I subscribed to my hometwon newspaper this year and always look forward to catching up on the weekly goings on in the old haunts.  It's also an excellent way to keep up on my old friends kids. 

The week of Sept 11 edition really caught me off guard as I was not prepared for an article on the opinion page from eric Stoner a writer for The Nation magazine here:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-stoner/bushs-crude-intentions-i_b_62695.html

If you haven't had your daily dose of leftwing drivel give it look though chances are you will get the gist in my rebuttal sent earlier today., which follows:

Dear Editor,

Words cannot describe the extent of my disappointment in the Tri-County Press, whose editors somehow found it appropriate or necessary to print an anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-American screed by the Nation’s Eric Stoner.  To run such a slanted leftwing rant is embarrassing enough, but to do so on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is unconscionable.

As to the content of Mr. Stoner’s so called argument about the Iraq war being about oil, the only appropriate response is something you hear in grade school hallways all the time; DUH! 

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature already knew that the presence of oil was a significant factor in justifying going to war.  It isn’t that, as Stoner implies, this was some sort of conspiratorial secret but that it was just so obvious it didn’t warrant much discussion.

Another term for oil might be more familiar; it’s called “American Interests”.  Our economy runs on oil.  The world economy is dependant on our economy, so the relatively free flow of oil is not only in America’s best interest but also that of the world.   

In his new book Alan Greenspan explained his reasoning for advocating the war.  His main concern was that the Straits of Hormuz, where a substantial percentage of the world oil supply travels daily, were vulnerable to an unstable, hostile, dictator and that was economically untenable.  

The fact that radical likeminded parties demonstrated the willingness and ability to cripple our economy changed the matter from concerning to urgent.   To think a President Gore would have abjectly ignored this advice is to trade in delusion. 

Secondly, on a more basic level, helping liberate an oil rich nation gave realistic rise to the notion that the whole economic burden wouldn’t be on the U.S. alone.   

I’m no oil expert, but, obviously, neither is Stoner.  People a lot smarter than us helped develop the new Iraqi oil laws.  Anyone with the slightest inclination to give this administration the benefit of the doubt might consider they just might have been trying to prevent the potential hijacking of Iraq’s entire oil industry.  Unlikely you say?  Look in our own backyard where Hugo Chavez commandeered and nationalized the entire, mostly foreign owned, oil infrastructure in Venezuela, in effect stealing billions in American assets.   

In Stoner’s “nationalized good / privatized bad” worldview, the actions of Chavez are justifiable and the nationalized systems of Iraq’s neighbors, the status quo in other words, is somehow preferable to a new democratic approach. Even more incredulous is that, by extension, he advocates a return to Hussein’s nationalized system!  Uh, hello, wasn’t that part of the big problem to start with?

This idea, never before tried the Middle East, except for Israel, which flourishes even without oil, uses privatization as the tool for wider wealth distribution by keeping monopolistic control out of the hands of an oppressive government.  It is a stark departure from the system, which, not all that indirectly, yielded the events of September 11, 2001.  

If Stoner were intellectually honest he would have mentioned Hugo Chavez and acknowledged the glaring problems with the status quo he seems to advocate.   I mean, seriously, is setting up another Saudi Arabia really in anyone’s best interest right now?  This is just another anti-Bush screed disguised as policy debate. 

So, yes, it was partly because of the oil, the lifeblood of our economy.  So far, we are the engine the drives the world economy.  When that changes let it be the result of our performance in the world economy - - not by willful submission to oil rich monopolists, and radical fascists, who are all too willing to exploit our natural preference to peace.

We aren’t the world economic superpower by accident nor will we retain that status through the appeasement and wishful thinking that carried the day in the 1990’s, or more accurately, right up until September 10, 2001.   

For a publication that has adopted patriotism as its running theme the inclusion Stoner’s anti American diatribe during the week of 9/11 seems contradictory and confusing.  If it was deliberate, it is also shameful and offensive. 

If this is your idea of participating in the national debate you’d be well advised to stick to bake sales and local sports.