In article . com,
says...

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.

The whole of my "nonsense" was a quote from Alan Greenspan, respected
economist and former Federal Reserve Chairman.

I referred to him as Honest Republican #2, the extent of my
inflammation.

You were the only one to respond to my declaration. If everyone else
can refrain from answering, why can't you?

Chuck, I really couldn't care less if anyone responds. It's also fine
if they do. It's not posted as a troll but a PSA.

jps

In article .com,
says...
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.

Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it.

It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in
his entire life.

jps

On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...





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.

Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it.

It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in
his entire life.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books?

In article .com,
says...
On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...





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.

Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it.

It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in
his entire life.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books?

He clarified his statement. "Recant" is the word Tom liberally used to
describe Greenspan's clarification.

Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast
that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil?

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...
On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...





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.

Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it.

It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in
his entire life.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books?

He clarified his statement. "Recant" is the word Tom liberally used to
describe Greenspan's clarification.

Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast
that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil?

jps

Sand?

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...
On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...





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.

Yes, as if he didn't pause to think about it when he wrote it.

It was just a flip remark from a man who's never made a flip remark in
his entire life.

jps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So then, why must he recant, is he dishonest, trying to sell books?

He clarified his statement. "Recant" is the word Tom liberally used to
describe Greenspan's clarification.

Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast
that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil?

jps

Sand?

Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again.

"jps" wrote in message
...

Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast
that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil?

jps

Sand?

Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again.


Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for weaponry.
The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population, even
though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The more
we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we **** off,
the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots of
weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims
off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy digs
in France, Colorado, etc.*

It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real estate
biz, good for the oil biz.


*We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions" on
all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's
legal and it's a tradition.

In article ,
says...
"jps" wrote in message
...

Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the mideast
that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil?

jps

Sand?

Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again.


Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for weaponry.
The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population, even
though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The more
we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we **** off,
the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots of
weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims
off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy digs
in France, Colorado, etc.*

It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real estate
biz, good for the oil biz.


*We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions" on
all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's
legal and it's a tradition.

It's likely an insult to not skim, as if you're too good to take free
money.

I think we've misplaced a couple of containers of $100 bills over there
so I guess we understand something of Arab culture and tradition.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"jps" wrote in message
...

Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the
mideast
that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil?

jps

Sand?

Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again.


Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for
weaponry.
The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population,
even
though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The
more
we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we ****
off,
the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots
of
weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims
off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy
digs
in France, Colorado, etc.*

It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real
estate
biz, good for the oil biz.


*We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions"
on
all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's
legal and it's a tradition.

It's likely an insult to not skim, as if you're too good to take free
money.

I think we've misplaced a couple of containers of $100 bills over there
so I guess we understand something of Arab culture and tradition.


Ya know, there have been a few non-fiction books which included descriptions
of why and how we purchase the appropriate people in the Middle East. Sadly,
the guvmint chooses to hide this reality. Remember that interesting "bank
robbery" in Iraq a couple of months ago? The story died 24 hours after it
appeared. I e-mailed the author of one newspaper article, who said she knew
nothing more about it. Sounds like the source dried up and blew away.

In article ,
says...
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"jps" wrote in message
...

Let me ask you freakin', what interest does the US have in the
mideast
that's more compelling than ensuring the free flow of oil?

jps

Sand?

Bzzzt. Nope, got plenty of that. Try again.


Well, let's see....the Saudis are our single biggest customer for
weaponry.
The royals live in constant fear of their Wahhabi lunatic population,
even
though the government supports the very schools that produce them. The
more
we do to meddle in the Middle East, the more religious fanatics we ****
off,
the greater the perceived need for the Saudi royals to buy weapons. Lots
of
weapons. And, every prince involved with the purchasing of weapons skims
off a few million bucks a year, more than enough to pay for their fancy
digs
in France, Colorado, etc.*

It's just good business. Good for the defense biz, good for the real
estate
biz, good for the oil biz.


*We're currently investigating military personnel who took "commissions"
on
all sorts of things involving the war in Iraq. But, in Saudi Arabia, it's
legal and it's a tradition.

It's likely an insult to not skim, as if you're too good to take free
money.

I think we've misplaced a couple of containers of $100 bills over there
so I guess we understand something of Arab culture and tradition.


Ya know, there have been a few non-fiction books which included descriptions
of why and how we purchase the appropriate people in the Middle East. Sadly,
the guvmint chooses to hide this reality. Remember that interesting "bank
robbery" in Iraq a couple of months ago? The story died 24 hours after it
appeared. I e-mailed the author of one newspaper article, who said she knew
nothing more about it. Sounds like the source dried up and blew away.

I imagine those folks who're hired to keep rich kids names out of the
paper also work on plugging these types of leaks.