just so he could sell books? I mean if he said the war wasn't aboout oil how many of you would quote him or buy his book? Did he set forgien policy?
2007-09-18 07:26:57 · 16 answers · asked by hardwoodrods 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Exactly! Did we go to war on Greenspan's word that it was essential to remove Saddam?
2007-09-18 07:31:35 · answer #1 · answered by jrldsmith 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A) Yes, he said it to sell books.
B) He said it was unfortunate that because of politics, the administration can't come out and admit that the war is about oil to some extent.
C) He also said that, without the war, oil would be at 135+ dollars a barrel.
In other words, he was stating what he sees as the political reality of the situatiion, not making a value judgment on the advisability of the war.
2007-09-18 07:33:23 · answer #2 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A) particular, he reported it to sell books. B) He reported it grow to be unlucky that because of the fact of politics, the administration won't be able to come out and admit that the conflict is approximately oil to three quantity. C) He additionally reported that, with out the conflict, oil may well be at a hundred thirty five+ money a barrel. In different words, he grow to be asserting what he sees because of the fact the political actuality of the situatiion, no longer making a fee judgment on the advisability of the conflict.
2016-10-19 00:18:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is a well respected man who would not stoop to such a this is about money thing. That is the way he saw things and he has a right to his opinion. Should we hang everyone who doesn't agree with Bushes way of viewing things?
He has a lot of money and probably won't spend it all before he dies so no this was not to make money. I believed this is what he thinks.
That is my main objection to Republicans if someone doesn't agree with you he is a traitor or a commie. Can't we voice our opinions anymore without being asked to leave the country? If you didn't seem so much like radical religious extremists you would have more people listen to you.
That turns people off.
2007-09-18 07:34:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I always thought Greenspan was a leftist nut. We are in Iraq to kill the people that want to destroy the USA and have repeatedly said so. Greenspan, helped create the internet bubble of the 1990's that cost a lot of people their retirment funds. He isn't so brilliant. His pronouncements lately make him look like a camera ham.
2007-09-18 07:33:31 · answer #5 · answered by stick man 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no it was really about Oil everyone knows that, Why aren't we invading Darfur ? NO OIL THERE ! Nobody like Saddam Hussein in the Middle East except maybe Syria, Iran hated him Saudi Arabia hated him, Kuwait really hated him. So the USA killed 2 birds with one stone, Invade and secure the Oil, and get rid of Saddam
2007-09-18 07:34:54 · answer #6 · answered by lisalau 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not that many people are going to run out and grab his book just because he rolled over on President Bush. But I'm sure that revelation can't hurt.
2007-09-18 07:32:56 · answer #7 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he also said yesterday, that the book wasn't "ghost-written" in the context that he originally wrote it. But for some reason the media didn't report that today.
2007-09-18 07:32:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a classic example of the media trumping something up that was never said - in the context they portrayed it as.
2007-09-18 07:31:14 · answer #9 · answered by MauriceChavez 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He didn't say that...even though that is the truth...
You puppets that believe their reasons are IDIOTS!!
They all knew there were no WMDs...
If it WAS about removing an evil dictator, what about all the other evil dictators? Oh yeah, they don't have OIL!
2007-09-18 07:34:51 · answer #10 · answered by a kinder, gentler me 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋