Boy, Andrea's got that old fool trained. He must have said something embarrassing at a cocktail party, and this is his penance...

Sigh.

Traitor!

This is idiotic.

Europe and Japan get their oil from the Middle East, not the US.

If it was about oil/money, the US would have pushed to drop sanctions, like France and Russia did.

So what the hell is wrong with fighting a war over oil?

Oil is a perfectly good reason to wage war!

If oil supplies were suddenly cut off globally tomorrow hundreds of millions--perhaps more than a billion--human beings would be dead within a month. The fact that some of the world's most sinister and unstable regimes control this precious lifeblood of modern civilization make it imperitive that we be prepared to go to war to defend the supply.

And no, ANWR will not solve the problem. Oil is the ultimate fungible commodity. The world will be dependent on it for many decades to come.

Ugh!

Prove it.

I had hoped that when that old fuc* retired, he'd go away. Should have known he'd stick around and let his true colors come out. One more moonbat to contend with.
Just a thought: Alan, if the war was all about oil...where is it?

Well no shit! WWII was mostly about oil too. Does anyone think the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor so they could corner the friggen transistor radio market?

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

Everyone?

re: #5 Pro-Bush Canuck

If oil supplies were suddenly cut off globally tomorrow hundreds of millions--perhaps more than a billion--human beings would be dead within a month.

Sad but true.

And in matters that concerned him

Greenspan, who stepped down from the helm of the U.S. central bank in January 2006, said that as Fed chief he knew about questionable lending practices that were leaving subprime borrowers with adjustable rate loans vulnerable to harm from rising interest rates, but did not recognize those loans would trigger broader problems until fairly recently, CBS said."While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late," Greenspan said. "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006."

re: #5 Pro-Bush Canuck

___
Good point.

No surprise:
Greenspan describes himself as a "Progressive Republican"

I tend to put more creedence in those who take the macro-economic view of world affairs, and Greenie is one of them. Saddam was a scumbag who needed to be greased, no question, but so are Castro, Mugabe, Chavez, and Kim. What made Saddam more urgent?

Paddy Chayefsky can put it better than I can...

Yes, it's about keeping the oil flowing. All the weasels who opposed the war in Iraq still have their contracts don't they?

Senile is not just a delta in Egypt.

So - where is all this oil? Are there specific profits that have been made?
Does he have any proof - or is he just pimping for the Clintons.

I question the timing.

HSU- know what I mean?

re: #9 ccoffer

Well no shit! WWII was mostly about oil too. Does anyone think the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor so they could corner the friggen transistor radio market?

Honda! Honda! Honda!

Again, I ask tools like this where is all this oil we are suppose to have stolen. Why are we paying near 80$ a barrel if we can dip our pipe line into Iraq's oil reserves. We must be pretty inept at stealing oil after invading the same country twice and still have no oil to show for it. Again I way what a tool.

He can't help it, I tell you... his younger wife is forcing him to do it. She doesn't want to lose street at the network.
If you don't believe me, look who she chose to perform the wedding ceremony..
Seriously.
[Link: query.nytimes.com...]

re: #4 FredFryInternational

"Europe and Japan get their oil from the Middle East, not the US."

Yes, for the most part, but we do get 17% of ours from the ME. But since the Euros and the Japanese keep supporting our debt by buying our treasuries, I guess its sort of our imperative to do their proxy bidding.

Like it or not the American economy and for that matter the world economy are all about oil.

Greenspan couldn't be more wrong. Unless Ron Paul's been lying to me, the Iraq war is an effort to defend the interests of world devouring Zionist plutocrats.

Anyone got any scoop on Greenspan's personal investment portfolio?

If you want to throw shit around, some is likely to land on your impeccably clean attire.

Senile moron.

re: #4 FredFryInternational

This is idiotic.

Europe and Japan get their oil from the Middle East, not the US.

If it was about oil/money, the US would have pushed to drop sanctions, like France and Russia did.

Yes. Also-
It would have been easier to do a shady deal with Saddam under the table. (ala George Galloway and the UN)

The Clintons need a diversion from HSU - this is it.

Unless there's a toe-tapping Republican in the wash room? Anybody?

Was he at the protest today?

Andrea Mitchell, the NBC News correspondent, is to be married today to Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Talk about bumping uglies.

I've said it time and time again that the United States will be fighting a long war for oil way back in 1991.

When Saddam decided to switch the petrodollar to euro in November 2000, the US was distracted by the whole 2000 Election fiasco. That was the clicher that the United States was going to war against Iraq somehow.

Sooo...Bush brought us to war for oil, but I am not supposed to think that your assertion wasn't made just so you could make a few more bucks through purchases of your arse wipe from the moveon and truther whack jobs.

An all too easy claim to make.

Can he prove it? Or is he just making charges that he believes is the case, but doesn't possess, ya know, facts.

It'll be interesting to see how Democrats handle this. In March 2005, Harry Reid called him:

(O)ne of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington.

Is he and his fellow Dems, all of a sudden, going to promote what Greenspan says?

re: #5 Pro-Bush Canuck

Exactly...I lived in the Dom. Rep. where the electricity goes out frequently.
No lights, no running water, toilets dont flush etc.
Even though its 100 degrees, you still freeze you butt off taking ice cold showers.

F*cking moonbats wouldn't 2 days without oil.

Funny, if he had any courage, he might have stood up at the time if he really believed it. He is as much of a patriot as Richard Clarke

I'm not going to make a legal case out it, but I read a lot of very intelligent people who are involved with trading and analyzing the stock market (No not Cramer), who have been in the game a long time and still have money to play with and I've read many a case of accusation or strong suggestion that Greenspan made some glaring 'mistakes' He saw the market bubble of 1999, and did nothing about it.
Well, that is until 2000, when a long series of Fed Funds Rate increases killed the market. More interesting, he lied about the fact that he and the FOMC saw it coming - certainly in enough time to put margin percentage restrictions on so as to alleviate the problem. You could buy stocks using 50% margin money, and that was a problem. IN 1929, you could use 90% monopoly money and that was one of the main causes of the market crash then. 50% was very high considering most of that money was directed at NASDAQ dot bomb stocks of vaporware companies.

He has recently said he never thought the easy credit situation would have such a dramatic impact on the market and economy. Please...

He could have easily been a force in sabotaging the economy for the post Clinton administration, and doing further damage well into GWB's administration.

Well, heck, here is a darn nice tune, as are the others you'll see in the middle scroll section all from the Stuttgart concert - A little Cold Duck Time...

re: #5 Pro-Bush Canuck

So what the hell is wrong with fighting a war over oil?

Oil is a perfectly good reason to wage war!

If oil supplies were suddenly cut off globally tomorrow hundreds of millions--perhaps more than a billion--human beings would be dead within a month. The fact that some of the world's most sinister and unstable regimes control this precious lifeblood of modern civilization make it imperitive that we be prepared to go to war to defend the supply.

And no, ANWR will not solve the problem. Oil is the ultimate fungible commodity. The world will be dependent on it for many decades to come.

Precisely. Which is why with the coming collapse of the dollar, it'd be wise to start buying currencies which are backed by oil, like the Norwegian krone.

re: #15 CognitiveDissonance

What made Saddam more urgent?

Oil!

He's right. But it isn't "sad" that the US is safeguarding the fate of the world (which is absolutely dependent on petroleum). It's great.

The depth of Evil which has been unleashed on the world by the Left is staggering. The entire Green thing is Satanically Evil.

We should be using MORE energy, not less. We should be striving to create new better ways to generate 1,000 times as much energy by 2050 as we do today.

Energy usage = Life.

"Green" = Death by slow strangulation.

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

It is politically inconvenient because liberals never seem able to acknowledge reality without finding someone besides themselves to blame.

How this is President Bush's fault is beyond me.

re: #31 song_and_dance_man

My sentiments exactly, Stanley!

The creation of Eurabia, selling out Europe to Muslims, was about oil...

What the hell is our oil doing under their sand anyhow?

Everyone knows?

I don't know.

History cannot deny that Saddam's Oil-for-Food program *illegally* shuffled billions of dollars in oil contracts amongst the majority of the permanent UN Security Council member-nations. China, Russia and France.

Imagine if we let that go on and take permanent root. You can see the resistance that those countries gave when we smashed it in it's infancy. We would have had a serious axis of evil AND some pretty hefty backers unwilling to stop the money train. Galloway in the UK and a Dem-friendly US company were even caught red-handed.

About oil... yes. For oil. No.

Is he out of his fucking mind?

From one who didn't recognize what was happening in the housing loan market, as the federal chief, ..he knows what everyone else does though...that the war in Iraq is all about oil ..

15 of 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has roughly 20% of the world's proven oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is a weak target. So why did we just sell them a shit load of weapons to defend themselves instead of attacking them and taking their oil?

Alan Greenspan, you have either been taken out of context, or you are motherfucking douchebag of the highest order. If the former is true, repudiate that limey rag immediately.

The left always can be counted on for that little "Denise Rich" "I'm a Republican" Trick.

You see - Alan Greenspan is a Republican. So that makes him even more convincing and credible... ahhh

I wonder if Alan donates money to candidates? If so, which ones?
I'd guess they are all Democrats...

Anyone who calls themselves "progressive" anything is either a colossal dipshit with no understanding of the historical background of the term, or an evil dipshit who knows damn well what it means...and AGREES with the goals of marxist "progressiveness".

#15:

Read "America's Secret War" by George Friedman (of StratFor fame). Among other reasons, going into Iraq was supposed to create a US stronghold with which to show the Saudis and Iranians that we were going to pick off state sponsors of terror and we were going to start with a bang and right on their Islamofascist doorsteps. It was supposed to be the first domino.

Of course, GW didn't realize that the Democrats and many of our European 'allies' would sabotage him every step of the way. So instead of showing strength on the doorsteps of Islamofascists, the leftists have made us look like a paper tiger. It's hard to project strength when it seems to the world that half your country is a bunch of defeatist pansies.

But read the book. It's a great one.

-LennySquiggy

Bush should get on TV and say: it's all about oil. The whole Iraq war was about oil.

Serious threats to the US supply of oil are 10,000 times worse than 9/11.

Actually I'd prefer that the US, UK, Canada and Australia combined forces and annexed the entire region, and demoted the Saudis to colonial employees.

Working for the people in a government position has fallen to this --
Get a government job, write a mediocre 'tell all' book and end up making more money than the President of the United States.

And we're going to keep going to war for oil until the eco-libtards let us drill for it in our own backyard!

re: #20 rab3

"Again, I ask tools like this where is all this oil we are suppose to have stolen. "

Nothing was stolen. That's where the moonbats keep exposing their stupidity. It's not about greed or theft, really, just about making sure that the lifeblood of the world economy flows unimpeded. That's not to say national security concerns aren't important as well, just that they sometimes coincide with economic necessity and the Iraq war was a prime example of that.

Allan Greenspan is married to Andrea Mitchell. I think he had too much of her Kool-Aid.

Just awful...
Winkler Murder case

The shoes that got him off are the same shoes that got her off.

So. I guess we can expect those gas prices to come down any minute now, huh?

I don't see why an otherwise brilliant man would utter such a statement - not having seen the full context, of course.

If this war was fully and only about oil, we'd have owned the mid-East decades ago. If it were just about oil - we could have easily taken it and not given a shit about Basra, Anbar, Baghdad, Kirkuk and the other major hotbeds where we are expending blood and treasure to bring FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY to people who haven't known it for more than four decades. If it were just about oil, our "fascist dictator chimp" would tell the environmental crowd to f*ck off and drill in ANWR and off the Pacific coast and anywhere else he damn well pleased.

#48 David Simon

You make an important point. Had we waged war for oil, we could've just attacked Saudi Arabia.

#49 FrogMarch

His last donations were in the 80s.

Greenspan may have been a Republican, but he has had too many years on the cocktail circuit in the corrupting environment of Washington DC. Many go into Washington DC with standards and ethics, doesn't seem like many come out with any.
Of course if he doesn't say what the Mrs. says he probably won't get any.

Greenspan would have been smarter had he just kept quiet, instead he shows that he liked Dems better than Republicans and now is his time to dish and air all his grievances. There was a lot of deferential treatment in the last years of his tenure, he didn't want to leave and seemed to threaten to destabilize the markets unless he could stay in charge.

His credibility is further diminished. Now he is just a shriveled up whiner.

re: #5 Pro-Bush Canuck

So what the hell is wrong with fighting a war over oil?

Oil is a perfectly good reason to wage war!

Much better than fighting over religion ;>)

Let's face it fellas, HE'S TIRED

Sparse Schedule for Thompson on Trail

/Shillery for Hillary '08

re: #54 DesertSage

And we're going to keep going to war for oil until the eco-libtards let us drill for it in our own backyard!

Unfortunately that would only be a partial solution. The US has insufficuent economically viable recoverable reserves to last for very long. I'm not saying don't do it, but the long term solution is not US extraction.

HEY! One can't vote for/against themselves anymore?!

If it's all about oil, Alan, why are gas prices higher than ever?

re: #48 David Simon

You go, guy!

re: #63 Pro-Bush Canuck

It's getting more economically feasible by the day. So is corn.

re: #54 DesertSage

And we're going to keep going to war for oil until the eco-libtards let us drill for it in our own backyard!

If they would only think things through...

It would have been much cheaper and easier just to buy Sadam off for cheap access to his oil.

He must have found Jimmy C's lost playbook.

Didn't I just read a while back that Liberals are smarter then Conservatives?

If they're so damn smart, why don't they invent an alternative energy source so we won't need oil anymore? Hmmm?

re: #67 cbinflux

re: #63 Pro-Bush Canuck

It's getting more economically feasible by the day. So is corn.

Don't agree. Especially re corn, which is 100% political boondoggle and a very, VERY bad idea in general.

Nuclear is a far better answer, but once agains the Leftards have made that all but impossible in the US. The French and Japanese are both vastly ahead of the US when it comes to nukes.

re: #11 NiceLass

re: #5 Pro-Bush Canuck

If oil supplies were suddenly cut off globally tomorrow hundreds of millions--perhaps more than a billion--human beings would be dead within a month.

Sad but true.

Bucky Fuller said basically the same thing 50 years ago. He used shutting down the food processing equipment in the U.S. and Soviet Union ... and 3 mos. iirc.

re: #70 DesertSage

Didn't I just read a while back that Liberals are smarter then Conservatives?

If they're so damn smart, why don't they invent an alternative energy source so we won't need oil anymore? Hmmm?

I read that too.

I have a feeling Libs were the ones who did the "study."

re: #65 americanpundit

If it's all about oil, Alan, why are gas prices higher than ever?

Because we're losing the war, naturally.

/Mrs. Greenspan

re: #44 song_and_dance_man

"Because it's not moral to fight over fuel."

Tell that to two starving men who come upon a loaf of bread, and both have wives and children to feed back in their respective huts.

It's funny how "morality" goes out the door in life and death situations.

I think GWB's economic policy's made this prick look good, not the other way around.

re: #62 cbinflux

Let's face it fellas, HE'S TIRED

Sparse Schedule for Thompson on Trail

/Shillery for Hillary '08

re: #60 SkepticalOne

Of course if he doesn't say what the Mrs. says he probably won't get any.

At his age I doubt even a bushel of Viagra wouldn't help.

re: #71 Pro-Bush Canuck

funny thing is so is the province of Ontario which is building tons of new reactors.

America is like new Jew, they cant do anything everyone else in the world is already doing.

#71 Pro-Bush Canuck

Nuclear is a far better answer

Geothermal, too, in many cases.

re: #60 SkepticalOne

just a shriveled up whiner wiener

Fixed it for ya'.

Of course it was and is about oil. Safeguarding the gulf against Saddam's predations, and now the Iranians', and teaching assorted bad arabs that if they piss us off, a gallows, or worse, awaits them.

Did people here really think it was about human rights and bringing democracy to the arab world? Otherwise, we would have been in Darfur or a hundred other shitholes.

And it would have been fine and totally acceptable to the American Street, if Bush didn't go and fuck it up by waging it in a manner he thought wopuld please the Arab Street (that street in Riyadh where all the 'royal' palaces are).

He ended up pleasing no one, and causing excess American deaths as the early rules of engagement had soldiers pussfooting around mosques while snipers within picked them off 2 and 3 at a time.

The surge is a good concept, but too probably too late. It should have been fought surge-like from day one.

While hindsight is 20-20, it became pretty obvious early on that terrible mistakes were made.

Anyhow, one of the few times I disagree with Charles. Greenspan is right on in this respect, as he was on the economy.

And why didn't we just take the oil the first time we kicked Saddams butt?

re: #78 MandyManners

re: #60 SkepticalOne

Of course if he doesn't say what the Mrs. says he probably won't get any.

At his age I doubt even a bushel of Viagra wouldn't help.

At his age... it's all about oils.

re: #70 DesertSage

Didn't I just read a while back that Liberals are smarter then Conservatives?

If they're so damn smart, why don't they invent an alternative energy source so we won't need oil anymore? Hmmm?

EXCELLENT question!

re: #83 DesertSage

And why didn't we just take the oil the first time we kicked Saddams butt?

We don't roll that way.

I get sick of all this make-nice re the war.

How about just telling it like it is? The war is about:

1. Retaliating because Arab savages attacked the US;

2. Inserting some military might in the midst of a backward, twisted culture which cannot run itself let along co-exist with others;

3. Prevent nut-job Arab dictartors from amassing enough weapons and power to threaten/blackmail the US and the West in general with the "oil weapon".

If democracy in Iraq results as a side-effect, then great. In the mean time the Arabs should just be thankful they didn't all get nuked on 9/12/01.

re: #59 americanpundit

#48 David Simon

You make an important point. Had we waged war for oil, we could've just attacked Saudi Arabia.

#49 FrogMarch

His last donations were in the 80s.

What about his wife?

With what's going on in the mortgage business I'm sure good ole' Alan would love to divert attention away from the real story in his twisted world. The Feds need an overhaul as does Greenspan's veracity.

re: #65 americanpundit

If it's all about oil, Alan, why are gas prices higher than ever?

Same reason everything else is higher. Gold is up 200% since 1999, Silver has doubled in the last 7 years, wheat is trading at a 25 year high. Too many worthless dollars chasing too many goods.

And why is that? Well, because we have a Congress and a President who just can't say "no". When you print money to make up for spending deficits and refuse to raise taxes, you end up getting the "hidden tax": INFLATION.

re: #84 cbinflux

re: #78 MandyManners

re: #60 SkepticalOne

Of course if he doesn't say what the Mrs. says he probably won't get any.

At his age I doubt even a bushel of Viagra wouldn't help.

At his age... it's all about oils.

LOL!

Here's an alternate world history for y'all.

Say Saddam never invaded Kuwait. Gulf War 1991 never happened.

Well, without US troops in Saudi Arabia, maybe bin Laden would never have happened, but let's say he did, and 9/11 also still happened.

There would be no way we would ever have invaded Iraq in 2003 for oil.

OTOH, perhaps we would have invaded Saudi Arabia - for oil! Probably should have anyway.

In fact, the secular Sunni Saddam might have remained our buddy against the Saudis and Iran. In fact, we might have politely requested that Iraq invade Saudia Arabia on our behalf. Can you imagine that?

So, Mr. Greenspan's failing memories to the contrary, saying this is about oil, is like calling the New York Times an objective news source.

re: #89 zygazint

With what's going on in the mortgage business I'm sure good ole' Alan would love to divert attention away from the real story in his twisted world.

Spot on!

"Here Hon, why don't you help me edit this."

This foil also said that Bush should have vetoed a lot more spending. True, but Greenspan's implied conclusion was a Democrat would have done better? Huh? I think Mr Greenspan became a moonbat in the year 2000, when he refused Bush's imprecations to lower the interest rate in spite of increasing evidence of a general economic decline. Bush has had 7 years of study in Economic theory and has a fine grasp of it. He was right. Greenspan was wrong. bankers, by the way often make poor economists. Money theory is important, but there are many other factors.

re: #71 Pro-Bush Canuck

re: #67 cbinflux

re: #63 Pro-Bush Canuck

It's getting more economically feasible by the day. So is corn.

Don't agree. Especially re corn, which is 100% political boondoggle and a very, VERY bad idea in general.

Nuclear is a far better answer, but once agains the Leftards have made that all but impossible in the US. The French and Japanese are both vastly ahead of the US when it comes to nukes.

Exactly. The damage done by the Ecoterrorists to the U.S. is incalculable by preventing the building of nuclear power plants. This was and is a tragedy of epic proportions.

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

Ah - the Luminary speaketh. So was Gulf I.

re: #1 tradewind

Boy, Andrea's got that old fool trained. He must have said something embarrassing at a cocktail party, and this is his penance...

I remember channel surfing on election night 2004. Andrea was giddy early in the night when she thought Kerry would win. Then Andrea was ashen white, practically in tears, when reporting that Kerry lost.

The old saw about economists is that you could line all of them in the world up end to end and still not reach a conclusion...
Mr Greenspan should stick to market/ inflation analysis and leave geopolitics to adults who deal in the real world .

re: #94 pat

"Here Hon, why don't you help me edit this."

This foil also said that Bush should have vetoed a lot more spending. True, but Greenspan's implied conclusion was a Democrat would have done better? Huh? I think Mr Greenspan became a moonbat in the year 2000, when he refused Bush's imprecations to lower the interest rate in spite of increasing evidence of a general economic decline. Bush has had 7 years of study in Economic theory and has a fine grasp of it. He was right. Greenspan was wrong. bankers, by the way often make poor economists. Money theory is important, but there are many other factors.

Great post!

Raps for diesel!

Instead of just bashing GWB, I'd like to hear all the Barcalounger Presidentials like Greenspan explain how they would have managed things differently regarding Hussein and Iraq and just why they think their own policies would have left us in a better spot today.

re: #87 Pro-Bush Canuck

I get sick of all this make-nice re the war.

How about just telling it like it is? The war is about:

1. Retaliating because Arab savages attacked the US;

2. Inserting some military might in the midst of a backward, twisted culture which cannot run itself let along co-exist with others;

3. Prevent nut-job Arab dictartors from amassing enough weapons and power to threaten/blackmail the US and the West in general with the "oil weapon".

If democracy in Iraq results as a side-effect, then great. In the mean time the Arabs should just be thankful they didn't all get nuked on 9/12/01.

I agree, those ARE the reasons we went to war. And the little whiney lefties better grow up and act like adults and accept it. Because they're the first ones that will cry bloody murder the first time they can't get a limo to the latest Hollywood premier because there's no gas to fuel it.

re: #87 Pro-Bush Canuck

I get sick of all this make-nice re the war.

How about just telling it like it is? The war is about:

1. Retaliating because Arab savages attacked the US;

2. Inserting some military might in the midst of a backward, twisted culture which cannot run itself let along co-exist with others;

3. Prevent nut-job Arab dictartors from amassing enough weapons and power to threaten/blackmail the US and the West in general with the "oil weapon".

If democracy in Iraq results as a side-effect, then great. In the mean time the Arabs should just be thankful they didn't all get nuked on 9/12/01.

That would have been a great answer for my son who came home Friday after only 2 weeks in high school with doubts about the war.

Of course I found out today that his world history teacher is a complete LLL, and she makes no attempt to hide it.

It's going to be a looong year...

Well, it's obvious..Andrea threatened to cut the old codger off!

re: #12 bonz

" Greenspan said. "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006."

If that ain't the proverbial money quote...

It's about the free flow of oil at market prices. Terrorism, chaos and dictators hinder that, so they must go. Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand with it so they must be helped to bloom.

Sorry to hit and run be church comes early tomorrow.

You make an important point. Had we waged war for oil, we could've just attacked Saudi Arabia.

No, that's an idiotic point. The war was launched to protect Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states, so we wouldn't have to go in there someday to occupy them to ensure the continued flow of oil.

And that is why we can't pull out of Iraq now. Giving Islamists Iraq at this point would ensure we have to fight a wider, larger war a some point in the not too near future.

Bush's fuck up is that he handled this war so poorly that he lost the majority of the American people along the way, and he now can't come out and say the war is strategically necessary to safeguard the American economy because he set up the ridiculous premise that it was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people.

Andrea Mitchell is about a clueless moonbat libtard as you can get. A real moron.

He' not stupid: ANTI Bush books sell better than PRO Bush books. I'm guessing that Greenspan's book has lots more to do with MONEY than the Iraq invasion ever did with oil.

re: #89 zygazint

I for one am hardly worried about what is going on in the sub-prime market. Many of these were second homes. When the price falls, buy one. Resell it to a nice family at a profit in 5 years. The rental market is strong, and will be so long as the employment figures are equally strong. Location first, replacement cost second. Then look at income potential.

According to Hillary and Gore and Pelosi and Kerry, it wasn't for the oil.

I ended up voting for the (war) resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. It is not my preference it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation and willingness to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition but we are in a very difficult position right now.
-Hillary Clinton March 6, 2003, speaking to members of Code Pink.

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." -Former President Clinton on CNN's "Larry King Live", July 22, 2003

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." -Senator Harry Reid, October 9, 2002

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars." -Senator John Kerry, December 16, 2003

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -Senator John Kerry, May 3, 2003

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause." -Senator John Kerry, March 20, 2003

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so." -John Kerry on eve of Iraq war, March 17, 2003

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-Nancy Pelosi, addressing the US Senate, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
-Nancy Pelosi, during an interview on "Meet The Press", November 17, 2002

In other economic news:
The New York Times ad revenue declined a stunning 3.2% in August.
Their shares set new 52 week lows two days in a row this week.

Ironically, we're funding our enemies with oil revenue.

My guess is, there's more to his explanation than The Times cares to publish. In a macro-economic view, sure - it was about the oil, in the sense that the entire world economy depends on it. To not secure a long-term supply of it for a long-term war on a radical ideology would be foolish. So in a sense, yes. We are at war for oil, but I think the more immediate benefits of making sure Saddam doesn't provide weaponry and oil proceeds to al Qaeda is more necessary. And guess what? He's not doing that - because he's dead!

Let's wait to hear what the book says.

re: #82 Maine's Michael

The surge is a good concept, but too probably too late. It should have been fought surge-like from day one.

I disagree with you on this. The Iraqis only began supporting the American presence after getting a big taste of life under the warlords. The chaos and death brought to Iraq by the AQ true believers spurred the citizens to begin cooperating with our troops. Without that ugly but necessary lesson, the hope for success in Iraq would be considerably lower than it is now.

1) I am so sick and tired of anyone saying it was for oil. First of all as someone said already- so what if it was for oil-it is kinda important to us all---but more important --if it was for oil ( as he says everyone knows ) were is the place i get into line to get mine. I never got my memo on that!

2) the old fart is married to Andrea Mitchell--
a) she is as liberal as they get
b) she works the state department scene so has state department
derangement syndrome ( similar to bush derangement
syndrome which she also has )
c) she is leading him around by his- well being a gentlemen I will
not say more.

re: #114 song_and_dance_man

Damn!

#106 Nice...
Be damn certain you instruct the teacher, principal and super that you expect education to occur and NOT indoctrination !
Those are your tax dollars paying for services rendered and you expect a quality product . No half a**ed leftist substitutes will be tolerated !

I'm sick of shit like this.

Let's suppose that George Bush is evil (moonbats readily agree).

Let's suppose we really/only wanted Iraq's oil (moonbats get whiplash agreeing).

Given those two premises, wouldn't it have been far easier to just make nice with Saddam, lift the sanctions, let Exxon move in, and thoroughly ingratiate ourselves to the tyrant?

Wouldn't that have been a lot easily, cheaper, and probably faster than invading? Even for an MBA with a C average?

At this point moonbats say something silly like "Halliburton" or "selected not elected," then begin to drool and froth.

Ayn Rand should have kicked his ass out of her house when she had the chance. So someone please tell me how much oil have we taken thus far and why is oil at $80/barrel instead of $10/barrel like the plan the illuminati originally came up with?

Re the surrender monkeys demonstration in deecee:
...Nearly 1,000 counter-protesters gathered near the Washington Monument, frequently erupting in chants of "U-S-A" and waving American flags.

They planned to line both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue to confront anti-war protesters as they marched by and follow them to the Capitol.

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, speaking from a stage to crowds clad in camouflage, American flag bandanas and Harley Davidson jackets, said he wanted to send three messages.

"Congress, quit playing games with our troops. Terrorists, we will find you and kill you," he said. "And to our troops, we're here for you, and we support you."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., made a surprise visit to the counter-protest, which was organized by the group Gathering of Eagles. The group was created this year by veterans who wanted to challenge war protesters.

"We're a people of faith, courage and fidelity," said Hunter, a 2008 presidential candidate. "It's for this generation that we will win this war on terror."

Please. Greenspan is no old fool.

re: #115 pat

I'm completely un-worried about it. Over the past 30 years we've managed to temper the wild economic swings of the past. We will still see periodic corrections, and some will be bumpier than others, but barring major geopolitical instability we have achieved overall economic stability and there is little reason to worry about massive dislocations such as the Great Depression.

re: #81 MandyManners

re: #60 SkepticalOne

just a shriveled up whiner wiener

Fixed it for ya'.

Mandy, my goodness.

re: #103 mich-again

Instead of just bashing GWB, I'd like to hear all the Barcalounger Presidentials like Greenspan explain how they would have managed things differently regarding Hussein and Iraq and just why they think their own policies would have left us in a better spot today.

You will get lots of drivel about working with our allies to achieve a non-military solution that would have forced Saddam to change his ways and adopt democracy. (unrealistic drive, but that's what you'll get)

#88 FrogMarch

None.

re: #117 Crepuscular Prick

thats cuz moveon.org dinged them for $120,000 by having their one page ad fly standby.

re: #123 jwbaumann

I'm sick of shit like this.

Let's suppose that George Bush is evil (moonbats readily agree).

Let's suppose we really/only wanted Iraq's oil (moonbats get whiplash agreeing).

Given those two premises, wouldn't it have been far easier to just make nice with Saddam, lift the sanctions, let Exxon move in, and thoroughly ingratiate ourselves to the tyrant?

Wouldn't that have been a lot easily, cheaper, and probably faster than invading? Even for an MBA with a C average?

At this point moonbats say something silly like "Halliburton" or "selected not elected," then begin to drool and froth.

You must be a neocon--your making to much sense! Well done.

re: #109 geoffb5

It's about the free flow of oil at market prices. Terrorism, chaos and dictators hinder that, so they must go. Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand with it so they must be helped to bloom.

EXACTLY! Libs have an idealistic world-view, they want to eat steak, they just don't want to be in the room when the cow gets slaughtered. Conservatives want to look "moral" so they have to harp on 9/11 and fears of a future attack so they don't appear venal or materialistic. In the end, most wars are a combination of economic self-interest and moral duty.

re: #90 CognitiveDissonance

Part of the reason wheat is at a 25-year high is because more crop land is being dedicated to corn production - the red herring of the global warming argument. What are you paying for butter these days? Quite a bit more than you used to, I imagine. You know why? Cows eat corn (among other things). Oh, but more corn is being channeled off to the ethanol craze, so there is less of it for feedstock.

re: #122 Yosemite Bill

#106 Nice...
Be damn certain you instruct the teacher, principal and super that you expect education to occur and NOT indoctrination !
Those are your tax dollars paying for services rendered and you expect a quality product . No half a**ed leftist substitutes will be tolerated !

If it gets too bad, I will, and thanks. Actually I worry more about the other kids than my son. He has someone (me) to offer the other side of the issue, but I seriously wonder how many others do.

re: #132 song_and_dance_man

re: #82 Maine's Michael

Are you suggesting that America's response to 9/11 and Islamic fascism as it relates to Iraq was only about oil?

The biggest single threat that Islamic Fascism presents to America is the threat to the global oil supply. Suicide bombings are a trifling niusance compared to the vast havoc that would accompany severe dislocations in the oil supply. Global war could easily result as China and Russia piled on.

Oil is vastly more important than most people remotely understand.

Army records first UAV kills
[Link: www.airforcetimes.com...]

When Army scouts in Iraq spotted two men planting a roadside bomb Sept. 1, they called in a nearby Hunter unmanned aircraft, which dropped a laser-guided bomb and killed the two men.

Woot!

/Nerds gone wild!

Another one of the nation's elites apparently loses perspective.

"It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own..."

G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy

And a warning to the OPECkers, depots, theocrats and blossoming authoritarians.

If the US can't have access to oil at market prices - no one else can either.

OT

Latest Holocaust memorial goes to a Muslim?

His name was Mahjub bin Adam Mohamed. The artical says

The memorial will be placed so that pedestrians have to step around it, and its aim is to stop future generations from thinking of the Holocaust in terms of anonymous, faceless numbers. Until now the markers have been almost exclusively established at Jewish homes, but bin Adam's Stolperstein will serve as a reminder of other minorities, the black people, the disabled, homosexuals, gypsies, communists, political dissenters and Jehovah's Witnesses, who were also murdered under Hitler's regime.

Do we need to include Muslims in that list of minorities who were victims of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. I did a Google search and found he also goes by the name Bayume Mohamed Hussein.

I mean no disrespect to victims of the Holocaust. All victims of that tragedy should be honored no matter who they are. I tread lightly here. I would find it odd that the latest memorial to a Holocaust victim went to a Muslim. I mean our little friends in the middle east make such a point about denying the Holocaust ever happened. Can they finally come clean now and admit that it really happened if one of there own was killed. Does anyone have any other info about this guy?

Write book, bash Bush, sell book to left wing loons and daily kooks.

Shaking so hard, now if the White House could only stop laughing long enough to knock the old fool back in his place.

The guy is a Clinton lackey, always has been always will be. He is just pissed that his trick of pumping the stock market to get the Goracle elected failed -- then he had to crash the market by jacking up interest rates over the top to keep it from spinning out of control.

I wonder if Andrea Mitchell gets the first interview about his "book".

Yes, it's about the oil. Buy my book to see the proof. What a shill, scumbag, turncoat... I knew subprime loans were causing problems and I did...nothing. The White House better hammer him pretty hard. I'd kick his wife out of the State Dept. reporter pool too.

How did all those anti-war assholes get to DC anyhow?

My bet is that they used transportation that was powered by fossil fuel!

F*cking hypocrites!

Check out this Q&A with George Friedman's website:

AMERICA'S SECRET WAR

re: #115 pat

That's interesting as the problem has bled into the prime market and is affecting ALL borrowers. I'm not so concerned with the sub-prime market, either. As a broker I never held a gun to my sub-prime borrowers heads to sign docs on a 100% 2/28 - I never believed in them and the proof is in the pudding today. However, the Banks and the Feds and Wall Street ( the boys that make the hair-cuts ) pushed those programs and incentified the brokers and the consumer and that is what I take exception to..the mortgage market is cyclical and it will recover...but the Fed needs an overhaul, period. This is the kind of stuff that leads us into recession.

re: #111 Maine's Michael

You make an important point. Had we waged war for oil, we could've just attacked Saudi Arabia.

No, that's an idiotic point. The war was launched to protect Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states, so we wouldn't have to go in there someday to occupy them to ensure the continued flow of oil.

And that is why we can't pull out of Iraq now. Giving Islamists Iraq at this point would ensure we have to fight a wider, larger war a some point in the not too near future.

Bush's fuck up is that he handled this war so poorly that he lost the majority of the American people along the way, and he now can't come out and say the war is strategically necessary to safeguard the American economy because he set up the ridiculous premise that it was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people.

It was always about going in now or later. There is no "at this point" which is any different from when we first went into Iraq.

Regarding the "mishandling" - I struggle with that myself. I want to believe that something should have been done differently, but I can't figure out what it is. Can you be specific? What should have been handled differently?

re: #115 pat

re: #89 zygazint

I for one am hardly worried about what is going on in the sub-prime market. Many of these were second homes. When the price falls, buy one. Resell it to a nice family at a profit in 5 years. The rental market is strong, and will be so long as the employment figures are equally strong. Location first, replacement cost second. Then look at income potential.

Agreed. The point being, that Greenspan doesn't understand things *today*.

A lot of the problem was speculation. The speculators may lose some now, but many of them already made a lot previously, so a lot of them come out with net profits anyway. Those who bought a house on a variable rate and are now being adjusted up, well, if they were in the house even two or three years, should still be able to get out even, if necessary. You can enumerate the various cases, and except for a very few unlucky sods who extended themselves to buy at the top of the market, there are few individual loses on the real estate, and the losses are mostly very small. OTOH, Wall Street rocket scientists who were buying the fifth degree partial differential tranch denominated in quatloos, may lose a few billion dollars this year. I suppose that must hurt, but rather less if they've been making a few billion dollars a year for the past five, and without raising a sweat. I figure this will be so over by March, it won't even make a campaign issue.

Stefan Kanfer
British Broadcast Cowardice
The BBC’s sad decline
10 September 2007
Once upon a war, the British Broadcasting Corporation aired the likes of George Orwell, T. S. Eliot, and Winston Churchill, proudly hailed the valor of the RAF, and extolled the virtues of the Western world. That was then; this is 2007, the epoch of the Beeb, a synonym for mendacity, spinelessness, and political correctness.

Recently, the BBC allowed a blatantly anti-Semitic posting to remain on its website for days. The message from someone using the alias “Iron Naz” read: “Zionism is a racist ideology where jews are given supremacy over all other races and faiths.” Only after complaints from Jewish organizations was the item removed. Then a popular BBC children’s show held a faked phone-in competition. The show led its viewers to believe that the competition was open to the public and that members of the television audience were making the calls. In fact, the winning caller was a member of the production team.

To complete the picture, the BBC presented footage suggesting that Queen Elizabeth II had stormed out of a sitting with celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz. (Actually, the queen was filmed complaining about her crowded schedule before the two women ever met.) When the gaffe was exposed, the Beeb issued an official statement: “In this trailer there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left a sitting prematurely. This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was misrepresented. The BBC would like to apologize to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused.”

But wait—there’s more! Under pressure from BBC suits, a drama called Casualty recently made a chilling alteration to one of its scripts. According to reports, the show’s stars “won’t be dealing with an explosion caused by Islamic extremists in case it offends Muslims. Now the bomb will be set off by animal rights campaigners instead.”

Translation: folks like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals may be notorious for offensive demonstrations and statements. They famously dumped a dead raccoon on the table of Anna Wintour, Vogue’s editor in chief, for promoting the use of fur in fashion, and threw pies at her on various occasions. But they don’t detonate bombs in subways, behead those whose beliefs are different, instigate riots and murders because of some impudent cartoons, demand special schools to preach hatred to the young, or condemn those outside their orbit as infidels. Thus, in a strange judo move, the Beeb turned the annoying but nonviolent into murderous villains, and gave the real enemy of Western civilization a pass.

It should come as no surprise, though, to see the BBC in its present state of disgrace. This is, after all, the corporation whose newsreader Anna Ford has just quit because of the Beeb’s “atmosphere of fear”; whose Newsnight presenter, Jeremy Paxman, states that his employer suffers from a “catastrophic, collective loss of nerve”; and whose editor, Peter Barron, complains about the BBC’s incessant harping on unproved global warming. It is “not the corporation’s job to save the planet,” he says. The Beeb’s future appears to be as bleak as November in London.

[Link: www.city-journal.org...]

re: #127 Pro-Bush Canuck

Unless the government gets involved on the supply side, demand usually corrects this stuff quickly. A subsiding housing market is an opportunity for young families to buy that home. We are a growing nation, like Canada, our decent housing in safe areas will be sucked up, and fast. And many silly speculators will lose money to the benefit of a stable consumer.

It is the Congress that approved of going to war to bring about regime change in Iraq. So if Greenspan really wanted to know why a particular member of Congress voted for the war, he should ask that member of Congress. If he wanted to know why President Bush supported going to war, then he should ask President Bush.

Greenspan is only qualified to say what his own reasons would have been for going to war; he cannot speak for anybody else.

re: #132 song_and_dance_man

re: #82 Maine's Michael

Are you suggesting that America's response to 9/11 and Islamic fascism as it relates to Iraq was only about oil?

Afghanistan was about 911. Iraq was about safeguarding the Gulf.

re: #80 braverutherford

#71 Pro-Bush Canuck

Nuclear is a far better answer

Geothermal, too, in many cases.

___-
Don't forget that the US has the world's largest coal reserves. More than the world's reserves of oil IICR. True, there still needs work to be done on the refinement process (dirty, lots of emissions), but it's getting there and sure as hell would get there in a hurry, as well as having more refineries built if the government used some of that 12 billion a month they're spending in Iraq...

re: #134 CognitiveDissonance

In the end, most wars are a combination of economic self-interest and moral duty.

Survival. I guess some think we should feel guilty about that.

re: #152 Maine's Michael

re: #132 song_and_dance_man

re: #82 Maine's Michael

Are you suggesting that America's response to 9/11 and Islamic fascism as it relates to Iraq was only about oil?

Afghanistan was about 911. Iraq was about safeguarding the Gulf.

Not according to Hillary's speech.

Here's my point. Even if there is some truth to what he says. Why does America always have to apologize for the need for Oil?

We invented the light bulb, industrialization, mass production automobiles, microwaves, TV/s The telephone, the internet, Satellite communications, Air conditioning, washing machines, powered flight, computers, vcr, cellphones, and I can go on and on. America discovered the need for oil, we figured out how to distill oil into fuel, we figured out how to get it out of the ground, we discovered how to find it.

The need for Oil in the world would not exist outside the founding of the United States. The world would still be trying to figure how how to farm sperm whales for lamp oil. Why do we have to keep apologizing to the world for bringing billions out of the dark ages?

It's American Society who has carried the burden. Every nation tries to copy what we have done while at the same time allowing them to guilt us for inventing it all and keeping the just fruits of it's rewards that have spread across the world.

If Iraq falls to Syria and Iran, that means their keepers, China and Russia get to call the shots on world Oil supplies, These two nations have been lapping out a our heels whining and complaining how rich we are when, as a modern society they have contributed practically nothing. I don't want to pay $10 a gallon for gas because we let the entire world's oil supply fall into enemy hands. Their propaganda machine has penetrated oil society in extremely unhealthy ways. We can all see the results. We more than asleep for 911. We are still asleep to the real threat. American needs to start standing up for it's rights to those who are just nothing but looters and thief's.

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

Oh, now that's sad. Such depth and clarity of thought in economics, yet such a skewed understanding of the basics in one of the biggest issues of the day.

And BTW, reading a related article about Greenspan's new book coming out, it sounds like he had other wacky ideas too.

re: #152 Maine's Michael

Afghanistan was about 911. Iraq was about safeguarding the Gulf.

As is the pending business with Iran.

HEADLINE: Greenspan says war was "for" oil
GREENSPAN: War was "about" oil

I agree that Greenspan is acting flaky lately, and it looks like he has come down with a case of B.D.S., but as far as this article can tell it just seems like the morons at The Times Online, like Graham Paterson, don't know the difference between "for" and "about". That, or they are just trying to stretch the truth.

Let me get this straight , the invasion of Iraq is about Oil , says Mr Greenspan . If the US is really serious about getting all the oil it needs , they could have brushed up their invasion plans for Canada and Mexico as well as Venezuela and invaded those countries. Hell , Invading Mexico would solve the Southern Border problem as well as the oil dependency issue in one shot and Invading Canada and Venezuela would mean that the reliance on Arab oil would be more or less over . If the US is serious about Iraqi Oil , why occupy the whole country , it could have been easily done in two ways A) join the Oil for Food scam , no military invasion is needed and B ) Invade with the goal of securing the Iraqi Southern Oilfields and with the help of the Kurds , will also take control of the Oilfields found in Northern Iraq leaving leaving the rest of Iraq under Saddam . The US military will be able to secure these oilfields with minimal fuss and a lot less casualties because their ROE be much more aggressive because they are not concerned about nation building .

Honestly , my opinion of Alan Greenspan's revelation is this , the announcement is perfectly timed with the anti war protests to pressure the US government to cut and run from Iraq . IMHO , he could have revealed it after he stepped down from his job in 2006 . In fact , I suspect that he was influenced or pressured by his friends to time his announcement to discredit the Bush Administration and cover up the problems of the Democratic party especially Hillary Clinton .

War for Oil? you know - I've never heard that one before. /

this is interesting:
Strange Brew Hsu

1. Hsu told Source Financial the money was to manufacture clothes for Gucci & Prada in China. Neither company manufactures any items in China, ever.
2. Source Financial never noticed that Hsu’s businesses didn’t exist before loaning him money. They also failed to check his background, or look for a factory in China connected to Hsu.
3. Source Financial was accepting checks post dated by 135 days as payment on their huge loans to Hsu.
4. Source Financial employees are also big Hillary donors.
5. Hillary set aside 1 million dollars of taxpayer money for a “Woodstock” museum. The head of Source Financial was a major Woodstock promoter and also a long time Clinton friend.
6. It took 2 weeks for the head of Source Financial to realize there might be some kind of connection between his company, Clinton, and Hsu.
7. One of the recipients of Hsu’s suicide note googled the term “Hsu Suicide” BEFORE anyone knew where he was or what he was doing - according to Michelle Malkin.

re: #135 Noam Sayin'

Part of the reason wheat is at a 25-year high is because more crop land is being dedicated to corn production - the red herring of the global warming argument. What are you paying for butter these days? Quite a bit more than you used to, I imagine. You know why? Cows eat corn (among other things). Oh, but more corn is being channeled off to the ethanol craze, so there is less of it for feedstock.

Agreed. Ethanol is a joke. It's nothing more than a scam to make Iowa farmers richer than they already are.

But why would politicians want to appeal to Iowans? Oh yeah...feb. 2008

The Brazilians have had much greater success with sugar cane, we could too.

re: #116 meMarc

Fantastic link!

re: #147 DeafDog

Regarding the "mishandling" - I struggle with that myself. I want to believe that something should have been done differently, but I can't figure out what it is. Can you be specific? What should have been handled differently?

I could give you a list, since hindsight is so accurate, but on the other hand we can never really know that whatever I recommend would have worked better, now can we?

I do think we could have done a lot better, might have effectively wrapped it up by early 2005 at worst, but we'll never know.

I think we should go to Saudi Arabia, stick a flag in the ground, and say "Get off - this is our oil now!" in a really gruff voice.

Just to see what a "war for oil" would really look like.

Re #36 cincinnati_37kid

"I'm not going to make a legal case out it, but I read a lot of very intelligent people who are involved with trading and analyzing the stock market (No not Cramer), who have been in the game a long time and still have money to play with and I've read many a case of accusation or strong suggestion that Greenspan made some glaring 'mistakes' He saw the market bubble of 1999, and did nothing about it."

Remember "It's The Economy, Stupid"? Greenspan did nothing about the bubble because it made Clinton's economic policies look great. NOW those irresponsible actions are showing up. THERE WAS A BANK RUN ON the fifth largest bank in ENGLAND on Friday! Greenspan did nothing to regulate the arcane financial bets called "derivatives" and they are starting to blow up. We are the 'little people' and we will be the ones to suffer for Greenspan's deliberate 'mistakes'. Warning Will Robinson. Danger, danger.

I sincerely doubt Mr. Greenspan was in the war room planning the responses to 9/11. The fact that he was in D.C. and a part of the government does not give him any special insight into the thinking of the president, the secretary of defense, or the joint chiefs. He likely knows no more than the D.C. socialites who run the party circuit... and perhaps even less.

re: #128 lookingup

re: #81 MandyManners

re: #60 SkepticalOne

just a shriveled up whiner wiener

Fixed it for ya'.

Mandy, my goodness.

I'm a bad, bad girl.

I remember something called the "Carter Doctrine", where we would have to send in troops to keep the oil flowing, anywhere in the world. Is my memory bad or is there really such a doctrine?

re: #159 nihilist

Depends on what the meaning of is is.

re: #163 MandyManners

Hey Mandy look at comment #141 and let me know what you think. You are up on thing more than I am. I want to know your opinion. I sent it to Charles as well.

re: #153 gringo

re: #80 braverutherford

#71 Pro-Bush Canuck

Nuclear is a far better answer

Geothermal, too, in many cases.

___ ___-
Don't forget that the US has the world's largest coal reserves. More than the world's reserves of oil IICR. True, there still needs work to be done on the refinement process (dirty, lots of emissions), but it's getting there and sure as hell would get there in a hurry, as well as having more refineries built if the government used some of that 12 billion a month they're spending in Iraq...

Coal is plentiful in the US. Unlike China the US already has clean coal-burning plants. The problem with coal is the existence of the Leftist mega-plot known as "global warming" which has been so effective that even the President pays lip service. Global warming is a pure hoax designed to destroy capitalism once and for all.

The other aspect is that coal is currently only useful for power generation, but not for transportation fuel. It would take 30 years or more to convert the nation's vehicles to an alternative power source (gas, electric, hydrogen, whatever) where coal could be used. Until that happens transportation is dependent on oil, and shutting down transportation destroys the US very, very quickly.

re: #156 Egfrow

Yeah? well Muslims invented assassinations, and Greek coffee, and Persian architecture, and Greek medicine, and Greek philosophy, and Indian mathematics, and flying carpets. So, there.

re: #158 RTLM

re: #152 Maine's Michael

Afghanistan was about 911. Iraq was about safeguarding the Gulf.

As is the pending business with Iran.

re: #158 RTLM

re: #152 Maine's Michael

Afghanistan was about 911. Iraq was about safeguarding the Gulf.

As is the pending business with Iran.

I assume you mean by pending business - the continuing training and refining of pin point bombing and any additional military matters needed to turn any and all nuclear facilities into trash dumps!

re: #138 cbinflux

Game over beezotcheees.

re: #169 Liege

I remember something called the "Carter Doctrine", where we would have to send in troops to keep the oil flowing, anywhere in the world. Is my memory bad or is there really such a doctrine?

[Link: www.answers.com...]

Looks like some old geezer forgot to take his Namenda!

Greenspan is as old as a fossil and has obviously become senile

Unbelievable. He's gone from Libertarian to socialist mouthpiece in just a few short years. My question to him is what motivated him to become chairman of the Federal Reserve? A few days ago he claimed one of the primary functions of the Fed Reserve is to stop people from investing too much money in stocks. He clearly has gone off the deep end.

To top it off he also claims he warned us about the housing bubble. Oh please! When he was Chairman he took full credit for getting as many people into houses as possible. The media made a big deal about it if you remember. They portrayed this as a good thing back then.

The only conclusion I can come to is for whatever reason he is purposely trying to cause a recession. Hopefully fiscal conservatives in the media will call him on this shameful attempt to get attention.

Counter moonbat propaganda (albeit true, well, most of it anyways).

From Piglet-U93's autobiography if it is ever finished.

Mohammad was a pedophile.
Mohammad was a liar.
Mohammad was a murderer.
Mohammad had slaves.
Mohammad wanted all black people to be slaves.
... (a hundred other shortcomings of Mohammad)
Mohammad gave an open order, for all time, to make war on the Infidels until the entire world was for Allah' religion alone.
Islam is Terror.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Islam will always be violent.
... (another thousand short comings of Islam)
Everyone knows these to be true.
xx% of Americans believe it the other 1% are Muslim.
The West will not survive unless Islam is made illegal and all Muslims are deported from western countries.
Everyone who has done their research here knows this to be true.
Denial leads only to failure.
Perhaps, I am getting ahead and just saying what is not yet tolerable.
If so, pardon me please for what I cannot say until something worse happens then 9/11.
Like perhaps a nuked American city.
Just take it as a message from a likely future if nothing is done.

re: #58 Noam Sayin'

So. I guess we can expect those gas prices to come down any minute now, huh?

I don't see why an otherwise brilliant man would utter such a statement - not having seen the full context, of course.

If this war was fully and only about oil, we'd have owned the mid-East decades ago. If it were just about oil - we could have easily taken it and not given a shit about Basra, Anbar, Baghdad, Kirkuk and the other major hotbeds where we are expending blood and treasure to bring FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY to people who haven't known it for more than four decades. If it were just about oil, our "fascist dictator chimp" would tell the environmental crowd to f*ck off and drill in ANWR and off the Pacific coast and anywhere else he damn well pleased.

Just one lil problem with your argument there, Noam: logic. It has it.

re: #179 bop1

Greenspan is as old as a fossil and has obviously become senile

Does that mean we can make fuel out of him soon?

re: #176 mich-again

re: #138 cbinflux

Game over beezotcheees.

They should put hundreds in the air, mostly unarmed. Just to keep them guessing as they dig holes in the rubble.

Geothermal and Nuclear are excellent power sources. Really good article on Nuclear in this week's The Economist. Much better than the one in this month's Scientific American. And what is up with them lately? The articles are like they were written by Al Gore?

re: #170 song_and_dance_man

re: #137 Pro-Bush Canuck

The biggest single threat that Islamic Fascism presents to America is the threat to the global oil supply. Suicide bombings are a trifling niusance compared to the vast havoc that would accompany severe dislocations in the oil supply. Global war could easily result as China and Russia piled on.

Oil is vastly more important than most people remotely understand.

I'm not so sure about this. If we were cut off America and even Canada would be forced to find alternative sources, (and they are there, but the lefties don't want us to have at it for environmental reasons) Sure there would be disruption in our economy and the way we live, but once those other sources were tapped, then we would be rid of the threat by the Middle East and it's oil as carrot stick. And also consider that much if not most of the oil rich Arab countries revenue is realized by the sale of their oil. We would not be the only ones to suffer in the short term, and they, most likely, would suffer more.

I do take exception with your implication that oil is vastly more important than most people realize. I think that people, our people, and their deaths at the hand of Islamic fascists trumps the threat of no oil from Arabs.

If the world's oil supply was severely disrupted the US and Canada could not simply "adapt". There would be mass starvation in a matter of months as transportation slowed to a trickle.

Re importance of oil, I should have qualified the "most people" comment with: "most leftist people" - which is still a lot of people.

Even a relatively minor disruption could cause a severe economic shock in the US. Dependence on these countries is not a good thing, but it is reality for the next few decades at absolute minimum.

re: #183 DesertSage

re: #179 bop1

Greenspan is as old as a fossil and has obviously become senile

Does that mean we can make fuel out of him soon?

Don't you wish we could, then he'd have something to worry about

re: #185 pat

Been thinking about dusting off my resume...

re: #172 rab3

re: #163 MandyManners

Hey Mandy look at comment #141 and let me know what you think. You are up on thing more than I am. I want to know your opinion. I sent it to Charles as well.

I'm flummoxed. Knowing about Haj Amin al-Husseini and his association with Hitler, knowing about the Muslim Nazi troops in Yugoslavia...I'm tempted to not want a single thing commemorating one damn dead Muslim at the hands of the Nazis.

re: #181 Piglet-U93

I was deleted both off of Michelle Malkin and Hot Air for saying a bad thing about Muslims. Called them Cretins. LOL

Of course no one will accuse this guy of writing a book for money...nor including something such as Bush invading iraq for oil to capitalize off of the bds air.

Charles... Someone rogered the Moronic Convergence thread.

re: #153 gringo

re: #80 braverutherford

#71 Pro-Bush Canuck

Nuclear is a far better answer

Geothermal, too, in many cases.

___ ___-
Don't forget that the US has the world's largest coal reserves. More than the world's reserves of oil IICR. True, there still needs work to be done on the refinement process (dirty, lots of emissions), but it's getting there and sure as hell would get there in a hurry, as well as having more refineries built if the government used some of that 12 billion a month they're spending in Iraq...

Nuclear fission will always have its detractors with radio active waste 1/2 life longer than man has been on earth. Fusion is probably possible, alcohol has more problems than a bad dog, worse for hydrogen. While we are waiting for Fusion we can do coal to gas with an improved Fischer-Tropsch process. We have 25% of the world's supply. We have been saying for years we need to be energy independent but no where is the will. There is still a lot of oil left and the price would be cheap if fusion comes on line.

re: #183 DesertSage

Uh, don't think that would be a good idea...how would you be if you were married to an Andrea Mitchell clone?

See what I mean?

Of course i was likely booted for slandering the wonderful people of Crete. Hmmm

re: #164 itellu3times

re: #147 DeafDog

Regarding the "mishandling" - I struggle with that myself. I want to believe that something should have been done differently, but I can't figure out what it is. Can you be specific? What should have been handled differently?

I could give you a list, since hindsight is so accurate, but on the other hand we can never really know that whatever I recommend would have worked better, now can we?

I do think we could have done a lot better, might have effectively wrapped it up by early 2005 at worst, but we'll never know.

I have a list of hypotheticals, too, but when I start gaming the different scenarios the answer is not so clear. Suppose, for example, we went in with another 100k troops. That would have made the initial period better, and it would have delayed the start of the insurgency. But, when the insurgency began (and IMO it was inevitable), there would be many more US casualties because of a greater number of targets. Going in with another 100k troops also causes a logistical issue in timing the drive before the main summer heat. Balance that, too, against the fact that we had just toppled Afghanastan with a very small troop presence and there is plenty of reason to belive that Franks was right.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be convinced, but I'm not there.

re: #185 pat

Geothermal and Nuclear are excellent power sources. Really good article on Nuclear in this week's The Economist. Much better than the one in this month's Scientific American. And what is up with them lately? The articles are like they were written by Al Gore?

Actually coal is a superb source. Geothermal is potentially better in the long term, but that technology does not yet exist (synthetic diamond shaft linings on that scale haven't been invented yet). Coal is cheap and abundant. The only drawback is purely political: we have allowed the socialists of the 20th century to morph into the "Greens" of the 21st. We let them get away with this, so we have nobody to blame but ourselves if things go south.

We're saved!

Madonna Meets With Israeli President

/Is that a katyusha, or are you just happy to see me, Olmie?

Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. And Greenspan's stinks.

If the Democratic party had stood behind Bush we would not have this mess.. but they made the war a political football.. now even the worlds sickest dictators quote Democratic talking points while they laught at freedom.

re: #193 lookingup

Fast reactors reduce the depleted fuel safety issue to about 250 years.

re: #192 Noam Sayin'

Charles... Someone rogered the Moronic Convergence thread.

Sent a report from #282 - that appears to be the problem.

re: #198 cbinflux

We're saved!

Madonna Meets With Israeli President

/Is that a katyusha, or are you just happy to see me, Olmie?

She just sold him lots of Kabbalah crap, all made in China.

re: #172 rab3

re: #163 MandyManners

Hey Mandy look at comment #141 and let me know what you think. You are up on thing more than I am. I want to know your opinion. I sent it to Charles as well.

I read the article.

He was still in dispute with the authorities over money for his time in the armed forces when he was arrested in 1941, charged with the crime of 'miscegenation' - racial intermarriage - and taken to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where he died in November 1944.

I've changed my mind. His death SHOULD be commemorated. He wasn't killed because he was a Muslim. He was killed because he was of African origin.

Now I'm gonna' spend a few moments kicking myself in the butt.

re: #197 Pro-Bush Canuck

But why waste coal? It can make us plastic products for 10,000 years. cheaply and easily.

re: #195 pat

/Didn't they call you a Lava N***r first?!

re: #165 FrogMarch

I think we should go to Saudi Arabia, stick a flag in the ground, and say "Get off - this is our oil now!" in a really gruff voice.

Just to see what a "war for oil" would really look like.

No kidding, I often thought when rumors would run around Highschool back in the day..if we were gonna be accused of it, we might as well do it lol.

re: #190 pat

I am so proud of you! Just don't try that here, though. Ixnay..Arleschay oesn'tday ikelay ommentsclay ikelay atthey! :)

re: #181 Piglet-U93

Counter moonbat propaganda (albeit true, well, most of it anyways).

From Piglet-U93's autobiography if it is ever finished.

Mohammad was a pedophile.
Mohammad was a liar.
Mohammad was a murderer.
Mohammad had slaves.
Mohammad wanted all black people to be slaves.
... (a hundred other shortcomings of Mohammad)
Mohammad gave an open order, for all time, to make war on the Infidels until the entire world was for Allah' religion alone.
Islam is Terror.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Islam will always be violent.
... (another thousand short comings of Islam)
Everyone knows these to be true.
xx% of Americans believe it the other 1% are Muslim.
The West will not survive unless Islam is made illegal and all Muslims are deported from western countries.
Everyone who has done their research here knows this to be true.
Denial leads only to failure.
Perhaps, I am getting ahead and just saying what is not yet tolerable.
If so, pardon me please for what I cannot say until something worse happens then 9/11.
Like perhaps a nuked American city.
Just take it as a message from a likely future if nothing is done.

Boy do I ever agree with you, but we might see this on another site.

re: #197 Pro-Bush Canuck

How can I pump coal into my tank?

re: #189 MandyManners

re: #172 rab3

re: #163 MandyManners

Hey Mandy look at comment #141 and let me know what you think. You are up on thing more than I am. I want to know your opinion. I sent it to Charles as well.

I'm flummoxed. Knowing about Haj Amin al-Husseini and his association with Hitler, knowing about the Muslim Nazi troops in Yugoslavia...I'm tempted to not want a single thing commemorating one damn dead Muslim at the hands of the Nazis.

Ok so I am not nuts here. I sent it to Charles. I hope he puts it up. Also tried send it to him by clicking on the green football and reporting the post that way, but it won't work on my home connection with MSM.com. Would you mind doing a favor for a newbie and report it by clicking on the football. It seems important enough to rate a post. I think the lizard would like to know.

Thanks RAB3

re: #180 Pdogg

Well said.

re: #204 MandyManners

re: #172 rab3

re: #163 MandyManners

Hey Mandy look at comment #141 and let me know what you think. You are up on thing more than I am. I want to know your opinion. I sent it to Charles as well.

I read the article.

He was still in dispute with the authorities over money for his time in the armed forces when he was arrested in 1941, charged with the crime of 'miscegenation' - racial intermarriage - and taken to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where he died in November 1944.

I've changed my mind. His death SHOULD be commemorated. He wasn't killed because he was a Muslim. He was killed because he was of African origin.

Now I'm gonna' spend a few moments kicking myself in the butt.

Enough said then. Thanks of the insight.

re: #210 MandyManners

I addressed that in a previous post: You can't. Which is why we need to protect the supply of oil in the Gulf.

The vehicle fleet could be converted, but that would take 25-40 years (unless it was done on a war footing - then maybe 5 years).

re: #206 cbinflux

LOL, No. I think i am still learning the system there. heh, heh

Putting the Fun in Fundamental
/Bollywood clip of the day

re: #208 NY Nana

Thanx, lol

So, how are my favorite fellow scaly green reptiles tonight?

And btw, while we're (sort of) still talking about Greenspan, why was he knighted by the Queen of England? Really, what WAS that about?

The media has been promoting this as "Greenspan slams the GOP!" But they really don't say what for... Basically, he slams the GOP for not being true to what real republicans are supposed to stand for... Smaller government, and controlled spending...

It isn't unreasonable to think that oil did play a part in all of this. If the middle east was stable with governments that were friendly to us, oil would continue to come at a cheap price which ensures a great economy.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility to understand that someone might have said "China's and India's demand for oil will drive prices through the ceiling. We need Saddam gone to moderate this issue for our own economy's sake." No real wild conspiracy theory here.

We certainly didn't go in for an "oil grab" but we definitely thought we could stablize the region without Saddam being a loose cannon ready to blow at any time. Sadly, things haven't worked out so great. I still support efforts over there and will not accept the democrats defeatism.

That should be the dem presidential nominee's slogan: "Accept failure. Vote Democrat."

Greenspan makes mistakes, but he is pretty grounded and a "lifetime libertarian republican."

re: #36 cincinnati_kid37

I'm not going to make a legal case out it, but I read a lot of very intelligent people who are involved with trading and analyzing the stock market (No not Cramer), who have been in the game a long time and still have money to play with and I've read many a case of accusation or strong suggestion that Greenspan made some glaring 'mistakes' He saw the market bubble of 1999, and did nothing about it.
Well, that is until 2000, when a long series of Fed Funds Rate increases killed the market. More interesting, he lied about the fact that he and the FOMC saw it coming - certainly in enough time to put margin percentage restrictions on so as to alleviate the problem. You could buy stocks using 50% margin money, and that was a problem. IN 1929, you could use 90% monopoly money and that was one of the main causes of the market crash then. 50% was very high considering most of that money was directed at NASDAQ dot bomb stocks of vaporware companies.

He has recently said he never thought the easy credit situation would have such a dramatic impact on the market and economy. Please...

He could have easily been a force in sabotaging the economy for the post Clinton administration, and doing further damage well into GWB's administration.

Well, heck, here is a darn nice tune, as are the others you'll see in the middle scroll section all from the Stuttgart concert - A little Cold Duck Time...

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

___
You are spot on! As a former professional day trader (1996 through 2004), I can confirm that "Mr. McGoo" [as I oft referred to Greenspan],
accelerated the severity of the dot com crash through his lack of appropriate timely action in fed policies, when things were obviously getting out of control . . . merely referring to the market as having "irrational exhuberance" and doing nothing about it.
Greenspan did not personally cause the dot-com crash or the mortgage market mess, however; he was somewhat responsible for part of the resultant negative economic severity of these debacles, by acting too late. He also tinkered with interest rates often when it was not necessary to move them further up or down. My take is that he has a huge ego problem and always wanted to look like the brains behind the good economy. He was a legend in his own mind. Results show otherwise.
His comments identiffy him as a leftie, regardless of what he says.
IMHO.

Isn't he merely stating the obvious consequence of stabilizing a region sitting on an oil reserve that, if utilized would make the Saudis, uh, sit up and take notice? Much ado about nothing but this will be the new rallying cry for the gauche.

re: #211 song_and_dance_man

Whether one likes it or not the whole of history revolves around the seed of Abraham and will culminate with Israel as the center of attention and just how the world treats her.

How about everyone (including the British Unions, Lutheran and other Church groupings) just leave us the fuck alone for a while?

if this war is about oil, why are Americans paying $3 at the pump? Case closed.

re: #221 badsysop

Basically, he slams the GOP for not being true to what real republicans are supposed to stand for... Smaller government, and controlled spending.

Legitimate slam.

Despite my nic, there are many things about Bush's policies I don't like, starting with his taste for big government.

If you really think about it the middle east is about oil. That is the only thing about any middle eastern country is about OIL

re: #222 Le_Patriot

Reuben should have been more on the ball regarding the dot.com issues, too. With his goldman sachs pedigree, he saw that coming.

When the Soviet Union left Afghanistan in disgrace that was basically the end of the Soviet Union.

If we leave Iraq in disgrace, it will be the beginning of the end for the United States.

I refuse to let that happen.
Lefty wants that to happen!

All this crap about how and why we went in there is just a lot of noise. What we should be talking about is how are we going to win it...period!
Because we're going to have to do it on our own...Lefty ain't gonna help us. In fact...Lefty is gonna make it more difficult!

re: #198 cbinflux

ROTFLMAOOO!

Uh, I think she met with Slimy Shimon...they deserve each other. But then Olmerde is also very deserving.

She just sold him lots of Kabbalah crap, all made in China.

I hope there were wine cups.

'Shimon? Drink! Enjoy! Drink some more, oh, please?

/Don't be silly, Shimon! Mercury is good for you!'

Oil is a perfectly good reason for war. Wars have been waged for resources since time immemorial. However, where is the oil we presumably captured?
I would like to draw everyone's attention to this piece: Salt water as fuel: [Link: www.post-gazette.com...]
How I wish this to be true and to turn out economically viable. Just imagine a day when the oil that makes such hotshots of all those nightshirt clad guys in the Middle East becomes useless. Oh the bliss!

The phrase is entirely too generic and emotion laden.

It believe we definately did NOT go after Saudi Arabia. Had we done so, too much fo the world would be without oil for too long.

If we pacify Iraq and make it into an oil exporter that is relatively happy with us and the west we'll be in a really good position to deal with Saudi Arabia and Iran. And Saudi Arabia knows it.

Paying a going market price for oil is fine with me. But the FLOW of oil has to continue. We had loads of appropriate options for post 9/11 reprisals. Few if any of them had a positive futire and kept the oil flowing.

The usual take on "it's for the oil" is that we wanted to suck up Iranian oil for ourselves or Bush's oil investor buddies. That, I believe, is dead wrong. That would require a level of veniality I do not believe is in Bush. He makes his mistakes due to raw ignorance rather than veniality.

{^_^}

re: #111 Maine's Michael

You make an important point. Had we waged war for oil, we could've just attacked Saudi Arabia.

No, that's an idiotic point. The war was launched to protect Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states, so we wouldn't have to go in there someday to occupy them to ensure the continued flow of oil.

And that is why we can't pull out of Iraq now. Giving Islamists Iraq at this point would ensure we have to fight a wider, larger war a some point in the not too near future.

Bush's fuck up is that he handled this war so poorly that he lost the majority of the American people along the way, and he now can't come out and say the war is strategically necessary to safeguard the American economy because he set up the ridiculous premise that it was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people.

What the hell are you talking about? Gulf War I neutralized Saddam, at least as far as the threat to the continued flow of Middle East oil. Iran is, was and always has been a far bigger threat to the world's oil supply. Have you forgotten Operation Praying Mantis?

As for Bush "fucking up," we'll see. The ultimate goal of this quixotic venture should be the radical transformation of the entire Middle East.

Get your Troofer Handbook right here!

papular mechanics

re: #82 Maine's Michael

Of course it was and is about oil. Safeguarding the gulf against Saddam's predations, and now the Iranians', and teaching assorted bad arabs that if they piss us off, a gallows, or worse, awaits them.

A statement like that shows you don't know shit about the petroleum markets. Invading Venezuela would have been a lot easier. You're about as un-American as any troll on this board.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-07 May-07 YTD 2007 Jun-06 Jan - June 2006

---

CANADA 1,873 1,821 1,846 1,799 1,763
SAUDI ARABIA 1,501 1,574 1,419 1,427 1,423
MEXICO 1,392 1,461 1,456 1,734 1,679
VENEZUELA 1,135 1,232 1,109 1,008 1,156
NIGERIA 893 882 1,021 996 1,111
IRAQ 573 341 477 617 547
ALGERIA 504 496 497 491 297
ANGOLA 502 680 568 525 448
KUWAIT 263 162 196 201 163
ECUADOR 166 201 195 288 280
LIBYA 144 33 66 110 54
COLOMBIA 143 104 108 211 169
UNITED KINGDOM 127 165 114 185 132
BRAZIL 121 152 162 107 109
GABON 101 93 72 89 52

re: #226 song_and_dance_man

I have NO problem with a "war for oil".

That is, a war which is designed to safeguard the world's supply of a precious resource that we all depend upon for our very lives. If the Arabs were more stable and less evil then no war would be necessary. If they threaten the world then they need to be prepared to face the consequences.

I do not support an "imperialistic" annexation of a country just to "steal" resources.

re: #219 christheprofessor

So, how are my favorite fellow scaly green reptiles tonight?

are you talking to Greenspan? Ha.

re: #167 stevieray

I sincerely doubt Mr. Greenspan was in the war room planning the responses to 9/11. The fact that he was in D.C. and a part of the government does not give him any special insight into the thinking of the president, the secretary of defense, or the joint chiefs. He likely knows no more than the D.C. socialites who run the party circuit... and perhaps even less.

I'll talk to myself for a while...

Would anybody care about this if it came from the head of H.U.D?
No.

Would anybody care about this if it came from the head of B.L.M?
no.

Would anybody care about this if it came from the head of the I.R.S?
No.

Why? Because they have no unique information on global strategy, that's why!

Well, Greenspan is the same... he is not in the loop on our international relationships... he would not be privy to CIA, NSA, or DIA documents. He wouldn't be in the meetings where the decision to go to war in Iraq was made. His opinion on this issue is no more informed than anyone else who wasn't in those meetings.

The press will probably make a big deal about this, but it doesn't deserve it. He has no more credibility on this subject than you or me.

re: #230 DesertSage

We have to win in Iraq. Even if we have to do it Russian style.

re: #219 christheprofessor

So, how are my favorite fellow scaly green reptiles tonight?

Not a good time... Charles and Mandy are molting...

The complete and utter silence of the MSM regarding Iraq now that victory is at hand is proof the war is won.

re: #218 pat

I see we speak the same language. *cough* *cough*

re: #173 Pro-Bush Canuck

The other aspect is that coal is currently only useful for power generation, but not for transportation fuel. It would take 30 years or more to convert the nation's vehicles to an alternative power source (gas, electric, hydrogen, whatever) where coal could be used. Until that happens transportation is dependent on oil, and shutting down transportation destroys the US very, very quickly.

___
Wouldn't take as long as you think. Montana has been converting coal into diesel for all state vehicles since 1980. IIRC the governor said they can make it for $1.18 a gallon. There are companies doing it, too. I googled it once to read up on it and found a lot of information. If the government got involved in setting up plants for coal to diesel conversion, it could be done fairly quickly and the resulting diesel would be a lot cheaper than gas is today.

re: #212 rab3

Look up Hans-Jürgen Massaquoi

War "for" oil? No - it's a war to remove a psychotic dictator and his progeny and to resolve a long-standing strategic holding pattern that was untenable practically and geopolitically, which was given a sudden deeper significance and urgency by the quite astonishing demonstration by al Qaeda that the Arab-Islamic mindset could result in actual successful and rather devastating attacks on our country. It was of course "about oil" because these f*cking barbarians are not "about" anything the Left acknowledges except oil - which is to say the only economic/material thing. What were the 5,000 troops + air force no-flight enforcement in no-man's-land KSA about? Keeping Saddam Hussein from slaughtering his own people, from taking over Kuwait (which has nothing but oil and princes) and from taking over Saudi Arabia (which has nothing but oil, princes, and slaves) - at the request of Saudi Arabia and with the blessing of the UN, almost all of which's nations depend for the economic viability on... Persian Gulf oil!

So NOW we have both Iraq's AND Afghanistan's oil - just like we took Germany's and Japan's! MWAHAHAHA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it hippy!

If this war is "about oil", why don't we OWN Iraq right now?

Why are we paying $3.00/gallon if it's all about oil?

Why aren't we exploiting and drilling OUR OWN wells in the US if it's about oil?

Lefties can't answer that, because they KNOW it's not about the oil!

re: #215 Pro-Bush Canuck

re: #210 MandyManners

I addressed that in a previous post: You can't. Which is why we need to protect the supply of oil in the Gulf.

The vehicle fleet could be converted, but that would take 25-40 years (unless it was done on a war footing - then maybe 5 years).

We've known about the problem of constricted supply since the 70s. Why has this not been addressed since then?

re: #227 Pro-Bush Canuck

re: #221 badsysop

Basically, he slams the GOP for not being true to what real republicans are supposed to stand for... Smaller government, and controlled spending.

Legitimate slam.

Despite my nic, there are many things about Bush's policies I don't like, starting with his taste for big government.

The media is totally trying to make this out as some great hero to the economy during the Clinton era hating the republicans. He definitely dislikes Bush for his economic policies and I would be inclined to agree. And I would guess that this comment is going to be also blown out of proportion... just a mere mention of oil gets lefities crazy.

I think this is just a calculated manipulation of words to promote a liberal agenda. I'm guessing most left wingers would absolutely hate what Greenspans economic opinions are. He was not only a fan but a FRIEND of Ayn Rand.

If it was really about oil, why stop at Iraq, take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and take the f'in stuff?

It is about regional stability and maintaining a supply of oil to the whole world.
It is about denying the Islamonazis a way of funding there plans.

re: #203 Ward Cleaver

You mean, Shimon Peres. A senile goat meats the queen of tarts. Yuck!

re: #174 David IV of Georgia

re: #156 Egfrow

Yeah? well Muslims invented assassinations, and Greek coffee, and Persian architecture, and Greek medicine, and Greek philosophy, and Indian mathematics, and flying carpets. So, there.

Fixed it for ya.

No direct comments on this story, but I'm just ecstatic I've finally joined the LGF crew after 4 years of trying!

It's about PROTECTING the oil resources there and in use now, not acquiring it for our own. Damn, the Left will never get that through their tinfoil hats!

re: #219 christheprofessor

So, how are my favorite fellow scaly green reptiles tonight?

Horny and single. Life sucks. Celibacy for eight years sucks worse. I'm going infuckingsane.

Gen. Wesley Clark Endorses Clinton

I guess that gig as a FOX new contributor is not paying well. Now I am sure he would like a job in cabinet. Maybe Secretary of Defense. I mean they are on the same page as far as a war strategy goes. Or maybe a running mate.

The endorsement also means Clark will immediately be seen as a potential running mate for the senator.

“I want to thank Gen. Clark for his wisdom and his amazing ongoing leadership on so many fronts for our country and for this endorsement, which means a great deal to me and I look forward to having him campaign with me as the campaign moves forward,” Sen. Clinton said.

re: #244 gringo

re: #173 Pro-Bush Canuck

The other aspect is that coal is currently only useful for power generation, but not for transportation fuel. It would take 30 years or more to convert the nation's vehicles to an alternative power source (gas, electric, hydrogen, whatever) where coal could be used. Until that happens transportation is dependent on oil, and shutting down transportation destroys the US very, very quickly.

___ ___
Wouldn't take as long as you think. Montana has been converting coal into diesel for all state vehicles since 1980. IIRC the governor said they can make it for $1.18 a gallon. There are companies doing it, too. I googled it once to read up on it and found a lot of information. If the government got involved in setting up plants for coal to diesel conversion, it could be done fairly quickly and the resulting diesel would be a lot cheaper than gas is today.

That's good to know. However even converting the vehicle fleet from gasoline to diesel is a multi-trillion dollar undertaking. The problem is the scale of what is involved here.

re: #247 6pat6

No one's made this point yet, so I'll chime in...

If the war was about oil, we would be occupying the oil fields right now and letting the rest of the country go to hell. But we are doing to opposite.

re: #253 canadiancrackpot

No direct comments on this story, but I'm just ecstatic I've finally joined the LGF crew after 4 years of trying!

Congrats and welcome aboard!

re: #219 christheprofessor

So, how are my favorite fellow scaly green reptiles tonight?

Doin' good, Chris. Got a little SRV for ya - not quite the usual stuff.

100

That is what happens when the brain/keyboard filter fails.

re: #236 goodbye_natalie

re: #82 Maine's Michael

Of course it was and is about oil. Safeguarding the gulf against Saddam's predations, and now the Iranians', and teaching assorted bad arabs that if they piss us off, a gallows, or worse, awaits them.

A statement like that shows you don't know shit about the petroleum markets. Invading Venezuela would have been a lot easier. You're about as un-American as any troll on this board.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-07 May-07 YTD 2007 Jun-06 Jan - June 2006

--- ---

CANADA 1,873 1,821 1,846 1,799 1,763
SAUDI ARABIA 1,501 1,574 1,419 1,427 1,423
MEXICO 1,392 1,461 1,456 1,734 1,679
VENEZUELA 1,135 1,232 1,109 1,008 1,156
NIGERIA 893 882 1,021 996 1,111
IRAQ 573 341 477 617 547
ALGERIA 504 496 497 491 297
ANGOLA 502 680 568 525 448
KUWAIT 263 162 196 201 163
ECUADOR 166 201 195 288 280
LIBYA 144 33 66 110 54
COLOMBIA 143 104 108 211 169
UNITED KINGDOM 127 165 114 185 132
BRAZIL 121 152 162 107 109
GABON 101 93 72 89 52

1) Saudi Arabia a major IMPORTER? That chart seems totally messed up.
2) Indeed, for capturing oil for ourselves Venezuela would have been far easier.
3) It was "for the oil" only in the sense that it was an option that kept oil flowing from the Middle East to the rest of the world. Otherwise the overly general phrase is meaningless and wrong.

{^_^}