Sunday, September 16, 2007

Greenspan Says Iraq Was All About Oil - Well...Duh!

It doesn't matter how many people have been saying the Iraq war was all about oil, or how long we've been saying it. That's because we are all dirty hippies. Now someone "credible" like Greenspan says it, and the press is all over it like it's brand spanking new news.

Oh well. I'm happy somebody said it who was important enough to finally make it news. Now that thousands of people have died and millions have been displaced. It would have been nice if he had said it earlier, like while it was happening or at least on the day he quit, or something. Maybe he could have shifted the tide, helped us avoid the fucking surge. But what the fuck do I know.

Forever and a day I have been listening to Bush and other neocons speak publicly and say this phrase over and over again:

"...protect our interests in Iraq..."

What interests would that be? They don't say investments. Like France and Russia had invested for many years, prior to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in the infrastructure of the oil industry in Iraq. They opposed the war because they actually had physical investments to protect and they knew a) their investments could be physically destroyed and/or b) their investments could be reallocated to others, like the US. I'm just guessing here but I don't think I'm way off base. I'm sure their publicly-stated reasons for opposing the war was about peace and love and all that. But none of the current world leaders make decisions for those reasons. It's always about money. Period.

Nobody that I know of, in the liberal or right wing media, ever focused on that phrase, "our interests in Iraq." There are all kinds of numbers bandied about, regarding the number of times propaganda words and phrases are repeated in Bush and other administration speeches in order to mesmerize and manipulate a pliable and gullible American public. But I haven't seen any stats on this phrase. What I'd like to know is, what interests specifically were and are we "protecting?"

I just did a keyword search for "interests" on the 90-page neocon document Rebuilding America's Defenses and it was used many times but never really defined. In the broad scope I am going to guess that it reflects the neocon belief that America must maintain strategic superiority worldwide by having the biggest and baddest militaristic force and presence in permanent bases worldwide, in order to protect American "interests" abroad. The linked document above is all about military force. It is the only thing that the neocons believe in. The word diplomacy is used TWICE in the entire document, and both times in derogatory terms.

The word "oil" is never mentioned. So the neocons as a group probably are more interested in making sure that America has the biggest dick, er, I mean, bludgeon. But Dick Cheney, George Bush Jr. and Sr. and their Saudi pals have a HUGE interest in oil. It will be interesting to watch the fallout from Greenspan's the White House decides to trash it. How the traditional media will choose to cover it/ignore it/misrepresent it. What the blogosphere has to say about it all.

Update: I noticed in the New American Century (same authors of Securing document linked above) 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton, that oil is mentioned and at the same time, the neocons are pushing war with Iraq as the only solution because diplomacy was failing:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

America didn't go to war with Iraq because of 9/11. They went to war with Iraq because the neocons have wanted to do so since 1998. 9/11 was just a gift on a silver platter - a way to get the American public to back the war.