Gloom and Gloomer
By Brian Lambert
I'm a fan of Vanity Fair columnist James Wolcott—he's in my "recommended" list to the right here. There's something about his literate, bulls**t-resistant snobbery that I find immensely refreshing. In the current issue, he delivers a hefty recap of the innumerable Bush-related books already published and the gobs more due up this spring and summer. (At some point after three or four of these things, any sane person either has a gun to their head or is stocking canned goods for that tar-paper shack in Patagonia, but Wolcott soldiers on.)
I've been watching a new Frontline documentary (a four-and-a-half-hour opus titled "Bush's War" that I'll post on that later this week), and along with this morning's news of gargantuan Wall St. money house Bear Stearns being sold for $2 a share and Lehman Brothers on the verge of impacting into the same smoldering crater, I was fascinated by this excerpt, which Wolcott pulled from a London Review of Books piece by a guy named Jim Holt.
|
Writes Wolcott: As for Iraq, Jim Holt makes the persuasive counter-intuitive argument for this thesis in a piece for the London Review of Books called “It’s the Oil, Stupid,” which begins, “Iraq is ‘unwinnable,’ a ‘quagmire,’ a ‘fiasco’: so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be ‘stuck’ precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no ‘exit strategy.’ ” Spreading democracy in the region was never the goal, a quick in-and-out never in the cards, despite Michael Gerson’s misty-eyed testimony to the contrary. The goal was to take control of Iraq’s oil resources and stand guard over its infrastructure, which is why military bases with world-capital-size airport runways and suburban comforts (miniature-golf courses, fast-food restaurants, sports fields) are under boomtown construction in Iraq. Holt writes, “The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest—including all yet to be discovered oil—under foreign corporate control for 30 years.” All in all, a pretty sweet deal for the U.S. and trans-national corporations, paid for in part thus far by the sacrifice of nearly 4,000 American troops and countless thousands of Iraqis, a necessary cost of doing business if you don’t mind having others get their hands bloody. Holt:The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades—a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics—dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration—could scarcely have been more effective. The costs—a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws)—are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success. |
And here's the entire London Review of Books piece.
All this can be filed somewhere under the heading of the old adage about paranoia. You know, where you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you? The present moment is so monumentally chaotic and FUBAR—with the President of the United States "unaware" about $4 gas prices, not knowing much about the new President of Russia, and babbling almost incoherently last Thursday in front of highly stressed Wall St. bankers (nice Gail Collins Saturday in The New York Times), you—hell, WE—have every reason to suspect more strongly than ever that there has to be some kind of grand plan behind this much mayhem. (We conspiracy-minded types like to think as much, you know. It makes us feel good. I mean, otherwise it'd be like the government and the biggest banks on Wall St. are being run by the fools of the class, not the smartest kids like they always said they were.)
Sample from Collins: The president squinched his face and bit his lip and seemed too antsy to stand still. As he searched for the name of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (“the king, uh, the king of Saudi”) and made guy-fun of one of the questioners (“Who picked Gigot?”), you had to wonder what the international financial community makes of a country whose president could show up to talk economics in the middle of a liquidity crisis and kind of flop around the stage as if he was emcee at the Iowa Republican Pig Roast. |
The underlying media criticism to all this is simply to ask, again, ad nauseam, how much of these points of view do you ever get in your hometown ("local, local, hyper-local") media, newspapers, or 10 o'clock news, and why? Moreover, if the rationale is that these are national and international controversies already well-handled in the national and international press, ask yourself what was the last time any major national news outlet (those would be the biased-ones always unfairly pillorying the current administration) have devoted four-and-a-half hours to a definitive history of the Iraq debacle or thorough discussion of theories, such as Mr. Holt's.
(The answer is, of course, that even at this late date, other than on PBS or Countdown, The Daily Show, or Colbert, people such as Wolcott and Holt and their kind of thinking are still considered too whacked out for prime time and insufficiently relevant for "local, local" consumption. I mean, "It's all about oil?" How 2003 is that?)
Finally, if all of this hasn't just made your day, I gotta include this clip of CNBC money man, Jim Cramer, ranting about the business of terrestrial radio.
Quoting from the copy in the link above:
These stocks are so intrinsically broken, Cramer said, that they are not fit to own even when the broader market rebounds.
Terrestrial radio’s biggest problem is retaining advertising revenues as more ad dollars are siphoned by the internet. In 2007 total ad dollars for radio fell to where they were in 2003. That point to an industry going backwards, not forward, Cramer said.
The average market cap of terrestrial radio companies has declined by a staggering 80 percent throughout the last five years. But the bottom isn’t even in yet, as far as Cramer can tell.
Before we get too carried away with Cramer the TV money guru, let's not overlook this choice piece of advice.
I haven't quite figured out how to slide Dick Cheney into the collapse of terrestrial radio—other than, of course, a politicized SEC getting greased by K Street—, but I'm working on it.
There, everyone feel better?
Maybe tomorrow I'll check in and see what's up with American Idol. I hear they eliminated a stripper last week.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I guess you don't like President Bush.
As far as the stock market goes, if you ever get a job running a financial company do not leverage 32:1. If you do, you will find yourself in dire straights when 7% of your investments become non-producers. That is what Bear Stearns and some of the other financial institutions did.
LAMBERT: And they were the smart kids, right?
Posted by: Bleuler on March 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Is it possible that Bush will know the cost of gasoline come January '09? He'll be watching the price of oil closely, as it will be lining his pocket once again. For five years I have thought that Iraq was indeed "all about the oil."
Yet, I couldn't figure out why we weren't seeing any positive impact from it. Perhaps it was it a six year plan for Bush and Cheney. The conflict of interest won't apply next year.
LAMBERT: A "six-year plan"! I should have known.
Posted by: Mr. Monster on March 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Why worry ourselves with conspiracies and innuendo? We've got plenty of real issues to discuss right here in Minnesota.
Yes, I'll admit I can't help myself when it comes to Michelle Bachmann. My favorite politician is back at it again according to the Political Animal over at the Pioneer Press. These quotes came from the West Sherburne Tribune on Saturday and again today at the Political Animal (to give credit where credit is due):
Michelle Bachmann on McCain: "He is not my man," she said. "Our candidate was chosen by the media. But there are other races out there."
Michelle Bachmann on Global Warming: "The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It's all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax," Bachmann said. "The tax cap and trade system for limiting emissions is just another tax on businesses. By 2012, incandescent light bulbs will be no more. Fluorescent bulbs are more polluting because of their mercury content. We are working on the light bulb bill. If the Democrats can hose up a light bulb don't trust them with the country."
Michelle Bachmann On Iraq and the Media: Bachmann recalled having Christmas Eve dinner with General Petraeus, who told her Baghdad was 80% secure and that the head of the insurgency there threw in the towel, saying he wanted to live in a stable society.
"What our service men and women have accomplished over there has been nothing short of astounding," she said "Though you never hear about it in the media. God has not abandoned us."
Three points:
1. That might be the strongest endorsement John McCain will receive in Minnesota this year. If Bachmann doesn't like him, he can't be that bad. I'm sure the Senator isn't losing any sleep over not getting the nod from Bachmann.
2. The Light Bulb Bill? I'm all for it as long as it contains the provision allowing residents of her district to finally be able to pull the switch to activate her brain.
3. Brian, this one is for you. She's claiming she had dinner with The General of Christmas Eve. Umm, can we have that confirmed? That one sounds like another of those oh so famous Bachmann fantasies and doesn't quite pass the proverbial smell test.
With leaders like these, is it any wonder we're at five years and counting?
LAMBERT: Damn good stuff. The lady is our Dan Quayle ... with the zeal of a true believer. (Quayle just wanted to get through the day and back to the golf course.)
But Christmas Eve dinner with Gen. Petraeus? Do you think she was imagining him coming down her chimney?
Posted by: Danny B. on March 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM
I'm shocked Brian! In your well-written post you seem to compliment Bush in being smart enough to engineer a take over Iraq for oil plan.
Wish I could agree with you but I still think Bush underestimated the effort (in Iraq) and had a bone to pick from his father's bad experience years before.
Bush last week sounded like a corporate CEO trying to pump his stock up. In other words, his nose was growing as he spoke. No doubt that the mess this weekend from the fed was politically motivated. The fed should have stayed out of this and allowed BS to fail. Oil prices will continue to increase as the dollars value decreases thanks to the fed.
The economy and oil scare me until the election passes. Both parties will trip over themselves to put lipstick on the pig so to speak.
LAMBERT: Let's keep in mind that either way you prefer to look at it Bush himself was a remarkably passive player. The "active role" was played by Cheney.
Posted by: Dave on March 17, 2008 at 4:50 PM
I'm sure she'd rather see General Petraeus than Santa Claus.
If it were Santa, she'd immediately make a citizen's arrest declaring Santa an illegal immigrant in our country for failing to carry a valid passport and Visa in his bag of gifts and for operating his sleigh without a proper US license.
I'm wondering if she ever had dinner with him at all? And if it turns out to not be true, is that a story?
LAMBERT: Oh, that'll be a story. The problem is that the Democrats don't appear to have anyone running in her district to make it stick.
Posted by: Danny B. on March 17, 2008 at 4:59 PM
What I love about these ever so discerning pieces by these brilliant scrutators re: President Bush's manifest incompetence, craven fealty to the narrow special interests of his cronies and inability to coherently express anything but a bellicose thought is the spot-on timeliness of them.
In the event of the 22nd Amendment's repeal and Bush runs again, the voters will be well-armed with the unvarnished facts and penetrating analysis. Thanks.
Anything we should about the people running now? Or should we expect that too to hit the blogosphere just as the eventual winner is leaving office?
LAMBERT: Better later than never, I guess. Particularly in this case, where so many policies need to be indicted and convicted in order to prevent their return. But recidivism is a big problem in D.C.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on March 17, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I'd be gloomy about all this, but Dancing With The Stars began last night, and I can't get Penn Jillette and Adam Carolla out of my mind. The government should have propped them up instead of those limp-dicks at Bear Stearns. Ah, yes, the masters of the universe.
Just in case, though, I've got dibs on the corner of 6th and Nicollet when it comes time to selling apples.
LAMBERT: Even in tough times it is still all about location, location , location.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on March 18, 2008 at 9:13 AM
What is this?
A foaming liberal "re-print" column?
A virulently anti-Bush hate column?
Or a local media column in a Twin Cities lifestyle mag??
Where's the breathless Suppelsa speculation?
The latest "The CW" rumination?
LAMBERT: That's why YOU have daily newspapers.
Posted by: bertram jr on March 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The Michelle Bachmann information is just too good. Brian, you are way overdue for a blog dedicated to her. The thought of Michelle and Ann Coulter leaving their polling places next November with an "I Voted for Anybody but McCain"
sticker is priceless.
Can't wait to see what Dem decides to co-sponsor the "Light Bulb Bill."
LAMBERT: I still can't get the picture of Bachmann imagining Gen. Petraeus as Santa Claus out of my mind.
Posted by: Mr. Monster on March 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM
And to think that Bush could have learned some business (ethics) from the years when he ran his not one, not two, but three businesses into the ground. Good thing he had a back up career in mind--destroying the environment, wrecking the economy, oh yeah and making America look like a bunch of dumb arses. BL--love love love the column. Peace, the Biotech Nerd Girl
LAMBERT: There is no satisfaction whatsoever in shouting "I told you so", even though I said in 2000 that W was quite possibly the least qualified person to ever become president. No business or governmental success, negligible intellectual curiosity, no experience beyond American borders. Hell, no military experience. Incredible, but true. I still want the bumper sticker, "Warren Harding is Resting Easier".
Posted by: Rebecca on March 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
To be fair to Michelle Bachmann (words I never thought I'd say or type), she was in the Middle East over Christmas. I did a Google Search and found she did spend Christmas with the troops this year in Kuwait and Iraq.
What I can't determine is whether she met Petraeus or not for dinner. Most of the information comes from various political blogs so the extent of her visit and whether or not she had dinner with the General is not available. It's all the usual opinion stuff you get from blogs. From what I can infer from reading blogs from both sides of the aisle is that she had a meal with 5,000 troops, but there is no mention of General Petraeus being there.
Is it possible that she spent Christas Eve with the General? Yes. Is it possible that he told her that story? Yes. Would I trust Michelle's recollection of the events? Not in my lifetime. Am I surprised that CJ didn't have an article breaking down what Michelle wore on the trip? Totally.
I'm still not sure how she gets that God is on our side, fantasy or not. I guess I'll chalk it up to a Freudian slip where she was referring to our effort there as a fight pitting Christianity against Islam instead of one with "freedom" fighting against the "evil-doers."
LAMBERT: And yet she stands an excellent chance of reelection.
Posted by: Danny B. on March 18, 2008 at 11:36 AM
As long as we're discussing conspiracy theories...
* Are there really Republicans voting for Clinton in the latest and future to ensure that she's the Democrats nominee? After all, they don't have to bother with voting in the Republican primaries because McCain is it.
* If so, are they doing this with the thought that if Clinton becomes the nominee, more moderates will vote in the final race for McCain?
* Is the Bachmann/Coulter "I'll vote for anyone but McCain" actually a sneaky way of making a Republican (McCain) more palatable to moderate voters?
Wouldn't "yes" to all of these questions go further toward enabling a McCain win in November -- and possibly ensuring at least four more years of Republican control of the executive branch?
If so, then perhaps conspiracy theorists have a point.
Why? Because there are Democrats who would vote for McCain (as a moderate) before they would elect Hillary (another Clinton) to the White House. Or, given those two choices, would choose to vote for Nader as a protest -- and therefore probably help to ensure a McCain win.
It's a very possible scenario.
LAMBERT: For a long time I thought it was fear of setting off the echo chamber that had so many Democrats dead set against Hillary. Like they just couldn't stomach another round of 24-7 Swift Boat-style lunacy. But it is deeper, and I think valid. Whether your issue is the economy, health care (where I still like her plan more than Obama's), Iraq, corporate mendacity the lack of due diligence, supervision and the sheer absence of solution-seeking requires a dramatic transformation of executive thinking. Hillary can't go there. Obama might be able, if he can bring and hold his "sustainable majority".
Posted by: Tuned In on Washington on March 18, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I've developed this awful, gnawing feeling that Hillary will be McCain's running mate. A shocking and unlikely scenario to be sure, but...........she seems to like and respect him far more than she does Obama, and she appears hellbent on a strategy that says to Obama,"If I can't be President, neither can you!" Moreover, such a ticket reduces any need for McCain to reach out to the conservative base whom he detests, and appeals to those anti-Obama Dems instead. It also works for Hillary because McCain will likely die in office when his head explodes during one of his fits of rage.
What sayeth you, oh great Oz?
LAMBERT: Dude. Go to your sock drawer or wherever you stash that bottle of Southern Comfort so the in-laws don't think you're nipping again, and take a long, long draw. You may be right hat Hillary is fundamentally more sympatico with McCain than this cool new guy, but the thought of Hillary in close orbit to the Oval Office would have the wing-nuts maxing out their Oxycontin.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on March 18, 2008 at 12:44 PM