>The critiques of this theory on pen-l were fairly convincing in strictly
>economic terms. There still remains the question for me of why most of
>the metropolitan dailies (which I assume [?] represent a fair
>cross-section of the ruling class) are either going along with a few
>murmurs of dissent or are actively supporting Bush. Bush, Perle, Cheney,
>may be cultists. Why does the ruling class accept such leadership?
As no less an authority than Goldman Sachs put it in their 3/24 economic commentary, enumerating the economic & political consequences of the war:
>Less political benefit for the Bush administration. During the war,
>political opponents of the Bush administration will hold their
>tongues. Poll results will show a big improvement in the support for
>the President-this is patriotism. But, if the war (and the
>subsequent peace) does not go smoothly, there will be a day of
>reckoning about the costs/benefits of the Bush administration's
>choices.
Back to Carrol:
>I still am attracted by the point Justin phrased well: having an army in
>the midst of mideast oil puts the US thumb on the carotid artery of the
>EU, Russia, and China.
I used to think that. Now I'm not so sure. What does that do that you couldn't do with a blockade? In either case, it's an act of war.
Doug