Dave Eriqat makes some good points in his article, The End Of Civilization. Here's one that jumped out at me:
But what if the real reason [for the Iraq War] was to secure Iraq’s oil supplies, perhaps not for immediate use, and perhaps not even for use by the United States? Then the invasion of Iraq would have to be judged a success, a “mission accomplished,” so to speak.Bush critics assume he wanted to control Iraq's oil to prop up the US economy in the coming decades of Peak Oil. But what if the real reason was to secure Iraqi oil fields for international Big Oil?
You start to think like that and you suddenly realise Bush doesn't give a damn about the USA. He is running up multi-trillion dollar deficits like nobody's business, but where is all that money going? Into the hands of Bush's Big Business backers, the multi-billionaires who themselves are as good as state-less these days. Look at Rupert Murdoch, for example: an Aussie who became a US citizen just to further his business agenda, who is now ruthlessly infiltrating the Chinese market...
Bush appears to be acting as if there were no tomorrow. But what if there really were no tomorrow, financially speaking? In that case, the reckless economic policies of today would not only be irrelevant, but might actually be shrewd. I mean, if one knows that he is not going to have to pay back his debts tomorrow, then why not borrow money like crazy today?Well, it's not really "borrowing", is it? It is more like "channelling" - running up US taxpayers debt and feeding it to Big Business. It's not like the Bush family and their friends in the Carlyle Group are going to be expected to pay off the $33,000 per head US national debt, is it?
I can't share the apocalypic conclusions in the rest of the article, but I think this perspective is important to any real understanding of the Bush administration.