I saw him interviewed on TV this morning. Describes himself as a Libertarian Republican.

I think cherry picking what the man says in quotes instead of walking away with an overall impression is a mistake.

One curious thing he did say, he said had we not invaded Iraq oil might be $120 a barrel. Perhaps this was in reference to Saddam's attempt to switch to Euro's?

Greenspan is a shrewd and intelligent guy overall, but it'll be interesting to see how history judges him in the context of the housing bubble. You can argue that bond rates dictate mortgage rates, but let's face it - the FED prime rate DOES have considerable influence on those as well. He was hoping in 2002-2003 to keep at least ONE sector of the domestic economy active, lest the recession become drawn-out, so he slashed rates. Not saying I'd necessarily have done differently at the time, but the repercussions from that will be felt and borne by our economy for a LONG time to come. IMHO this entire "subprime" mess is directly linked to Greenspan's decisions.

He appears to say he believes that we are headed for a recession. His statements seem designed to divert any blame away from himself.

This is the guy who said "There is no housing bubble" right about at the peak of . . . the housing bubble. I remember him saying that a few years ago and thinking he was on snowman style crack. Given that I do agree he is intelligent, I just assumed he was lying, because no one outside of NAR could have actually believed that.

Whoa! An intelligent question. Glad you asked. The answer is "no," we didn't really have to invade them in order to address this problem.

That wasn't the purpose of the invasion anyway. But are you suggesting the UN was gonna suddenly go straight and start enforcing its own sanctions and resolutions?

Of course it's all about oil, and a select few of the Texas mafia's control over this whole country.

Iran started selling oil in Euros and Iraq was soon to follow. Japan recently bought oil in Yen, so the direct threat to the dollar is urgent.
American workers have been too expensive and entrenched, so the past efforts to move factories overseas and buy Chinese goods were methods to keep massive deflation in check.
Only problem is that the quiet players acted up in a bad way while we were/are overstretched.

In 2002, Saddam halted oil production for 30 days in response to some new Israeli campaign so that the Bush would know who was on which side of the leash. He was a variable that had to be replaced.
Conveniently stretching out the war (longer than WW2 BTW) would ensure Haliburton/others profits for years to come and allow for the (undemocratic) expansion of Federal powers and a check on those pesky dissenters once and for all. Two birds with one stone.

Afghanistan and the jihadist hill-billys continue to be much more of a threat to Russia than the US. No one really cares about opium production or their womens rights when it comes down to it. Better to keep that rebelious nephew of our rich Saudi buddies alive as a symbol, so the ants don't scatter.
Russia has made a big push to claim the North Pole, which is reputed to have vast natural gas reserves; accessable now that the ice caps are melting. That's the reason for the long range bomber campaigns. Also, the corrollation of the poisoning of that spy and Bush's recent polyps could be construed as a scary idea.

My granddaughter will be two years old in March. Her children will one day discuss why we still have a military presence in Iraq. They will also, I believe, regard this current time as the period when America handed over its government to the oil companies. The whole idea that this decision was NOT about oil is laughable. Exceedingly naive.

To answer your question, there were many many mechanisms available to address any and all of the various other excuses (which some of you guys believe were good "reasons") for invading Iraq. Saddam controlling the Strait of Hormuz? Give me a break! Saddam as a frighteningly dangerous military leader with WMD? Pretty funny. No, Saddam was only scary because he controlled a nation that is floating on a sea of oil. He wasn't part of the worldwide oil "good ol' boy network" like the Saudis are. He was independent. And that was the problem. Dubya's Iraq decision was not a securing of a military threat. It was a censuring of an oil maverick. A way of returning the world's oil supply back to the good ol boy network.

Well, my grandpa was a young man when we started leaving troops in Europe, Japan and Korea and I don't think he fretted too much about explaining it to his grandkids.

He did the "correct" thing for someone in a political position. He thought short-term and didn't give a damn about the long-term consequences, then got out of office before the repercussions hit. Pretty much what any politician or political appointee does.

Anyone who doesn't believe we're headed for a recession - a prolonged one - in wake of all this housing stupidity is either smokin' some quality herb or living in a dream world. I'm not wishing for one, but I'd say it's a virtual certainty in light of the fiscal irresponsibility we've seen in the last 5-8 years.

Perhaps we're well on our way to having a military presence in every nation on the planet. Perhaps they will love us once we've accomplished that. Heck, perhaps we could love Iran, if only they would invade America and set up permanent military operations here.

It's not like AG didn't pay his dues. He didn't just appear on the scene. He has been an authority of economics for a long, long time. And, yes, no one man could be faultless or not have to work with a less than perfect system yielding to this pressure and that.

All in all, he is far from a loose cannon.

That article indicates that greenspan knew for sure that it was about oil. It says that he "declared".
That is misleading, maybe even a lie.

What greenpan said is (not exact quote but pretty close) "some people think it was about MWD and the fight against global terrorism, I think it was to stabilize the global oil market, maybe it was both".

Not exactly a declaration as the article said it was. damn liberal media.

In this morning's newspaper, Dubya is quoted as saying, in part:

"Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship, in a way that protects our interests in the region......."

I wonder what the Iraqi leaders are wanting our role to be. If I were an Iraqi leader, I would hope to play the role of "hero" myself, rather than getting America to play that role. And so, if I asked for their continued presence, it would be for the purpose of placing blame.

I also notice this remark, by Dubya, seems to be suggesting our presence in Iraq will be long term. Colin Powell told Dubya "you break it, you buy it." I guess Dubya thought about that, and decided that Iraq would be a good acquisition.

Now to some, this would appear to be an example of "imperialism." But here, on Pelican OT, we have guys who can explain to us how this decision is not an example of international bullying. Take it away, guys. Educate us.

I am suggesting that Greenspan was the chairman of something that should never have come into existence in this country. As such is the case, the actions and motives of the Federal Reserve are suspect and there is clear evidence that the Federal Reserve is incompatible with individual liberties as articulated in the Constitution. In fact, a centralized bank, in control of the money supply, is a prominent feature of communism.

He is far from a loose cannon, which makes him even more dangerous.

The Fed controls the money supply. The government runs on money. Thereby the Fed controls the government. Since I am not well connected with the socialist elites in this country, that leaves me and most of the rest of the country to ponder ways to take back the rights that our Constitution was designed to protect.

From what I heard him say tonight, it seemed he was saying his comment on oil was misunderstood. He explained that he thought that Saddam was a definite threat, and that part of the reason for the war was that Saddam was threatening (among other things) to forceably block one of the straits (Strait of Hormuz? or something like that), which a lot of ships, including ships from other countries containing oil, have to go through. So, in that way (stopping a threatening madman from disrupting the world's oil supply), the war did in some way involve oil. But he did not mean to suggest that we invaded Iraq to steal oil, like many people seem to like to argue.

At least that's what it seemed he said. It's usually hard to know exactly what he's saying.

Oil? Google Firesign Theatre (back in the late 60s, early 70s). He is stooopid who stooopidly believes that we learn from history not to repeat our stooopid mistakes.

To quote Horace Walpole, "The world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those who feel."

Greenspan - smarter than most.

Its interesting to see Greenspan get torn up for having the wrong political opinion. He has always been a republican who has had a certain willingness to help the party out a little in an election year by easing up on the economy. Suddenly he is a blood traitor for uttering an opinion on Iraq that deviates from the accepted line of the neo cons. He did clarify what he ment, but it seems that anyone not drinking the cool aid around here is dammed.

Its even more interesting that this is despite the fact that he was so good that he was trusted in both republican and democratic administrations. He didn't create the housing crisis, the mortgage companies did.

The difference between my brain & the brain of steel is that my brain knows that we will have to deal with EVERY global caliphate minded muslim on the planet sooner or later. The order is incidental.

Look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane! Naaah, it's just an overly PC nitwit.

Yes, we do have to deal with them all. Agreed. The difference between our brains is that yours imagines we might kill them all. Mine doubts that. We have not eradicated cockroaches or mosquitos. Imagine trying to eradicate cockroaches within a system where cockroach anger accelerates the breeding of cockroaches. In that scenario, the cockroach population might increase as a consequence of our actions. Imagine then a change in strategy to one where their food supply is manipulated while a program of poisoning is also used. THAT is analagous to changing from a doomed strategy of stomping them with our shoe.......to one where we might have some reason to expect success.

I wish the world were as simple to me as it seems to be to some of you guys.

Supe, are you one of those guys who thinks you have the magic power to reason and compromise with Islamic terrorists? Why do people think they're gonna change someone's mind? Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill represent your and my ways of thinking, RESPECTIVELY.