RANGER AGAINST WAR: Wie Gehts? <

Friday, November 10, 2006

Wie Gehts?

While stationed in Germany as a young soldier, I sometimes heard discussion of the German mindset. One NCO sized it up fairly precisely: "If the German has you down he'll kick you in the face, but if he's down, he'll lick your boot." This evaluation was rendered by a soldier who was experienced fighting in the European Theatre of operations during WWII.

It seems that GWB is exhibiting this same unsavory trait since the 11/07 elections. Everywhere one reads wonderful news of Bush reaching out to achieve consensus with the new political realities on the ground in D.C. Call me a cynic, but perhaps this is because the Dems now have more wingtips on the ground than the C in C anticipated, with some troublesome high heels thrown in for good measure. (Where are the burkas when they're really needed? I can hear Hillary tapping her toes now.)


But I don't believe this newfound humility for a moment. This impulse to bipartisanship on Bush's behalf is lip-service, naught more. He'll change his rhetoric, but not his spots. Any political concessions will simply facilitate his strategic corporate vision for America. He'll bend tactically, but only if it serves his strategic agenda.


Now to the choice of Gates after Rummy was run out on the rail. Through Gates' position on the board of Duratek, he is firmly in the bosom of the Carlyle Group. Duratek and Carlyle come up in proxy statement searches.
It seems that the membership in the unholy trinity of Enron/Haliburton/Carlyle is required for service in the present administration. Hopefully, the Senate confirmation hearing for Gates will explore these linkages. A few questions about Iranscam would also be appropriate.

The Gates nomination is aligned with the administration's rubric of defense profiteering. But then again, Rice, Baker, Armitage, Negroponte, W. Bush, Cheney, Francis J. Harvey, Karzai and Khalizaid are all long-term energy and/or defense contractor types. The War on Terror has benefitted one group, and that is the energy and defense contractor circuit.


If the Democrats are sincere about ending the Iraq War, they would throw out the Baker Iraq Study Group report without reading it. Without access to the non-published report, I'll venture that it directs the DoD and the government to continue all actions that benefit Carlyle and company. Nothing less.


If the Baker report got canned, then hopefully Gates could follow and a DoD candidate could be found to represent the American taxpayer's interests rather than those of the defense contractors. A good place to start looking would be Max Cleland's office.



8 Comments:

Anonymous Martin K said...

The Enron/Haliburton/Carlyle connection is very well spotted. Is there no state-revision office in the US who can be used to investigate these obvious conflits of interest?

Friday, November 17, 2006 at 8:35:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Martin,

That is the function of Congressional oversight committees. But it's obvious they're not doing this. One wonders why.

Friday, November 17, 2006 at 9:05:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous martin K said...

You should go political.

Friday, November 17, 2006 at 11:18:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I came across your blog searching for "something else", so I am not hiding behind the Anonymous. I do not "blog" often but found the need to give my 2 cents.

I am not bashing your opinion, they're like a-holes, we all got one.

"Retired Special Forces Officer", is the usage of your title an effort to bolster the "credibility" of your opinion?

I believe your opinion would be as all opinions, "taken with a grain of salt".

The internet is rampant with phonies. Credibility is based on experience and not titles. If your title is supposed to dazzle the non-military types then I ask you what is your name, serial number and positions held?

We then can look up your service record and formulate our opinions based on the credentials of a former soldier and not someonce claiming to be one.

You use specific "keywords" so your blog finds audiences. In essence you blaspheme the proud and long standing heritage of the Special Operations community, both past and present basing your UNVERIFIED experiences as the imperical backbone of your opinion. If you are who you say you are, you shame your brethren by hiding behind them to speak.

Actually I think you are a phony because you left out the identifying information.

I challenge you to update the site so we can research your credentials.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 6:01:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

anon,

Your aggression is obvious in your accusation of my being a phony. I am not, and my bona fides have been listed. I do not "blaspheme" the Special Forces, and remain proud of my service to this day. Whatever my opinions, I am a free American, and am entitled to them.

"Credibility is based on experience" -- indeed. So take the writing at face value or not at all.

Good day,

Jim

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 1:17:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice, measured response to Anonymous (whose accusations would carry more weight if he had, after all, identified him\herself). Anon's issue is clearly your political opinons stance, and not the red herring of your supposed identity or credibility.
Ola Onatade (*specifically* non-military)
London

Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 2:51:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I landed here looking for something else - and decided not to let your German bashing bullshit go by unchallenged. I've had dealings with a good number of Germans and I've got to say that each and every one of them has more integrity, honesty, guts and restraint than a dozen fuck-brained swinging dickhead Yanks could muster in a decade.
Keep on with exposing the social and political corruption that continues to be a way of life in that shithole you call the USA and leave your racial "mindset" analysis up your arse where it belongs.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 at 12:39:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Anon,
I was not German bashing- i simply passed on the sentiment of a WW2 combat vet.
It's obvious that i was wrong and that the Germans didn't kill 25 million people during WW2.
I must be wrong because they didn't starve and kill people in slave labor.
I must be wrong since they starved Russian prisoners to death.But i'm sure that if they won they would have become paragons of virtue.
Sorry, i can't always get it right.
Thanks for your cogent and intelligently framed comments.
jim

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 at 9:00:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home