Iraq War Was About Oil?

Alan Greenspan thinks so...

From the UK Times

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.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East. more

**Update**

Greenspan later clarified his statement in an interview with the WaPo:

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.

Well its a much more plausible theory than the far left's theory that we were trying to grab all the oil in Iraq. Greenspan is at least a highly reputable source. Even if one disputes the veracity of Greenspan's statement one cannot deny that oil security is of import. However in my opinion if its that important then we should be making a bigger push towards energy independence.

Now if we could only take a break from arguing about global warming long enough to actually work together to achieve this goal in a rational manner we'd all be better off.

The Left Vs Democrats

From the Politico:

Liberal blogger targets 'Bush Dog' Dems

A leading liberal blogger has declared political war against centrist Democrats – the latest move in an intensifying show of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Congress by the once-friendly blogosphere.

Matt Stoller, who blogs at the well-trafficked OpenLeft.com, has compiled a list of 38

“Some of these members may need to face a primary challenge, and it's useful for potential primary challengers to know that there is criticism of these members,” wrote Stoller, who refers to the 38 Democrats as “Bush Dogs.” more House “Blue Dog” Democrats who have voted with Republicans on key legislation, and called on the activist community to put pressure on them – and perhaps challenge them in primaries – if they fail to shape up.

I'd find this both amusing and disturbing. Amusing because the netroots had failed to oust a single Senator so what makes any of them think that they can boot 38 (or even a single) congressmen?

Whats disturbing is that Stoller and others are trying to stifle dissent, debate, and effectively representative government using Rovian intimidation tactics to force others to tow their line.
They are now embracing the very strategies they decried for so long. In essence they have become their enemy.

Whats ironic is that the Blue Dogs haven't even been delivering on on their own promises of fiscal responsibility due to pressure from Pelosi.

From the WSJ

The blue dog Web site boasts that its mission is to "refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden of debt." If a balanced budget is what they want, the best fiscal option would be to enact what is called a "continuing resolution" budget that would fund all programs at last year's level plus 1% or 2%. Along with rising tax revenues, this could cut the budget deficit roughly in half next year, to well under $100 billion. But Republicans can't do that on their own: they need the votes of these moderate Democrats.

Here's the rub: So far this year the blue dogs have been almost all bark when it comes to fiscal restraint and debt reduction. Thirty of the 48 have voted for every one of the non-defense spending bills their committee chairman have sent them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is enforcing party discipline, and as a result 28 of the 48 blue dogs voted "no" on each of the 27 amendments that Republicans proposed to cut the costs of these bills. The 13 freshman Democrats who represent conservative districts--such as Heath Shuler (N.C.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Zack Space (Ohio), Nick Lampson (Texas)--have been a particular disappointment; back home these same blue dogs trumpet their "independent streak."

But to Stoller party comes before true representative democracy and therefore country. A sentiment he shares with both Karl Rove and Tom Delay. And should the Stollers of the DNC have their way the Dems will have a similiar fall from grace as the GOP and it would be as equally well deserved.

Partisanship by the Numbers

The WaPo crunched the numbers of the 110th Congress and discovered that the Dems vote along party lines 92.7% of the time compared to the Republican's measly 88.7%

Here's a lovely chart made by Nick Rivera of The Moderate Voice that gives you the top 20 most and least partisan voters. Notice the main difference between the two.

MOST PARTISAN
1-tie. Charles Norwood (R-GA) ……… 100% of 9 votes.
1-tie. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) …………… 100% of 81 votes.
3. Nita Lowey (D-NY) ………………….. 99.% of 700 votes.
4. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) 99.4% of 169 votes.
5. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) …………… 99.1% of 695 votes.
6. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) ………………. 98.9% of 709 votes.
7. Diana DeGette (D-CO) ……………… 98.7% of 669 votes.
8-tie. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) ……….. 98.6% of 707 votes.
8-tie. Hilda Solis (D-CA) ……………… 98.6% of 721 votes.
8-tie. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) ………… 98.6% of 721 votes.
8-tie. Al Wynn (D-MD) ………………… 98.6% of 694 votes.
12-tie. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) …….. 98.5% of 710 votes.
12-tie. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) ………… 98.5% of 713 votes.
12-tie. Adam Schiff (D-CA) …………… 98.5% of 721 votes.
15. Timothy Bishop (D-NY) …………… 98.4% of 741 votes.
16-tie. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) …………. 98.3% of 715 votes.
16-tie. James Langevin (D-RI) ……….. 98.3% of 724 votes.
16-tie. Doris Matsui (D-CA) ………….. 98.3% of 719 votes.
16-tie. James McGovern (D-MA) ……. 98.3% of 714 votes.
16-tie. Richard Neal (D-MA) …………. 98.3% of 689 votes.
16-tie. David Price (D-NC) …………… 98.3% of 712 votes.
16-tie. John Sarbanes (D-MD) ………. 98.3% of 717 votes.

LEAST PARTISAN
1. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) …….. 68.4% of 673 votes.
2. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) ……. 74.9% of 718 votes.
3. Christopher Shays (R-CT) …… 75.0% of 673 votes.
4. Ron Paul (R-TX) ………………. 75.3% of 594 votes.
5. Tim Johnson (R-IL) …………… 76.3% of 671 votes.
6. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) ……….. 76.7% of 690 votes.
7-tie. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) ….. 77.0% of 721 votes.
7-tie. Walter Jones (R-NC) …….. 77.0% of 700 votes.
9. Michael Castle (R-DE) ……….. 78.0% of 719 votes.
10. Mark Kirk (R-IL) …………….. 78.4% of 689 votes.
11. James Walsh (R-NY) ……….. 78.6% of 672 votes.
12. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) .. 78.7% of 714 votes.
13. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) …………. 78.8% of 706 votes.
14. Gene Taylor (D-MS) ………. 79.3% of 720 votes.
15-tie. Jim Ramstad (R-MN) …. 79.6% of 721 votes.
15-tie. John McHugh (R-NY) … 79.6% of 719 votes.
15-tie. Ray LaHood (R-IL) …… 79.6% of 642 votes.
18. Tim Murphy (R-PA) ……….. 80.1% of 713 votes.
19. John Barrow (D-GA) ………. 80.3% of 742 votes.
20-tie. David Reichert (R-WA) . 80.7% of 722 votes.
20-tie. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) .. 80.7% of 706 votes


That means that the Democrats get an A- in partisan block voting and the GOP gets a B+. But I'm grading them on a curve due to previous poor performance which means they both come within a point of getting A-. However, should they behave till the end of the session I'll let both of them work together on the Iraq equation for extra credit.

h/t to Memeorandum

Partisan Accusations

File this one under Moutains out of Molehills
Calling Himself ‘The Whitest Man In America,’ Fox’s Gibson Defends ‘Ooga Booga Fever’

Last week, during a discussion of the “TB Man story,” Fox News anchor John Gibson declared that tuberculosis usually affects someone “from the third world” or who contracted “ooga booga fever” in “some godforsaken hellhole.”

Noting the criticism of his remarks from Media Matters and ThinkProgress, Gibson responded on the June 1 edition of his radio show.

Calling himself “the whitest man in America, who is the black man’s best friend,” Gibson said his comments were not racist because he had just “invented” the term. “Now, I could have called it Machu Picchu fever or Latino jungle fever or something. I’ve gotten sick in those places too.” (Gibson noted, however, that he wouldn’t have called it “Potomac fever,” after Washington, DC.)

Later, Gibson contradicted himself, claiming he learned the phrase from reading Joseph Wilson’s book, which references Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso. “So I, in making up ooga booga fever, I actually mispronounced the name of Burkina Faso. I should have said Ouagadougou fever.” more

Whitest man in America? That title was available? Well crap. Barry Manilow will be crushed.

Red Vs Blue? Opt out

Believe it or not, I don't read a lot of blogs regularly. I tend to click a link on my alliance blog roll and see where it takes me and then follow a link from there to somewhere else. About once a week I visit DailyKoS or Instapundit to see what's up. Slowly this random blog surfing has reinforced one belief of mine and that's this: There are a lot of sheep out there. Red sheep, Blue Sheep, and just plain freaky conspiracy theory oriented sheep that think the Illuminati stole their wool. (That last herd of sheep can make for some highly entertaining reading though.)

I'll come back to that later. Having been on the internet now for 12 years and having been a BBSer before that I am well aware of one of the true downsides of e-communication. It allows people to behave really badly in "public" with no real consequences. Then came blogs where you could yell whatever you want all day long. And boy is it ugly out there. I get 1300 hits on Google when I search for the phrase "Kill all liberals". Is the country really that divided?

Nope.

But there are those who have elected to be spoon fed their information by sources they know are biased and they have bought every word lock stock and barrel. They have isolated themselves from any voice other than that which they already want to believe. And those media sources sell a "we are better than them" package of goods. And I'm sure that's comforting to some and its nice to feel that your right and superior and all. But its an illusion. Nothing more.
The Democratic Party stinks. The Republican Party stinks. Why? Because they are both all about money, influence, and agendas. Theirs. Not yours.

And to this end they are buying media so that more people can further insulate themselves from dissenting voices. And we are falling for it en masse.

So here's a radical idea.

Opt Out.

We aren't going to get real solutions that work to solve this countries problems until most of us decide to stop being spoon fed biased pablum and become engaged in the national debate. If all you are doing is regurgitating what some pundit or talking head said then you are part of the problem. Real answers come from real debate and the free exchange of NEW ideas. If you're buying what they are selling you then you aren't contributing new ideas.

And frankly this is a new world that's changing every minute of every day and America needs every new idea it can get. The competition is fierce out there.

Here is what I am asking you to do, watch some BBC News, read some Reuters, go see what the Libertarians are up to, go chat with members of the Reform party, and the next time someone spouts off an opinion that's the complete opposite of yours ask them why and then actually listen. Why? Because they may not be completely wrong. Complex problems get solved by looking at them from every angle. Not right angles or even left angles. (I know, but work with me here)