Crude Politics a book from RW WND publishers blasts Bush War on Terror

[RamboLiberal]

I'm halfway through this book and am astonished that a WND book would make Bush look as big a doofus as we all know him to be. It exposes the real reason for this war in the AWOL WH. This book reads like "Forbidden Truth" except it's from a RW publisher! It's well documented and shows how the Bush administration is more interested in a pipeline through Afghanistan than in finding Osama. Details how this administration and Tommy Franks blew the chance to get Osama and frankly don't care. Also shows how the Pakistanis and Saudis are being protected by this administration and are hiding and financing Osama and Al Qaida. Give this one to your RW family members. Ask RW pundits why they don't have this author on as a guest. Recommend it to RW pundits. Ask them to refute this one since WND seems to be their choice for news.

Crude Politics
How Bush’s Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism

Author: Paul Sperry

Format: Hardcover
Retail Price: $24.99
Size: 6 x 9
Pages: 272

In Crude Politics, Paul Sperry presents alarming evidence that the Bush administration diplomats resumed talks with Pakistani officials over gas and oil pipelines in Afghanistan while the United States was still reeling from the horror of September 11, 2001.

Paul Sperry contends that, true to America’s energy-based foreign policy of the last half-century, the Bush administration seized the opportunity to use the attacks as reason to oust the Taliban—the major obstacle blocking plans for the precious pipelines linking Caspian reserves to hot Asian markets. With journalistic integrity and painstaking research, Sperry will enlighten readers on:

How commercial gain within the current oil-friendly administration has undermined our nation’s war on terror.
How our safety has been jeopardized because of an overriding effort to charge ahead with a new “Silk Road” through Afghanistan, making the capture of Osama bin Laden a secondary concern.
The nature of war and the politics behind the major decisions being made in the current administration, including those regarding Iraq and other “axis of evil” countries.
Bush's behind-scenes operator for regime change in both Afghanistan and Iraq—former energy consultant Zal Khalilzad.
http://wndbooks.com/Products/CrudePolitics.htm

[berry]

1. And Sperry is not just an op-ed writer at WND--look at his bio

"Paul Sperry is the Washington bureau chief at WorldNetDaily.com, a position he previously held at Investor’s Business Daily, where he worked for 12 years. A Hoover Institution media fellow, his reports on national security issues have been picked up by virtually every major news agency in the world. Sperry’s journalistic courage and integrity are backed by years of experience, including extensive reporting and editing on national affairs, economics, manufacturing, real estate, and general business coverage."

Here's a link to a page that archives Sperry's articles:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=139

And here's a sample of the flavor of the articles--very interesting. Like you, I would not have expected this from WND. Can we hope that these defections from the WH line mean something serious about support for Bush* declining? Hope so.

Playing politics with security
Friday, August 15, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – Ever wonder if the tough-talking Texan in the Oval Office and his tough-looking homeland security czar are really doing all they can to protect you and your loved ones from another al-Qaida attack? If you don't, you ...
Clinton-style amnesia returns
Thursday, July 31, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – The source of the mysterious amnesia that struck so many Clinton officials when scandals broke last decade may finally be known. It's apparently something in the White House water, for convenient bouts of forgetfulness have now s ...
Chronology of a cover-up
Thursday, July 24, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – The Bush administration waited a month-and-a-half to turn over evidence backing its uranium charge against Iraq to a U.N. nuke group that had requested it – and only after the president amplified the charge in his prewar State of ...
The Brits busted Bush
Thursday, July 17, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – Weaponsgate is nothing more than a "witchhunt" by Democrats desperate to discredit a popular president. Or so Bush dittoheads argue. To be sure, Democrats are trying to milk the scandal. But Democrats didn't say this:
Anatomy of a lie
Tuesday, July 15, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice insists neither she nor the president knew the CIA raised serious doubts about a nuke-weapons charge against Iraq in his last State of the Union speech. "If there was a concern about ...
Believing Boy Scout Bush
Saturday, June 28, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WHITE HOUSE MEMORANDUM TO: Coalition of the Willing to Continue Believing Me FROM: POTUS, Oval Office RE: War on Terrorism The following claims are true, for I am George W. Bush, compassionate, ... A very curious war indeed
Friday, June 27, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – From news events this week, we can reach two startling conclusions about the war on terrorism: 1) Saddam Hussein really didn't have nuclear weapons or even an active nuke program, and 2) the hunt for Afghanistan escapee Osama bin ...
While Nero fiddled in Baghdad ...
Thursday, May 22, 2003 by Paul Sperry -- WASHINGTON – "Who knows?" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged last week when asked whether Osama bin Laden was still calling the shots at al-Qaida. The man who's prosecuting the war on terrorism doesn't have a clue about the pote ...

I haven't read these yet--will bookmark (the link to Sperry archive I posted above) and check it out later. I'll start with these because I can't afford the book just now--may try the library. But thanks for the tip.

[RamboLiberal]

5. I'm going to bookmark this site

This guy is great for tweaking the RW pundits - I like his writing. Like I said before it seems a lot of RW pundits make the WND site their news source.

I know Sperry goes after the Dems and Clinton as well, but at least he's honest enough to recognize the current doofus in the WH is a deceitful liar. Sperry smacks AWOL upside the head harder than many supposedly "liberal" pundits.

From the first article:
Would the White House use the color-coded terror-alert system as a political tool? Well, consider the lengths it's gone to control political damage in the State of the Uranium scandal. It compromised a CIA operative in an attempt to smear her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the first to blow the whistle on Bush's bogus uranium allegation against Iraq. Outing a CIA operative could jeopardize national security, but shutting up a whistleblower mattered more to this White House.

It's abundantly clear that Bush is playing politics with homeland security. Apparently his own political survival is more important than that of the people he swore to protect from al-Qaida after 9-11. That's not leadership, that's cowardice.

[Abe Linkman]

2. Do you work for the publisher, by any chance?

"Paul Sperry contends that, true to America’s energy-based foreign policy of the last half-century, the Bush administration seized the opportunity to use the attacks as reason to oust the Taliban—the major obstacle blocking plans for the precious pipelines linking Caspian reserves to hot Asian markets."

The above quote from the book you are selling is all the more reason to believe that the 9/11 attacks were self-inflicted, even though the author of the book you're flacking doesn't question the official story.

[RamboLiberal]

4. No way do I work for the publisher

Hey, don't insult me! :evilgrin:

Hell I wouldn't even read the garbage they normally publish. But I'm finding this book to be an exception. I was reading it at B&N but found it so good I just had to buy it and bring it home to read. I have no problem rewarding them with a buy to encourage more publications like this.

BTW, I'm not quite in to the :tinfoilhat: of 9-11 but I do believe that AWOL or at least the PNAC'ers ignored the intel they were getting in hopes of getting their Pearl Harbor.

[reorg]

3. are these the current talking points for continuing the war'n'terra?

As if the alleged yet unproven terror activities by obscure Islamists had been anything but a pretext for the wars in the first place.

What will Democratic presidents do? Will they continue to break international law by killing people in foreign countries?

Will they continue to abduct alleged terrorists and hold them without any legal protection in military camps?

Will they continue the current strategy of preemptive war?

Will they continue the occupation of foreign countries?

From what I have heard, of course, they will. How convenient then that someone is channeling all this originally anti-war stuff into support for a permanent war'n'terra. Makes the current administration look bad and at the same time opens up avenues to continue with the same story.

[berry]

6. Good point.

And if we want people to question (and reject) the "war on terror", the first step is to get the 9-11 investigation back to center-stage, and keep hammering to get the truth out. As you rightly suggest, all of the disgusting foreign policy of aggression has been "justified" by calling it a response to the threat of "terrorism." And public approval of "whatever it takes" comes directly from the cynical use of a fear of "terrorism" that BushCo* intentionally fosters (and likely had a hand in producing, if MIHOP or even LIHOP are true).

But even if people don't get it, don't understand what a racket the "war on terror" is, I do think it's a good sign that some RW columnists are questioning Bush* on many fronts. I think Sperry, with his background at Investor's Daily (or whatever it's called) is probably a WSJ-type Republican. Not good, but maybe more interested in the economy and the health of big business than in the fantasies of PNAC. Who knows? (I haven't read enough of him yet to judge.) He also might be staking out a territory for RWers to go to in case Bush* falls with a mighty crash. I will always read people like Sperry with some skepticism, but I do think it's useful to know what's happening over on the dark side. (And though rpalmer doesn't need me to defend him, I do think that his posting on Sperry was in the spirit of delight at having found a crack in what has seemed uniform support on the right for anything Bush* does.)

You are angry because so many Dems seem to have swallowed the "terror" meme. That angers me too. Personally, I go into outrage mode when Dems use the presumed "real" danger of N Korea to criticize not the policy (eg., pre-emptive war, threats, etc.) but simply the target. As if it would be just fine to attack N Korea. So mindless, such a stupid argument that gets nowhere near the root of the problem.

[RamboLiberal]

7. That exactly was my delight

From berry:
(And though rpalmer doesn't need me to defend him, I do think that his posting on Sperry was in the spirit of delight at having found a crack in what has seemed uniform support on the right for anything Bush* does.)

There are certainly good articles and books written by writers on the liberal/left side, but of course the RW's immediately dismiss them as LW whackos. But if writers on their side from their favorite websites and publishers start questioning AWOL and his regime I think it adds some ammo for those of us who want to write and call the RW pundits challenging their positions. Are they going to have to "Ann Coulter" writers from their own side?