SHAYS REVEALS MAJOR U.S. INTEREST IN  IRAQ IS OIL
APOLOGIZES FOR WAR, BUT WANTS TO KEEP PRESENCE

PETER'S NEW YORK, Aug. 1, 2007---On the July 29, as a guest of Wolf Blitzer's "Late Edition" http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/29/le.01.html, Mr. Christopher Shays, a U.S. representative from Connecticut, apologized for the War in Iraq, but said America's energy interests would be served by a continued presence in Iraq. Charlie Rangel, a U.S. representative from Harlem, New York who shared the TV podium with Shays, was surprised at Shays's frank admissions.

"I didn't make a good vote when I voted to have our troops go to Iraq," Shays said.

Shays was his usual calm and concilliatory-sounding self. He went on to make a rather significant admission.

"Sixty-five percent of the world's energy is in this area. We just can't walk away. We need to leave in a very methodical and sensible way," Shays said.

Rangel then chimed in, "You know, this is the most honest thing that's been said. If we are concerned about the oil, if that's the reason we went there, then forget all these weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaida 9/11.  And he said it. That's why we want the defensive military bases there. It's all a question of oil. "

Shays then answered, "It's about energy, Charlie."

Rangel said he thought Shays would eventually come around to supporting withdrawal as the next election approached.

Shays lamented that there was not a more bipartisan effort to forge an agreement on Iraq. But Rangel viewed this as a cop-out. Perhaps he saw Shay's call for bipartisanship as just a way of skewing legislation more in the direction of the Bush administration's current policies.

Shays takes a rather negative stand toward Iran, a peace-loving but oil-rich nation that Bush and his dangerous cronies would love to loot at the soonest possible moment. His remarks make me believe that he is a "Council Baby," meaning that he is a member or fellow traveler of the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/) (CFR), a body that basically attempts to fashion foreign policy in ways that are anti-democratic and deleterious to the United States and the world. The CFR people are masterful at making it look like they agree with you, while truly taking a stand in the opposite direction. For example, an apology for the invasion of Iraq is accompanied by a reason for the United States to keep troops there, the net effect being just a rubber stamp on the war. Marvelous. This is Ms. Clinton's stand as well.

The reader may not be aware of it, but there is a sort of CFR party, with its partisans sometimes falling in the Republican, and sometimes in the Democratic, camp. They can be spotted a mile away. For example, Colin Powell, whose name was often thrown around as  possible presidential material, is a CFR member. He really stood for nothing. That's how you can spot them. Someone like Barak Obama, with tons of money behind them that came virtually out of nowhere, is very likely a CFR creation. The scent is strong. McCain is another. He tried to straddle the fence and got slammed in the crosscurrents.

These folks may seem to lose elections from time to time, but they appear again, apparently unscathed, as CFR functionaries. A lost election is considered a battle scar, but not by any means a bad mark againt a CFRer. Jack Kemp, the once-conservative member of Congress, is a good case in point. We know he seemed to leave the political arena a long time ago, but he recently resurfaced as the head of a CFR study group on Russia, mouthing policy prescriptions that ostensibly amounted to keeping America's spy network in that country under the pretext of fighting for democracy. Russian President Vladimir Putin would have none of it.

We hope Shays resigns or distances himself from the Council on Foreign Relations, adopts Mr. Dennis Kucinich's plan http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=3750 for withdrawal from Iraq, and  takes a productive and positive approach to U.S. relations with the peace-loving Islamic nation  of Iran.

Friends, I've read a few of Bush's recent executive orders, and it appears that those who interfere with Administration policy in Iraq, even by simply voicing opposition, may be held in violation of the nation's national security and may be imprisoned under Bush's emergency powers. Hope this doesn't alarm you.

Back to home page