Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

[qwerty]

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

VOTE FOR RON PAUL NOW TO END THE MADDNESS![/quote]

[lily]

It seems Greenspan wasn't too fond of Bush. First this article (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=7876) and now this one........but then I think most of us knew it was all about oil anyway.

[Stoner]

but then I think most of us knew it was all about oil anyway.


This lib talking point has already been debunked several times. Then again facts have never stopped libs from going off on their Kos rants.

[qwerty]

You know that it´s for oil and you still refuse to vote a candidate who would thell the truth and end the maddness.

Instead of that you will vote a candidate who will continue that maddness.

Your president have lied to you and you still refuse to vote a man who have a honest voting record...

:ponder:

[ECW]

but then I think most of us knew it was all about oil anyway.


This lib talking point has already been debunked several times. Then again facts have never stopped libs from going off on their Kos rants.


And now Greenspan is a liberal. Interesting. Has anyone told HIM yet? :madlaugh:

[dgun]

And now Greenspan is a liberal.

:madlaugh:

Good one ECW. Yeah, Greenspan, one of the leading conservative economists of our times, is now a liberal wiener because he agrees with about 80% of the American public that the war in Iraq was a shitty idea.

Funny how people are so quick to use the "L" word.

[Labrocca]

but then I think most of us knew it was all about oil anyway.


This lib talking point has already been debunked several times. Then again facts have never stopped libs from going off on their Kos rants.


Stoner...you just lost all credibility you had with me. You didn't have a lot to begin with but it doesn't take a liberal to realize that if there wasn't Oil in the middle east we wouldn't be giving a rats ass about the place. Take Africa for example...lots of atrocities there..heck even terrorists and rogue regimes..BUT we don't care because there is no oil there.

I have no idea what you think is "debunked" but if you want to know about talking points just go read about 2/3rd of your own posts. Try to have an original thought buddy. Partisanship (whether left or right) makes a person look stupid.

[preservanation]

but then I think most of us knew it was all about oil anyway.


This lib talking point has already been debunked several times. Then again facts have never stopped libs from going off on their Kos rants.


Stoner...you just lost all credibility you had with me. You didn't have a lot to begin with but it doesn't take a liberal to realize that if there wasn't Oil in the middle east we wouldn't be giving a rats ass about the place. Take Africa for example...lots of atrocities there..heck even terrorists and rogue regimes..BUT we don't care because there is no oil there.

I have no idea what you think is "debunked" but if you want to know about talking points just go read about 2/3rd of your own posts. Try to have an original thought buddy. Partisanship (whether left or right) makes a person look stupid.
So, since all of humanity now knows that we went into Iraq just to get their oil, what's the point of discussing it any further?
C'mon.

[Pogo]

So, since all of humanity now knows that we went into Iraq just to get their oil, what's the point of discussing it any further?
C'mon.

OK, mostly about oil.

Happy? ;)

[preservanation]

So, since all of humanity now knows that we went into Iraq just to get their oil, what's the point of discussing it any further?
C'mon.

OK, mostly about oil.

Happy? ;)
Always:D
What was the rest about then, revenge for daddy?
Bah

[lily]

So, since all of humanity now knows that we went into Iraq just to get their oil, what's the point of discussing it any further?
C'mon.


Well, for one thing, history will now get it right.

[preservanation]

So, since all of humanity now knows that we went into Iraq just to get their oil, what's the point of discussing it any further?
C'mon.


Well, for one thing, history will now get it right.

If the libs write the history books, you will always be right.
The truth be damned.

[Pogo]

So, since all of humanity now knows that we went into Iraq just to get their oil, what's the point of discussing it any further?
C'mon.

OK, mostly about oil.

Happy? ;)
Always:D
What was the rest about then, revenge for daddy?
Bah

Look, maybe Jr. actually thought it was about democratizing the Middle East but I can assure you that the people who set the policy in his administration knew better.

My own opinion is that since the US oil majors weren't lined up to get what they felt was their fair share, the policy was to disrupt the agreements that France and Russia had, and if post-Saddam Iraq was sufficiently stabilized to the point that a friendly regime was established, all the better. And last but not least, those cost+ contracts for firms like Halliburton, Titan, CACI International, Blackwater, etc.

So what do you think it was about?

[lily]

If the libs write the history books, you will always be right.
The truth be damned.


I wasn't aware that Greenspan was a Liberal. So are you calling him a liar? What would be his reasons for lying?

[Elrathin]

Always:D
What was the rest about then, revenge for daddy?
Bah


Preservation I am more curious about your response to Labarocca's post. What do you have to day about that?

Do you deny that between Africa and Kuwait the U.S. chose Kuwait?d

Also Stoner called Greenspan a liberal, so what are your thought about that one? Do you think All of a sudden Greensapn is aliberal because he is against Bush? And for that matter do you think that ANYONE against Bush is a liberal?

Preservation, I will admit. I will be a tad bit disappointed if you believe that anyone against Bush is a Liberal. I have come to know you as a poster that is beyond that and I hope you stay that way. We don't see alike, but the one thing I see is that you and I want what is best for America despite what we disagree with each other with and that I can respect. I hope it stays that way and if you disagreee with something it is beyond the partisnship that is displayed on both sides.

[Stoner]

And now Greenspan is a liberal. Interesting. Has anyone told HIM yet?

Where on earth did you get that I called Greenspan a liberal? I didn't even mention Greenspan.

I seriously wonder about where libs come up with 99% of the crap they post. It's almost always inaccurate, exagerated or just a flat out lie. This quote by ECW is option #3. Any person smarter than a bag of hair can see I never mentioned Greenspan. And the sadder thing is other libs just believed him blindly and started in with the same crap.

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

[Elrathin]

Meaning that you though the war about oil was Lib talking point and since Greenspan thought the same thing you were accusing him of being a liberal.

I didn't think Greenspan was a liberal, you did.

[Stoner]

Meaning that you though the war about oil was Lib talking point and since Greenspan thought the same thing you were accusing him of being a liberal.


Wow, that's a pretty big imagination you have there, kid. But do us all a favor and just stick to the facts.

Greenspan is no lib. He made these outrageous and untruthful comments simply to promote his book. It's an old tactic. Make some absurd statement, cause controversy and sheep will flock to Barnes and Noble.

[Labrocca]

So, since all of humanity now knows that we went into Iraq just to get their oil, what's the point of discussing it any further?
C'mon.

If you don't think it needs more discussion then don't post. I don't need to convince someone that the moon is round. I can plainly see that it is for myself. If you want to say it's square go right ahead..it's you that everyone will think "jeez that guy is clueless".

Alan Greenspan imho is not attacking the President. He is simply saying what many know to be a fact. That the Iraq war would not have taken place if oil wasn't involved. Do I think we went to war for oil..no not at all. I think that because of oil though we have a target on the middle east. And any possible destabilization of the region is a NATIONAL THREAT. If in you head you think that our oil supply is not a national security issue then you aren't worth debating with. If we lose our Arab oil supply or if a rogue regime cuts us off...we are screwed. We took out Saddam for a variety of reasons. Many perfectly good reasons but oil is at the heart of it all. Africa has all the same reasons to invade...so what's the difference?

[Elrathin]

He made these outrageous and untruthful comments simply to promote his book. It's an old tactic. Make some absurd statement, cause controversy and sheep will flock to Barnes and Noble.


Same old rhetoric from the righty nutballs that surface. If it is a talking point you agree with, he is expanding his conservative view, but if it is a view you disagree with it MUST be he is just making controversy. LOL same old neocon talking point.

The difference is not all conservatives are neocons. Ther are actually respectable conservatives.

[ViolaLee]

Everyone is learning that we went to war for oil. Everyone is learning that Bush lied about why we went to war. Some of us knew long before others. Some of us will never admit the truth.

[BoogyMan]

Everyone is learning that we went to war for oil. Everyone is learning that Bush lied about why we went to war. Some of us knew long before others. Some of us will never admit the truth.


Yet again, Viola, you cannot prove the Bush lied nor can you prove intent. You are right though, some will never admit the truth.

[ViolaLee]

Bush lied when he said Saddam was a threat to us. Bush lied when he said Saddam had WMD. Bush lied when he said Misson Accomplished. Bush lied when he said we don't wiretap without a warrant. Bush lied when he said we don't torture. Bush lied when he said 9/11 and Iraq were connected. Bush lied when he said he won the vote count in Florida. Bush lied when he said he read 86 books this year.

Pick one that you agree with and we can agree that Bush lied.

[Elrathin]

Everyone is learning that Bush lied about why we went to war. Some of us knew long before others. Some of us will never admit the truth.


The sad part is, as a liberal, I don't think Bush lied. I think he honestly believed what he had said we would find. I believe he may have circumvented some of the stuff but I believe he thought we would honesty find the truth that he thought.

The problem is we didn't. That is why I don't believe Bush so much a traitor. Bush IMO did what he though was best for America in the Beginning. Since then he has desperately been trying to find the truth to justify his actions, but I don't believe the actions of bush to be traitorous. as much as he wanted the stockpiles of WMDs to be found.

Does that make it right? No. But does that make it treasonous? Absolutely not. The part that really makes me afraid is that if he ddid find the stockpiles of WMDs he would be considered a hero even though he went into Iraq with faulty intelligence.

The only thing I fault him for is not admitting the mistake he made IMO. The sad part is some people on the right call me a traitor, while some on the left could call me a deserter. I don't know where I stand with any of them but I do know is that Bush did what he thought was right, even though I think it's wrong.

The real question is, where do we go from here.

[BoogyMan]

Egads, wrong intelligence was acted on. Prove intent Vi.

[ViolaLee]

Bush and co planned on invading Iraq for decades. They wanted to privatize a country and take it's oil, the good conservative way. By force.

Intent.

[Elrathin]

Egads, wrong intelligence was acted on. Prove intent Vi.


The same thing could be said about Clinton boogy, prove that when he attacked the medical factory it wasn't because he didn't think it was an AQ weapons factory. Yet many conservative think it was the "wag the dog syndrome" when he did it.

Do you have proof otherwise? Or will you even admit Clinton did what he felt appropriate?[hr]
Bush and co planned on invading Iraq for decades. They wanted to privatize a country and take it's oil, the good conservative way. By force.

Intent.


No offense but myself being military intelligence, there were plans to invade England if necessary.

[BoogyMan]

Bush and co planned on invading Iraq for decades.

Intent.


I am sure that you will flesh this out for me Viola. Do tell.[hr]

Egads, wrong intelligence was acted on. Prove intent Vi.


The same thing could be said about Clinton boogy, prove that when he attacked the medical factory it wasn't because he didn't think it was an AQ weapons factory. Yet many conservative think it was the "wag the dog syndrome" when he did it.

Do you have proof otherwise? Or will you even admit Clinton did what he felt appropriate?

Did I make a claim otherwise El? I think you have the wrong guy for this assertion.

[ViolaLee]

I am sure that you will flesh this out for me Viola. Do tell.

President Bush was planning to invade Iraq before the September 11th attacks and was considering two very different plans about what to do with Iraq's oil. The plans sparked a political fight between neoconservatives and big oil companies and may help explain the recent appointments of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank and John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations

Read the interview (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/21/1455245)

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. Read the rest of the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's (Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill) most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Read the rest of the article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

Google - bush plans to invade iraq privatize oil - for lots more.[hr]Bush came into the Presidency with a plan to invade Iraq.

Iraq was so much on his mind in 2001, that he ignored the threat of Al Qaeda. Either that, or he saw it coming and let it happen so he would have an excuse to invade Iraq. That's why he kept connecting the two, even though they aren't connected.

He didn't care about Al Qaeda, then and he doesn't care about them now. He just wants Iraq, and their oil.

[moses2792796]

For shit's sake, the war wasn't about oil. It's painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain. It is clear though, that the war was never about WoMD's either.

[Drocket]

We didn't invade Iraq for the oil, not directly, at least. The problem with trying to define 'the reason' we invaded Iraq is that there's actually multiple reasons: quite a few people were responsible for the decision(s), each with their own motives:

Bush: Wanted to show up his daddy, combined with delusions of grandeur in which he'd be forever worshiped as a hero for bringing peace to the middle east.

Cheney: Money/power. Indirectly about the oil, sorta. Not really anything so noble as 'getting the oil for the USA'. More just 'stealing whatever he can leech off via no-bid contracts.'

Rove: Power. Thought that making Bush a 'War President' would improve his ratings and help cement a long-term Republican majority, and he'd be a major player for decades to come.

Rumsfeld: What's the point of having an army if you're not going to use it? I'll show everyone what a brilliant tactician I am by invading a country with only a fraction of the forces that other say I need!

Rice: Isn't my husband - I mean, President Bush - really great? He's the smartest, most capable, sexiest - I mean, most intelligent - man I've ever met. If he says invading Iraq is a good idea, I'm sure he's right.

[preservanation]

It is now being reported that Greenspan is back peddling on the statements he made in his book or that people misinterpreted his words to further their own political agenda(imagine that)

[moses2792796]

^^heheh, so true. Everytime I think conservatives are more annoying, Liberals give me a reason to despise them more. I'm much more supportive of conservative politics anyway, although it would be better if people stopped subscribing to pre-determined political philosophy in the first place.

[preservanation]

^^heheh, so true. Everytime I think conservatives are more annoying, Liberals give me a reason to despise them more. I'm much more supportive of conservative politics anyway, although it would be better if people stopped subscribing to pre-determined political philosophy in the first place.
Hi moses, even though I do not agree with the Green Party's politics nor agenda...
I kinda like you!:thumbsup:

[Deadshot]

It is now being reported that Greenspan is back peddling on the statements he made in his book or that people misinterpreted his words to further their own political agenda(imagine that)


Too late, the damage is done. :ecstatic:

[moses2792796]

^^heheh, so true. Everytime I think conservatives are more annoying, Liberals give me a reason to despise them more. I'm much more supportive of conservative politics anyway, although it would be better if people stopped subscribing to pre-determined political philosophy in the first place.
Hi moses, even though I do not agree with the Green Party's politics nor agenda...
I kinda like you!:thumbsup:


Thanks, technically I'm unaffiliated as I don't agree with most of the Green party's politics either. It's probably the closest one listed though and it shows that I believe the health of nature to be of utmost importance.

[preservanation]

The heath of nature is high on my list as well and with the help of American innovation and future technologies we should be able to strike a balance between our energy needs and the environment and still maintain the freedoms of which I hold so dear.

[moses2792796]

Seems reasonable, I am convinced this balance can be found without drastic measures being taken. Although the time is nearly upon us where this will no longer be the case. All this, change you light globes bullcrap is, to use a quote, "like a smoker quitting on his deathbed".

Well I'm getting off topic now...

[Pogo]

Everyone is learning that we went to war for oil. Everyone is learning that Bush lied about why we went to war. Some of us knew long before others. Some of us will never admit the truth.


Yet again, Viola, you cannot prove the Bush lied nor can you prove intent. You are right though, some will never admit the truth.

There's no question whatsoever that the administration lied about WMD as they claimed to know that Iraq still had them, which is impossible. The only thing they really knew was that Saddam *wanted* to have them.

[preservanation]

Bush believed there were WMDs, so did Clinton, Gore, Kerry (they all stated that fact BEFORE Bush was elected.) and the World community including the UN. If you label Bush a liar we must do so to all others eh?
Maybe Bush thought there were WMD's because all the aforementioned Dems lied to him.
This is all you have?
Move on.

[Truth_and_Power]

I'm sorry, but the correct title for this thread would be:

Greenspan calls Bush a Traitor and a Greed-Driven Murderer

[I Like Beer]

but then I think most of us knew it was all about oil anyway.

This lib talking point has already been debunked several times. Then again facts have never stopped libs from going off on their Kos rants.


Stoner...you just lost all credibility you had with me. You didn't have a lot to begin with but it doesn't take a liberal to realize that if there wasn't Oil in the middle east we wouldn't be giving a rats ass about the place.


I just wanted to thank Labrocca for having the guts to call out a poster who I think is somewhat ideologically compatible (if I'm wrong, forgive me, I'm new).

All too often, we tend to overlook the mistakes and shortcomings of those who agree with our position because we believe it's better to be win the argument than to have the truth come out. This is true of BOTH sides.

It's incredibly healthy for those of the SAME political stripe to engage in debate with each other, too. I hope to continue to see a lot more of that.

Thanks!
:clapper::clapper:

[BoogyMan]

Everyone is learning that we went to war for oil. Everyone is learning that Bush lied about why we went to war. Some of us knew long before others. Some of us will never admit the truth.


Yet again, Viola, you cannot prove the Bush lied nor can you prove intent. You are right though, some will never admit the truth.

There's no question whatsoever that the administration lied about WMD as they claimed to know that Iraq still had them, which is impossible. The only thing they really knew was that Saddam *wanted* to have them.


Sorry Pogo, I know you want to believe that but the facts just don't support your conclusion.

Acting on faulty intelligence does not equate to lies.

[Deadshot]

[quote=Pogo]
[quote=BoogyMan]
Sorry Pogo, I know you want to believe that but the facts just don't support your conclusion.

Acting on faulty intelligence does not equate to lies.


No it equates to an arrogance and stupidity that says only WE can be right and no one else needs to be listened to. The facts are that they ignored or simply put aside anti-War intelligence.

So while they didn't lie, that acted arrogantly and without forethought and intellingence. To be honest, I'd rather have an intelligent liar (Clinton) over an arrogant, idiot (Bush).

[BoogyMan]

Mr. Greenspan seems a bit flustered that people are extrapolating his commentary to mean something he never intended. He has pretty well clarified his position in the Washington Post article below.


Source: Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html)

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "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 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." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

Greenspan's reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said.

As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. 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 disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

[preservanation]

I knew this was all a hoax perpetrated by the left wing media and internet bloggers.

I wonder if Andrea Mitchell had a hand in any of this.
At his age a wife can sneak things by.
Especially a sneaky wife.

[bobbylien]

Why we invaded is really pretty irrelevant right now. We have to focus on ending the conflict. Lies or no lies, we can't take back the invasion.

[heyjude]

Our 'problem' with Hussein was not WMDs. It was the fact that he was a socialist. He would not allow American and English oil companies to own Iraq's oil. We fixed that. As soon as the oil is securely in private American and English companies, we will withdraw and keep enough troops in Iraq to insure that no one challanges our policies. We could care less about Iraq or the Iraqi people.

[bobbylien]

We could care less about Iraq or the Iraqi people.
The American people care. You hate the American people.

[Pogo]

Sorry Pogo, I know you want to believe that but the facts just don't support your conclusion.

Acting on faulty intelligence does not equate to lies.

Actually, they do support my conclusion:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney, VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002


This is as baldfaced a lie as there ever was. First, it's impossible for Dick to have known that Saddam still had WMD. He certainly had reason to *suspect* that he still had some but it is simply impossible for him to have known, so therefore his assertion is a lie. Second, he knew perfectly well that the only thing the existing Intelligence Estimate re Iraq was certain about was Saddam's desire to have WMD, not that he actually still had any, and for this reason the administration decided to set up it's very own Intelligence boutique in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, which brings us to another of the administration's lies, that they acted on faulty Intelligence. The Intelligence they acted on was the Intelligence they themselves cherrypicked, so it's a lie for them to in any way blame their fiasco on the CIA.

[BoogyMan]

Sorry Pogo, I know you want to believe that but the facts just don't support your conclusion.

Acting on faulty intelligence does not equate to lies.

Actually, they do support my conclusion:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney, VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002


This is as baldfaced a lie as there ever was. First, it's impossible for Dick to have known that Saddam still had WMD. He certainly had reason to *suspect* that he still had some but it is simply impossible for him to have known, so therefore his assertion is a lie. Second, he knew perfectly well that the only thing the existing Intelligence Estimate re Iraq was certain about was Saddam's desire to have WMD, not that he actually still had any, and for this reason the administration decided to set up it's very own Intelligence boutique in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, which brings us to another of the administration's lies, that they acted on faulty Intelligence. The Intelligence they acted on was the Intelligence they themselves cherrypicked, so it's a lie for them to in any way blame their fiasco on the CIA.


Will you make the same claim of "bald faced lie" against those on the left who just prior to the Bush administration pretty much made the same claim Pogo?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Are these folks liars too?

[Pogo]

Will you make the same claim of "bald faced lie" against those on the left who just prior to the Bush administration pretty much made the same claim Pogo?

Are these folks liars too?

Are you claiming that any of those quotes were made in the context of mobilizing the nation for a war to remove Saddam Hussein?

[Stoner]

Stoner...you just lost all credibility you had with me.

Well that would suck for me if I cared what you thought. I'm not here to make friends or gain "credibility" with other posters. But thanks for your opinion.

[BoogyMan]

Will you make the same claim of "bald faced lie" against those on the left who just prior to the Bush administration pretty much made the same claim Pogo?

Are these folks liars too?

Are you claiming that any of those quotes were made in the context of mobilizing the nation for a war to remove Saddam Hussein?


Are you going to claim that since they believed it that their belief is somehow different than those who believed it, had broken intelligence claiming danger, and acted upon it? I am simply asking you to consider the fact that your claims of lies just cannot be substantiated.

[Pogo]

Are you going to claim that since they believed it that their belief is somehow different than those who believed it, had broken intelligence claiming danger, and acted upon it? I am simply asking you to consider the fact that your claims of lies just cannot be substantiated.

Neither you nor I know what the administration actually believed, but we do know that it's impossible for cheney to have known one way or the other whether Saddam still had WMD, hence, he lied.

As for "broken intelligence", that's another of the administration's lies because they decided to get involved in both the gathering and analyzation of Intelligence re Iraq and they made the decision to do so because the existing Intelligence estimate didn't provide a damning enough case to sell the war to Congress and the public.

[BoogyMan]

Are you going to claim that since they believed it that their belief is somehow different than those who believed it, had broken intelligence claiming danger, and acted upon it? I am simply asking you to consider the fact that your claims of lies just cannot be substantiated.

Neither you nor I know what the administration actually believed, but we do know that it's impossible for cheney to have known one way or the other whether Saddam still had WMD, hence, he lied.

As for "broken intelligence", that's another of the administration's lies because they decided to get involved in both the gathering and analyzation of Intelligence re Iraq and they made the decision to do so because the existing Intelligence estimate didn't provide a damning enough case to sell the war to Congress and the public.


Not so, since the intelligence was telling them otherwise Pogo.

President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and Nancy Pelosi spoke of the WMD's they thought Iraq had and feared their usage. Does that make them liars since they couldn't have known for sure?

We really are taking this thread off topic Pogo. I will gladly discuss this with you if you start a thread for such a discussion, but we need to push this one back onto the topic.

[ViolaLee]

Will you make the same claim of "bald faced lie" against those on the left who just prior to the Bush administration pretty much made the same claim Pogo?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Are these folks liars too?


Those folks said that before the UN inspectors said Iraq was crippled by sanctions and had no more WMD. Condi Rice said Saddam was not a threat in 2001, before 9/11.

[preservanation]

Neil Cavuto is interviewing Greenspan on the FNC at 4 pm EST.
I'm sure this question will come up.
If you get a chance to watch it, do so, so we can see if he either confirms, qualifies, or denies his reported statements.
Knowing Greenie, he'll probably just confuse the issue further, but if anyone can nail him down it would be Neil.
It should be interesting.