The story is being changed by the media - Now it is blood for oil re: Iraq

The media is starting to question the purpose of the Iraq war. Anybody with half a brain cell does not believe in the official explanations offered by the US government; neither the "We were after WMD's! nor the "We're here to liberate the Iraqis!"

Nobody is that stupid.

And so the media is offering a new meme, a new story to the gullible (but less and less gullible) masses: It was a War for Oil.

Washington post article is here: A Crude Case For War?:

But that doesn't mean that oil had nothing to do with the invasion. In his recent memoir, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

See? Everyone knows that the Iraq war is largely about oil. End of story - and see, nutters, truthers and conspiracy cooks - here is your conspiracy. There it is - now please don't ask any further questions.

The controversial details were all part of the larger strategic picture. "When we first decided on the war, I don't remember oil playing an important part," says Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under the elder Bush and a critic of the current president's decision to invade.

But that's because concern about oil supplies is part of the architecture of U.S. foreign policy. Scowcroft notes that oil can't be disregarded because Iraq and its neighbors sit on two-thirds of the world's oil reserves. But oil needn't be mentioned either because it's self-evident. War critics might call that the perfect conspiracy.

Oh, of course - we Americans are all part of the conspiracy because we all know that the war in Iraq is all about oil. We just didn't want the world to know, but now we don't care. Sort of a "Ha ha, world, we are really just bullies who go into a country and steal their stuff. We are the Nelson from the Simpsons', the big dumb bully!".

Look for ALL the media now - the CNN's, the FOX's, to run with this meme, this new story. This questions will be asked by idiotic women on morning shows on your TV in the morning, by Wolf Blitzer, by Lou Dobbs.

But please, THINK for a second here.

If we as a country are ready to admit that the war was about oil - that we are a big bully who basically barged in, beat up a weaker opponent and stole his stuff - why are we doing this?

This does not make the USA look at all good.

The only answer that I can come up with, is, using the twin weapons of logic and common sense, this:

When you admit something shameful, it is to turn attention from something worse, something even more shameful, something that at no point and at all cost cannot be admitted as the reason for war - main or partial.

Readers of my blog already know what that is - but even if you did, I urge you to reread my article about the real causes of the Iraq war and contrast it to the "blood for oil" meme that the media will now start to put out on TV and newspapers.


Bonus Material:
These "War for Oil?" messages in the media (question mark is necessary, as the media pundits will make it a question in their articles, to plant the idea in people's heads without a shred of proof) will come thick and fast. Here's a sample already:

Australia's theage admits Iraq war about oil.

TheTimes quotes Alan Greenspan

John McLaughlin "It's the oil, stupid!"

Salon.com admits of course it is about oil.

Some of these are from 2008, some earlier. But definitely look for a spike in the media stories about "Iraq war was for oil!" stories.