Hey, it's me. said:
darth_ender said:
Bingowings said:
He was networking with actual players in that war not speculating on the sidelines. Yeah he isn't at risk of being arrested for War Crimes but a lot of people who aren't are still peddling the same old "We are did it for freedom" crap.
I can't help but doubt they'd be sharing that sort of information with him. Loose lips sink ships, and I see no real benefit to cluing him in on those sorts of details.
Your saying that this man was a nobody? I don't think so.
Good, because if you reread my post, I don't think so either. Don't put words in my mouth.
So your saying everything he alludes to is unfounded and a product of a fevered imagination? This isn't some beleaguered journo looking to make a name for himself with a contentious article.
I don't recall saying any of that or anything resembling that. This sort of argument tactic is usually the sign that one is losing and doesn't have a reasonable rebuttal. That said, there probably is some reason to believe what he believes. He even says that he doesn't think the reasons are so bad. If you read the article, he believes it's for oil, but not just to get rich; rather that he believes it was an effort to keep Saddam from unfairly screwing prices, which would have serious effects on the world economy. I don't agree, but even if it's true, it's still not a Bush family profiteering racket. In all likelihood, he believes what he wrote, and probably was happy to get some publicity out of it too. But honestly, if you were planning a war with plenty of secrets, including some which would be politically damaging, would you invite the head of the federal bank to meetings? Come on, please :/
Shit, get your head out of the sand.
Funny, coming from the conspiracy theorist who accepts a certain POV and refuses to see that there could actually be a different POV.
BTW:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/17/alan-greenspan-seeks-to-clarify-controversial-iraq-war-comments/