Abdul Qadeer Khan: We've not yet seen all the fallout of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation.

I agree with your thoughts about regime change, since the alternative to a political/diplomatic/spec-ops, solution would be one heck of a bloody battle for our troops. But one way or another, those countries have to be cleansed of their terrorists and their support network.

But as to your second plan, and speaking as an engineer, I'm not sure we can put together the energy technology solution you suggest in anything close to your timeframe. Wind, solar, fuel cells, ethanol, etc., are nowhere near to being any kind of a viable solution, and probably never will be. Conventional nuclear is a possibility, however nuclear power plants are not something you want to rush through based on a crash program. And fusion is just too immature a technology to be considered an immediate candidate.

But, I learned long ago that one should never say never.

--Boot Hill

Well, it doesn't have anything to do with windmills and the other marginal stuff, except from the point of view of reviving entrepreneurship. We have published about this in the past but found so little leadership in Washington on the point that we have spent a good deal of time, effort and resources setting it up ourselves in conjunction with the inverntor/entrepreneurs and small companies that have developed the technology.

The technologies that can do the job are, in the first place, within oil itself, where there is more than lack of leadership in Washington in the sense that the obstructionism and culture of stealing in big oil as well as the lobbying clout of the ethanol boondoggle boys, big oil and big auto to a certain extent are a huge barrier and have been formidable obstacles.

At this time all I can say is that within a few months you will hear of a much better fuel alternative, usable in existing vehicles that will be better, cheaper and cleaner as well as giving better mileage. While there is an opportunity for Washington leadership on this don't count on it, we certainl don't. After all, if we actually reduce dependence on foreign oil and end the dangerous wealth transfer involved in that dependence, a lot of lobbyists will be less well paid and a lot of campaign coffers on both sides of the aisle less full.

By the way, when we first looked into how leadership would react to some of these technologies there were WND articles that were published here on FR, usually by John Huang 2, but, as we say, just telling folks in Washington about these possiilities didn't go anywhere, nor did that publicity. After all we must give billions to boondoggles like ethanol and really can't get into actully ending our oil dependence.

My personal favorite was Representative Thomas of California. We briefed a staffer of his, by the name of Jason, and introduced him to one of the key inventors and the inventor's small company. He grew very excited but we never heard a word, even though the application of the technologies involved would make his district another Kuwait. I like this example because of his position and the leadership that he pretends. It will be interesting to see how he keeps it up as the technologies are deployed. Will he continue to block oil independence for America that will create an economic boom in his own district and make it the center of a revived California economy? Only time will tell.

Another of my favorite was Bush's friend and head of FERC, the independent oil man, Wood. He was briefed on three of the technologies by a friendly enthusiast for oil independence for America who works there. His response: when we have a press conference, maybe he'd send somebody. Then there was the lady at the Office of the Secretary at DOE who told me that they could not be bothered with every little inventor who had an idea.

We think what happens is that the boss calls his buddies who donate so heavily at majors and ask them if there's anything to it, to which the lobbyist replies by assuring him that if there were anything to it, they would have done it long ago. Of course, these are the people whose companies have their people lower down busy trying to take the technologies without paying for them. (You could look up Talbert Fuel Systems vs. Unocal) Exxon, at least, when interviewed by a WND reporter, stated "I think we're working on something like that," which, given their track record of employing thirty-some researchers to try and back-engineer and steal the technology without success, has a certain accuracy to it.

Why, you'd think that people coming up with technologies that could win the Terror War were looking for Washington to actually help with funding. The idea! What do you think we have the DOE for, anyway? By having the DOE we've been able to increase dependence from one third to two thirds, and we've been able to spend billions doing it. What do you sheeple expect, solutions?

Are Nugan Hand and BCCI connected?

If not, very similar type of operations.

Of course, who knows what all of Enron's operations entailed either?

<< Are Nugan Hand and BCCI connected? >>

<< If not, very similar type of operations.
Of course, who knows what all of Enron's operations entailed either? >>

Are there claims of international intrigue at Enron, or hints of CIA or ex-CIA connections?

"Are there claims of international intrigue at Enron, or hints of CIA or ex-CIA connections?"

frank wisner, jr, assisted enron while he was clinton's ambassador to india. he was later on the enron board of directors.

wisner's father was instrumental in establishing covert action as a major function of the cia. he was the head of the opc, and then he was ddp - deputy director of plans - when the merger of opc with oso was completed in 08/52.

it is also said that enron employed many ex-cia operatives, and many then returned to the cia after enron's collapse. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/11/60minutes/main505913.shtml

Ping, perhaps you would be interested in posts 43 through 45 in this thread?