Common Sense - from a former member of Ronald Reaga's cabinet

[Michael Tee]

<<Why is this so funny?>>

It's only moderately funny.  Originally.  Just a mild dig at Ami's reminder that the UNOCAL pipeline plans were drawn up durng the Clinton administration.  The real point I should have been making was along the lines of the corporations giving their marching orders to the government of the day, not the government of the day (the Clinton administration in this case) telling the boardroom what to do.  My point was that the UNOCAL plans to make or abandon a pipeline proceeded on UNOCAL time and on UNOCAL principles and whatever they decided, they would decide first and then enlist government support (if necessary to the project) when and as required.  But I got sidetracked by the issue raised by Ami - - that perhaps it was the Clinton administration which developed interests in Afghanistan, which led to the invasion.  (The Roberts article at the head of the thread postulated that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was in furtherance of U.S. economic interests, of which the UNOCAL pipeline plans were given as an example.)

So I picked an example which I felt everyone would regard as absurd - - the allegation that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed - - and paired it with Ami's inference that the Clintons were behind the UNOCAL pipeline plans, to show (IMHO) the  absurdity of Clinton developing pipeline plans for UNOCAL and setting their agenda for them.  Ami went along with the joke, by adding Enron to the Clintons' supposed misdeeds.

As I said, it was mildly humorous, it certainly wasn't hilarious.

<<Was Enron saintly during the Clinton administration? >>

My understanding of the situation is that Enron started off legit and went bad later.  Whether that "later" was in the Clinton or the Bush administration I don't know and I suspect is immaterial.  These guys were bad guys on their own account.  However, they were enormously enabled by the deregulation of the energy markets, which I understand was largely the work of the Bush administration.  I stand to be corrected on that last point by anyone who has the exact timelines of Enron malfeasance and energy dereg.

<<Did Clinton escew cotact with the Enron brass?>>

Let's put it this way - - Enron was smart enough to contribute to both major parties but gave much more to the Republicans.  I don't know how much contact Clinton had with Enron managment, but he never got close enough to call Ken Lay "Kenny Boy" and there's no doubt in my mind that the Republicans had a lot more contact than the Democrats with Enron.

<<Did Vince Foster kill himself? Why?>>

There may be some mysteries regarding Foster's death, but there's no evidence whatsoever linking the Clinton's to it comparable to the evidence linking Bush and the people around him, for example, to lying about Saddam's WMD, or to stealing the Florida election in 2000.  Or if there is, I haven't seen it to date.  At this point, the claims of Clinton involvement in Foster's death are right up there with claims of alien abductions or live sightings of Elvis.

<<Now what is "is" ,that was funny.>>

You'll have to explain that to me, then.  It sailed right over my head.

[sirs]

...there's no evidence whatsoever linking the Clinton's to it comparable to the evidence linking Bush and the people around him, for example, to lying about Saddam's WMD, or to stealing the Florida election in 2000.

Yea, Tee, is perfectly rational       

[Plane]

So I picked an example which I felt everyone would regard as absurd - - the allegation that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed

There is my problem, I would have thought this funny if I had thought the allegation absurd .

<<Was Enron saintly during the Clinton administration? >>

My understanding of the situation is that Enron started off legit and went bad later.  Whether that "later" was in the Clinton or the Bush administration I don't know and I suspect is immaterial.  These guys were bad guys on their own account.  However, they were enormously enabled by the deregulation of the energy markets, which I understand was largely the work of the Bush administration.  I stand to be corrected on that last point by anyone who has the exact timelines of Enron malfeasance and energy dereg.

They "went " bad during the Clinton Administrtion , they were "caught" during the Bush administration, they might well have been pardoned if they had been caught during the Clinton administration , he was holding auctions for pardons.

[_JS]

Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories and I don't put a lot of stock into many of the statements made in the article.

Yet, the author makes an excellent point here and really just confirms what we already know. Why does the administration focus so much on Iran?

I read that at most 170 American soldier's deaths can be linked to Shi'ite militia attacks where IED's were used. Of those, it is unknown how many used the materials that have been assumed bys some to have come from Iran. The overwhelming vast majority of American combat deaths have come at the hands of Sunni militia and before anyone jumps in chanting "Syria", there is no preponderance of evidence linking Syrian weapons to Sunni insurgents.

In fact, the only nation to overtly discuss aiding the Sunni insurgents was Saudi Arabia who told President Bush that if he pulls out American troops, they will aid the Sunni paramilitaries. In other words, it was a threat. Stay, or else.

If anything, Iran would have good reason to want to see us get out and leave behind a Shi'ite majority government. It is far less expensive to send in political operatives and shi'ite mullahs to preach about the dignity and holiness of living in an Islamic Republic than it is to fight a protracted guerilla war. Now they might feel a need to help the Shi'a defend themselves against the Sunni.

I'm just not seeing it, even if there is some aid from Tehran (and with the evidence thus far that seems to be a big "if"), it doesn't seem to be enough to garner the response we've seen from Bush and the right-wing. Is this just a diversion to reassign blame from Bush and his staff to Iran?

[Plane]

Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories and I don't put a lot of stock into many of the statements made in the article.

Yet, the author makes an excellent point here and really just confirms what we already know. Why does the administration focus so much on Iran?

So Syria and Iran are not co-operateing?

I thought they were.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So Syria and Iran are not co-operateing?

I thought they were.
=====================================
Syria and Iran are both nervous about the US occupying Iraq. Both are nervous about an unstable Iraq. Each of these counties acts according to the realities as perceived by therir governments. They do not agree on everything. Syria is majority Sunni, Iran is mostly Shia. Iran has a lot of oil wealth and does not have to worry so much about pissing off the Americans. Syria has territory in Israeli hands, Iran doesn't.
It would be silly to regard them as marching in anything resembling lock-step formation.

[Plane]

So Syria and Iran are not co-operateing?

I thought they were.
=====================================
Syria and Iran are both nervous about the US occupying Iraq. Both are nervous about an unstable Iraq. Each of these counties acts according to the realities as perceived by therir governments. They do not agree on everything. Syria is majority Sunni, Iran is mostly Shia. Iran has a lot of oil wealth and does not have to worry so much about pissing off the Americans. Syria has territory in Israeli hands, Iran doesn't.
It would be silly to regard them as marching in anything resembling lock-step formation.

Ok but they both arm Hezbollah , is it inconceveable that they would both arm Iranians who want to shoot Americans? Perhaps the same ones?

[Michael Tee]

<<They do not agree on everything. Syria is majority Sunni, Iran is mostly Shia. >>

Keep in mind, though, that the ruling dynasty, the al Assads, and their inner circle, are Alawites, which is a minor branch of the Shi'ite religion.  As long as the Assad family stays on top in Syria, I feel the mullahs in Iran will do what they can to support them, because a fall of the ruling Alawites will lead most  likely to the majority Sunni Muslims gaining power.  So it's probably worth a few petrobucks on the part of the Iranians to keep the present Syrian administration on side.

Syria also has powerful interests in Lebanon, which was formerly part of their national territory, split off by the French allegedly because of its half-Christian population, which provided a further opportunity to put the colonial divide-and-rule maxim into practice.  To the extent that a pro-Western Lebanese government (which is always Christian-backed) blocks Syria from regaining Lebanon, the Western supporters of Lebanese "power-sharing" or "democracy" (read the U.S.A.) are enemies of Syria.  To the extent (100% IMHO) that U.S. policy towards Iran and Iraq is oriented towards invading them and taking control of their oil, the U.S.A. is also the enemy of the Iraqis AND the Iranians.  Applying the old Arab maxim, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," it would seem that all three of Syria, Iraq and Iran, plus the Muslim underclass of Lebanon, have good reason to become and/or stay on very good terms with one another.