Newspaper logo  
 
 
   Could We Be Seeing a Conspiracy in Plain Sight?

ON THE SOAPBOX:

Could We Be Seeing a Conspiracy in Plain Sight?

by Lynda Lambert
Whether there's a conspiracy or not, there's a pattern in Bush's administration that causes alarm.

In the spring issue of The Sentinel (vol. 13, no. 4), the editors did a simple thing: they listed the decisions and appointments Bush made during his first six months in office. These factoids are something we all could have found; they're public information. However, when you read it all together, as they have it, in a list, there emerges a supposition that is so terrifying that I find it hard to believe.

When taken in conjunction, however, with Mr. Bush's intention to widen the terrorist war to include more of the Middle East-- the oil countries-- and the already 30-cent rise in the cost of gasoline and the 30% rise in the cost of home heating fuels... well... then you have the appearance of a conspiracy. A conspiracy hidden in plain sight.

We already knew, when Bush took office, that he wanted to find a way to open the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling. I didn't really think he had a chance in hell of this happening.

Since his taking office, however, according to the sources quoted in The Sentinel's article, he has done the following: okayed the solicitation of suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting; cut the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget by $500 million; appointed a former timber industry lobbyist as Forest Service Chief; nominated a Monsanto executive for the #2 job at the EPA; nominated an oil and coal lobbyist for Deputy Secretary of the Interior; canceled the 2004 deadline for automakers to develop higher-mileage cars; rescinded mandatory energy-saving efficiency regulations; and proposed that the $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.

Do you see a pattern here?

Looks fairly obvious to me that he's trying to create a shortage-- actually finding ways to increase demand-- while putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse, so to speak. Meanwhile, we're getting less oil from the countries we're at war with and prices are going sky high.

It looks as if Bush is trying to manipulate things so that people will start demanding that oil reserves be opened and new national sources of oil be found. After all, we have to drive, we have to heat and cool our homes. And, if money is taken from research for alternative fuels, and cars are not made to be more fuel-efficient, supply will go down, while demand rises. Hmmm... and who benefits?

Am I wrong? What do you make of this?


Copyright © 2003 The Baltimore Chronicle and The Sentinel. All rights reserved. We invite your comments, criticisms and suggestions.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on April 4, 2002.
  
APRIL 2002
LOCAL NEWS
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
ART & ENTERTAINMENT
·
·
·
·
SPEAKING OUT
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
NEWS MEDIA CRITIQUE
·
·
·
·
·
NATION & WORLD
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
CITIZENS REFERENCE: BLUE CROSS PRIVATIZATION ISSUES
·
·
·
FROM OTHER SITES
·
·

Public Service Ads: