Gary Hart: An October Surprise (Friedman, Hagel and others...hmmm!)

[ProSense]

Gary Hart
08.05.2006

An October Surprise

Depending on the fate of Senator Joe Lieberman on Tuesday, it should come as no surprise to anyone when (not if) the Bush administration announces a dramatic plan to exit Iraq sometime before the Congressional elections this fall.

As an increasing number of Republican Members of Congress confront unhappy, sometimes angry, constituents finally fed up with the absence of purpose in the continued U.S. occupation and the death and dismemberment of young American troops for no purpose having to do either with combating the jihad or making the U.S. secure, they will demand White House rescue for their political careers.

Since, with precious few exceptions, political careers trump principle, and since the cabal of neoconservatives and the religious right intend to govern forever, the genius Karl Rove will concoct a patently phony Iraq exit strategy.

But even as President Bush rolls out the bogus plan in the Rose Garden, surrounded by trembling Congressmen, and claims "victory" in Iraq, work will continue around the clock on the American fortress in central Baghdad and on the permanent military garrisons in the countryside.

It was all forecast years ago in the final scene of the movie Three Days of the Condor when the CIA official Higgins explains to the naive CIA research character portrayed by Robert Redford: "Of course it's about the oil. Do you think the American people care how we get it? They just want us to get it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/an-october-surprise_b_26589.html

[bleever]

1. "Karl Rove will concoct a patently phony Iraq exit strategy",

just like the phony plan to "save" social security, or the phony "reversal" on the Dubai ports sale, which seems to be going ahead anyway.

Hart is a great thinker, and it's always worthwhile to read his take on things.

[xchrom]

2. just like the phony plan rove concocted to get us into iraq.

[Sparkly]

3. That makes CT an even bigger bellweather...

I've long suspected they'd have the Iraqi government "ask us to leave" as soon as they really wanted out -- but yes, with fingers on their oil and permanent military bases intact.

Then all they have to do is define and declare "victory" and off we go.

Btw, I think Gary Hart is a VERY credible person on these matters. He's always worth listening to.

[MrSlayer]

4. But.....he had an AFFAIR!

He is immoral and unchristian unlike the great and powerful Chimp. Why should we believe anything he has to say?

[RufusEarl]

5. President Hart, has a nice ring to it !

I know his name never comes up when discussing presidential hopefuls, but i believe he would make a great president.

[HereSince1628]

6. He could have been president

He probably would have made a great president if the picture of the gal on his lap hadn't been published.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. People forget about 1984

The Donna Rice incident was in 1988, but in 1984, he should have won the nomination.
With typical idiotic machine-politics, the Democratic Party coronated the sleepy-eyed Walter Mondale by front-loading the primaries and having those annoying "super-delegates". Even with all this, Hart really gave him a run for it.

Reagan was far from unassailable in '84, and Hart could have really had a chance.

[welshTerrier2]

7. not so fast there, Mr. Hart ...

I'm a big fan of "Three Days of the Condor" ... in fact, I have made numerous references in past DU posts to the very scene that Mr. Hart referenced in his article ... the movie, as Mr. Hart very rightly pointed out, is very relevant today because of its focus on the Middle East and its focus on oil ...

but Mr. Hart left a glaring omission when he used the closing quote from the movie ...

specifically, far more analysis and discussion are needed about the lines: "Do you think the American people care how we get it? They just want us to get it."

What's at issue here is the very essence of what is the US policy in the Middle East ... one view, and it seems implicit in the lines Hart used, is that, while you might disagree with the methods being used, the US government is acting in the best interests of its citizens by doing all it can to procure the oil our country desperately needs ...

But there's a second view that Mr. Hart's cursory treatment of the issue completely glosses over ... This view does not see the actions and objectives of our government in nearly as positive a way ... This view sees a government that sends its youth to war to procure larger and larger corporate profits for Big Oil ... It argues that the real motive is not to serve the best interests of Americans but rather to serve the special interests ...

One might even argue that the two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive ... Still, even in doing so, one still must conclude that Mr. Hart has failed, at least in this article, to even recognize one of the argument's two components ...

Perhaps, if the very legitimate goal of the US government is to ensure the stable flow of oil from the Middle East and from many other global suppliers, reducing global hostilities rather than inflaming them would be a far more reasonable strategy ... Highly destabilized markets have done nothing but drive up the price of oil and dump all time record profits into the bank accounts of Big Oil's largest shareholders ... If the proof is in the pudding, there sure are some guys with a lot of pudding ... One might conclude, based on this, that we are not in Iraq to procure oil for Americans at all but rather to destabilize the oil markets ...

Mr. Hart came up a bit short by failing to even address this issue ...

[MissWaverly]

8. Yes, Cokie Roberts spilled the beans on ABC This Weeik

If Lamont wins it would be terrible, then Congressman would start playing to their base. Isn't
that their job, NOT.

[wisteria]

10. As plausible as your scenario is, I can not make myself believe

that our government could be so greedy and sinister to just be doing this to assist oil companies obtain larger oil profits alone.

[hatrack]

11. How about direct, physical militarized control of oil assets?

Kind of just add this on to what you mentioned in your post, and that should make it clear.