The war is easily won, but we do not want to win: we want a long war.
War ends We win: when we pass a law that makes the minimum price of gasoline at the pumps: $1.75/gallon; billion dollar/million barrel per day ethanol stills will not be built without protection from OPEC monopoly pricing rusting out our new stills.
The ethanol investors do not build ethanol distilleries because monopoly OPEC would lower the price to rust out their billion dollar million barrel a day ethanol still. Brazil is energy independent: ethanol; All their cars come built running on ethanol; Archer Daniel Midland made millions on $1.00 gallon ethanol in the 1990s; that trumps any canard/invalid objection to ethanol. Use Cellulose ethanol, not corn ethanol.
With all the cars running on ethanol; the price of oil will collapse and the radical Moslem hordes will no longer have the funds we used to give them from gasoline sales to finance the war against us.
Sharia people are at war with The West because Sharia people believe Islam can not survive against: a free market economy with free speech to criticize Islam, representative Republic.
no such thing as "moderate Islam".... As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said
The governments of the world led by the USA and international law, have defined a set of war rule parameters that guarantee no war can be won by good guys and that guarantee nice long lasting wars with lots of weapons sales.
Generals: Patton. Eisenhower, Marshall , Sherman et al would all be war criminals under current international law and Europe would be under Hitler.
Cut off terrorist infested areas: no phones, no lights, no motorcars not a single luxury. No food, no water, nothing till they give up the terrorist. Better the terrorist and their hostages should die right there than have a hundred year war where the world is terrorized for 100 years.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
- 1
- 2
‘My Endorsement is Irrelevant’
- Share:
-
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Those almost sound like Obama talking points. Could you see yourself working in an Obama cabinet--or in any other candidate's future cabinet?
I'm not looking for a new job. I don't expect to be in any government. I haven't thought about it, and won't think about it. This is all far bigger than me, anyway. My endorsement is totally irrelevant. The problems we face are so much bigger than any one of us.
Yet, in your book, you still describe yourself as an optimist. Sounds like maybe you're a hope kind of guy? Or that at least you're not dismissive, as the Clintonites have been, of hope as 'just words'?
[Laughs] Well, first of all, I think, every individual in life has to have hope about the world being better. I don't think you can live a life without hope. Hope is more than just a word; it's part of who we are. Hope alone, sure, may be just a word. That's what I was referring to before. How do you connect hope and possibilities and the future to the realities that will get you there? You can't hope your way to a better world. But you've got to start with something almost spiritual. Now, spiritualism is more than church. But you cannot, in my view, have a vision for a society like ours, which is founded on the idea of a supreme being, without some kind of hope.
You're retiring at the end of this term, and you say you're not looking for another job. What will frustrate you most, in terms of work left undone, when you exit the public sphere?
Well, it's always difficult to go against the popular tide of the moment on any issue....We're so consumed by and controlled by parties--this narrow channel that we're in. If you dare question your party, your president or anyone on your team, then you're 'disloyal.' Then Rush [Limbaugh] takes you out. Then you get emails from your state: 'How dare you not support the troops?' And we're off to the races, losing the point, all mindlessly staying in the same channel. There's a larger universe than that, which requires challenging and probing. You've gotta fight that fight every day.
In the book, you also raise the possibility of America embracing a third, or independent, party. But despite independent sentiment in the polls, there's been no discernible electoral viability for a third way. Do you really see the two parties getting weaker?
Yes, you're seeing the disintegration of political parties. The Internet is the most powerful and dynamic change in politics since television. The Internet is even more powerful, given its ability to organize, inform, educate, market, and raise money. This is a tremendous tool for bypassing the parties. Now, I wouldn't say parties are irrelevant. Our current campaign finance structure, with 527 loopholes, has allowed groups [connected to parties] to put millions of dollars into ads. But this is all changing.
You write about the need to address money in politics. You don't think the current campaign finance rules are sufficient. Could you ever see yourself supporting public financing of federal campaigns?
I don't think public financing is the way. But the bottom line is, we've got to get transparency and accountability, so the American people know who's giving money to who. If everyone knew about earmarks, and who's requesting them--if this were all out in front, instead of under the cloak of darkness, it would be better. I think we ought to have full disclosure in campaign finance. Every nickel, including the 527s. I find it offensive beyond anything to have so much cowardice in the system. If you are so cowardly not to have the courage to use your name, or to step up front when you want to question John Kerry's patriotism, I think you're despicable. If you wanna put millions of dollars into the race, you ought to put your name up front. We don't have that today.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
