"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...



All I see is white. Oh no! It's the end of the tunnel.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Oops....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601287_pf.html

Precis:

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.

"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.

Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration.

Poor jps.

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Oops....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601287_pf.html

Precis:

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.

"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.

Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration.

Poor jps.

Six months ago, I would've agreed that it was an oil grab, but now, I've
come to realize that the region is much more stable than when Saddam was in
power. And, since there have no attacks on American soil since our arrival
in Iraq, we've clearly achieved our purpose. No other factor contributed to
our safety. None whatsoever.

In article ,
says...

Any hero of mine wouldn't need to recant. Must be one of your
partymates.

jps

On Sep 17, 9:12?am, Tom Francis wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

Oops....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200...

Precis:

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.

"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.

Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration.

Poor jps.

Nothing like a little controversy to sell an extra 50,000 copies. :-)

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Oops....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601287_pf.html

Precis:

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.

"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.

Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration.

Poor, poor Tom. Can't see the forest for the trees?

What reason do you suppose we had for taking out a broken dictator with
a fractured country and a big pool of underutilized energy, the likes of
which are essential to our corporate interests, economy and
infrastructure?

Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could
it be because BP has such a big interest in the region?

Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running
for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming
pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough.

Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his
editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I
expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him.

You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the
barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission.

jps

On Sep 17, 9:33?am, jps wrote:
In article ,
says...





On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Oops....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200...

Precis:

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.

"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.

Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration.

Poor, poor Tom. Can't see the forest for the trees?

What reason do you suppose we had for taking out a broken dictator with
a fractured country and a big pool of underutilized energy, the likes of
which are essential to our corporate interests, economy and
infrastructure?

Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could
it be because BP has such a big interest in the region?

Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running
for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming
pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough.

Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his
editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I
expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him.

You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the
barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is exactly why it's not good practice to run political trolls
through the NG. Tom's attempt to "get even" from his side of the issue
wouldn't appear here if he wasn't responding to your nonsense from
yesterday.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:33?am, jps wrote:
In article ,
says...





On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Oops....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200...
Precis:
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.
"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.
Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration.
Poor, poor Tom. Can't see the forest for the trees?

What reason do you suppose we had for taking out a broken dictator with
a fractured country and a big pool of underutilized energy, the likes of
which are essential to our corporate interests, economy and
infrastructure?

Why do you think the "coalition of the willing" included Britain? Could
it be because BP has such a big interest in the region?

Who the hell do you think finances these assholes when they're running
for office? Why do you think the Dems have turned into such flaming
pussies? 'Cause they're feeding from the same trough.

Do you think Greenspan's written words went unconsidered by he, his
editor? From Mr. Fedspeak? If Greenspan is anything, he's measured. I
expect the pressure to calm the rhetoric has gotten to him.

You'd like to be able to dismiss it. Sorry bud, the horse is out of the
barn and I'm sure Greenspan won't be the last to make this admission.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is exactly why it's not good practice to run political trolls
through the NG. Tom's attempt to "get even" from his side of the issue
wouldn't appear here if he wasn't responding to your nonsense from
yesterday.



More upChuck. Right here in rec.boats.

On Sep 17, 12:12 pm, Tom Francis
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:09:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

Oops....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/09/16/AR200...

Precis:

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.

"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.

Oh jps must be gnashing his teeth in flustration.

Poor jps.

Not really, they will just ignore the recant and continue to talk
about Greenspan saying it was about oil.