 BobbyRutan says: Cannot be repeated enough: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says. Our Minister for defence said that oil was the reason we were there. The "dotard" contradicted him and the others shut up. Tabsey, just curious. I was wondering what is a "dotard"? Is that related to the word, dotage? Old, senile! Then the next question, which "dotard"?  It shouldn't be such a freakin' surprise! wasn't anybody paying attention? [not real, yet] Fox News Flash: Doctors suspect Greenspan may be suffering from Alzheimer's. [/not real, yet] I emailed my brother that it would be difficult for conservatives to dismiss Greenspan's comments since they had elevated him to god like status and had given him all credit for the economic gains of the Clinton administration. I immediately followed with, "but I suspect you will start hearing the conservatives whispering - DEMENTIA". READ HIS BOOK !!!! He supported the war. His comments are being used for political purposes. Greenspan advised Bush that security for world oil supply was reason enough to go to war in Iraq. paraphrase: a war is essential and crucial to secure world oil supplies. Greenspan DID NOT say that the war was solely about oil. His comments were about the effect of war and his support for the war on an economic level. He was relating what his advisement to Bush. Bush did not follow his advice and chose to base the war on the UN violations and wmd. His comments are being used for political purposes.willhelm, some how I am in agreement with you here, and terribly so. However, I think the motives are purely capitalistic and not political at all. Tell me that the publisher of this book is not the same organization who is cashing in on anti-Bush material written by all conservative authors. Yes, his comments are being used politically, by the likes of me anyway. His main concern in the clip seems to be that it is 'politically inconvenient' to accept that the securing of oil supplies was sufficient reason to topple Saddam. This view contributes to a more complete understanding of the motivations of political leaders, and however inconvenient it may be to them, all aspects of the truth should be made available to those they purport to democratically represent, and especially to all who have lost their lives as a result of their decision. Of course he didn't say the war was soley about oil. Anybody who can read English knows that because it says LARGELY about oil. Next you get into that area of why is our nation relying on an energy source coming from the most unstable areas of the world. Who benefits from this arrangement? Bush's friends? Thank you Ronald Reagan for eliminating Jimmy Carter's initiatives to free the US from mid-east oil. Greenspan also pointed out IN HIS BOOK that if there was not any oil underneath Iraq we most likely wouldn't have done much of anything. Just as we have done next to nothing in Darfur or Myanmar. From Greenspan: "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in m... Just curious about your knowledge of history, BobbyRutan? You surely realize that America, as well as, any other nation that has become industrialized in the last Century, set out on a course of energy fueled by CHEAP OIL from the Get-Go! You go into ONE manufacturing plant and put together a plan for powering everything with an alternative fuel, THEN... Calculate the cost, time involved to implement, and be sure you have the capacity to acquire this new energy source (SUPPLY!) when every other user in the whole country switches also! PLEASE, please THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS and quit JUST REPEATING opinions you have heard! I thought the masses would be too intelligent by the 21st Century to so easily become LEMMINGS! BR, has no other option but to lie and misrepresent. He already has about 5 times in this clip and thread. He blames Reagan for aboloshing Carter energy initiatives when the fact is OPEC crashed the oil prices and several companies trying to develop alternative fuels were bankrupted. I do not read much of what BobbyRutan has to say because it mostly vile lies, ignorance, and just hate-filled propaganda. However, I am beginning to wonder if he has the faculties to know the difference. When ideology, sources, and opinion are dependent on one another, you are left with what amounts to abject ignorance. Funny that the clip is from the Murdoch rag, the Times of London? Vile propaganda from a Murdoch paper, say it isn't so! Ooooohhhhhh willhelm has hurt me so bad. His spiel is such a broken record I don't even need to read it anymore. Anybody who experienced the late 70's would have known right then and there, regardless of whether OPEC crashed the prices (which is wrong anyway, it was the availability of non-OPEC resources, e.g. Mexico, North Sea the brought down prices) that it could and would happen again because oil is not a renewable resource. Carter had foresight, Reagan responded to the market and blew off planning for the future. willhelm is full of hot air, the executive branch, under Reagan, effectively dismantled virtually all renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. @valerie I always here from conservatives that the economy is dynamic. Research in this case provides jobs and stimulates the economy. By waiting and allowing other countries to conduct the research and acquire the patents on new energy sources we once again old ourselves hostage. With oil at 80 dollars a barrel, and some projecting oil to reach 120 dollars a barrel, many other energy sources are more than economically viable. Supply? How limited is the supply of the sun's energy? One wonders who is thinking. Greenspan... clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html That is the question if it was essential about oil or for the sake of the economy then that is what the public should have been told. Not scare'em all to death stories. Being essential for Hussein to be gone is not a tacit endorsement of war. The fact is that if oil was the case that was made for going to war the public would never have supported the war, period. Anybody want to discuss the legality of launching preemptive wars for oil? Once again: Greenspan also pointed out IN HIS BOOK that if there was not any oil underneath Iraq we most likely wouldn't have done much of anything. Just as we have done next to nothing in Darfur or Myanmar. From Greenspan: "I wasn't arguing for war per ... I guess I should have used the niffty bold feature. Anyone hanging on to this notion that the war in Iraq was about WMD's lives in an alternate universe. Considering: That the UNSCUM said there were no more WMD's. Hans Blix and Mohammed el-Baradei, the UN's top weapons inspectors contradicted the claims made by Colin Powell before the UN. And that Colin Powell tried in vain to convince Bush not to invade. That the Germans told the US that the source (secret source Curveball) used to legitimize their claims of WMD's should not be relied upon. That the French had reliable resources inside the Hussein government that informed them there were no WMD's and communications eavesdropping backed that claim (Tenet was briefed and he briefed Bush ... Yeah, I really really should have used that niffty bold feature. My oh my. Whatever BD, when Greenspan tries and backtrack by saying,"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive" that doesn't mean he doesn't think that was largely the reason. All evidence that reasoning people would use points that direction. That's covering your butt after the White House and its conservative spin machine go into action. That's parsing words. A book isn't written in a day. It goes through multiple reviews and if his wording didn't mean what it clearly says he had many opportunities to change it. Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says. Which everyone knows except ... Greenspan: "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first." Comedy. Slapstick. Has to be. Yes and willhelm's the punchline. |
View the Top Clips from September 15, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||||
