Posted on 10/23/2007 5:44:31 AM PDT by NCDragon
Allegations that the Bush administration was driven to invade Iraq by a lust for the country's oil have been part of the antiwar movement's narrative since even before the war's first shots were fired. The image of a White House hijacked by a cabal of former oil executives who steer foreign policy to advance Big Oil's interests gained credence as disillusionment from the war grew. This idea is being reinforced by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose memoir hit bookstore shelves in September.
"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil," wrote the man dubbed "The Oracle."
As long as such allegations came from Michael Moore, they could be brushed aside, but echoed by Greenspan, one of Washington's most influential yet least controversial figures, it's time to expose the charge to serious scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
As shown by the prices at the pump.
When the Iraq War first started, I was walking in downtown Baltimore and passed a protest group. They had the usual collection of brainless protest slogans, one of which was the usual “NO BLOOD FOR OIL!” Passing one particularly screeching lady who was shouting this slogan, I noticed that she was operating out of the back of a Ford Expedition. I stopped and said, “Is that your SUV?” and she turned and said, rather cluelessly, “Yeah, why?”
I just shook my head and walked on.
I thought W owned a baseball team...
Just having the freedom to pull up and fill my car with gas regardless of the price makes the war worth it, regardless of the reason for going in the first place. Having a large military presence in this region is something we need to do indefinitely or at least until we find an other energy source.
Whew. Sorrry. Slopped over the side there for a moment. I'm better now.
Actually we should have helped ourself to some dam oil!
I hate when leftists yell ‘no war for oil’.
Practically everything in the world today is possible because of oil and coal. There is almost nothing around us that did not use oil/coal for it’s production or transport. Most of the remainder is due to nuclear power, which leftists also hate.
When leftists are against nuclear, building windmills offshore that barely change the view, using ‘ugly’ solar panels on home, or drilling on our own turf, ‘war for oil’ is inevitable.
Oil is pretty damn important and much more valuable than gold. There will be wars for oil if there haven’t been ones already.
What’s funny is that till Greenspan said this, the left hated him. Creepy little man operating behind the scenes, raising interest rates and controlling the economy... then he says this and suddenly they all respect him so much it’s amazing.
“slopped over the side there”.
Oh, I love your descriptive comment! Hope I can remember it when I need it! And your tag line about angels and crop circles is perfect. Shows an inventive mind!
Seriously, though, I think Greenspan was not saying what the newpapers reported, but that the war was necessary for world-wide economies, not necessarily ours. Correct me if I’m wrong. (And don’t slop over the side again. You’re getting spots on my screen)
"Greenspan's statement has only one significance: It serves as a painful reminder of the administrations failure to provide a ccomplelling explanation for why we are in Iraq."
So it isn't that we are there for the oil, it just that the administration hasn't explained it so idiot leftists like Mr. Andrea Mitchell can understand it. Got it.
But no, our ‘humanity’ and enough PC to choke the whole stable spared them AND their OIL. Some of our other coalition partners (many Muslims) were not asked or expected to march into a brother Muslim’s country and cry victory... even though we defeated those clowns in detail. Instead, do you think that the US was commended in any way or to any degree for such a noble and unselfish conclusion of hostilities??? F%$# NO! Not then or since has the US received ANY consideration for our generosity to the defeated Iraqis. They said we only wanted the OIL then and they have said it EVER SINCE!!! Can anything be MORE preposterous???? I think of that every time I go to buy gas.
I agree.
But petroleum is not important only as an energy source, though that would be enough to go to war.
Think about all the petroleum products that we use every day and how our life would be effected for the worse were we to lose those uses.
War for oil? Hell yeah. Western civilization depends upon it.
Up until a short time ago, the Iraquis did think it was true what the American papers were saying about us going to war for oil. Then, recently, the tribal leaders (can’t spell sheiks) concluded that we really didn’t go to war for oil, and that is when they began to fight on our side. Thanks to the leftists is this country, the tribes were fighting us for a time. Was this the dems’ plan? Just like their latest desperate attempt to turn Turkey against us so we lose the war!
Thank you!
Of course Iraq is about oil. Of course it's about oil; the United States, the default world policeman and primary setup for terrorism, isn't going to wander into any ugly little worthless dictatorship without good reason.
But how in the world does that imply that GWB or oil company executives are sinister scheming conspirators?
Saddam Hussein was a bad fit to be in control of a large portion of the world's oil supply. And the decision had to be made. And it was made with a volunteer overpowering military!
Indeed this fact alone shows the anti-war crowd as weak minded people who have never been in positions of singular responsibility (like the Senators, including HILLARY), and who are motivated by personal hate.
I really now believe that George Bush, who like the majority of Senators, is an elitist patrician, Council of Foreign Relations operative, willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of the nation for which he, and they, supposedly work, to the cabal of globalism.
BUT I will defend the Iraq interdiction on balance until there are overpowering reasons otherwise.
It’s always this way with a Republican Administration. Liberals can’t sail the ship, so they foul the rigging. Nothing new.
The accusation does not include us peons benefitting from the alleged consipiracy. Supposedly the whole thing is about lining Halliburton's pockets. Like any good conspiracy, the apparent cost/benefit ratio - especially contrasted with other ways of achieving the same results - is never considered because if it was the whole notion unravels. (Surely Bush et al could have easily contracted something mundane with Halliburton that would have produced the same, or more, profit; but no, orders of magnitude more have to be spent in a far more difficult, unpopular & dangerous manner to get the same results.)
Just one thought.
If the war was about oil, what the heck would be wrong with that?
According to liberals........................
No.
About oil?
Probably so, as The Oracle allegedly wrote.
Bond: "$15,000,000,000 in gold bullion weighs 10,500 tons. 60 men would take 12 days to load it onto 200 trucks. Now, at the most, you're going to have 2 hours before the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines move in and make you put it back."
Goldfinger: "Who mentioned anything about removing it?"
Bond Science - Goldfinger`s Plot
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.