February 28, 2008

Michael Klare: Blame it on the Arabs.

Over the last few years most americans could not have failed to notice the hikes in the price of fossil fuels and the equally major increases in america’s trade and budgetary deficits and national debt. It would not be surprising therefore if they assumed a connection between the two. And, given the common belief that america imports most of its oil from the middle east, this may well lead many americans into blaming arab oil producers for their country’s economic crises. The juxtaposition of rising oil prices and america’s growing economic calamities has created a potentially explosive political situation in which islamophobic propagandists could try to win popular support by denouncing arab oil producers for america’s economic plight.

In his article ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ michael t klare is one of the first commentators to draw attention to the contribution of rising oil prices to america’s economic woes. But, rather than putting the issue in an objective context he goes out of his way to scapegoat arab oil producers for the declining living standards of millions of americans.

It is important to be precise about the case against klare. Klare proposes that high oil prices are the primary cause of america’s economic crises. But, he does not blame arab oil producers for driving up the global price of oil. He points out the two main factors which have caused oil prices to rise but neither have anything to do with the arab world. Whilst this may seem to clear klare of any accusation that he’s stirring up animosities against arab oil producers he insinuates their guilt in a number of ways. Firstly, given the scale of islamophobia in america, the proposition that high oil prices are the cause of america’s economic troubles is almost certainly going to be translated by ordinary americans into the belief that their problems are being caused by arab oil despots. Just how many ordinary americans are likely to appreciate klare’s subtle distinction: that arab rulers are not to blame for high oil prices but that high oil prices are to blame for america’s economic woes? If he’d gone out of his way to state categorically that arab rulers are not responsible for driving up the global price of oil, the accusation against him would fall but, unfortunately, he makes no such statement. The accusation remains tenable because he must suspect what the vernacular interpretation of his proposition will be and he does nothing to discourage such an interpretation. Secondly, and much more seriously he insinuates that arab oil producers have been benefiting from high oil prices at america’s expense. And, thirdly, he throws fuel on the fire by suggesting they humiliated president bush by refusing to reduce global oil prices.

Klare’s article is a shocking example of left wing islamophobia. His analysis opens up the way for left wing zionists, the neo-lefties, to make their contribution to islamophobia now that their right wing counterparts, the neo-cons, seem to be losing their grip on political power.

The first half of this article outlines klare’s three main propositions concerning the relationship between rising oil prices and the stalling american economy. The second half provides a critique of each proposition. It explores the extent to which america’s grossly excessive oil imports are the cause of america’s economic problems. It highlights the factors contributing to rising oil prices. And finally it analyzes who is responsible for america’s economic woes. This article then points out that whilst klare is busy casting aspersions against arab rulers, he refuses to even mention the contribution of america’s jewish lobby in driving up oil prices and bringing about the country’s economic crises. Just as the neo-lefties defend their beloved jews-only state in palestine by suggesting that america’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq were ‘wars for oil’ rather than ‘wars for the jews’ they are now seeking to blame america’s economic crises on arab despots instead of america’s ruling jewish elite and the zionist state.

Klare’s Analysis of America’s Economic Woes.
Klare argues that a major cause of america’s current economic crises has been the dramatic increase in the price of imported oil which has drained dollars from american consumers to the world’s oil producers. He points out that "In 1998, crude oil cost about $11 a barrel .." but that by november 2007 it had reached $100. America’s oil import bill has correspondingly shot up dramatically. "In 1998, the United States paid approximately $45 billion for its imported oil; in 2007, that bill is likely to have reached $400 billion or more." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008). He concludes, "That constitutes the single-largest contribution to America's balance-of-payments deficit and a substantial transfer of wealth from the US economy to those of oil-producing nations." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008).

Klare believes two main factors are responsible for driving up the price of oil. "Meanwhile, two critical developments kept the cost of oil rising: a dramatic increase in global demand, largely driven by the emergence of China and India as major consuming nations; and a pronounced slowdown in the expansion of global supply, due mainly to a dearth of new discoveries and recurring political disorder in key oil fields already in production." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008). Clearly klare does not believe that greedy arab oil producers are to blame for forcing up the price of oil to increase their oil profits. But, he does not explicitly state that they are not to blame, which he ought to do given that most americans believe that most of their oil comes from the middle east.

Whilst klare does not blame arab oil despots for high oil prices he blames them for benefiting from the high price of oil by taking advantage of america’s consequent economic vulnerabilities. "Over the past decade, this country has squandered approximately one and a half trillion dollars on imported oil ... Today, a large share of this money is deposited in so-called sovereign-wealth funds (SWFs). Americans should get used to that phrase. It stands for giant pools of wealth that are under the control of government agencies like the Kuwait Investment Authority and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. These SWFs now control approximately $3 trillion in assets, and, with more petrodollars pouring into the petro-states every day, they are projected to hit the $12 trillion mark by 2015. What are those who control the sovereign-wealth funds doing with all this money? For one thing, buying up choice US assets at bargain-basement prices. In the past few months, Persian Gulf SWFs have acquired a significant stake in a number of prominent American firms, giving them a potential say in the future management of these companies. The Kuwait Investment Authority, for example, recently took a $12 billion stake in Citigroup and a $6.5 billion share in Merrill Lynch; the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority acquired a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup; and Mubadala Development of Abu Dhabi purchased a $1.5 billion share in the privately-held Carlyle Group." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008).

This quotation oozes bias. Firstly, even though all oil producing countries around the world benefit from high oil prices, klare shines the spotlight solely on arab oil producers.

Secondly, he gives the impression that only arabs have sovereign wealth funds when this is not the case. "The results of the evolving global economy include a much-weakened dollar and increased reliance by both the U.S. government and U.S. business on foreign creditors. Among these creditors are state-controlled agencies (or sovereign wealth funds) some of which, notably those of China, Russia, and oil-exporting Gulf states, are not enthralled, to say the least, with Krauthammer's unipolar vision." (Jim Lobe ‘Can the US Brace Its Fall?’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12380 February 18, 2008).

Thirdly, there are two ways of interpreting arab investments in american companies. Klare’s interpretation is that they are doing something harmful to the american economy. "For one thing, buying up choice US assets at bargain-basement prices." But the most obvious explanation is that such investments are playing a vital role in propping up american companies and the american economy. His insinuations about arab oil producers are even more illegitimate because he doesn’t praise them for investing far more heavily in the american economy than russia.

If klare’s thesis is translated into the language of tabloid editors it would be, ‘Gee whizz, the arabs are shafting us with high oil prices and then using our money to buy up american companies on the cheap.’ This is the neo-leftie version of islamoparanoia. Klare even indulges in a bit of anti-putin sentiment as a nod towards his neo-con associates. "These acquisitions are just a small indication of a massive, irreversible shift in wealth and power from the United States to the petro-states of the Middle East and energy-rich Russia." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008). This quote is remarkable in so much as klare admits that another country, besides arab states, is benefiting from high oil prices!

Klare then adds some political spice to his analysis by suggesting that, in january this year, bush was humiliated on his tour of the middle east when arab oil barons refused to come to the aid of the crisis ridden american economy. He alleges that bush "quite literally begged" saudi despots to boost oil production in order to reduce the global price of oil. "Nothing better captures the debilitating nature of America's dependence on imported oil than President George W Bush's humiliating recent performance in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He quite literally begged Saudi King Abdullah to increase the kingdom's output of crude oil in order to lower the domestic price of gasoline. "My point to His Majesty is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline, in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down," he told an interviewer before his royal audience. "If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of [Saudi] oil purchased." Needless to say, the Saudi leadership dismissed this implied threat for the pathetic bathos it was. The Saudis, indicated Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, would raise production only "when the market justifies it". With that, they made clear what the whole world now knows: The American bubble has burst, and it was oil that popped it. Thus are those with an "oil addiction" (as Bush once termed it) forced to grovel before the select few who can supply the needed fix." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008).

There is no evidence that bush’s request to saudi despots was anything like as "humiliating" as klare suggests. Jim lobe also indulges in such dramatic tosh. "Indeed, last month's image of President George W. Bush imploring King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production to boost the battered U.S. economy helped bring home the notion that the commander in chief's word no longer serves as an imperial command." (Jim Lobe ‘Can the US Brace Its Fall?’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12380 February 18, 2008). M k bhadrakumar is much more level headed. "To cap it all, "we're in a new oil policy ball game", as author Steve Yetiv and economist Lowell Feld recently wrote, which is that the US's capacity to ease oil prices is diminishing. On his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, US President George W Bush pushed the subject of high oil prices increasing the likelihood of an American, and therefore, a global recession. There was a time since the late 1970s until quite recently when the US's Saudi allies would have promptly pumped the market with additional oil for depressing the price. This time around, the Saudis heard out Bush, "noted that the weakening US economy is a valid concern, but they remain reluctant to increase oil supply". The two writers pointed out, "Saudi Arabia's reluctance to address sustained high oil prices, even in the face of a potential recession, represents an important break with past Saudi oil policy ... Why? The answer may define oil in the 21st century, or at least underscore the reasons for the US to seek greater oil independence."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The door to Iraq's oil opens’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB16Ak05.html February 16, 2008).

Criticisms of Klare’s Analysis.
Are American Oil imports the cause of America’s Economic Crises?
There are a number of factors contributing to the multiple crises afflicting the american economy.

* the bush regime’s huge tax reductions for the rich which have made it difficult to balance the federal budget;
* the mortgage industry’s sub-prime loans’ scandal;
* the finance industry’s scams selling worthless ‘structured investment vehicles’, ‘collateralized debt obligations’ (mortgages bundled into bonds), hedge funds, etc, etc, etc;
* the federal bank’s low interest rate policy which has caused huge levels of corporate and consumer indebtedness and an explosion in private-equity funds creating a stock market bubble;
* america’s multi-national corporations outsourcing production to cheaper labour markets in third world countries;
* the bush regime’s huge financial expenditures on the military invasions and occupations of afghanistan and iraq;
* the bush regime’s huge financial expenditures on the homeland security agency which has hyped up the threat of another terrorist attack on american soil beyond all practical considerations and financial restraints; and,
* the dramatic increase in food and commodity prices of which oil is the most prominent.

Klare does not carefully evaluate each of these factors to determine their precise contribution to america’s economic crises. On the contrary, he believes only two are worth mentioning. The primary cause of america’s economic woes is deemed to be the dramatically rising price of oil and the only other factor that is of similar importance is the collapse of sub-prime mortgages. "The economic bubble that lifted the stock market to dizzying heights was sustained as much by cheap oil as by cheap (often fraudulent) mortgages. Likewise, the collapse of the bubble was caused as much by costly (often imported) oil as by record defaults on those improvident mortgages. Oil, in fact, has played a critical, if little commented on, role in America's current economic enfeeblement, and it will continue to drain the economy of wealth and vigor for years to come." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008).

Cheap money gave rise to cheap mortgages and private equity groups. But it also enabled american consumers were able to suck in vast quantities of oil even when prices kept rising? Without cheap money, consumer demand for oil would not have been so great and there would have been much less upward pressure on oil prices.

Mike whitney has exposed the calamitously self-destructive activities of america’s financial institutions. He has highlighted that american financiers invented a series of highly complex, financial products. They sold hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of nigh on worthless financial products to gullible investors in america and the rest of the world before their scam started to unravel. "The $2 trillion market for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), the multi-trillion dollar mortgage-backed securities market (MBSs) and the $1.3 (trillion?) asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) market have all shut down draining a small ocean of capital from the financial system and pushing many of the banks and hedge funds closer to default. Credit-default swaps are a type of financial instrument that are used to speculate on a company's ability to repay debt. … credit default swaps, a $45 trillion dollar market which remains virtually unregulated." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bonfire of Capital’ http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney02222008.html February 22, 2008). It’s a shame about the typo error in this quote but such is the astronomic financial value of these financial products it doesn’t matter for the purpose of this article. For is it not obvious that the face value of these products makes america’s oil import bill seem almost worthless in comparison? The relative insignificance of the price of oil in comparison to the price of these financial products can also be appreciated from another, more down to Earth, perspective. If an ordinary american family is faced by rising prices of fossil fuels and mortgage repayments it is relatively easy for them to cut back on the former whereas its far more difficult to do anything about the latter.

Paul craig roberts disputes the proposition that the cost of imported oil is the cause of america’s economic problems. "A quarter century ago US oil imports accounted for the US trade deficit. The concerns expressed over the years about "energy dependence" accustomed Americans to think of trade problems only in terms of oil. Today oil imports comprise a small part of the US trade deficit. During the decades when Americans were fixated on "the energy deficit," the US became three to four times more dependent on foreign made manufactures. America's trade deficit in manufactured goods, including advanced technology products, dwarfs the US energy deficit. For example, the US trade deficit with China is more than twice the size of the US trade deficit with OPEC. The US deficit with Japan is about the size of the US deficit with OPEC. With an overall US trade deficit of more than $800 billion, the deficit with OPEC only comprises one-eighth." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Shrinking the US Dollar from the Inside-Out’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12132007.html December 13, 2007).(1)

Roberts blames america’s failing economy on american companies outsourcing their production. "When US corporations move to foreign countries their production of goods and services for American consumers, they convert US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) into imports. US production declines, US jobs and skill pools are destroyed, and the trade deficit increases. Foreign GDP, employment, and exports rise. US corporations that offshore their production for US markets account for a larger share of the US trade deficit than does the OPEC energy deficit. Half or more of the US trade deficit with China consists of the offshored production of US firms. In 2006, the US trade deficit with China was $233 billion, half of which is $116.5 billion or $10 billion more than the US deficit with OPEC." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Shrinking the US Dollar from the Inside-Out’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12132007.html December 13, 2007).

Who is Responsible for driving up the Global Price of Oil?
Klare believes oil price rises have been caused by two main factors: increasing demand for oil from china and india and, secondly, the failure to find new oil fields. The latter factor is not as important as it might seem because successive american administrations have stopped american oil companies from investing in the world’s second biggest oil reserves so what does it matter that new oil fields haven’t been discovered? Rising oil prices can’t be caused by the failure to find new oil fields when bush refuses to allow american companies to exploit iran’s massive oil resources.(2) Whilst both of the factors klare has mentioned might have played a part in driving up oil prices they are far from being the only causes let alone the main one. He ignores other major factors.

Firstly, america’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq. Although the invasion of afghanistan caused only a short term rise in oil prices, the invasion of iraq led to a much more substantial and a long term increase in oil prices.

Secondly, the bush regime has gone out of its way to try to stop all oil companies around the world from investing in iran’s oil resources. This means the country is not exporting as much oil as it could which would drive down oil prices.

Thirdly, the continual threats of a military attack on iran. Every time bush has threatened that "no option will be taken off the table" the price of oil has gone up. In October 2007, condoleeza rice claimed that bush’s new unilateral sanctions against iran, initiated and sponsored by the jewish lobby, would increase "the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behavior". But, in reality, these sanctions imposed costs on america and the global economy. "Crude oil rose to a record above $91 a barrel in New York ..." (Angela Macdonald-Smith and Christian Schmollinger ‘Oil Rises to Record Above $91 on Supply Drop, Iran Sanctions’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=asRxaqSNoT4o&refer=us October 26, 2007). Bush’s condemnations of iran during his recent tour of the middle east produced the same effect. "Oil rose more than $1 Monday as the dollar slipped and tensions between the United States and Iran stoked supply concerns. Crude, which remains below the peak $100.09 struck on Jan. 3, got a boost from comments by President Bush against OPEC member Iran. During a trip to the Middle East, Bush accused Iran of threatening global security by backing militants and urged his Gulf Arab allies to confront the issue. The comments rekindled worries the tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program could disrupt shipments from the fourth largest crude exporter." (Matthew Robinson ‘Oil rises on US-Iran tensions, weaker dollar http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=4773 January 14, 2008).

Fourthly, oil speculators have also contributed to rising world oil prices. Pepe escobar points out that the people who make the most money out of oil are not oil producers or even oil retailers but middle men. "Everyone in the oil business knows that high oil prices are not really due to OPEC, which supplies 40% of the world’s crude, or "al-Qaeda threats". The main profiteers are middlemen, "traders" to put it nicely, "speculators" to put it bluntly. Western oil trading firms such as Philip Brothers (owned by Citicorp), Cargill or Taurus. Enron, until its debacle, used to be one of the most profitable. Some oil companies, such as Total and Exxon, trade under their own names." (Pepe Escobar ‘Slouching towards Petroeurostan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB21Dj07.html February 21, 2008).

These are four major factors which have contributed to driving up oil prices that klare does not even consider. However, just as importantly, it is highly likely that a significant proportion of the dramatic rise in oil prices over the last few years has been due to the zionist-first policies of america’s jewish lobby.
Firstly, the jewish lobby was the primary political force pressuring successive american administrations into preventing american oil companies from investing in iran;
Secondly, the jewish lobby was the primary political force driving the bush regime into invading afghanistan and iraq thereby causing a significant drop in iraqi oil exports;
Thirdly, the jewish lobby was the primary political force driving the bush regime into deterring most of the world’s oil companies from investing in iran;
Fourthly, the jewish lobby, the zionist dominated american media, the zionist dominated congress, and the likudniks in the bush regime, was the primary political force pressuring the bush regime into threatening military action against iran;
Fifthly, some of the world’s oil speculators are jewish owned companies. In addition, the world’s two biggest oil exchanges are partly owned by jewish companies. "London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), both owned by US corporations (since 2001, NYMEX has been owned by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley)." (Pepe Escobar ‘Slouching towards Petroeurostan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB21Dj07.html February 21, 2008). Jewish oil speculators are in a critical position to drive up the global price of oil. The more they financed the jewish lobby to pressure bush into threatening iran, the greater the chaos they could cause on the world’s oil markets, the greater the profits they could make.

In addition, if klare had not been so focused on making insinuations about arab oil producers, he could have pointed out that america’s jewish lobby has been responsible for preventing bush from implementing a policy that could have brought about a substantial reduction in oil prices. If bush had abolished america’s unilateral sanctions against iran, american oil companies could have helped iran to export more fossil fuels and thereby drive down oil prices (as well as earning themselves vast profits). But this is a policy bush couldn’t implement because of the vehement opposition of the jewish lobby. The jewish lobby is far more of a determinant of what oil companies can do around the world than oil companies are able to override jewish objections to investing in iran.

In conclusion, if american motorists want to blame someone for driving up oil prices their best bet would be america’s jewish lobby. In britain, the car lobby is reputed to be one of the most powerful lobbies in the country but it hasn’t raised a squeak about who is to blame for high oil prices. It has to be suspected the same is probably true in america. The american oil and car lobbies wouldn’t dare blame high oil prices on the jewish lobby. Even though the former are commonly deemed to be amongst the most powerful lobbies in the country they are nothing like as powerful as the jewish lobby. Every time the jewish lobby pressures bush into threatening iran the price of oil goes up and american consumers, householders, and motorists, suffer the consequences of these jewish policies. If klare wanted to highlight a major cause of the increase in oil prices he didn’t have to wander half way around the world to make insinuations about arab oil producers. The biggest culprits are to be found in america.

Who is to blame for America’s Economic Woes?
A previous section listed the main factors contributing to america’s economic crises. It concluded that the rising cost of american oil imports is only a minor contributor. So, who then is to blame for america’s economic woes?

The bush regime has certainly been the biggest and most direct contributor. It pushed through huge tax reductions for the rich; it failed to regulate the scams being carried out by the country’s finance and mortgage industries; it permitted the federal bank to operate a low interest rate policy that drove up corporate and individual indebtedness to staggering levels; it allowed america’s multi-national corporations to outsource production to third world countries; it made the decision to invade and occupy afghanistan and iraq; and it permitted huge financial expenditures by the homeland security agency. All in all, bush, the prodigal son, has spent like a drunken, reckless, gambler in a way that would have given margaret thatcher, who was devoted to careful national housekeeping, a heart attack.

There are, however, powerful economic and political forces behind bush which have driven him to such diabolical recklessness. America’s ruling jewish elite seems to feel no moral obligations towards ordinary americans when they insisted on tax cuts for the ultra wealthy (and then used this money to fund their favourite political cause, jewish supremacism in the middle east). Jewish money men have played a considerable role in the financial scams now wracking the country’s financial institutions. "I sense that Jewish entrepreneurialism is the engine of the American economy. We helped invent the service and information economy. We're all over the hedge funds that have altered the flows of capital around the world, we are all over the media." (Philip Weiss ‘Oy, My People Are Too Rich!’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/12/oy-my-people-ar.html December 14, 2007).(3) The jewish lobby was responsible for pushing bush into the invasions of afghanistan and iraq and is virtually the sole political force pressuring bush into continually threatening iran. The ethnic group which benefits more than any other from the homeland security agency’s beneficence is the jewish community which is given millions to provide additional security for synagogues and jewish public buildings. What adds to the jewish lobby’s responsibilities for america’s economic crises is that if bush reached a peace agreement with iran this would have important consequences. Firstly, it would allow american multinational oil companies to invest in iranian fossil fuels which would bring about a major reduction in global oil prices. Secondly, it would also go a long way to settling political problems in iraq and afghanistan which would dramatically reduce america’s military expenditures. Thirdly, by brining peace to afghanistan and iraq it would be possible to increase oil production and thus drive down oil prices even further. But the jewish lobby is intent on forcing bush to continue driving his country, and the rest of the world, into the economic abyss.

Klare blames high oil prices for america’s economic crises. He did not explicitly state that arab oil producers had no responsibility for increasing oil prices even though he surely must have suspected that most americans will believe they are responsible for high oil prices. He insinuates that arab oil producers are benefiting from the rise in the price of oil by buying up american companies on the cheap. He refuses to praise them for investing in american companies and thus helping to rescue the american economy. He condemns them for refusing to help america by reducing oil prices. In other words, he believes that although they are not guilty for causing high oil prices they are guilty of refusing to solve america’s economic woes. He doesn’t even have the decency to point out that arab oil producers are invigorating the american economy by buying american military weapons even though they will never use such equipment and munitions. Nor does he have the decency to point out that arab oil producers continue to prop up the dollar by selling oil in dollars even though they are losing out because of the declining value of the dollar and could quite easily switch to more stable currencies.

Klare’s thesis that the rising cost of oil is the biggest contributor to america’s economic crises is highly dubious. Although it is a factor which cannot be ignored it is the least important of all the factors mentioned above. Klare is scapegoating arab oil producers for america’s economic crises that have been caused primarily by america’s ruling jewish elite and their allies in the zionist dominated media, the zionist dominated congress, and the grossly disproportionate number of likudniks in the bush mafia. The real culprit for america’s economic plight is the country’s ruling jewish elite.

Klare suggests that Bush begged the Saudis to reduce the global price of Oil. But he refuses to point out that if Bush wanted the Saudis to do something for the American economy, he would have to do something for them i.e. end his one-sided support for the Jews.
Another factor exposing klare’s anti-islamic, and thus pro-zionist, stance is that he made no attempt to explore the important political implications of george bush request for help from arab oil producers. From the moment bush became president, he allowed the jews-only state in palestine to use overwhelming violence to crush all resistance i.e. to produce "peace" in the middle east on terms wholly favourable to the jews. He ignored pleas from arab dictators who believed peace would come only through negotiations and compromises on both sides. The evidence for this proposition was on display when bush returned to america after his tour of the middle east. No sooner had he left the region than the jews imposed a total blockade on gaza to try to starve one and a half million palestinian civilians into submission. So, according to klare, at the same time that bush was "groveling" to arab oil producers for help to boost the american economy, he was also continuing to disdain arab demands to curb jewish violence and promote an equitable peace in the middle east. Surely if bush wanted arab leaders to do him a favour for the sake of the american economy then he should have been willing to repay the favour by pushing for an equitable peace in the middle east?

America has suffered an increasing economic price for supporting the creation and survival of the jews-only state in palestine. Perhaps the most blatant cost was nixon’s intervention in the arab-jewish war which resulted in an arab oil boycott that produce a global economic recession. However, over the last sixty years, the american economy has been so strong that no matter how big these costs it was able to recover. But, over the last few years, the american economy has been seriously hemorrhaging and, as a consequence, the economic damage caused by america’s support for the jews-only state has increased significantly. To the extent that the american economy was being weakened by the flow of dollars from american consumers to oil producers, any pragmatic american president would have concluded that if he wanted arab help to reduce the global price of oil, then he’d have to compromise with them on their political demands. This would almost certainly mean supporting the saudis 2002 peace plan. The quid pro quo was obvious: arab oil producers help the american economy in return for american help in implementing the saudi peace plan.

Bush, however, refused to compromise. His continued support for jewish supremacism was not merely disastrous for the palestinians, and for stability in the middle east, but was damaging to the american economy. What this reveals is that the jewish lobby’s grip over the bush regime is so intense that he has to continue promoting likudnik foreign policies even though such policies have are damaging to the american economy and america’s national interests. Bush is such a likudnik quisling he would rather sacrifice his own country’s interests in order to pursue likudnik policies throughout the middle east than sacrifice these alien policies for the sake of the economic well being of tens of millions of americans. Bush could have taken an easy step to rejuvenating the american economy by using arab help to reduce the global price of oil but he wouldn’t do so if it meant sacrificing his likudnik foreign policies. No other country in human history has sacrificed so much of its national interests, its economy, lives, and treasure, for the sake of another country than america has sacrificed for the jews-only state in palestine. "Never has the US engaged in a very costly Middle Eastern war to benefit a foreign power; never has the US deliberately prevented big oil companies from signing billion dollar oil contracts by imposing economic sanctions on Iran in order to weaken a regional opponent of Israel." (James Petras ‘The Israeli Agenda and the Scorecard of the Zionist Power Configuration for 2008’ http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Petras1.htm February 2008). And this sacrifice is even more remarkable given the jews-only state’s contempt for america.

Klare has been quoted above as stating. "Nothing better captures the debilitating nature of America's dependence on imported oil than President George W Bush's humiliating recent performance in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia." This statement is not merely islamophobic it is grossly myopic. America’s economic dependence on arab oil is nothing like as debilitating as america’s political dependence on the jews-only state for determining america’s policies in the greater middle east. Bush’s refusal to compromise with saudi rulers to resuscitate the american economy clearly reveals yet again, for the umpteenth time, america’s chronic political dependency on the jewish lobby. Bush’s "humiliating recent performance in Riyadh" was nothing like as abject as his performance in the jews-only state where he was solely concerned with supporting whatever barbarism the jews wanted to implement against defenceless palestinians whilst totally ignoring palestinians’ plight, their human rights, and their rights under international law. His servility to the jews and their policy of using grossly disproportionate violence to boost jewish supremacism, couldn’t have been much more blatant given that within a matter of hours of his leaving the middle east the jews began starving 1.5 million palestinians into submission or death whichever comes soonest. The jews are daleks whose only slogan is ‘Exterminate. Exterminate.’ And bush is no less a victim of this pathological violence than palestinians.(4)

Klare’s Repeating his Failed Analysis.
This is not the first time that klare has refused to explore the political implication of his own analysis. In his April 13, 2005 article ‘Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran’ he argued successive american administrations had refused to develop cordial relationships with iran even though this caused huge losses to america’s oil corporations and to the american economy. But he completely refused to point out the critical role played by the jewish lobby in pressuring these administrations into continually treating iran with hostility. In effect the jewish lobby pressured these administrations into sacrificing america’s national interests for the sake of the jews-only state in palestine. See ‘How the Jewish Neocons are Bleeding America to Death’. Klare made exactly the same ‘mistake’ in his analysis of bush’s tour of the middle east.

It should also be added that the jewish lobby’s wholesale influence over bush doesn’t seem to be that much different from its influence over klare. The political implications of klare’s analysis are not that difficult to discern. The fact that he refuses to mention them, let alone evaluate their significance, is indicative of the debilitating impact that the jewish lobby has on his work. Klare has a jewish blind spot. Jews are completely invisible to him. His work therefore is entirely lacking in impartiality.

Commentators who support Klare’s Thesis that Oil is the cause of America’s Problems and thus, by implication, that Arabs Leaders are to Blame.
Jim Lobe.
"Just as Kennedy had warned against the deadly long-term impact on empires of budgetary deficits, the Bush years have seen an explosion not just of government debt, currently more than $9 trillion, but also of trade and balance-of-payments deficits. Much of this is due to the high price of oil and gas imports, which a growing number of experts now believe has become a permanent fixture of the international economy." (Jim Lobe ‘Can the US Brace Its Fall?’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12380 February 18, 2008).

(1) See also. "Since December 2001, the US trade deficit has increased $43.3 billion. Net imports of petroleum account for 50% of the increase in the trade deficit. Increased US imports of consumer goods, automobiles, business equipment, and industrial components and materials, especially from Asia, account for 50%. The trade deficit with China alone has increased $16.5 billion." (Peter Morici ‘That China syndrome’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HJ14Dj01.html October 14, 2006).

(2) Curt maynard further undermines klare’s proposition. "The Third World nation of South Africa produces a barrel of oil from coal for under $35.00 a barrel. The United States of America has some of the largest coal reserves in the world. These coal reserves are of a far higher quality than that used by South Africa, the sulfur content is much less, and thus, American coal can be converted to oil cheaper than can South African coal. What the reader, especially the American reader, is almost certainly unaware of is that the United States of America has even more oil than Saudi Arabia or Canada locked away in strata of shale under the Rocky Mountains. Costs to extract this oil are considerably higher than extracting it from sand, but bear in mind, at current prices, it too can be extracted profitably with technology that already exists. Not to mention the fact that its extraction, assuming that illegal aliens aren’t invited en masse to fill openings, will create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, not service related jobs, but real employment with real salaries and benefits." (Curt Maynard ‘Several Reasons Why it isn't about Oil’ http://curtmaynardsblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/several-reasons-why-it-isnt-about-oil.html February 27, 2008). The saudis have kept oil prices low in order to deter the exploitation of such fossil fuel resources and to discourage the adoption of alternative sources of energy but now that they seem willing to accept high oil prices such sources of energy will become more economically viable.

(3) See also. "The sense I got about the visionary philanthropists is that they are self-made entrepreneurs who made it in the great Jewish leap forward of the meritocracy and service economy. Megarich, like Arnall, who started Ameriquest, a subprime lender, or Bernard Marcus, of Home Depot. A couple others are in biotech. But you have to wonder whether Jewish entrepreneurs have not become the leading engines of the American economy. Surely the thinktank economy. I would never single out their Jewishness were it not for the role that wealth is playing in the political process." (Philip Weiss ‘In Neocons' 'Parallel Establishment,' a Foundation Hides Its Israel Concerns’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/01/when-it-comes-t.html January 31, 2008).

(4) Klare’s pro-zionist bigotry is even more exposed by the fact that he failed to highlight bush’s humiliation when the jews refused to stop stealing palestinian land. "At Annapolis (November 2007) President Bush called on Israel to cease building new settlements in order to further peace negotiations. Exactly three months later Israel announced plans to build over 1,000 (1,250) new Jews-only homes in Palestinian East Jerusalem (BBC News, February 12, 2008). The Daily Alert propaganda sheet of the CPMAJO immediately endorsed the Israeli position and set in motion its major lobbyists, op-ed ideologues and media ‘experts’ to justify Israel’s crass repudiation of its agreement with President Bush. Rather than confront this flagrant, highly public, unilateral and shameful Israeli repudiation of its agreement with the White House, President Bush , Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Gates all played ‘Mickey the Dunce’. White House press secretary, Dana Perino, claimed she had not seen the report about Israel’s plans to build new apartments in East Jerusalem, though it was ‘news’ in all the mass electronic and print media. In fear of the ZPC, Perino responded as if the entire affair was simply a problem for the Palestinians: "But obviously, there is no doubt that an announcement of that sort (building 1,125 new Jews-only segregated apartments) would make the Palestinians concerned" (Santa Barbara News-Press February 12, 2008)." (James Petras ‘The Israeli Agenda and the Scorecard of the Zionist Power Configuration for 2008’ http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Petras1.htm February 2008).

From rafer April 11, 2008
In the debate about War for Oil vs. War for Israel, this article minimizes a key issue: The American aggression against Iraq is a crime against humanity of the first order, with over 1 million Iraqis genocided by the Coalition of the Killing, even according to a recent British study.

Like most of what masquerades as "antiwar" opposition in the USA and UK, this piece is mostly concerned about the fact that America has seemingly not benefited from this war and or it apparently has benefited Israel.

I guess one shouldn't be too surprised. Behind its insincere and pro forma humanitarian rhetoric, the "peace movement" in general is motivated by naked nationalist self-interest (i.e. how much the war is costing them), not unlike their political doppelgangers who support war. Somewhere, there is a tiny little violin playing for these complaints.

At base, America, Israel, and other Coalition countries like Britain are vultures. To hell with all of them and their various blame games. They all deserve to be called out as war criminals.

It's the Iraqi people that are the real victims in all this, not the American Empire or its various crime partners.

Reply to rafer April 14, 2008
There are doubtlessly all sorts motives to be found amongst those involved in the anti-war movement. Even those who care for the iraqi people have to recognize that in many western countries the general public is more concerned about the welfare of their soldiers rather than what these soldiers are doing in iraq

To believe that america, the jews-only state, and britain are as bad as each other suggests a complete ignorance as to jews’ role in driving forward the invasions of afghanistan and iraq and world war three.

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home