NP Rank:
Oil, it's ours
This article provides amazing inside into the shenanigans that have and are going on within the Bush regime over the reasons for invading Iraq. It has always been oil. To date 3800 young Americans have been used up (killed) in order to exert American control over oil supplies. This had never anything to do with freedom for the Iraqi people or their weapons of mass destruction. This is about lies and deceit.
"Why Are Americans Silent?
Could it be that most of us Americans remain "good Germans" because we are unwilling to recognize the moral implications of starting what is likely to be the first of the resource wars of the 21st century; because we continue to be comfortable hogging far more than our share of the world's natural resources; and because we prefer to look the other way when our leaders tell us that aggressive war is necessary to protect that siren-call, "our way of life," from attack by those who are just plain "jealous"?"
For those still wondering why President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sent our young men and women into Iraq, the secret is now "largely" out.No, not from the lips of former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It appears we shall have to wait until the disgraced general/diplomat draws nearer to meeting his maker before he gets concerned over anything more than the "blot" that Iraq has put on his reputation.
Rather, the uncommon candor comes from a highly respected Republican doyen, economist Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, whom the president has praised for his "wise policies and prudent judgment." Sadly for Bush and Cheney, Greenspan decided to put prudence aside in his new book, The Age of Turbulence, and answer the most neuralgiac issue of our times-why the United States invaded Iraq.
Greenspan writes:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Everyone knows? Would that it were so. But it's hardly everyone. Sometimes I think it's hardly anyone.
There are so many, still, who "can't handle the truth," and that is all too understandable. I have found it a wrenching experience to be forced to conclude that the America I love would deliberately launch what the Nuremburg Tribunal called the "supreme international crime"-a war of aggression-largely for oil. For those who are able to overcome the very common, instinctive denial, for those who can handle the truth, it really helps to turn off the Sunday football games early enough to catch up on what's going on.
60 Minutes
On January 11, 2004, viewers of CBS' 60 Minutes saw another of Bush's senior economic advisers, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill discussing The Price of Loyalty, his memoir about his two years inside the Bush administration. O'Neill, a plain speaker, likened the president's behavior at cabinet meetings to that of "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." How does he manage? Cheney and "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" help Bush make decisions off-line, blocking contrary views.
Cheney has a Rumsfeldian knack for aphorisms that don't parse in the real world- like "deficits don't matter." To his credit, O'Neill picked a fight with that and ended up being fired personally by Cheney. In his book, Greenspan heaps scorn on that same Cheneyesque insight.
O'Neill made no bones about his befuddlement over the president's diffident disengagement from discussions on policy-except, that is, for Bush's remarks betraying a pep-rally-cheerleader fixation with removing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.
Why Iraq? "Largely Oil"
O'Neill began to understand better after Bush's inauguration when the discussion among his top advisers abruptly moved to how to divvy up Iraq's oil wealth. Just days into the job, President Bush created the Cheney energy task force with the stated aim of developing "a national energy policy designed to help the private sector." Typically, Cheney has been able to keep secret its deliberations and even the names of its members.
But a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Commerce Department to turn over task force documents, including a map of Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and potential areas for exploration; a Pentagon chart "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts;" and another chart detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects-all dated March 2001.
On the 60 Minutes, program on December 15, 2002, Steve Croft asked then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "What do you say to people who think this [the coming invasion of Iraq] is about oil?" Rumsfeld replied:
"Nonsense. It just isn't. There-there-there are certain ... things like that, myths that are floating around. I'm glad you asked. I-it has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."
Au Contraire
Greenspan's indiscreet remark adds to the abundant evidence that Iraq oil, and not weapons of mass destruction, was the priority target long before the Bush administration invoked WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq. In the heady days of "Mission Accomplished," a week after the president landed on the aircraft carrier, then-deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz virtually bragged about the deceit during an interview. On May 9, 2003, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason..."



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 13:50 on September 22nd, 2007
You obviously haven't caught up with Greenspan's explanation of a remark taken out of context. Either quote Greenspan completely and accurately or not at all. You can't have it both ways.
http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/greenspan-disappoints-his-new-liberal-supporters
at 22:20 on September 22nd, 2007
Yep, your are right after reading the line again: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." I do agree with you, it can easily be taken out of context as it is rather ambiguous. On top of that I do not think that apart from some leftwing Europeans and communist, no one in their right mind would make the oil connection. Thanks for making me realise this. Cheers, Tom.
at 05:55 on September 23rd, 2007
I assume your comment is largely satirical. I am a conservative. I support President Bush and his decision to topple Saddam. What I object to is the attempt on the part of some to confuse the need to keep Saddam away from the critical oil supplies of the Mideast with an attempt to steal Iraq's oil. We could have done that easily with 1/100th the sacrifice we are making in blood and treasure. Oil was only one of many reasons to carry out the policy of the Clinton Administration.
at 13:21 on September 23rd, 2007
Yes, it was satirical. What makes me and many people around the world so angry is the fact that we have a bully (the US) removing governments of countries by extreme and deadly force. This seems for many people an acceptable way to safeguarding the US interests. Has anyone thought what will happen to our planet if this becomes the norm. What will happen if other supper powers such as Russia and China are going to oppose the US bully. I am sure we can all see the picture, but we should ask ourselves is this the way we want to go before it is too late. By the way, what has the US war machine achieved for the people of Iraq or the people of the US?. Cheers, Tom.
PS. Joellerose, please do not say "the Clinton Administration made us do it".
at 16:10 on September 23rd, 2007
The lefties, who can never find a reason to confront any evil, will salute you; the grownups will push on.
at 18:18 on September 23rd, 2007
Thanks for the salute.