Posted on 09/18/2007 5:08:02 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Well, that is very interesting. But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.
In other words, Greenspan favored the war on the grounds that it would stabilize the flow of oil, even though that wasn't the war's political underpinning. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan told Woodward, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
So let's get back to Lantos, the California congressman who agreed with the misconstrued Greenspan that it was "obvious" we went to war for oil. What's funny -- though not really ha-ha funny -- is that Lantos voted for the war. If it was so obviously a war for oil, why did he vote for it? Unless, of course, he thinks it's hunky-dory to go to war because of oil -- though that didn't sound like what he was trying to say.
As several other politicians and officials noted over the weekend, no White House briefer ever told Congress that this was a war for oil. The debates in Congress didn't say this was a war for oil. Bush never gave a single speech saying this was a war for oil.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I have news for the anti-war Democrats: the North African campaign during World War II was a “war for oil” and took a lot more American and British lives than Iraq.
Quoting historynet.com: “The battle for North Africa was a struggle for control of the Suez Canal and access to oil from the Middle East and raw materials from Asia. Oil in particular had become a critical strategic commodity due to the increased mechanization of modern armies. Britain, which was the first major nation to field a completely mechanized army, was particularly dependent on the Middle Eastern oil.”
“Would Bob Woodward distort, quote out of context, make things up and exaggerate? That’s a rhetorical question, right?” William Casey.
“Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein’s ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz”
This guy can obfuscate more in one sentence than most people can tell in one breath......but this proffer of total stupidity or barefaced lie is astonishing. With what might saddam have threatened or blocked the Strait? His Navy or last 3 SCUDS? Greenspan ought to just fade away like all old book-keepers do......
The All-knowing, All-seeing Fed speaks again. When the Fed farts, people lose thousands in their retirement accounts and grow angry at politicians. Yet no one questions the Fed's absolute power. Not the party now obsessed with restraining the executive branch... nor the party obsessed with taking decisions out of the hands of DC. Go figure.
I figured Greenspan’s “war for oil” comment was incomprehensible “Fed-speak”.
Lucianne, your boy gots your smarts!:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.