September 17, 2007

Mr. Greenspan Regrets He's Unable to Bash Today

Hatched by Dafydd

And so, as the Democratic euphoria and media hyperventilation of yesterday about Alan Greenspan's remark that "the Iraq war is largely about oil" dies, not with a bang but with a clarification, an awful lot of liberals are busy wiping large ovum deposits off of their faces:

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

Ouch. And if that isn't clear enough:

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

The Washington Post demonstrates the difference between its own rational skepticism about the war and the MoveOn-inspired hysteria of its northern rival, the New York Times:

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

"Gain[ing] access," of course, amounts to stealing, which is what the Left incessantly accuses Bush of doing (they toss around charges of corruption as if they were routine politicking, akin to Republicans complaining that the Democrats want to raise taxes; this is another legacy of Bill Clinton -- and a preview of what a Hillary-Clinton presidency would be like). But a desire to "minimize disruption in international oil markets" is not remotely like theft, unless we're to believe that stopping a terrorist from bombing an oil pipeline is the same as stealing the oil; the concepts are worlds apart, as rational liberals (there are some) appear to realize.

I know this post has largely been quotation, but I cannot resist the closing paragraphs:

Given [Hussein's evident intent to seize the Strait of Hormuz], "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

I wish I had time to surf around and see how many leftie bloggers used the Greenspan quotation yesterday to buttress their insane allegations; but, you know, life is short.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 17, 2007, at the time of 9:28 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mr. Greenspan Regrets He's Unable to Bash Today:

» Jobbed by the Watchman! from Big Lizards
I've never seen this before, but there was a tie in the Nouncil voting this time... and the Watcher in the Weirds broke the tie by giving his extra point to the one he liked best. Which would be perfectly... [Read More]

Tracked on September 24, 2007 3:44 PM


The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I kind of thought when I saw that on Drudge that maybe someone was taking something out of context. It would not be the first time.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 17, 2007 2:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fat Man

You will notice that, while the MSM goes into orbit about this hoo-haw, they are not talking about whether Yoda handled his job, monetary policy, as well as it should have been handled. What ius his responsibility for the housing bubble and the sub-prime crisis?

The above hissed in response by: Fat Man [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 17, 2007 7:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: necromancer

I've been checking your site for some time and like what I read.Very informative and spot on.I can't believe all the blather on the MSM sites and I don't have to name them.After reading the info on Mr. Greenspan I did a double-take.Great work Mr. Lizard.Keep on them
"Semper Fi"

The above hissed in response by: necromancer [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 17, 2007 8:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

I wish I had time to surf around and see how many leftie bloggers used the Greenspan quotation yesterday to buttress their insane allegations; but, you know, life is short.

As much as I loath to mention this baffoon, Chris Matthews did his best impression of BDS:

"Should we put Exxon signs up over Arlington Cemetery and Mobil signs up there, like they have at baseball stadiums?"

And your gonna have your hands full Dafydd with the "unleashing of the hounds" at the NYT's de-regulation of the Times Select crowd. I'm sure the Bush-bashing trio of Dowd, Krugman, and Friedman will have their "opinions" quoted in the lefty blogs like it was scripture from the bible.

The "no blood for oil" lunatics are in full bloom with this latest work of "journalism". Grab hold of your keyboards folks. It's gonna be a long winter.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 18, 2007 6:15 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved