Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says neocons are parasites “that latch onto democracy until it is no longer convenient.” [More Below]
In the interview by Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story (published March 30 at Alternet.org), Ritter critiques Wolfowitz, Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and has some interesting comments about oil companies:
Paul Wolfowitz:
Paul Wolfowitz was a salesman; his job was to sell a war. … [I]n an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, … he acknowledged that WMDs and the threat they posed, was nothing more than a vehicle to sell this war to America. …
Karen Hughes:
Hughes – she is a salesperson; she will sell the policy. She is irrelevant. She is nothing. Her appointment means nothing. Rice has already capitulated to the Pentagon and the White House, and Hughes’ appointment is but a manifestation of that larger reality.
Condi Rice:
The State Department still has free thinkers in it. Rice is a dilettante. Anyone who was there during the Reagan era and her advising on Soviet policy knows how inept she is. She is not there because she is a brilliant secretary of state.
The media has bought into this, because the neocons cleverly put a woman, an African-American woman at that, into this position. So when Rice goes abroad, people do not look at the stupid things she says, they look at what she was wearing. …
Hillary Clinton:
Hillary is the manifestation of all that ails the Democratic Party. She stands for nothing. She has been compromised by her voting record … how can she stand for anything worth supporting? And yet she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, thus guaranteeing another neocon/Republican victory. ‘Dump Hillary Now’ would be the smartest move Dean could make as the new Democratic National Committee Chair. … Like I said, it might take two or three cycles, but it will happen.
Howard Dean:
Dean has to be part of the process of rebuilding and that will take time. Dean cannot run for president, because Dean cannot run as a Democrat – the party is not set up to sustain someone like him. He is one of the exceptions in a corrupt party. He is also not corrupted by his voting record. He is someone who represents something, he did not vote for the war in Iraq, for example. …
Oil Companies, were they for or against the war?
No oil professional in their right mind would support what is happening in Iraq. This isn’t part of a grand ‘oil’ strategy; it is simply pure unadulterated incompetence.
So they are concerned about their bottom lines, and chaos doesn’t forward that goal.
Right. Oil company executives are businessmen and they are in a business that requires long-term stability. They love dictators because they bring with them long-term stability. They don’t like new democracies because they are messy and unstable. I have not run into a major oil company that is willing to refurbish the Iraq oil fields and invest in oil field exploration and development. These are multi-billion dollar investments that, in order to be profitable, must be played out over decades. And in Iraq today you cannot speak out to projecting any stability in the near to mid-future.
Read the entire interview.
I hope that comment sinks in, because it is dead on:
“I have not run into a major oil company that is willing to refurbish the Iraqi oil fields and invest in oil field exploration and development.”
BigOil is not behind the Iraqi War. US government parasites like Halliburton are. But remember this: Halliburton does not feed off the oil, they feed off the US GOVERNMENT and of course, off your taxes. Oil is just an industry with a lot of money in it, and a lot of government intervention.
Of course, Ritter is right. I hope we find a strong, smart candidate in ’08, who balances pragmatism & vision, who can communicate broad-brush ideas, yet has an astute grasp of finer points & details of policy. A very tall order.
Wonder if Ritter would consider…? Hmmm.
But I consider this a discriminatory remark, not his usual style.
Disagree with Condi Rice on arguments!
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Maybe it sounds discrinatory, but here in the US, we were treated to a great deal of chatter about her wearing stiletto-heeled lace-up boots during a troop inspection when she was on her “make nice with Europe” tour. If she were a man, we would never have heard about the footwear.
And if she was any sort of professional diplomat, she would have dressed appropriately for the occasion. Man or woman, don’t wear a target then act surprised when people throw darts.
if Karl Rove was wearing those stiletto-heeled lace-up boots…
This is starting to sound like an excellent opportunity for someone with some Photoshopping skills…although the visual makes me go “Eeewww!”
it would be funny, in that J Edgar Hoover disturbing sort of way.
Look at my outfit- see me play the piano, watch me hob-nob…. ignore my complete lack of a coherent argument other that selling whatever snake oil my boss has me out peddling.
One must have arguments to counter- as all of her positions are based on arguments from authority created by her frivolous- dilletant image, it is appropriate to attack her on that image.
If the Emperor has no clothes, this particular minister is an empty suit.
Compilation of some comments made on different threads and updated faulty link.
$$$ billions have gone wasted in the first two years of US rule in Iraq under Paul Bremer and John Negroponte. You have to do your own search for the “no need to be responsible” and no-bid contracts awarded KBR, Titan, Halliburton, Accenture, etc, etc.
Clearly the Bush | Cheney | Rove team have NEVER been misled. The NEOCONS had their plans for the Middle East Peace [OIL] concept drawn up years ago. The “pissed off or on” charade is for the “buhne” or public consumption only.
Numerous sources have confirmed that President Bush blames [Chalabi] for the Iraqi intelligence failures and intensly dislikes him. In fact during a recent telephone call with King Abdullah of Jordan, Bush told the king that he could “piss on Ahmed Chalabi”.
In contrast neo-cons like Perle continue to publicly defend their former golden boy. Maybe they never understood that Chalabi …
Perle’s defence of Chalabi is to be interpreted as a pretense to save face and his own credibility. Never say you made a mistake or misjudgement. The interpretation of all false intelligence was what the feud between State – Powell – and DoD – Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith – was all about. Which agenda to follow. Dick Cheney’s operation since Election 2000 was the determination to get Saddam Hussein [`s OIL] no matter what.
When it became clear in Iraq which side Chalabi chose, Iranian influenced people, the DoD team had to disgrace Chalabi and move forward with other puppets. Nothing wrong with WH IQ.
… on the future development of important investments in Iran. Clearly the nuclear facilitities [FOSSIL deposits] in Iran is a major issue. Halliburton website.
The Board should be assured however, that the U.S. Sanctions do not prohibit them as individuals, or as the Halliburton Company Board of Directors, from having knowledge of the activity there.
As far as Pakistan’s cooperation with the US administration in the War on Terror, after the initial political pressure on president and dictator Musharraf, all was well with large US taxpayers money flowing into Pakistan’s failing economy. The primary recipients of US tax money? Right, Halliburton et all.
Respectfully, a Great Diary on important US issues!
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité