Climate Hussein – Saddam Change

This is the first in a series of none–too–soon, historical glimpses at the soon to be infamous...

BUSH LEGACY

Some seven years ago, BushCO descended into Washington, driven into office by a media–push that nailed his opponent as 'Al Gore: the Liar', painting him as Clinton Twice, and it was done. (Upon deprecation of its own historically-neutral role in State Voting Cases, by the US Supreme Court)

The question posed now, for this first essay is this: what makes Bush's stance on Climate Change any different from that which he took against Saddam Hussein?

Justifying the war in Iraq, which circumvented sixty to nearly four hundred years of developed International Law, much of our modern era international structures having been expressly fashioned via American input and legal theory after World War II, Bush the Lesser turned toward his ideological lackeys, for the creation of his Bush Doctrine.

a reminder, that cZENm does not 'rely' on Wikipedia, but
finds it totally acceptable as a first step for
anyone seeking deeper understanding
(especially if you go to the footnoted links for further reading)

The Bush Doctrine presented the premise that, when a nation has 'evidence' of imminent attack, international law cannot force that nation into a paralytic state, awaiting 'nuclear annihilation' or otherwise. Experts in International Law (“I-law”) universally attacked such an opened Pandora's Box, announcing that its implementation would also lead to imitation: a form of flattery otherwise occasionally denominated as 'Blowback' (which most often relates to Intelligence-efforts).

Bush, Cheney, and their admin–underlings, Rice, or Powell; in concerted effort these Neoconservatives trumpeted a theory that many Americans accepted in overwhelmingly strong numbers after September 11, 2001: fear of the unknown potential future actions of Saddam Hussein were sufficient 'imminent threat' to start an action, widely condemned around the world, to structure an invasion force, invade, conquer, and 'liberate'. The timing of their fearmongering, not incidentally, allowed a strong Republican increase in the 2002 Congressional elections.

The rest is history.

This presents the situation posed in our title, above: what makes Climate Change any different than Saddam Hussein?

Rephrasing: is hypothetical, yet unrealistic action taken by a despot, whom our CIA helped to attain his dictatorial powers, which provokes real action by a US president, any different from actions observed whose overwhelming data announces significant climatic shifts that will, more likely than not, return to any former state of equilibrium?

Bush took America and its taxpayers to the well, in hyped–out propaganda drives that have cost this country a better future, to create the paranoiac state of a perpetual War on Terror, with seven and five-year actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Similar actions, the Fear Campaigns, included the Social Security 'SCARE' of summer 2006, and the vastly more deadly Financial Crash of fall 2008.

John, you didn't run far enough...

Bush fought America and its taxpayers all the way, in denying action and evidence on Climate Change, asking for the sufficient level of proof that he could have demanded in Iraq, by supporting the UN Inspections under supervision by Hans Blix.

Imminent attack by a weakened Middle Eastern dictator – imminent climatic evolution?

“We don't have in our possession, sufficient confirmatory proof to act...”.

Such was not said, against Saddam, and the Bush Legacy is what it is, based on one man's claim of Leadership...

___çç*******/ ZENmud \*******çç___

© 2008

No jokes in Pakistan...

At ZENmud productions, we've seriously debated whether this line of thought will send assassins to our door...

What happened these last days in Pakistan, seems like a message, but not the kind that the press is discussing on Page ONE.

We're lost, thinking of how Benazir Bhutto's death is the culmination of several intersecting lines of past history and current events. Without the key elements, however (and 'whew!!!' that we don't know those...), the only thing to do is to cast these disparate elements on the table, like I Ching yarrow sticks...


The ELEMENTS:

In 1996 or so, the Taliban were created and installed in Afghanistan, as a means of solidifying a rogue State; the group was trained and exported from Pakistan. Pakistan was then the first State to recognize, diplomatically and officially, the new Afghani government.

As we saw in newsreels, some of which were included in the Michael Moore film FAHRENHEIT 9-11, at about that same time, a pipeline was under discussion between various governments and the US company UNOCAL; Moore showed footage of the Taliban being entertained by Governor GW Bush.

At about the same time that the Taliban refused to dance, on the UNOCAL proposal, or shortly thereafter, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was hotting up its rhetoric, calling for a 'Pearl Harbor' type of 'cataclysmic event' that would force US citizens to think differently about foreign policy.

In 1999, Pervez Musharraf became President of Pakistan, in an ingenious coup-d'Etat: while circling over Pakistani soil in a plane, former PM Sharif had refused entry to Musharraf's plane, after a short 'war' with India had gone very much awry. That war, planned by Musharraf, was condemned by the international community, yet! When Musharraf was denied entry by Sharif, that provoked the PK generals to oust Sharif, allowing Musharraf to land with some seven minutes of fuel remaining.

One cannot but include the bin Laden/Bush/Baker/Major connections through the Carlyle Group, a major privately-held US corporation that invests in the machinery of war, and recently has diversified into communications acquisitions.

Bush takes over the US Presidency, from a decision by the US Supreme Court.

Bin Laden (AKA Usama during Clinton's reign, changed to 'Osama' during the Bush administration) makes himself central player of the three Islamic dynamos, being Yassar Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and Usama bin Laden.

Bush creates his first WAR Coalition, to take over the Taliban government, reek havoc on the innocent Afghani people (mostly, and nearly bombed out of existence over the preceding twenty years).

Bush takes Musharraf's offers of support and alliance with the US government, paying a monstrous amount of money annually for Pakistan's help on the "WAR FOR TERROR" (A ZENmud post on that here), from 2001 until today.


IRAQ... sigh...



Throughout these war-wearied years, a dance between Bush, Musharraf and bin Laden has undermined American support of the perpetual Bush war plans... and bin Laden has enjoyed perhaps the longest streak of failures ever displayed by the 'mightiest force on Earth'... due to complicity by any of his partners, whom we can only fear knowing, whether domestically located within the USA, or elsewhere.



AND, reading today about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, ZENmud productions is left with one recurring thought:

IF Bhutto, an opponent of Musharraf, was assassinated by factions loyal to bin Laden, then there can be no doubt on Earth, that bin Laden is showing gratitude towards his host, as a GUEST, for the luxury of a peaceful existence so near to two US Armed Forces actions, by reducing the Pakistani opposition to 'rubble'.

IF it isn't clear yet, who's playing whom against whom, it could very well be that there is no part of any recent history emanating from these 'Stanistan' countries, that IS as it APPEARS to be.

Is the last series of Pakistan events, rotating between Bhutto's return, the emergency martial law month, and now her assassination, a reward for Musharraf (or his military, or Intelligence Service?), to Musharraf, for his perpetual "We honestly don't know..." responses to those who 'want' to find bin Laden???


SEE ALSO:

The Perverzions of Two Presidencies...

After America, what?

Try this at home...

Courage, as the uncontrollable expands exponentially

ç*””*”*”*ç*””* ZENmud *””*ç*”*”*””*ç