Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
What did Rep. Baird do? He went to Iraq, took a look at the situation and came back saying that our troops were doing a good job.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
"My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.
Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.
"No, no, no," he said.
Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will." (Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
By Bob Woodward)
It must be sad to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Woodward certainly knows how to spoil another anti-Bush orgy!
Over the weekend, we heard all about Greenspan's new book. We heard about how we went to war for oil.
It was enough to give the anti-Bushies a large dose of hope after the "moveon.org ad" fiasco.
Unfortunately for the anti-Bushies, Greenspan did not say that we went to war for oil:
"Greenspan wanted to communicate how important the Middle East is in terms of global finances.
He himself made the case for removing Saddam Hussein to keep financial markets from collapsing from an attack on world oil supplies, such as the one Saddam conducted during the first Gulf War.
He took that argument to the White House, which specifically rejected it — quite the opposite of what the quote implied when first reported.
In general, Greenspan has it right.
People have turned oil into a protest chant, but the global economy depends on a free flow of oil to provide energy.
A great portion of that oil comes from the Middle East, which makes its politics a matter of interest to most nations of the world.
We can’t ignore people like Saddam Hussein when they threaten oil supplies, and Greenspan understands this better than most." (Heading Right)
Oil is the fuel that gets the lefties to their anti-war protests. Over the weekend, many anti-war protesters took buses to go to the anti-war march? How did they get there? Did their buses run on horse manure or some other alternative fuel?
Oil is what keeps their daddy's factory running and their tuition checks flowing. Without oil, daddy would shut down the factory, lay off his workers and tell "sonny" to get a job and pay for his own school.
Oil is the bottom line fuel for the moment because we can't run our economy with alternative energy right now.
This is why every US president, from Democrat LBJ to the current Republican GW Bush has maintained a huge military presence in the area.
This is why the Europeans, Japanese and everybody else with a brain loves that we are willing to use our armed forces to keep oil flowing!
If we can't defend the oil sea lanes, who will? Can we seriously count on any other nation to keep the Persian Gulf free of Iranian control of oil supplies?
It gets better. See Greenspan's DismayExtends Both Ways!
In fact, Greenspan comes down very hard on the protectionist and anti-free Dems!
Why didn't we hear this one over the weekend.
Greenspan is concerned that the Democrats will promote their anti-free and wreck our economic progress.
At the end of the day, the book hype turned out to be a lot different than the real stuff. Are you surprised?