|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: GazzBut]
#7476912 - 10/02/07 10:18 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Do you seriously think Bush has enough power to go to war on the back of some personal grudge?
Obviously.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Seuss]
#7477131 - 10/02/07 11:29 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Bullshit
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: zappaisgod]
#7477165 - 10/02/07 11:40 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Bullshit
Perhaps, but I still think for Bush, that was the primary reason. Other people in the administration had other interests, but for Bush, I think that was number one. (I've been wrong before... *grin*)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: GazzBut]
#7477576 - 10/02/07 02:12 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Quote:
Here is the quote Phred:
"“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
Yeah, and as soon as that quote was publicized in The Times, Bob Woodward from the Washington Post called Greenspan for clarification, because Woodward (for a number of reasons) smelled something fishy.
First of all, Woodward (and pretty much anyone else who knows even a little bit about American politics) was well aware Greenspan wasn't exactly a member of the inner circle of the Bush administration. Woodward also figured it was not improbable that those around Greenspan would have favored deposing Hussein for economic reasons (specifically, to keep oil supplies from the Gulf region stable) rather than other reasons. These guys are economists after all, and tend to view foreign policy through the prism of economics first and foremost. This doesn't mean the actual decision makers saw things the same way a bunch of economics wonks did. And as it turns out, Greenspan says they didn't see things the same way --
Quote:
Greenspan clarified his remarks in an interview with the Washington Post, telling the newspaper that although securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with a case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,’ *I* would say it was essential.”
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.”
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil17sep17,1,1292645.story?track=rss&ctrack=7&cset=true
The boldface is mine, not the LA Times. Pretty hard to misinterpret that clarification from Greenspan, and the clarification was widely reported -- not just in the LA Times and the Washington Post.
How odd that mcnews.net missed the clarification <sarcasm>.
Phred
--------------------
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond



Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: veggie]
#7479632 - 10/03/07 03:12 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The oil-thingy is only the convenient and profitable lie to cloud and cover the main reasons for the war. To simply empower and stabilize political and economical presence of the USA in the middle east. I like staying simple there.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 26 days, 17 hours
|
Re: Bush War Crimes Trials [Re: Phred]
#7479653 - 10/03/07 03:31 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah sounds like Alan's doing some backtracking after somebody had a quiet word in his ear!!
His initial comment is fairly straight forward and cannot really be misinterpreted.
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,”
"“I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,’ *I* would say it was essential.”
Blatant backtracking, Im surprised you didnt spot that.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
|