In a recent entry (Sunday’s “Alan Greenspan’s life is for sale. We don’t know where.”) I noted that Mr. Greenspan’s autobiography The Age of Turbulence, now on sale, has received rather odd publicity: some newspapers are running whole articles about the book’s declaration that the U.S. is mainly in Iraq due to oil-related reasons, but somehow failing to -… er, well, mention the name of the book in said articles (one again, that’s The Age of Turbulence, Folks!).
I suggested that this was because Democrat-filled newsrooms are in a bit of a pickle: on the one hand, Alan Greenspan – the (Perceived) Bush-Lover and Elder Statesman of Finance – dissing Mr. Bush is too tempting a tale for them to resist reporting. On the other hand, Alan Greenspan’s opinions are not the kind to which they’d prefer drawing a lot of attention.
How little did I know.
Mr. Greenspan has since clarified his book’s comments to the world, and in a surprising twist, yes, Mr. Greenspan says, he (rightly) rips Mr. Bush to pieces concerning a lot of the president’s fiscal policies – but, his tome’s analysis of Desert Storm II as primarily oil-driven wasn’t one of the negative bits. Actually, Mr. Greenspan thinks insuring the world’s continued access to Iraqi oil is a dandy reason to have invaded.
Got that? Mr. Greenspan is not – repeat, not! – accusing President Bush of invading Iraq in order to secure access to Iraq’s oil. He is just saying that nobody in power is willing to admit that securing access to that oil is a great benefit of the invasion, much less that killing Hussein for such reason alone probably would’ve been perfectly justifiable.
I mean, why not, right? He wasn’t the elected leader of a people or anything; he was the man with his boot on an entire people’s neck. And the homicidal nutcase was in control of one of the world’s largest oil reserves. If anyone’s whack-worthy in our national interest, why not him?
Now I disagree with that viewpoint, but it’s certainly more interesting than what every news story about his book has entirely (and suspiciously) focused on: the news that one more creditable guy technically disagrees with President Bush.
What a bunch of dishonest people these journalists are. At least I can justify the glaring errors in my news stories; I’m just an amateur blogger.
The truth is zionists like Greenspan have dragged the West into The Middle East conflict on Israel’s side, on the back of a series of false flag terror attacks in the West blamed on ‘Muslim Terror’. Thats the truth. Thats why you don’t hear it.
There’s some truth to the claim that the U.S.A. has taken Israel’s side far more than is warranted by national self-interest. This is primarily due to the U.S.A.’s Protestant cultural heritage.
For non-Christians and non-Zionists, perhaps such continued support rankles; after all, unlike me, you don’t see it as God’s handiwork.
But I still think Israel can be seen as worth supporting even if you’re not a Christian-Zionist like me. After all, I support the creation of a Kurdistan, and for the same good reasons I think I’d support Israel even if I did not believe in the LORD: because surely a nation of men and women – peaceful (when not defending themselves), Democratic, just members of an ethnic minority with no other home on the globe, a lone light in a sea of darkness – is worth preserving from sure annihilation at the collective hand of its racist, barbaric neighbors.