Gasp! What will Andrea Mitchell think?
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
I’m not sure that I agree with Greenspan. Well…I agree with him, but I’m not sure that oil explains the entirety of true rationale for war with Iraq.
What I am sure of is that we are now in a war of attrition and we are not only losing but there is no prospect that we won’t lose. And the real damage is financial. Yes, there is loss of life and the military is now fully committed in an unsustainable posture. But the true damage…the irreversible damage, is fiscal. We are going broke. And the only way to stop the bleeding is to stop paying for these operations.
a very big rat just left the ship
He didnt just jump ship.
He got off the ship at port, stole a taxi, drove to the airport, panhandled enough change for a ticket, caught a flight to another continent ahead of aforementioned ship, took a help ride out to the ship’s helipad from the other airport, climbed on board the ship AGAIN and announced to the entire world that he was now jumping ship.
THEN he jumped ship…after peeing on the fois gras in the Officer’s Galley. News crews gave him mostly good dive scores.
The rest of us are heading into iceberg country with no helm response.
Perhaps Greenspan’s citing of oil as “largely” the reason we invaded Iraq is his way of signaling that the powers that be have hit bottom in terms of justifying their policies. He was, after all, famous for using code; remember irrational exuberance? Whatever Greenspan intends, I think Congress should claim Greenspan as an ally in wresting power away from Bush, by defunding the war, if not impeaching Bush and Cheney.
The Iraq war resulted from a convergence of evil interests. There were those who wanted oil, those who wanted fear (to enact dominionist legislation), those who wanted to bankrupt the U.S. government (to force the reduction in government services), those who wanted profits for themselves, and those who believed that we should “take out” one of Israel’s enemies just to show we could. A few whackos might have wanted to Christianize the region; a few may have actually wanted to precipitate the second coming.
None of those interests had any background knowledge of culture or tried to plan. Unfortunately, their mutual interests have brought us to the brink of destruction.
George Will, talking on ABC Sunday morning news show, said that Greenspan’s view was bogus. Oil is purchased on the world market out of Amsterdam, and Iraq’s oil is and would be handled no differently.
A different hypothesis for Bush’s invasion of Iraq is needed.
The point wasn’t that Iraqi oil wouldn’t end up traded with the rest, or rather, that’s exactly it — in such a situation, oil is sold to the highest bidder, and with peak oil approaching, those are going to be some very high bids indeed.
The goal of the American occupation of Iraq was to ensure an exclusive source of oil for the US at prices we dictated to the Iraqis.
It isn’t oil for America, but control of Iraqi oil by US multinational companies. Why do you think the Bushies agonize so much about the Iraqi oil law that never seems to garner enough support to pass in Parliament. It’s because that law would turn over control of the oil (extraction and transport and whatever else they can glom onto to charge a fee) to US and UK oil companies.
Someone diary this.
Speculating about motivation never leads to a proven conclusion. But just for our Sunday entertainment, assume that oil was indeed the overwhelming reason for the invasion. How would the PR strategy meeting go?
Client: Well, here’s the thing: Iraq has lots of oil. We want to control it. Our allies at Exxon Mobile are ready with a lot of quid pro quo. We’ll never get Saddam to give us exclusivity. So we’re gonna go in and take him out. We can’t sell the war for oil. So what’s the spin?
Consultants: Fear, anger, patriotism, and the faux-hero Rambo image are tools of the trade — the ones that always work. They will serve perfectly here. We have the anger and fear from Sept 11 working for us, so all we have to do is use it. Americans are looking for vengeance and security, in that order.
Great coups are built on simple ideas. Here’s the plan: we identify the Iraq regime as part of the Sept 11 outrage and as the center of future terrorist attacks on the US. We make Saddam the villain of Sept 11. That may sound like a stretch, but believe it: it’s a slam dunk. All we need is some reports about secret meetings with Alqaida, some more about scary weapons, especially nukes and plagues. We write you scripts that wave the flag, rev up the folks, and focus like a laser on Saddam. I understand that this is going to sound too easy to nonprofessionals, but this is one time I can absolutely guarantee success. Say the word, write a check, and we’ll have our people at the big networks and print prepped with “exclusives” by week’s end. Your end is to get your people on the bus, ready to dedicate themselves to the talking points we give them.
————–
Not sayin’ that’s how it happened, but it is entirely credible that it could.
you want to know what andrea is going to do? Hows this?
MONDAY SHOPPING LIST
DEPENDS
BABY WIPES
BABY POWDER
SAFETY PINS
BINKY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YsK3bwzPM
Interesting though is that inventing is a most hazardous business.
Eugene Mallove, rest in peace.