"BTW, I postulated a theory regarding BCR (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) some time ago, to-wit:  they knew about Peak Oil from day one; they knew the federal debt would never be repaid; therefore, why not run the debt up and in effect borrow the money to deploy a permanent military force to the Middle East, with the aim of securing the oil fields in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, the most valuable real estate in the world in a post-Peak Oil age?  In addition, I theorized that BCR would in effect renege on the debt, either explicitly, or through inflation and/or by crashing the dollar."

Jeffrey, I don't doubt that you could have come to this conclusion on your own.  But for the record, this is what Mike Ruppert has been telling his subscribers for the last 5 years.  While Ruppert is not infallible, I have made a windfall 400% profit investing on the insights gained from his "map" of what is going on in the world.  Of note, the subtitle of Ruppert's book, "Crossing the Rubicon" is "The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil".  Of course the rest of the story is about the means utilized to mobilize Americans in favour of an invasion of OPEC.

I check out Ruppert's summaries every once in a while, but I'm not a subscriber.    I'm sure a lot of people have come to very similar conclusions.  As Ayn Rand (and I think Aristotle) said, if you have evidence of a contradiction, you should check your premises, because you will find that one of them is wrong.

What has puzzled so many people is Bush's out of control spending.  But if BCR know that the federal debt will never be repaid, post-Peak Oil, it makes a lot more sense.   Why not borrow the money from foreign creditors to finance the takeover of the Middle East?  BCR would have control of the true capital, energy, while creditors of the US were left with piles of rapidly depreciating paper.  Debts are always paid--if not by the debtor, then by the creditor.

Thanks for your post. I have pondered whether some subset of Greenspan / Busher II / Cheney / Rummy / & a bunch of "leading" Democrates were following the John Galt model by actively bringing forward the day when the status quo ceases to work by deliberately destructive behavior.

Are the contradictions that are visible everywhere indicators of a grand conspiracy of merely overwhelming evidence of a culture of gross stupidity?

Who really knows [but my guess is a vote for "gross stupidity" in the general case --- but in regard specifically to peak oil, more likely almost the entire political class knows at a minimum that something is wrong but don't want to be the ones that break the news to the masses]?

In addition to Ruppert, this theory also sounds what the author of this article is theorizing:

http://www.countercurrents.org/eriqat130306.htm

Here is an excerpt:

But what if there really were no tomorrow, financially speaking? In that case, the reckless economic policies of today would not only be irrelevant, but might actually be shrewd. I mean, if one knows that he is not going to have to pay back his debts tomorrow, then why not borrow money like crazy today? In fact, if civilization is coming to an end, then why not use all that borrowed money to stock up on guns and vital resources, such as oil?
Ruppert's site is all pay, all the time now.  Because of this, he has been deleted from my favorite bookmarks.  His news was usually about 1 week later than here anyhoot.
What exactly do you get when you pay? And how much is it? Is there a menu? This is the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Same here, Dragonfly. American Samizdat is also a pretty sharp source for the political news.