Exxon behind bin Laden climate tape

I haven't done a conspiracy theory post in a while. Well, OK, maybe I have (some past favorites included Sarah Palin and anthrax), but if so, then here's another one, just for fun.

So, Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change

I can already hear the teabag-climate-denier refrain: “I knew that Al Gore and Bin Laden were friends, and I always thought Gore was a secret al Queda operative, climate change isn't real, I'm an idiot, I don't read books, Sarah Palin is hot, blah blah blah…”

Superficially, Saudi Arabia’s wealth comes from oil, which causes global warming. But oil is also the cause of Western interference in the Middle East. So Bin Laden wants to return to the pre-Western days, by getting the U.S. off Middle Eastern oil?

Seems consistent, but I think there's more to it.

According to Joe Romm, bin Laden called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt to stop global warming. Hmm, this sounds like something the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, or the chief of Exxon might say about any potential climate legislation. Now we're getting into conspiracy theory territory.

What if the same people who are using bin Laden as their puppet to scare lawmakers into approving trillion dollar defense budgets year after year (remember the Cold War ended back in 1989), and billions in Homeland Security no-bid contracts to look at people naked at airports, and wiretap people's iPhones and blog-tap people's computers, and keep those oil profits coming in until the wells run dry...what if they're now using bin Laden to try to derail climate legislation? Right when the Senate may have the best solution in front of their noses. That's pulling out the big guns (even if the guy is on life support hidden away in some bunker under Abu Ghraib).

Just when the Middle Class is about to get a dividend, a politically supported carbon price to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and to save our coastal cities from eminent extreme weather events (Bechtel I'm sure wanted those lucrative rebuilding contracts), only a proclamation by Bin Laden could scare people into voting against their own best interest, or at least bridge the gap until the next election cycle when the corporations will unleash a bailout's worth of campaign finance, thanks to the Supreme Court of Robotic Enslavement. Here another link to the judiciary-robot theme.

Weird to think that Bin Laden could have a climate policy. Sitting in his cave, reading James Hansen papers? Almost makes him seem like a real human (not a hologram projection created by Rumsfeld's DIA?). Next will we find out he has an opinion on universal health care, or banking reform? I assume it would involve blowing things up, kind of like the Joker in the “Dark Knight,” but I’d start to get worried if he suddenly came out for universal health care and public floggings of Goldman Sachs executives and their puppet Treasury Secretaries. The Supreme Court definitely sided with McWorld the other day with their campaign finance ruling, and if Jihad starts putting out statements favoring people over corporations, they might attract some interest from the semi-populist teabaggers, and that’s kind of troubling. (note to NSA wiretapper: reference Benjamin Barber’s book Jihad vs. McWorld)

Rawls from "The Wire" ran the FBI Anthrax Case; What about Cheney?

A character named Rawls in the TV show "The Wire" is a "careerist" whose main priority is to get his clearance rate up. He pushes his employees to close cases as fast as they can, regardless of whether they solve the crimes, improve the city, or get any justice. Whenever Detective McNulty or anyone else in his unit shows any initiative, Rawls humiliates or demotes him. The FBI Anthrax case was run by Rawls.

A lone gunman (bioscientist)? What was his motive? Why target Daschle and Leahy, and the media? Our country would fall apart without the concept of "a few bad apples." From the genocide of the Native Americans to Abu Ghraib, the "few bad apples" hypothesis has allowed those in power to point to a scape goat, close the case, and spare the American people the difficulty of asking deeper questions.

The lone bioscientist (who committed suicide and so can't deny it) is convenient for several reasons. First, the FBI can close the case, making Rawls very happy. Second, a closed case precludes asking any inconvenient questions. It's possible that the Anthrax mailings were overseen by people high up in the government (aka Cheney with Ashcroft's help), and the lone bioscientist is a red herring.

Here's the case for Cheney. You tell me if it's any less speculative than the case for Ivins. Cheney told Leahy to "go f- himself" on the Senate floor. The Senate was 50-49 at the time, due to Jeffords defection, and one less Democrat would make Cheney the tie-breaker and swing the Senate to the Republicans. Post-9-11, Cheney had a long agenda, and he had Ashcroft nearby to consult with. Ashcroft had lots of experience masterminding the plane crash of Gov. Mel Carnahan two weeks before his own electoral defeat in 2000, and a possibly connection to Sen. Wellstone's crash as well (I'm willing to add a conditional to this part of the conspiracy theory). Cheney was far enough up the chain of command that any of his orders would be unquestioned by someone at Ivins' level. Even if the mail did not reach it's target, Cheney would consider the operation a success if it prolonged the fear of terrorism or expanded the list of threats to include bio-terrorism so that the Congress and the American people would support the Bush-Cheney War on Terror agenda. Oops, I forgot to mention Rumsfeld. I don't think Rumsfeld was involved in this particular operation, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

This is pure speculation, but it seems that works for the FBI, with Rawls' approval. Sorry guys, I say the case is still open.

Additional note: Ivins was a registered Democrat.
Additional notes in comment.