I have qualms in the political beseeching Big oil companies whom no doubt neither being entirely domestic would serve us in the best interest of seeking such energy independence...while one might argue as to ignorance and/or otherwise on China's behalf concerning human rights atrocity through the support of Sudanese governmental oil companies for such a resource, I argue likewise, for those American interests having supported Big Oil multinationals whose presence have no doubt had influence with regards atrocities in eastern African countries as related to the economic cycle of the diamond wars. But it is also the influence of Big Oil as such relating to Iraq that also concerns me as well, and why are such issues all relevant to one another otherwise? But I would point out also along the lines of domestic security, why the underpinnings of multinational interests in a current American political culture, are perhaps, owing to some of the influences otherwise that have led to the declaration of a second war in Iraq. I would implicitly say while current political leadership under George W. Bush having identified Iraq as a vital component of American national security, neither would domestic security include the security as related solely to terrorism (along the same ideological lines as those responsible for the 9/11 acts), neither would such include the domestic security as related to energy independence (in the sense of independence with regards to foreign oil) and neither relating to the emancipation from existing multinational infrastructure that has existed in place , or in other words, I see multinational oil culture and influences of such in our president's decision making which would handshake with existing industries and seek to merely preserve an American way of life that had existed, but neither would policies work anew to truly put other options on the table in a 9/11 aftermath, neither to challenge consumptions practice with regards to trade imbalance, neither to challenge with regards to providing greater energies market diversity (relative to current and past markets), and insistent to the extent of neither addressing resource dependent sensitivities, rather insistent upon a war in Iraq (which I argue paradoxically undermines the concept of domestic security).
Iraq was not perhaps, typically associated with the greatest terrorist threat dangers geographically speaking (nor connected to the 9/11 attacks), not typically associated with even the greatest threats amongst WMD acquisitions, nor were any connections resolved after the war in Iraq was declared under George W. Bush. I have weighed through such a logical opinion concerning the use of our government resources. If war in Iraq had any relevant axiom, such would neither be solely on the basis of an established premise of human rights and freedom alone, and so, perhaps, falsely on so many other premises, and to deny otherwise the sanctity of two remaining premises that have neither been followed suit elsewhere in the world...to speak to loyalist otherwise, "thanks but no thanks for your help...". We are left with deposits and actions that were claimed to establish something new that had not existed prior in such a place, neither such a deposit or seed sanctity in the sense that with renewal we would raise other hopes elsewhere in the world, neither with sanctity that we could act to raise all other hopes elsewhere but merely in one place, perhaps, with realities that have neither been so clear in the past despite attempts otherwise. To merely express that one is grateful that a situation remains something like, perhaps, the reality of a past regime, is this progress? I had questioned merely, the integrity of those to argue those that would rather die fighting then neither have an ounce of freedom otherwise, and for those bound in such a war beyond circumstance and desire to fight, whose freedom was stripped further, a war never provides the clear sorts of moral certainties and why war would otherwise be regarded as a last of all possible alternatives. For to give one man freedom and neither acknowledge the moral uncertainty of denying another's freedom likewise in such actions is blindness. Mindful, now I am to argue with Sarah Palin's political legitimacy on a more relevant basis for her certainties: no, it is not Bush having made mistakes with respect to the implementation of the Bush doctrine, the Bush doctrine is sadly mistaken. For even Sarah should know there was no connection between the terrorist of 911 and Iraq's government under Saddam, no WMDs, and the stockpiles he allegedly had were supplied by the U.S. No it is that Sarah can say such because apparently as McCain's camp might have it, no one's really interested in knowing how such a war got started in the first place. A speech offense of this type is forgivable, however, I mean who is paying attention? Things have settled down in Iraq, and there appears to be enough success that, mistakes made by a president were mere trivial matters and not policy issues.
This particular piece was neither to argue on points solely on the basis of rhetorical and/or philosophical issues, it is beyond that, I see the Bush doctrine dead in the future and having no future whatsoever, even if U.S. troops continue to stay in Iraq for some time. It is doomed to die like the foulest of Wilsonian experiments. The best success in Iraq, is that we have withdrawn proving that we are not occupiers and that Iraq manages under its own insistence to have freedom and prosperity, and that our presence had complicated matters there. Iraq has cost this country much in terms of monies that in my opinion should have been spent in such way. This is not a matter of waging a campaign of success over the importance of success alone which originates in wrongful actions, or to the extent our country acts in the best ways to help itself in terms of democracy and economy. I, of course, support peace in Iraq regardless, but I still do not support U.S. troop occupation in Iraq. This merely to say while salvaging a bit of an effort to criticize another vice presidential candidate's position is okay and worthwhile even if it is neither apparently the top issue on American minds, or in other words, maybe just a tad bit more relevant in popularity in the survey of all other issues...such as a daughter. This is to say while I had argued independently in separate posting that domestic drilling may not be as viable solution to energy independence, I would likewise argue the current trade imbalance of oil consumption internationally neither helps our domestic security either, nor are the current policy approaches viable. While McCain has offered some changes with respect to domestic energy independence, my concerns are his influences and biases, with regards to Iraq and those supporting him, and yes, of course, that we had seen in earlier campaign rhetoric, the prioritization of oil with regards to our energy solutions (albeit, domestic oil drilling), Bush would choose Iraq as a component of national security, perhaps, because of many lines that were being drawn in such area. Bush no doubt had social and economic ties in his past to oil industry culture. Iraq had significant geographic interest, in terms of oil, in terms its relative place amongst other nations in the middle east, in terms of its past political leadership (whose leader had been known perhaps as a pariah), that Iraq once possessed stockpiles of WMD (or more specifically chemical munitions). It isn't, however, that Bush wouldn't have measured policy with regards to, terrorism or those intent on having used terrorism in the past as applied say in the situation in Iraq. After all we know that negotiations in Libya have succeeded, and neither because of past actions (as related to the Lockerbie bombing case), have we decided otherwise, that leaders once having been found in legal settings responsible for terrorist actions would likewise be subject to the same scrutiny as an Iraqi leader never techincally found guilty of harboring and/or clearly supported terrorist organizations. The second Iraq war, then, must have represented something of a culture in political leadership and I believe implicitly may have represented an inset market-industry culture.