Tuesday, September 18, 2007

... and that second explanation isn't holding up too well, either.

Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ is furious that former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan isn't getting the opportunity for a do-over on his initial revealing accusation:

Greenspan: No "War For Oil"

Well, here's a shocker - Alan "The Iraq war is largely about oil" Greenspan says he's been taken out of context. No kidding;

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.”

Ed Morrissey explains;

Greenspan wanted to communicate how important the Middle East is in terms of global finances. He himself made the case for removing Saddam Hussein to keep financial markets from collapsing from an attack on world oil supplies, such as the one Saddam conducted during the first Gulf War. He took that argument to the White House, which specifically rejected it — quite the opposite of what the quote implied when first reported.

The chances of this correction being carried by the same Canadian media that rebroadcast the original misquote lie somewhere between zero and "not f'ing likely".

More on the news debacle here.

That's right -- the invasion of Iraq was never about oil; it was, instead, about toppling a brutal, murderous tyrant so that the people of Iraq could then flourish under the banner of democracy, controlling their destiny through the beauty of free and fair elections, and safe in the knowledge that they could now live in peace in a vibrant, prosperous and stable society without having to worry about being arbitrarily murdered in the streets based on their religious leanings, all the while providing the U.S. with an abundant supply of cheap oil.

Yeah, Kate, so ... how is that going, by the way?

: And while Kate continues to worship at the feet of the incomprehensible one, we can amuse ourselves with another of Alan Greenspan's head-scratching droppings of wisdom:

"He [Greenspan] says he felt 'getting Saddam out of there was very important,'...because he was convinced the Iraq dictator wanted to control the Strait of Hormuz, through which a sizable portion of the world's oil passes...He conveyed that view to [Cheney and Rumsfeld]."

Well, OK, except for the tiny detail:

Yeah ... that detail. Sometimes, one wonders if any of these people can find their ass with both hands and a flashlight.


Southern Quebec said...

I think that you are being a little hard on old Al. Don't you know that 1 in 4 American can't find America on a map?...just ask Miss North Caroline.

Red Tory said...

Good catch. I heard that the other day and have to confess that it didn't register with me.

Adam C said...

Hmmmm... you know, it may be fair to say that Hussein "wanted" to control the strait... much the same way he may have wanted to marry a movie star and carve his name on the moon with a giant laser...

Ti-Guy said...

We just have to admit that these rightwingers think "global economy" (read...controlled by the West and mostly of significance to investor fortunes) supersedes local democracy. I think some of them must justify this in terms of trickle-down economics and rising tides lifting all boats, etc. etc, blah blah, but there is no escaping the profound immorality of all of this.