House of Paine

national interests uber nothin

as i ve proclaimed
at the slightest pretext
with every flap and fiber 
of my tongue 
 for years 


 if we'd been using 
" Gen-rill " butler's 
     mandatory  national referendum process

to decide if or not
we send our  fightin keeeds 
on these foreign armed jaunts 

MY HUNCH IZ 
 
we'd still not be in iraq 

let alone  preparing
to pee on iran's  atomic turbin .....


========================


==================== 

but thats spec 
rear view mirror spec at that 


here  on the other hand
  is a real time 
 if   rather ham fisted 
back and forth 
at the good brad's site

with my -----asides---- added later 
and comment of the moment ..enhanced for the record 

so i gave my self a little OT 
the others lacked 
hey if i can't look my best here
where can i ????


we're picking it up after 
sw has set off 
a chain of 
anti oiler rants 
by 
writing  about the big oil boys  bene
behind
 the push by  
   bushco  to put the  mid east initiatives 
into battle mode :

"Boy, I knew I shouldna started that ball rolling. 
 
DF,------ a stalwart rock ribbed anti corporate warrior -----

 I think the claim 
that division and unrest in the ME 
is in any sense good for the US broadly
 is completely untenable.

----- not df's position
but a nice straw man here anyway ...--------

 The US economy, and therefore its ability 
to project military power 
depends upon a stable ME...."

--------not really   
some times stable is gooooooood
sometimes its 
baaaad 
    and there's levels and ranges of instability too -------------



" An unstable ME may be good in the short term
 for the very few Americans who have more to gain 
than to lose from high oil prices"


---------  remember this bald admission
it implies much that gets vaulted later  ----------


" This fact may or may not 
enter at some level 
into the calculations of policymakers 
who happen to be connected to that narrow segment"

----- 
may or may not ????
you've plunked for has
why fudge now 

 this present
 white house gang 
are as oily black and drippy 
                 fingered a lot
 as god's sink in the sky will ever 
some day dutch wash  
shit 
even the tea pot domers mitts
 pale to a blush   by comparison ----------

" But a factor
 --- ie
a  personal stake hold in the oil price
that runs from your lips to your arse hole----- 

is not a cause or conspiracy "

---- i'll restate 
a factor may be but one among many 
question becomes 
was it sufficient was  it necessary 
was it for whatever reason decisive ???? ------

  ------ not ...."conspiracy "????

well surely stuff gets said in private
don't it ???

like at cheney's fabled energy pow wow 

to me the test of a conspiracy 
versus say an in sider move 
is whether its more or less expected 
as part of the game 

or a  concealed foul 
concealed cause 
its intent is to block 
or at least  subvert 
the actions and counter actions
  og other interests  
who if in possession of the full  facts
and intentions held inside the conspiracy 
these other interests
would  stop the conspirators 
from acting or at least
 from fully  succeeding
 or escaping blame 
or or or ...
 you get the picture --------

----- he now steps right in it --------


 "The antecedants of the Iraq War 
(which I supported) "

------- boing !!!!! he supported the topple  ---------


"and the current imbroglio with Iran were not fabricated"


------ double boing  
not fabricated 
            then what were they 
real present dangers ??? ------------------ 
 
"I think it's interesting to point out 
cui bono in policymaking, 
because hidden interests
 really can affect decisions at the margin"

----- if that were all he'd written 
he'd be kool  however ....-----------

" But only at the margin"

--------- i think  his "only" here
lets us see 
he means a    marginal influence
not sufficient not necessary 
  but has he proven not  decisive
his use of marginal this secod time 
is 
a very different use then his first use
where it could mean
the  personal interest "factor "
 could increment the choice 
of  action/inaction 
slightly one way or other 
whatever 
my guess 
given the common love of the expression
in certain "hardheaded" circles  
his use of 
"at the margin "
here is really deeply reflexive
but unfortunately
 just  as deeply incoherent -----

" The Iraq War was no grand conspiracy 
to divide the ME"

----------- 
yes and no 
no  because
that's been more or less a shared insider policy 
for decades 

yes because conspiracy implies 
a fairly tight no leak clandestine group of actors --------------

" and has not worked out thus far in US interests,
 aside from those who profit 
from a larger risk premium in the price of oil"

------ 
  what  u claim we have no policy to divide the area 
and now we have tried to do so 
or more acurrately further divide 
so is it a no no  only when the design fails
  or 
to retain the new  divide 
requires  endless troop commitment
to manage the resultant armed  conflict
 and the only bene biproduct
are higher oil prices
the uncertainty of oil flows 
from the region creates 
that implies
the conflict 
was  at least sold to broader sectors and interests
as necessary for other reasons that were a cover
and this loops y back to 
its necessary to  create further local  division 
as a  pretext  for uncle's  long term bases 
and thus enhance  uncle's grip on the region 
and its platform to the stans 
                      --------------

------- after the back pedal
now once more he moves forward -----------

". An expectation that a transformational projection
 of power into the ME post-911 
would be profitable for their friends 
may have influenced policymakers, to some degree"

----------"may "  to some degree 
what's your guess  a decisive degree ???? ---------

". I think there has been a bias, broadly speaking,
 for policies that help support oil prices.
 (Low taxes, loose money, loose CAFE standards,
 fiscal stimulus, ME adventurism.)
 But a bias hardly amounts to a conspiracy"

--------- not if  it can conduct 
its affairs openly.....
as it has 
get its narrow designs thru 
by merely talking  in more or less
      plausible broadly based
          rationalizations --------------

------ here's the tut tut ---------

"  any such parochial bias
 on the part of policymakers 
undermines rather than supports
 the pursuit of the broader US national interest
 to which American policymakers are supposed to attend"

----- btw:
that  last bit 
was the hindenburg mooring  in jersy there  ----------


------so here comes 

pink flames ------------


sw  
am i wrong
or do i detect 
 you're  teetering on the edge
 of your own scenario 

if so i say  
go ahead dive off  
the raft huck  
 
why ??? 
 
because you don't need 
the  national interests 
statesman's honor window dressing 
nope 
 you don't need the feel good
    shit one bit  

 after all facts are stubborn here
by your  account   
narrow  interests   prevailed
over iraq  
even  though now
near all agree 
the majority loses from it 
 
right ??? 
 
well
so draw the conclusion
when it happens it happens
in analogy to anti free market worship   
 lets write it off as an instance 
of 
 democracy failure  
 ie an instance  
where our  elected reps
failed  to rep us 
because they preferd 
to  lap dance
    some big shots 
         from a mighty  special interest  
------------------ 

as you quite sharply write 
 
"I think it's interesting to point out 
cui bono in policymaking, 
because hidden interests  
really can affect decisions  
at the margin."

beautiful !!!!!


 alas  you feel compelled to  add ...

 "But only at the margin" 
 
lets examine your 
 at the margin meme here :


in this context
take both  
iraq'02  and  iran  '06

isn't it possible 
a  go /no go call
  could prove to be 
  so close
 so near  a balance
it could  be 
easily  tipped one way or the other ???

so if the insiders have a strong "bias"

bingo 
 
it gets determined  
by them
the insiders
  the guys who's interests 
always weigh most at the margin 
in a close  enough call  

this doesn't imply there are no strong 
maybe even  ultimately stronger interests opposed
only the two active sides
are  near enough in weight 
ie 
both might be marginal  in relationship
to a bulk  of interests
that remains neutral 
thats in part  indifferent 
ill informed 
distracted 
and above all
relying on historical  precedent  
and past actions and promises 
by the present crew 
to maintain more or less 
a stable broadly based
            policy stream 

btw i think the bushmill 
lost that last point over iraq
and  as a result today
 broader  forces are indeed  mobilized
 to see to it
this  wild  penn ave bunch
 act  in  accord 
with these  broader interests
 
as you write :

 
"any such parochial bias on the part of policymakers 
 undermines rather than supports  
the pursuit of the broader US national interest  
to which American policymakers are supposed to attend" 

and i'll add these broader interests will see to it happens 
 
notice i drop the word national...

let me explain why 

your passage i think   
would still hold as much water  
as it does 
and not be as hard 
to swing around over your head  

if you re wrote it  
  this way  

first i'd plug in 
   a caveat proviso 
 
" this is the way the system is supposed to work ..."

to cover the huge body of deviations like iraq
that litter the record  

" ....any such parochial bias 
on the part of policy makers  
will  eventually
 lead to altered 
even  reversed policies 
if broader interests are undermined 
rather then supported 
by the existing bias effected  policies   " 
 
here's why 
i've excised the words  
"national  " here 

its a nasty 
 deluding  and conflating word 

             a  " reified  19th century construct" 
that leads no where good 
its a morass
a cloud able to be percieved at will
nearly any way possible 
a debaters trump
a claim to be made
usually to cover the bare ass
 of a special interest motivation
 ie 
its much like patriotism
 
a nice  mazy hedge row
 for scoundrels to dart about in 
 
i  myself put 
talk about discovery  
of this selfless  over soul like  figment  
on the same menu 
with holy grail quests 
and perpetual motion devices  
 
i prefer your  implied 
far more
down to earth analysis  
of the mteabolism 
of our  madisonian struggle
 between interests 
 
where 
 both narrow and wide  
develop thru interaction 
split combination contradiction 
and recombination


as in  your passage :

"This fact( oil prices) 
may or may not enter 
at some level into the calculations  
of policymakers who happen to be connected 
to that narrow segment " 
 
( or  i might add 
any other narrow segments  
that directly 
expect to feed well on  
mid east 
armed conflict)  
 
i think you are suggesting  
correctly  
in a grapple of this magnitude 
and duration 
ie the  last 30 years 
of the greater mideast shell game 
 
at  certain stages  
along the  endless par n fairway 
 we find our ballin a position
where  
bigger forces  biger clubs
 need  swing into action
get themselves
  out of  neutral gear
and  make the next shot ...a good one 

well we're in a sand trap now 
thanx to the  present team's play    
and so  these bigger forces 
have once again  
got out of the cart
 and approached the ball 
yes   
they indeed do have the mo jo 
ultimately  to order 
the  cheney folks 
infesting  our white house 
to stop acting as oily-cons 
and do the right thing here
take out the wedge 
and lag one  back up on the fairway 
instead of going for broke
which for sure meansa huge spray of flying dirt
and the ball
 staying in the sand trap 
 
yup 
 thats whats up now i think 

because as u say  
a further deepening of the ME quag 
undermines broader interests 
  on many counts and fronts  
                ...at least at this time  
 
hey   
its my hunch  
the good news gospel 
is already in the hopper 

i'd bet  
the stand down has already been agreed to  
and now  
we don't know it yet
but
we're into
the decent interval phase

the  wiggling out has  commence 

of course it will prceeed 
under a barrage of parting bluster  
   look like both itself and its opposite 
as it pursues its
 foxy  zig zags 
and 
    most important of all
 it will proceed
        with all deliquent speed  
 
 but here's the bright bottom line 
 
the naked  string holding up 
                      peace in the persian gulf 
                              will not brake 

sure hell wil continue to have
nearly a free  hand in  mesopotamia proper

but in the larger region .. for now  any how ...

 a cold peace 

  

and all because 
these bigger forces weighed in 
at well 

maybe even as late as
                     the 11th hour  
to stop the bush war wagon 
from doing any more senseless dammage   
 
so
here a bravo  for them 

    "the enemy of my enemy is...."
 
i just won't let these saviours 
of our bacon 
dress themselves up 
as "the national interest"  
 
 
after all  
i had nothing to gain from the saddam topple  
and  
i  for damn sure
 ain't got no  dog 
in this  snarky  iran nuke biz either 

 which  
 is a status 
       i share with prolly  
                        a good 90% of america  
and oh

not to forget 
 
there's the little matter
of my unwanted  
         share in 
     the sunk costs we've incurred over there

since 
so far as we can say now
the plan is
to put 
the entire sand caper  
on  uncle's visa card 
 
which means its   
largely coming out 
of  us  non player dweebs pocket some day 

never did like the idea 
of letting some  high roller
               gamble with my chips