What are the Bush supporters going to say about this one? It appears that the very popular Alan Greenspan doesn't like Bush either. In his new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes the Bush White House and the Republican led congress for being fiscally irresponsible. In addition, he goes so far as to say that Bush took our country in to war with Iraq for oil.

For all of those naysayers out there that claim that Bush can do no wrong and that the war was for the independence of Iraq and its people, this is a huge blow. Mr. Greenspan has been highly praised by both conservatives and liberals alike. It will be difficult to defend against this new development.

Mr. Greenspan will surely begin his book selling tour in the next few days. That will likely include several interviews from the radio and TV media. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say. More interesting will be the Sean Hanities and Rush Limbaughs of the world as they try to back pedal through this story.

What are the republicans going to do now? It looks like the emperor has no clothes. Too bad the elections aren't this November. I don't know if we can survive the last year of the Bush White House.

I agree!

It's about time that people from within the inner circle finally speak out about what the Bush white house is really like. I wonder what the Colin Powell memoires are going to be like.

That is all you people can do. Wait around for bad news to be broadcast regarding Bush. There is never anything constructive or helpfull. Even when there is good news you denounce it.

"Bush lied, people died"
"General Betray Us"
"The Bush government is spying on me and listening to my phone calls"
"The Bush government is torturing innocent people in Guantanamo"
"911 was an inside job"

When are we as a country going to wake up and realize that we are at war and that there is a serious threat out there? I know when... When it's too late!

Did President Bush go to war for oil? I can’t believe how ridiculous that sounds. First of all, the United States uses 22.5 million (approx) barrels of oil per day. We legally purchase 536,000 (approx) barrels per day from Iraq at full market price. At $80/barrel (current market price) that’s about $15.5 Billion per year we are paying for Iraqi Oil. Iraqi oil also only makes up 2.3% of our daily oil uses.

And for that matter, the Middle East as a whole only accounts for 17% of the US’s daily oil requirements. We get the rest from Nigeria, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico and domestic production. And Mexico and Canada account for the majority of our ‘imported’ oil. You know who does buy most of the oil in the Middle East? The European Union and China! If you want to know who needs Iraqi oil more than the US, look east to our buddies over on the other side of the Atlantic. We (the US) could easily replace all the oil we purchase from Iraq on a daily basis by pumping up production from Mexico, Canada and domestically…not hard at all. We are purchasing Iraqi oil (for the first time since 1990) at full market value, to be a part of the economic solution to Iraq’s economic woes. And don’t pull anything by saying we caused those woes…the average Iraqi only made $3.00 (US) per month under Saddam, they now make many times that amount working to rebuild this wonderful country, and working with Coalition Forces. And with a market economy and capitalism replacing Saddam’s system, they have the opportunity to make decent wages and live decent lives, and provide for their children.

So if we went to war for oil, why aren’t we stealing it from Iraq like the French, Germans and a whole slew of others did from 1991 – 2003? We are paying full market value for Iraqi value, and we’re spending billions of dollars rebuilding their infrastructure to produce oil, food, power, etc…and still paying full price for the oil that is produced by the infrastructure that we are paying partially to rebuild. So we are spending money (that we won’t get back) on infrastructure used to produce a product that we are then going to turn around and pay full price for. Yeah, that really sounds like we went to war for oil to me….wow! “RIDICULOUS”

If you want to complain about ‘no war for oil’ then stop turning on your lights in your house, stop buying anything with plastics in it, stop driving any vehicle at all (even hybrids still use fuel), basically just stop living…unless you live in a cabin in the woods and live off the land, you are a consumer of oil. And as consumers of oil we are all equally responsible for any so called ‘war for oil’ just as much as our president. Economics 101 is supply and demand. All of out there make the demand, and the companies and governments of the world feed our demands with the supply.

There was no war for oil. We are paying full price for it, Iraqi oil only accounts for 2.3% of our daily use, and we aren’t over here forcing Iraqis to siphon their oil into our gas tanks. If you want to know who did cause this war, look no further than Saddam Hussein, and extreme fundamentalists. No, Saddam wasn’t responsible for 9/11, but he was a threat to peace and stability. He and his military were killing Arabic people, shooting at NATO aircraft, and dealing in the black market of supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and oil ‘drug deals’ with the Europeans and member states of the UN. And all this was happening since 1991 (and even well before that). Even the ‘perfect’ President Bill Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq from time to time over the times of Operations Southern and Northern Watch. 1994, 1996, 1998 all had massive bombing efforts to stop Saddam from being evil. President Bush was just the one who brought about the final solution to the problem of the Iraqi dictator.

How can Alan Greenspan say we went to war for oil, when he was in charge of economic issues in the US and abroad. He should know better...and is just playing a card that is all too popular nowadays. Bashing the Bush administration. Shame on you Alan, shame on you.

It looks like Alan Greenspan was misquoted (in the usual media fashion). He didn't say that oil was the reason for the war. Here is a quote of his from earlier today.

"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."

By the way, I didn't say it in my last post,but tat was a good post you submited. It's got a ton of good facts.

Thanks for the good read.