Saturday, May 12, 2007

In Search of Answers Part II

I find it difficult to locate an actual figure for the cost of the GW Iraq War has cost. Bill Maher said on his show last night that it was costing around $1 billion dollars every day. When NPR asked the Bush administration in February 26, 2003 how much it had cost so far, they said around $50 billion dollars but NPR's Jennifer Ludden research showed it was between $100 billion and $200 billion dollars.

Frank Luntz, the man Democrats love to hate, was on Bill Maher's show last night. Luntz said Democrats lose because they only attack and never tell what they stand for. I'm sorry to say but I agree with him. This report: Improving the Allocation Process for Federal Science and Technology written in 1995 recommended that we should stay away from funding the research of energy physics as a nation and try to "share the cost" with other nations instead .

What we did as a nation was embark on a path of non-research for our energy consumption needs. Only a babe who was totally naive about geopolitics would believe that our county’s strategic interest in Iraq was not about oil. There have been too many academics and national leaders who have debated this argument already so I will leave it stated as a fact. As a nation, if we look at the cost of the Iraq war, which was a policy decision about our energy, wouldn't we have come out ahead if we had not followed the recommendation by the National Academy of Science?

To me, this is a Katrina thing. NOW on PBS showed how the oil companies have been funding public education and Science organizations which are supposed to be independent and not influenced by special interests. I go back to Jackson Browne's song, "I want to know who the men (and women) in the shadows are…” I want to see their faces. I want to see who was influencing their decisions. How did they come to their conclusions? And what are they saying now?

If the Iraq War is the result of special interest groups' influence over lawmakers, I’d like to know? Who are they, how did the come to their conclusions and recommendations? Who or what influenced them, and now that we have paid billions if not billions, trillions of dollars in Iraq, have the changed their mind?

We have lost so much more than money because of our leader’s short-sightedness. We’ve lost credibility and good will in political capital around the world. I'll go back to what Luntz said, what do the Democrats believe in anyway? I search and search and search for a rationale plan for the future by the marketplace and all I see is more of the same. Conspicuous consumption, billions of dollars spent each year on things that end up in land fills and no concern about the sustainability of our consumption habits, no effort to modify our designs or move in a new direction; only lip service. It's just not there. Do the Democrats not think that this might be a good place to start regarding stating out beliefs?

No comments: