Greenspan Bitch-Slapped by the Invisible Hand

Mass media can be awfully frustrating.

Too often a deranged idiot bent only on getting attention and making money (say, Bill O'Reilly) is given a platform (say, Faux News) and no matter how unpopular he really is, he retains that platform because he speaks the secret whacko thoughts of his ultra-wealthy sponsor (say, Rupert Murdoch.) This gives the impression that hordes of people really listen to this asshole (Bill again) when they don't.

That's why it's a delight that every once in a while, someone with an equally large platform in the mass media counters the stupid notions the noise machine is trying to convey.

This happened recently when the mighty Alan Greenspan, recently retired head economic dude of the USA (not his actual title) stated in his upcoming book that "the Iraq war is largely about oil."(1)

Sure, it's obvious to anyone with a shred of honesty, and even the dishonest who won't admit it, but what gets said publicly usually amounts to who has the platform, and that's why the Iraq war architects can keep the atrocity going: they have the office, they have the media, so little we say can stop them.

But when I learned Greenspan had spoken the obvious truth about the Iraq War, I thought, "This is great! If a Republican, one as revered by the money-lusting classes as ALAN FUCKIN' GREENSPAN says it maybe the message will be taken seriously."

I'm so naïve sometimes. Those who speak their minds but accidentally step on a landmine of the status quo are quick to backpedal. Raise your hand if you remember when Oprah said she didn't want a hamburger after learning the truths about factory farming. The beef Nazis went ape-shit and sued. Instead of the god-like Oprah saying, "Screw off! I'm entitled to my opinion," she caved in and let the beef industry P.R. goof back on her show, uncontested. (2)

The status quo took down Greenspan, too.

Barely a day after speaking what any honest person knows: that the Iraq war is largely about oil, Greenspan fulfilled his own prophecy that it's politically inconvenient to call the Iraq War what it is: an oil grab (1, 3). What a waste of time. So much for Alan's run as a fearless truth-telling pundit. Don't quit your day-job, Alan! Whoops!

What kind of deluded jackass would dare, with a straight face, suggest that the Iraq War is NOT about oil? For your answer, look to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Go ahead Robert. Prove to the folks at home that you're a deluded jackass. What do you think about Greenspan's comment that the Iraq war is largely about oil? "I just don't believe it's true," said Gates. (1)

Or, let's look to Senator John Cornyn (R) who said "This [the Iraq War] is about our national security and not just about oil." (1) So, let me paraphrase. Greenspan: The Iraq war was largely about oil. Cornyn: It wasn't all about oil.

What a difference "all" makes! Does it really matter? No matter what is said, the Iraq war is largely about oil. Even if Greenspan backpedals, even if the status quo defenders drown him out, it's the truth, and it's plain to see for anyone who is honest. If only more people with large platforms were saying it and STICKING TO IT.


SOURCES:

1. Greenspan memoir links Iraq war to US thirst for oil by Antoine Agasse, AFP, Sun Sep 16, 9:21 PM ET

2. [Oprah story] Howard Lyman wins case against Cattlemen from EVU News, Issue 1/1998

3. Greenspan clarifies Iraq war oil link by JoAnne Allen, Reuters, Mon Sep 17, 2:51 AM ET


===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at www.LarryNocella.com.

The Arc of History and the Advent of myWar

Remember when September 11 was about September 11? When it was about killing Osama, dismantling The Taliban, rebuilding Afghanistan, and oh yeah, learning something about how to get along with Arabs and/or Muslims? Those were simpler times. For any reason you care to guess (he sure hasn't made it clear) Bush decided to use September 11 as a rationale to attack Iraq.

Facetiously speaking, maybe it's okay to take the Bush approach and ignore Osama. Really, who is more dangerous to Americans? Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush? By the numbers, Bush is the one Americans need to avoid. Osama's plans and actions killed less than 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Bush is working his way to 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq, with no end in sight.

So Iraq is another Vietnam. Did we Americans learn the lessons of Vietnam? What the hell were those lessons anyway? Let's see. Lesson one: a war without a goal can't be won. No. Definitely not learned. At least not by the people who can wage a war.

When an unpopular government, against the will of the majority of the people, can destroy an entire nation (Iraq) for no reason, and continue to do so for years on end, this is a very serious problem. Why can't these madmen be stopped? Is war something so easily worked, such a personal thing, that it can join the list of my- prefixed things? Is the consensus of a nation or even a fighting force no longer needed? Is Iraq just Bush's myWar?

So let's see. September 11. Let's get back to that. No wait! We're not done thinking about Vietnam. I think we were on lesson two: stepping into a civil war is a bad idea, and democracy probably won't take hold real quick. Nope. Not learned. At least not by those with myWar capability.

Vietnam lasted what? Fifteen years? If we can make Bush's myWar in Iraq war shorter, then maybe that, in some pathetic way, can be counted as a victory, a lesson learned. A lesson learned by anti-war activists who know to oppose war much sooner and stronger.

Doctor King said "The arc of history is long but it bends toward justice." Bush says the future (in fifty years or so) will vindicate him.

Will Iraq be a shining example of democracy fifty years from now? Who knows? That would be great, but will Bush deserve any credit for that? No democracy will emerge until those civil war tensions are dissipated. By politics or by literally, burning off. Does he deserve credit for building a democracy by lying to the world, allowing his contractor pals to steal unchecked while a civil war dissolves into a weary democracy (possibly only because an ethnic group or two has been destroyed?)

Fifty years from now, maybe things will be better, maybe by then we'll get back to the lessons of September 11 and we'll have learned the lessons of Iraq and Vietnam, so we won't have to learn the lessons of Iran.

Regardless of what happens in half a century, the dead will still be dead. Too bad Bush, looks like you're wrong already. The arc of history is long, but it isn't long enough to vindicate criminals like you.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at www.LarryNocella.com.

Powell 2003 = Petraeus 2007? Or, How are we doing? We think we're doing great!

Sometimes I wonder how Colin Powell feels. He's the one who gave the speech on February 5, 2003 that lead to the US invasion of Iraq and the ongoing Iraq war. Was he duped or was he a willing participant in this deception of the American people? I wonder how he feels, knowing he played a part in all this death and destruction for reasons that turned out to be complete bullshit.

I'm tempted to refer to Powell as an Uncle Tom, but I find that sort of language unfair: the verbal options for insulting people of African descent are far more numerous than for insulting people committing similar actions but possessing paler skin. If Powell is an Uncle Tom, then Petraeus is likely the white equivalent, whatever that description might be. White trash, perhaps? How about we dispense with all the skin-color-related insults? To paraphrase Dr. King, let's not judge by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

My guess is that Powell was duped, since Bush-Cheney war-profiteers never hesitate to betray even those loyal to them to achieve their aims. Even if he was duped, that's got to suck to go down in history as the one who wears a face of the Iraq War.

So now to the present. It would be ideal if General Petraeus, when giving his report of the Iraq War status, were to say we shouldn't be there. Unfortunately the update is framed Orwellianly as, "Please report on the progress."

Ideally, an outside body would grade the situation. By giving Petraeus the opportunity to provide the report, he's essentially grading himself, and it is not likely he will say, "Things are getting worse." That would be like expecting someone to report on their own job performance with "Well, I kinda suck."

While zillions of bloggers will have more detailed insight on Petraeus and his self-grading than I care to pay attention to, I can see the big picture. Meaning, self-grading is a symptom of the Bush-Cheney squad's eternal insecurity. Bush-Cheney Co resist any attempt to have an outside, objective entity gauge their performance. So they try to have people report on their own progress. If only that was around when I was in school!

Whether it's resisting the 9/11 Commission, or trying to get the war criminal Henry Kissinger to lead it, or the colorful terror alerts, progress in Iraq, progress in Afghanistan, it's always the same with Bush-Cheney Co: How are we doing? We think we're doing great!

===

Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at www.LarryNocella.com.