I'm fascinated by this conservative obsession with calling people "conspiracy theorists" anytime anything unsavory is suggested. It is, of course, just another slur in the Big Book of Reep Insults, to be employed anytime somebody suggests that the reason for a proposed policy is something other than the stated reason.

Of course, after the fact, when it turns out the "conspiracy theorists" were right, the Reep apologists have one of two responses to choose from -- they can accuse critics either of "revisionism" or, much more devious, they can argue "of course that happened, what other result would you expect"?

This is fascinating, and a bit Orwellian.

Anybody who suggested in 2002 that the administration went into Afghanistan to make it safe for Unocal was obviously an America-hating traitor, because (as everybody knows) the Taliban was given two whole days to produce Osama bin Laden and failed to do so, therefore they were guilty of harboring a terrorist.

Once Kabul was siezed, and (former Unocal employee) Hamid Karzai was installed there, any suggestion that he was there to ensure that the pipeline deal went through could only be the worst sort of revisionism.

Now that US bases in Afghanistan are positioned along the route of the new pipeline, focusing on security there while the rest of the country goes to $#!+, the response becomes -- well, of course we need to focus security operations on the most likely target. What else would you expect!?!

No comments: