All I know is that ever since Bush take the seat, everything in this country has gone from gold to ****z.
We can choose not to support those reigimes such as not trading with them or their traidn partners but military invasion . . . that is a major step and like I said. . . there are bunches and bunches of folx who feel they in tyranny . . .. how do you pick which ones are worth liberaing and which ones are not? Rocket River
If you saw Greenspan be interviewed by Matt Lauer, you'd know that he did NOT say that the coalition invaded Iraq because of oil. He said that characterization was "unfair". What he did say was that ONE of the key decision making points was Saddam's intention to go after the Strait of Hormuz, the transportation choke point for almost all oil exports from the Middle East. Saddam gaining control over that strait would have dramatically increased his worldwide economic power, and had the potential to decimate our economy and that of other industrialized nations. ..once again the libs are caught lying on the topic of the war...
We didn't invade Iraq over oil. That was not the root cause. If we simply wanted oil, we could have invaded Iran.
So you are saying Bush is even stupider than you think that he should invade a bigger country like Iran over a weakened by sanction country like Iraq. You lose a lot of cred with this post.
Ok, now you're just spewing being a bunch of non-sense. Stop this sillyiness and say something constructive.
I happen to think "oil" is too simplistic, but on the other hand, what was the root cause? And don't come back with "everyone thought there were WMDs" because has been convincingly proven to not be the case. Also, "to spread democracy" is DOA because it was only trotted out in a big way after there were no WMDs to be found. So, why?
1) Saddam's non-compliance with inspections. Trusting a tyrant that he got rid of his previously-accounted for WMD is just foolhardy. 2) Stability in the Middle East. Saddam + Nukes + Strait of Hormuz = Insane political and economic instability The price of oil is high today, at just under $80/barrel, but under outcome #2 listed above, we'd be looking at $130 oil. Think about that for a moment. Paying $5.00/gallon for gas, worldwide economic recession, consumer prices through the roof, huge inflationary pressures, etc.
emily litella speaks [rquoter]... he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." ... "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."[/rquoter] via just one minute
well, i suppose you're technically correct, it was only the US, Brits, Israelis, French, Italians, Saudis, most of the world's intelligence services in fact, and Saddam's commanders in the field during the invasion, but what do they know?
As I have explained, it was a neo-conservative vision of changing the middle east into a bunch of pro-democracy states that would end a lot of the tension, secure the global economy, and finally result in peace with Israel, and it would end terrorism because support for terrorism would be done. It would also end the quest for the "Islamic Bomb". I'm not saying I agree with that line of thinking, just that it's what neo-conservatives wanted. That's what they really thought and had been saying for a long time. 9/11 just made it possible.
Paul Krugman Sad Alan’s Lament When President Bush first took office, it seemed unlikely that he would succeed in getting his proposed tax cuts enacted. The questionable nature of his installation in the White House seemed to leave him in a weak political position, while the Senate was evenly balanced between the parties. It was hard to see how a huge, controversial tax cut, which delivered most of its benefits to a wealthy elite, could get through Congress. Then Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before the Senate Budget Committee. Until then Mr. Greenspan had presented himself as the voice of fiscal responsibility, warning the Clinton administration not to endanger its hard-won budget surpluses. But now Republicans held the White House, and the Greenspan who appeared before the Budget Committee was a very different man. Suddenly, his greatest concern — the “emerging key fiscal policy need,” he told Congress — was to avert the threat that the federal government might actually pay off all its debt. To avoid this awful outcome, he advocated tax cuts. And the floodgates were opened. As it turns out, Mr. Greenspan’s fears that the federal government would quickly pay off its debt were, shall we say, exaggerated. And Mr. Greenspan has just published a book in which he castigates the Bush administration for its fiscal irresponsibility. Well, I’m sorry, but that criticism comes six years late and a trillion dollars short. Mr. Greenspan now says that he didn’t mean to give the Bush tax cuts a green light, and that he was surprised at the political reaction to his remarks. There were, indeed, rumors at the time — which Mr. Greenspan now says were true — that the Fed chairman was upset about the response to his initial statement. But the fact is that if Mr. Greenspan wasn’t intending to lend crucial support to the Bush tax cuts, he had ample opportunity to set the record straight when it could have made a difference. His first big chance to clarify himself came a few weeks after that initial testimony, when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Here’s what I wrote following that appearance: “Mr. Greenspan’s performance yesterday, in his first official testimony since he let the genie out of the bottle, was a profile in cowardice. Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals. “In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions.” I received an irate phone call from Mr. Greenspan after that article, in which he demanded to know what he had said that was wrong. In his book, he claims that Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, was stumped by that question. That’s hard to believe, because I certainly wasn’t: Mr. Greenspan’s argument for tax cuts was contorted and in places self-contradictory, not to mention based on budget projections that everyone knew, even then, were wildly overoptimistic. If anyone had doubts about Mr. Greenspan’s determination not to inconvenience the Bush administration, those doubts were resolved two years later, when the administration proposed another round of tax cuts, even though the budget was now deep in deficit. And guess what? The former high priest of fiscal responsibility did not object. And in 2004 he expressed support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent — remember, these are the tax cuts he now says he didn’t endorse — and argued that the budget should be balanced with cuts in entitlement spending, including Social Security benefits, instead. Of course, back in 2001 he specifically assured Congress that cutting taxes would not threaten Social Security. In retrospect, Mr. Greenspan’s moral collapse in 2001 was a portent. It foreshadowed the way many people in the foreign policy community would put their critical faculties on hold and support the invasion of Iraq, despite ample evidence that it was a really bad idea. And like enthusiastic war supporters who have started describing themselves as war critics now that the Iraq venture has gone wrong, Mr. Greenspan has started portraying himself as a critic of administration fiscal irresponsibility now that President Bush has become deeply unpopular and Democrats control Congress. http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-sad-alans-lament.html
awesome read, my question to greespan, colin powell, and others, why were you so afraid to stand up to bush?
Because Karl Rove created an awesome political machine that installed loyal Bushies at all key positions?
Actually the reason why they are in power is because what they wanted coincide with what Israel, oil industry, defense industry wanted. Remember many neo-cons also has interest in Israel, Oil industry and defense industry. This is a quite complex affair, so please don't simplify it to win arguments.
