. This control began to be considered a "national security" issue at the end of WW1. And it was clearly recognized as essential for the primacy of the American military industrial complex after the end of WW2.

It is important to realize that President Bush's great-grandparents were "heavily involved in wartime finance and military contracting during WW1 -- they were there at the very start of the military-industrial complex -- and his (grand) father was a U.S. senator who directed an oil-service company like Halliburton." (Rolling Stone; The House of Bush, by Eric Bates; 1-22-04; pg 47) The result is that we have a president who is actually a petroleum by-product of the family with the greatest ties to the oil industry, to the military-industrial complex, and to the Saudi royal family, in American history.

Thus it comes as no surprise that when we turn on the news, we see American troops battling the forces of the radical cleric al Sadr. What could we expect when six months ago, the administration rejected the Shi'ite cleric Ayatullah Ali al-Sistani's initial call for democratic elections in Iraq? We know the Bush republicans do not believe in "one person -- one vote"style democracy. We saw that in Florida, when that republican beauty rose Kathleen Harris was trimming away the voting rights of black democrats. And we have a president who shares that old dehydrated John Rockefeller's delusion that their greed is God's will.

"They are provoked to anger and aggression, which are virile passions. These make a man think that he is in danger of suffering some future evil. When men are so disposed, they do not have mercy on others. Likewise the proud do not have mercy because they dispise others and look upon them as evil, taking it for granted that these people deserve to suffer whatever they have to suffer." -- St. Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theological

George W. Bush is the most aggressively divisive president in our nation's history. And he takes great pride in that. But consider this: in the 2000 election, less than 1/2 the eligible voters in America went to the polls. And of those, less than 1/2 voted for him. Yet he acts as if he had an overwhelming mandate.

His policies have enriched a small minority of the American public. His tax cuts have enriched the wealthiest 1% of the population more than they have benefitted the 75-plus % who did not vote for him. His cronie capitalist from the Enrons and the Halliburtons were not satisfied, and so the plundering of the American treasury continues almost totally unchecked. These unelected sociopaths steal from the working class to nourish their insatiable sense of self-gratification.

We know from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that the Bush administration had plans to invade Iraq and divide up the oil fields more than six months before 9-11. They lied to the Congress, lied to the public, and lied to the United Nations about WMDs in Iraq. The film "Uncovered:the War on Iraq" features 22 experts from CI and MI documenting the extend of the purposeful lies of the Bush administration.

Saddam was a cruel and evil liar. Bush's recognizing this was proof of that old saying "it takes one to know one." Yellow cake uranium from Niger, Mr. President? It is exactly as Aquinas foretold.

"After 9-11, that allowed (Bush) to think of himself as someone who had an almost God-accorded role. He sees himself as an annointed leader, and his speeches envoke religious code words: evil, crusade, the ways of Providence, wonder-working power." - Kevin Phillips, former Chief Political Strategist for Richard Nixon; Rolling Stone; 1-22-04)

President Bush is a curious fellow. He's never gotten a job on his own. He's always depended on his father. That's led to him carrying some heavy emotional baggage. Dad got him into the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. He apparently did not fulfill his obligations there. That appears related to his addiction issues. His father helped smooth out his legal problems relating to drunk driving.

I don't judge anyone harshly for having suffered from addiction. There's no shame in saying "I used to be a drunkard." There is shame in not doing something about it. We know he quit. Good for him. But bad for us was that he traded the "god-in-a-bottle" for a "god-in-an-oil-barrel" mentality.

The American public has inherited the problems of the prodigal son of the oil industry. Now that's a sobering thought. This man did not simply find a "higher power" when he embarked upon his new life-style.Evangelical fundamentalists convinced him that he was part of a divine plan to combat the evils of the world. And the evangelical fundamentalists interpret the bible as identifying Islam as an evil force that threatens the holy land.

When 9-11 occured, the strange Oedipus complex that creates the love-hate relationship between the two President Bush's came into play.Instead of focusing his attention on those who had attacked our country , George W. used it as an excuse to attack the enemy of his father. Bush's 10-7-2001 speech to the nation borrows heavily from the evangelical code words from the books of Isaiah and Revelations. The president is convinced he is God's annointed leader in this modern crusade against Islam.

That's pathetic. What's worse is that he is willing to send any number of young men who come from the 75% of American families who did not support him in the 2000 election, to kill and to die for oil. He has the nerve to talk about "freedom" and "democracy." Why should the son of a black parent who was disenfranchised in Florida kill or die for George W. Bush?

"Increasingly. military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of 'a long, hard slog' in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the US may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability." -- The Oneonta Daily Star; 1-13-04; "Selective Services fills local board."

DUers need to be speaking about these issues to people they meet while putting gas into their automobiles. We need to be talking to young men, their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. We need to refocus the national debate: this is not an election that is more about what John Kerry did in Vietnam, or what George W. Bush didn't have the balls to do. It's about the war in Iraq, and the very real possibility that the religious delusions of George Bush will lead to an escalation in violence at home and abroad.

I do not want our nation to have to ask another young man to be the last man to die for the stupidity of President Bush

[coeur_de_lion]

1. Excellent article, H2O, though I must disagree on one minor

point. And that is, the * & Co. religious beliefs.

"This man did not simply find a "higher power" when he embarked upon his new life-style. Evangelical fundamentalists convinced him that he was part of a divine plan to combat the evils of the world."

In my humble opinion, George Bush does not believe that he has a divine calling to combat the evils of the world. I think this is a tool he uses to inflame the religious right and obtain their endorsement. I don't think he is a truly religious man; he uses religion like a club -- he beats us over the head with it. He justifies his wrong-doing by saying that he follows what God tells him to do. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that God never told him to lie to us about the war in Iraq.

I think that his religious conservative supporters are hypnotized in a way. If they really took a hard look at the * policies they would see that although he agrees with them on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, etc., most of his policies are not consistent with a true Christian. The lies he told us in order to justify war, the Abu Ghraib atrocities, the tax breaks for the very rich, the disenfranchisement of the black voters in this country; these are not the actions of a true Christian. I think * is a bit thick; but I don't think he is so stupid as to believe that he acts for God. God is just a political tool to *.

Hendrik Hertzberg wrote a very good article about * and religion for New Yorker in January 2003:

DIVIDENDS
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/030120ta_talk_hertzberg

Minor disagreement aside, I think your article would make an excellent op-ed piece for the NY Times or even your local paper. I hope that you will send it in!