How can the feds be blamed for NOLA catastrophe?

Well, first off, the feds cannot be blamed for the hurricane itself. I've turned this over several times in my head, but I can't find a way to blame the fool for the weather.

But the tax breaks and spending cuts--that's fertile ground for sowing blame. David Sirota lays out the annual tax cuts for NOLA protection in his essay, "Hurricanes Rain on Bush's Tax Cuts Parade." He contrasts the democrats' "tax and spend" with the republicans' "tax and spending cuts" and proposes a banner over NOLA: "Your Tax Cuts at Work."

And Reuters UK is citing a "Pentagon report" that says, "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq." We hear that one refuted in the U.S., but it requires doublethink to contradict your common sense over that claim. As usual, it's interesting to see what the foreign press says, just to bypass the "liberal bias" in the U.S. media that seems hellbent on dispelling criticism of the fool and his gang of outlaws.

Why the U.S. sought to control Iraq (but blew it)

According to the Institute for Analysis of Global Security, "With 1.3 billion people, the People's Republic of China is the world's most populous country and the second largest oil consumer, behind the U.S. ... Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.' " And perhaps more importantly, "China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region." And most importantly,

China would like to maintain good relations with the U.S. and enjoy the economic benefits derived from such cooperation. But this inclination is balanced by the feeling among many Chinese leaders that the U.S. seeks to dominate the Persian Gulf in order to exercise control over its energy resources and that it tries to contain China's aspirations in the region. The U.S. is therefore considered a major threat to China's long-term energy security.

The National Bureau of Economic Research contributes this necessary bit of information, "The United States now imports more than half of all the oil that we consume. One fourth of those imports [approximately 15% of U.S. total consumption] come from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. ... those three countries plus the United Arab Emirates have more than half of the world's reserves of oil while the United States has only 2 percent of total reserves." So we don't seek to control the Middle East because we use so much of its oil, but because China does.

Finally, as The London Times pointed out on 5/24/04,

China is becoming a normal advanced industrial society, but an industrial society of more than one billion people. The advanced industrial countries of the existing order, the G8 countries — America, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Russia — are about to be joined by G9, China. In rough terms, China will have the population of all the old G8 put together. China already uses nearly 30 per cent of world steel and 40 per cent of world cement. How is China’s demand for oil to be fitted into a limited world supply? There are four sides to this balance of trade: money, oil, China and the US. The US runs a $500 billion deficit with the rest of the world, financed by foreign borrowing, particularly from Japan and China; this deficit is largely spent on importing cheap manufactured goods from Asia, particularly from China; China uses the money paid by the United States to buy the commodities, including oil, which are needed for Chinese development.

Yet this quadrilateral trade depends on the stability of each of its sides. In itself, Chinese manufacturing growth is probably the most secure, but China depends on the availability of commodities, particularly oil, and on the continued strength of US demand for Chinese products. The US depends on oil, at a reasonable price, and on money. If the Boston analysts prove correct, and oil prices and interest rates are destined to rise, that will be a double threat to the American economy, a threat therefore to China, and potentially to the structure of world trade.

It is in Washington that the potential fragility of the structure is seen most clearly because the Americans have to defend it. In geopolitical terms, Washington is not willing to tolerate hostile governments in the two largest Arab Opec countries, Saudi Arabia and Iraq; in market terms, Washington describes oil at $40 a barrel as “extremely unwelcome”; in financial terms, Washington tries to keep interest rates as low as possible; in trade terms, Washington has brought China into the World Trade Organisation.

It's always about the oil, but it's also about delaying that moment when China pulls ahead as the most powerful nation in the global economy, and the U.S. steps down. That's why permanent military bases in the Middle East have been seen as essential by the current administration. Why can't they say this?