Monday, September 17, 2007

Greenspan clarifies Iraq war, oil link

It looks like a few of my friends are up for the prognosticator of the new millenium award. How does it feel to be at once a conspiracy theorist and a prophet? Don't rest on your laurels though friends, I am still gunning for that award (wink, not really- I am just interested in saving souls). Do call me though- I am trying to save enough money to go back to school and could use a tip on the over/under for the OU Texas game.

Greenspan clarifies Iraq war, oil link

Says he told White House ousting Saddam was 'essential' to world supplies

WASHINGTON - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

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

Economic motivation for war
In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.”

But Greenspan’s main support for Saddam’s ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.

“My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through,” Greenspan said.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean “chaos” to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.

Dismay with Democrats
Greenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Monday.

Greenspan told the Journal he was “fairly close” to former President Bill Clinton’s economic advisers, but added, “The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction.” He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.

Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.

“I just may not vote,” he was quoted as saying, adding, ”I’m saddened by the whole political process.”

(saddenned... this sounds like a few more people I know. )

James 5 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)

James 5
1COME NOW, you rich [people], weep aloud and lament over the miseries (the woes) that are surely coming upon you.

2Your abundant wealth has rotted and is ruined, and your [many] garments have become moth-eaten.

3Your gold and silver are completely rusted through, and their rust will be testimony against you and it will devour your flesh as if it were fire. You have heaped together treasure for the last days.

4[But] look! [Here are] the wages that you have withheld by fraud from the laborers who have reaped your fields, crying out [for vengeance]; and the cries of the harvesters have come to the ears of the Lord of hosts.

5[Here] on earth you have abandoned yourselves to soft (prodigal) living and to [the pleasures of] self-indulgence and self-gratification. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

Related Video:


S. Starr said...

Here's what i said right when it all began... I was wrong and right... like most others.

From: Scott Starr
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 5:02 PM

This is my war statement I have sent as a response to others...thought I'd
share some more

War In Iraq:> My $'s Worth

I'm not worried too much about military victory even though things
appear quite messy right now. However, I think
that the after effects of this conflict are something that we will be
living with for a long time. I feel for the children under the watch of our
generation who will reach adulthood in such a conflicted world and perhaps
be required to endure more hardship than we ourselves have thusfar known.
I have been watching a lot of "BBC World" channel for news on
this war. It is perhaps a bit more objective than the U.S.
channels. I find it particularly interesting how differently this
conflict is percieved according to geographical location and
which "News" channels are being watched. The war we see in western
broadcasts is far different than the one portayed in Europe, Asia and
the Middle East. Most of the Arab networks have readily apparent
agendas. They are in fact operated usually by groups like Hamas and
Hezbollah. We are seeing the clash of two ideologies here in a way
we have not seen in our generation's lifetimes. Trying to win a war
like this is like trying to win an earthquake.
I am not quite ready to say that this war, AS IT IS BEING WAGED,
was completely necessary...but, I do believe it to be an honest attempt at
bringing forth justice in Iraq and world affairs in general.
I have heard comments by some experts as well as some
Iraqis now living abroad...To paraphrase, They ask, "Explain how
leaving Saddam Hussein in power is beneficial to the Iraqi people or
the stability of the region or of the goal of world peace?"
They go on to say that in this war, some innocent people will
die as in all wars. However, it is a certainty that people will live
in oppression and many more deaths will occur with Saddam in power.
We may have to sacrifice many lives in order to save generations of
the future from torture, tyranny and murder. The famed general Patton of
WWII admonished that ducking a battle early only creates more and worse
battles later. Saddam is already responsible for over a million deaths,
mostly of his own people. The only certainty of this conflict is that there
will be more death and oppression if he is allowed to continue his rule and
acquire more power and more weaponry. The souls of those murdered by his
regime and those living oppressed by it cry out for justice.
It is a paradox that Saddam was basically set up in power by our
government in an attempt to stem the threat of the Iranians tipping
the balance of power in their favor many years ago. It is our taste
for oil that has made him rich. It is our inability to keep promises
made in the first Gulf War that keep the Iraqi people from trusting
us now. We have a lot of things to put right on these issues alone.
Needless to say the world is watching now, and most of them are angry
with us. The Arab and Islamic world is absolutely inflamed. I am afraid the
relative peace of our youth is not to be seen again for awhile. The code of
the warrior teaches that we should avoid war whenever possible and at the
same time be prepared to fight and or die when we must.
All we can do as a nation, as a people, as individuals is to
continue to deal in good faith with the rest of the world. I have
said to people before...things have a certain way of working
themselves out when you are always trying to do the right thing. The
cost in lives and international relationships is already high...may
we all hold tight to the hope that the results will be worth such a
tremendous price.

S. Starr said...

Psalm 52: Do Not Love Evil More Than Good

Judgment on the Deceitful
To the leader. A Maskil of David, when Doeg the Edomite came to Saul and said to him, "David has come to the house of Ahimelech."

Why do you boast, O mighty one,
of mischief done against the godly?
All day long 2 you are plotting destruction.
Your tongue is like a sharp razor,
you worker of treachery.
You love evil more than good,
and lying more than speaking the truth. Selah
You love all words that devour,
O deceitful tongue.

But God will break you down forever;
he will snatch and tear you from your tent;
he will uproot you from the land of the living. Selah
The righteous will see, and fear,
and will laugh at the evildoer, saying,
“See the one who would not take
refuge in God,
but trusted in abundant riches,
and sought refuge in wealth!”

But I am like a green olive tree
in the house of God.
I trust in the steadfast love of God forever and ever.
I will thank you forever,
because of what you have done.
In the presence of the faithful
I will proclaim your name, for it is good.

Scott Starr said...

More early Iraq war discussion.
Questions and answers:

>Subject: q's and a's> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:17:21 -0600
> Another good friend and armchair philosopher asked me some good questions about ongoing political debate. I thought you might be interested in the questions and answers too.
>From: CHUCK
>To: Scott Starr
>Subject: Re: unplug?
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:07:56 EST
>I have been working on some thoughts I wanted to share with you but I have
>some questions that need answers first.
>What do think of the accusations going around that Bush had Sadam captured a
>long time ago but just brought him out?
>That Bush plotted this war in Texas for the benefit of a few oil companies?
>That Bush was warned of the plot for 9/11 but said nothing because .. it is
>not clear to me what motive Dean thinks Bush would have for that?
>What is your take on this?
> I really don't think there is any possibility that Saddam has been captured for any longer than they say. I suppose anything is possible...but it is very unlikely. I can't imagine how holding on to him would be of any benefit in any way given the pressures of the Iraq situation.
> On the second question, about the war being plotted in Texas for the benefit of oil companies is not quite such a pat answer. First of all, let me say that Ted Kennedy's statements on this can only be seen as a politically motivated and overblown generalization. The president and his staff would have to be the most crass and EVIL people on the planet to actually sit around and consciously hatch such a machiavellian scheme, whereby all this death and destruction would result, just to add to their personal fortunes. As much distaste as I have for the president and his cronies, I simply cannot believe that they are that immoral consciously. However, It is also difficult for me to imagine us being so commited in Iraq if there was no oil to be found over there. Without the oil factor and its attending implications for the oil based world economy, we would probably go on largely ignoring Saddam's crimes against humanity like we did for most of the last few decades including the genocidal rampage carried out at the close of the first Gulf War. Off the top of my head I have to say that the war, as most are, is mostly about the balance of power rather than any commodities or moral considerations. The U.S. backed Saddam back when it served their interests...we basically created Saddam by giving him our blessing and helping arm him back when they were at war with Iran. This is not a new thing for Uncle Sam, we have consistently backed jackasses like Saddam around the world. During my youth there was support for Khmer Rouge, the Esquadron de Muerte in El Salvador, dictatorships from the Philipines to Chile, Haiti, Columbia etc., etc.
> In more recent times we just ignore situations like the slaughter of people in East Timor, in the Slavic world and the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq... in each case we backed or ignored harsh regimes to maintian that same balance of power that served our economic and cultural interests no matter what the cost of human life was in some faraway land that Joe Sixpack typicallly doesn't know anything about. Heck we wouldn't even take on the Nazis and get into what became WWII until we got attacked on our own turf. Both the political right and left are guilty on this...both of their key interests have always been maintining their own baseline of power. Power is the name of the game, economic, social, political ...power. Each of these cases and the general concept of all this warrant a lot more thought and discussions...there is a lot of literature out there on all of it. I always like to study both sides of the story and make inferences from that. I can give some examples... Of course, I don't believe evrything I read from any source, but I have been a voracious reader and news junkie since 9/11.
>I know people from both the political right and the left (as if those are the only two ways of thinking) that are not objective and cannot stomach anything that directs critical thought at their preferred leaders. " I ain't married to none of 'em," as I've heard a local car salesman say.
> On the 9/11 thing..
> From what I can discern, the intelligence community in general has known that the threat of major terrorist attacks was great and also on the rise for many years now. I have heard the political right accuse the Clinton administration of dropping the ball and lowering our defenses. However, that is more guff, because the record shows that that administration was very worried and very active about the subject. (also, the military now in the field was built mostly prior to November 2,000...i.e. under the previous administration so this is not a new military machine recreated by the Bush administration that is performing so well but the legacy of about the past three administrations....and no I am not a fan of Clinton...just stating facts) Memos were passed around concerning the ongoing terrorist threat and plots during the change of administrations. However, several things interfered with the process. First there was that screwball election. Then there was the changing of the guard and all the attending focus that had to be devoted to building a new cabinet and shaping new foreign and domestic policy.
>From what I can tell, the threat of terrorism was sort of put on the back burner, so to speak while all thesre other things were happening. I really don't think that the Bush admin. got detailed specific info and then just blew it off. They had an agenda for dealing with the threats all along...they just got beat to the punch by Al Qaeda. Other matters dimmed the focus on this issue....politics in general. The right and left were so busy fussing, the new and old admins had such low regard for each other and poor communications that the REAL enemy slipped in a solid sucker punch. ...And now both right and left are very busy blaming each other for the results.