Goldberg’s got a problem. He thinks everyone is taking Alan Greenspan out of context in this minor dust-up over Greenspan’s little admission in his recently released memoir that the war in
But, as usual, let’s just let Goldberg speak for himself:
Greenspan wrote that the
war was "largely about oil," according to an excerpt in the Washington Post on Saturday. The statement quickly raced around the globe, with headlines like this one from Iraq Britain's Daily Telegraph: " Iraqwas about oil -- Greenspan attacks motivation for war." The Independent began its own editorial by declaring: "The credibility of President George Bush's policy on U.S. has suffered another devastating blow. It is all the more powerful for having come not from a political enemy but from someone who was showered with plaudits by the administration." Iraq
It’s funny how he makes it seem like “the statement” that “raced around the globe” was only this: “largely about oil.” Here’s the entire statement: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the
The quoted phrase ran through the Sunday news shows and the blogosphere like a bad intestinal virus.
He’s comparing it to poop, see? That’s how nationally syndicated columnists express disdain.
Hey, watch me, I’m going to write like a nationally syndicated columnist:
Jonah Goldberg’s a shithead.
Wheeeeee! That was fun!
On CNN's "Late Edition," Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) was asked if he agreed with Greenspan. "To a very large extent I agree with him, and I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office [to state] the obvious."
Well, that is very interesting. But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the
Yes, let’s do clear the air about something, namely, that as influential as Greenspan was in his time, it is not within his power to change the meanings of words.
He said “is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the
And even if I were to believe that Greenspan meant what he now says he meant, it’s simply ridiculous to attribute Greenspan’s fear regarding the
Thereby making an indefinite, bloody, trillion-dollar engagement in
So let's get back to Lantos, the
Um, dude, okay, even though you work for the National Review, I’m pretty sure you do things like “read,” and maybe even “think.” So by now you’ve surely been made aware that most members of congress believe they were, at best, misinformed by those interpreting the intelligence on Iraq, and that the majority of them have now stated that they based their decision to go to war on information that was not exactly, er, true?
Surely you must have heard that. Surely you must. So to write the above paragraph like you’ve never heard that, and to therefore encourage an erroneous conclusion among your sympathetic readers, (which, I’m sure, are legion) is kinda creepy and integrity-free and not exactly worthy of a nationally syndicated columnist, now, is it?
As several other politicians and officials noted over the weekend, no White House briefer ever told Congress that this was a war for oil.
Yeah, and unless career suicide becomes the hot new trend in DC, it’s not very likely they ever will.
The debates in Congress didn't say this was a war for oil.
Which debates? The debates in 2003? Well, first of all, one could hardly call them “debates.” I would characterize what when on in congress as “I’ve been told Saddam is a bad man who wants to kill us and has the power to kill us which seems unlikely but everyone else is doing it and I hate being called a traitor and I do kinda want to be re-elected so I guess I’m going along because the Republicans hold the majority anyway vote.”
Bush never gave a single speech saying this was a war for oil.
That’s correct. And you know what else Bush has never done? Gotten down on his hands and knees and begged forgiveness from the American people for being so obsessed with his hard-on for American oil companies and their desire for a seat at the
(If oil was all Bush wanted, he hardly needed to go to war to get it.)
Oh, really? How else do you propose to force an enemy government into giving American oil companies the contracts to extract, refine, and export their oil?
So why is it so "obvious" to Lantos that it was a war for oil?
You know, I’m getting a little tired of this guy’s false ignorance, but sure, okay, I’ll bite one more time: It is “obvious” to Lantos, and to any thinking person who is not so emotionally invested in the lie that they have drawn a lead curtain around their brain and forbidden the truth to enter, because we have, since the war began, become aware of a number of incidents that point to no other reasonable conclusion.
Look, Goldberg, stop pretending you don’t know what I’m talking about. The head of the British intelligence service told the Prime Minister of Britain that all of our stated reasons for going to war in
So clearly there was a reason for going to war that we were not being told. We could guess about what it was, but we don’t have to, because, for one thing, Cheney and his little energy task force forgot to burn their big post-Iraq Christmas wish list, dated two years before the war was begun, which makes fairly plain their motivation, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it, Goldberg? C’mon, Goldberg, forget your crazy-ass momma and your family legacy of hating on the Dems, and admit the logic of the whole thing for just a second.
Perhaps the answer is that when it comes to bashing Bush about the war, no accusation is inaccurate -- even if it contradicts all the accusations that came before. Some say it's all about the
Ditto the dad-avenging thing. Look, clearly Bush has daddy issues. But even a freshman psych student could tell you that Bush’s issues lie not so much in the “avenge daddy” area, and more in the “show up that cold-hearted bastard who sired me but never thought I was smart enough or good enough to carry his name” area.
And as for God telling Bush to invade, well, I’m afraid you’ve gotten your attribution wrong, Goldberg. That story originated not with Bush-bashers, but with Bush himself.
Again, not the sort of quality of investigation one would expect from a nationally syndicated columnist.
Which is it? All of those? Any? It doesn't seem to matter. It's disturbing how many people are willing to look for motives beyond the ones debated and voted on by our elected leaders.
You know what’s more disturbing? Leaders who lie to their people. But that reality seems to be beyond your grasp. Except, of course, when a Democrat is in charge. Goldberg, your agenda is so laughably transparent I don’t know how you manage to churn out these ridiculous screeds. Doesn’t all the guffawing, and pants wetting, and thigh slapping, and eye tearing-up make it really hard to type?
The last time Greenspan made a gaffe of sorts, his comment about Wall Street's "irrational exuberance" sent worldwide markets into a tizzy. This gaffe is more ironic because it was so plain-spoken, but it also managed to call attention to a case of irrational exuberance -- among Bush-bashing war opponents.
Yes, it was a plain-spoken “gaffe,” wasn’t it? Some people would say that therefore it required the most minimal of interpretations, because its meaning was clear. Some people would seek to spin it backwards, and try to make it mean what it clearly did not, and then claim that they are the ones possessing the rational heads.
Fuck it. I’ll admit it. I am fucking exuberant, okay? People are finally starting to acknowledge the truth, and it makes me feel like at long last, we can get somewhere.