Wolfie and other "imbalances"
- From: "Chuck" <ChuckPAdams2006@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Jul 2005 19:03:07 -0700
"...the Bush administration and its obvious role as lackeys of U.S.
multinationals."
How about when Yale is in cahoots with foreign companies like
Aventis Pasteur and SmithKline, selling out our biotech and bioweapons
expertise? Or how about Sweden? Or Germany? Or Anthony Fauci
and Chiron? Or Mortimer Zuckerman, Yale and the ALDF, and good ole
Mort a former candidate for Ambassador to Israel?
Lackeys of multinationals. That's really what it is all about.
This administration does not care about Homeland Security at all.
Here is Wolfie discussing how it is better to let greedy private
investors
(Riggs Bank, The Yale Corporation, JBush & Co, etc) get their hands on
the African goodies on their own terms:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-07/06/content_3180101.htm
"Wolfowitz, who became president of the World Bank on June 1, stressed
the importance to fighting poverty of both trade and aid, but he warned
against becoming too focused on having foreigners invest in poor
countries.
"I think experience in successful developing countries says the
bulk of those come from domestic private investors, not foreigners," he
said."
Tough to figure out.
==========================
Red storm ahead
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
(CNN) -- Americans owe Congressman Duncan Hunter their gratitude and
congratulations. The powerful chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee ordered hearings on China's $18.5 billion bid to buy
California-based Unocal this week.
Not only were Chairman Hunter and his committee the first elected
officials to seek the truth about the Communist Chinese government's
effort to buy this important U.S. energy asset, they did so in direct
opposition to the demands of the Chinese government that Congress not
interfere with what it calls a "purely commercial" transaction.
Congressman Hunter and the Armed Services Committee had the temerity to
actually put U.S. national security ahead of so-called free trade and
laissez-faire politics. Their courage stands in stark contrast to the
default libertarian views of the Bush administration and its obvious
role as lackeys of U.S. multinationals. It also stands in stark
contrast to the cowardly and unprincipled congressional vote to deny
President Bush the power to impose sanctions against European companies
that sell weapons and sensitive technology to China.
Even if the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company, or CNOOC, agrees to
every demand the Unocal board of directors requests, we must always
intensely question and analyze the promises of a company that's
70-percent-owned by a Communist government. And the Chinese state's
mission is clear, whether we choose to continue our ongoing naiveté or
awaken to reality: It seeks to control the world's natural resources,
become the global manufacturer of choice and rapidly build its military
power to rival that of the United States.
You have to hand it to the Chinese government, though. China has the
audacity to demand that the United States' Congress allow this deal to
proceed, despite the utter absurdity and contradictory position it
holds, denying foreign ownership of companies in its country, including
its energy assets. The Chinese also must have absentmindedly forgotten
it owns nearly all of CNOOC and carries an unadulterated record of
currency manipulation and unfair industry subsidization.
As former CIA Director James Woolsey testified at the Armed Services
hearing: "For anyone who believes that this is purely a commercial
undertaking, unrelated to a national strategy of domination of energy
markets and of the western Pacific, I would suggest that that view is
extraordinarily naive."
While China is showing its teeth on this deal, President Bush is saying
nothing at all. Speaking at the G8 summit in Scotland, the president
said he thought it best to let the U.S. security review of the offer
"move forward without comment." Some of our lawmakers have spoken out
against the bid, but there's been no indication whatsoever from the
people in charge of protecting the homeland and upholding our national
interest that the merger will be challenged.
China has an astounding $700 billion in U.S. currency in reserve.
Here's an idea of what China could do with that money if this
administration and Congress decide to allow it to buy the U.S.
strategic assets: $700 billion, for example, could buy all of this
nation's top oil companies, worth an estimated $615 billion. It would
still have enough money to buy two of our top defense contractors,
Boeing and Lockheed Martin, worth a combined $81 billion.
Having covered Wall Street for several decades, I understand the desire
for Unocal's board to back CNOOC's bid, which bests the Chevron offer
by $2 billion. After all, the board has a duty to secure the best
possible deal for the company's shareholders. But this offer should by
no means win the complicit support of the U.S. government or the Bush
administration, especially at a time when crude oil, heating oil and
gasoline prices are rising to new record highs seemingly every day.
"It makes no rational sense to help China soak up more and more
supply," says C. Richard D'Amato, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission, "pushing us toward an earlier energy
train wreck in the foreseeable future."
But not only would China gain control of oil pipelines and gas storage
across North America and key assets in Alaska's Cook Inlet and North
Slope, we would be transferring technology for Alaskan oil production
and deep sea drilling that could have significant military
applications. And I hope I'm not alone in thinking it would be a grave
mistake to give the Communist government of China such a strategic
asset.
"The object of China's strategy is inexorably to supplant the United
States as the world's premier economic power," says Frank Gaffney,
president of the Center for Security Policy, "and if necessary, to
defeat us militarily."
And shortly after Congress denied the president the power to impose
sanctions against companies selling arms to China, a top Chinese
general fiercely declared the People's Liberation Army would respond
with nuclear weapons if it's provoked by the United States. Engagement
anyone?
Laissez-faire economics can no longer disguise the potentially ruinous
C'est la vie politics that define our relationship with China.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/15/unocal.china/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Join the class action against the State of Connecticut
- Next by Date: ABUSE@COMCAST.NET ... REPORT KATHLEEN- She already got kicked off SNET
- Previous by thread: Scary KathLOON
- Next by thread: Re:KATHLOON IS UNBALANCED A LIAR A TERRORIST A FELON A MONTER MOM AND A FRAUD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
