I recall, back in the 1980's somewhere, some in the Bush League implying Islamic terror re the West was most usually plied via OPEC; I do not say it's true or not, just that such was partisan politics then.

I recall, back in the 1980's, a man by the name of John Hinckley (q.v., e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr. ) gunned down President Reagan, and then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush ("41") chomped to take over the plenary powers of the Presidency...and Mr. Hinckley, inner circle type of the Bush family, has always gotten the kid-glove treatment.

I recall that throughout the George Walker Bush Presidency ("43"), same has said it uses planted/stagecraft news events for whatever reason(s); it says it has hardcore evidence against GITMO detainees and separate politicians, but that trial isn't that necessary in ANY venue for GITMO types and that pols are best tried by slamming in media also looking to be bailed out or "all you'll get is our aider of those slapping at you until you cave"; the same Bush has said his plenary funding to Iraq and Pakistan are about all that keep them going, even if Pakistan admits using Qaeda for its own purposes and grows sites where Mumbai (inter alia?) attack planners can concentrate; the same Bush team constantly invents new reasons why if anyone questions his Presidency at all about anything, they are or are emboldening terrorists; and now it appears Bush had a foreign reporter just sashay into a "secret farewell" to Iraq which press knew about, throw his shoes at Bush, and the neocon grapevine chants "terrorist, if you criticize a Commander In Chief again attacked by an Islamic hothead IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!".

By coincidence, today it's USA media buzz that Bush wants to use the plenary Presidential powers to bail out an auto industry Congress AS WELL AS AND SEPARATELY FROM the People don't want bailed out; worse, Bush just told us the other month TARP would save our economy and a penny less as TARP spends sends jobs and homes into the abyss, yet now he wants to use TARP funds for it...like somehow that's belt-tightening.

Well, this Conservative agrees with Lefties like Levin and Righties like Ensign and Corker...there is no reason(s) demonstrated why the consuming global let alone USA public yet could be expected to purchase or even need as many vehicles as such TARP-twisting infers in theory; surely, one hopes this isn't some ploy in the nature of "our Commander In Chief was attacked with shoes ala Random Task in Austin Powers, another international man of mystery, this proves need to preserve tool-up military use of auto plants despite base and recruitment center closures...and hey, only a free-trade hating, anti-democracy terrorist of some stripe or Socialist would fail to support oilmen making huge pump profits again, what with all the zillions of vehicles that surely will now roll onto the globe...hey, ask Hayek, increased demand means increased costs to keep up...heh, heh, heh".

For the record, if there IS evidence to cook GITMO folks or otherwise cook Federal Defendants in everyday matters, get them to a trial pronto, and ask the maximum penalties if any are found guilty, otherwise release whoever is just "media stagecraft"; also, why did Bush let Iraq hold the goofy reporter, when it's obvious he DID in front of zillions of viewers actually at least try to commit aggravated battery on a USA official...shouldn't that be a matter of USA sovereignty, or at least collateral sovereignty; and maybe, like he says GITMO DOES have real benefits in fighting anything at all, there is a reason(s) tethered to sense that the automakers need a bailout.

But at present, I respectfully submit more re benefits to personal economies needs to be more fully explained, rather than relying on the opinion only of one man and those he pays or funds, can reach through media attacks, or both.