Greenspan writes the Epitaph for the Iraq War

Umm It is there Seems we just can't get much out of the country yet.
A real problem since the oil was going to pay for their reconstruction ;)

But with most of their oil off the maket it does keep the oil companies profits waay up.
 
uscitizen said:
It is what I have said all along as well Cypress.
Click to expand...


Well, I remember the good old days when it used to be a crazy leftwing thing to say that the evidence for WMD and ties to al qaeda were dubious, and that the war was really about oil (to a great extent).
 
Cypress said:
Well, I remember the good old days when it used to be a crazy leftwing thing to say that the evidence for WMD and ties to al qaeda were dubious, and that the war was really about oil (to a great extent).
Click to expand...

But now we have "legitimate critics" bringing up the role of oil.

Years, years, too late, and it doesn't look very brave to me, but hey...it's good to be joined by "legitimate" people.
 
Darla said:
But now we have "legitimate critics" bringing up the role of oil.

Years, years, too late, and it doesn't look very brave to me, but hey...it's good to be joined by "legitimate" people.
Click to expand...


It wasn't that long ago, that I was being called a crazy lefty bent on promoting a political agenda, for calling the iraq conflict a civil war.


Darla, don't you hate being gifted with the knowledge of foresight? Where pretty much everything you said two or three years ago, comes true?
 
Umm as I read it the statement about oil is in the book.
I guess now rush will be asking for all loyal republicans to buy out the first edition of the book to keep the knowledge limited to loyalists.
 
Cypress said:
As soon as this thread dissapears, Bush fans (closeted or not) will start denying it again. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Man, must be contagious. Even Greenspan is denying his own statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297037,00.html

Alan Greenspan Seeks to Clarify Controversial Iraq War Comments

WASHINGTON — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says comments he wrote in his new book about the Iraq war lead-up should not be taken to mean that oil was the Bush administration's primary reason for going to war.

"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," Greenspan told The Washington Post, according to a story published Monday.
 
Warren said:
Man, must be contagious. Even Greenspan is denying his own statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297037,00.html

Alan Greenspan Seeks to Clarify Controversial Iraq War Comments

WASHINGTON — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says comments he wrote in his new book about the Iraq war lead-up should not be taken to mean that oil was the Bush administration's primary reason for going to war.

"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," Greenspan told The Washington Post, according to a story published Monday.
Click to expand...
Wow, that is quite a different perspective. Basically saying it was essential to go into Iraq.
 
yeah, I am not so sure that Greenspans statement he made while trying to wiggle out of the oil statement in his book is not worse...
 
Warren said:
Man, must be contagious. Even Greenspan is denying his own statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297037,00.html

Alan Greenspan Seeks to Clarify Controversial Iraq War Comments

WASHINGTON — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says comments he wrote in his new book about the Iraq war lead-up should not be taken to mean that oil was the Bush administration's primary reason for going to war.

"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," Greenspan told The Washington Post, according to a story published Monday.
Click to expand...


He had months and months to think about, edit, and perfect what he wanted to write. And this is what he wrote, according to your link:

"In the book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan writes, "the Iraq war is largely about oil."


He had multiple opportunities in the writing and editing of that book to change his statement. He didn't. And now he's backtracking?
 
Cypress said:
He had months and months to think about, edit, and perfect what he wanted to write. And this is what he wrote, according to your link:

"In the book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan writes, "the Iraq war is largely about oil."


He had multiple opportunities in the writing and editing of that book to change his statement. He didn't. And now he's backtracking?
Click to expand...
So you read the book and know the full context or are you basing it on conjecture? It seems to me that he has a better idea of what he wrote and meant than you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top