Monday, September 17, 2007

Greenspan "Clarifies"

In an interview with The Washington Post via Reuters:

"...Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something."

But Greenspan's main support for Saddam's ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported."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.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean "chaos" to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said."

"Acting guiltily." That blows my mind. A grown man, who has access to and some degree of influence upon the President, makes a completely subjective assumption about the leader of a country in a culture about which Greenspan, and obviously when you look at the results of this terrible occupation, the entire Bush administration, knows very little. Let's see, those Japanese people were bowing a lot. That must mean they are guilty of something and are trying to hide it. It's like Greenspan is playing Clue and decides that the murderer of Colonel Mustard must be Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick, because after all, look how guilty Plum was acting.

As I stand back and look at this issue, something else occurred to me. It's how this administration, the neocons, etc. have been focusing on "securing" our access to Middle Eastern oil. All our noses are pointed at the Middle East and how we can make sure we have access to this dwindling resource. We use force and war and death and destruction and spend billions to try and achieve this secure access. But as Americans, famous for innovation, we have our backs turned, by and large, to alternative, and dare I say peaceful, fuel sources.

Imagine...if we had turned our attention and energy inward, looked at our country's brain trust and financial funding resources, put allllllllll that money we spent and are still pouring into this war, into the development of alternative fuel resources (and not coal, thank you very fucking much George, or nuclear fuel), we could kind of shrug our shoulders at the Middle East and say, "Oh thanks, but no, we don't need your stinkin' oil. We have something better, cheaper, more environmentally safe, more efficient. Oh, and by the way, after you guys run out of oil, and after you have killed each other trying to secure the last drops, you're welcome to buy energy from us. We might even give you a discount."

No Americans would have had to die in the above scenario. No war would have been fought. New companies and new technologies and more jobs would have resulted from the development of this new fuel resource. Corporations could have earned profits, God forbid.

We can only dream.