What would Alan Greenspan know anyway?
 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oilGraham Paterson
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Related Links
Fed veteran Greenspan lambasts George W Bush on economy
Power, not oil, Mr Greenspan
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

I'd love to hear Greenspan elaborate as to when we're supposed to be getting that oil.

And this isn't obvious?

The Fed is generally briefed on these things.

that was never the plan :rolleyes:


plan is to UP oil PRICES not PRODUCTION
by keeping iraq oil off the markets
that way BuSh2 oil buddys and the saudi's make more money
and it is working :mad::rolleyes:

Maybe his conscience is getting the best of him, after being part of the elitist conspiracy known as the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bush hasn't pushed us toward a socialist/totalitarian, one-world government fast enough for Mr. Greenspan.

Greenspan's comments can be viewed as nothing more than partisan bickering among the socio-fascists. He clearly supported Gore in 2000 and guided monetary policy to avoid the appearance that Clinton/Gore had a recession brewing on their watch. It's like two bullies getting in each others way on the play ground. It's largely inconsequential.

Really? So I guess those sanctions that had been in place since the early 90's were just a sham. When's the last time Iraqi oil was sold legally on the open market? Did we really have to invade them just to stop the Oil for Food program because they were sneaking too much oil out and around?

Greenspan book: GOP 'swapped principle for power'

(CNN) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan slams President Bush and today's Republicans, while calling Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton "the smartest presidents" he worked with, according to an advance copy of his upcoming book.

He further says the GOP deserved the stomping it took in November's congressional elections -- a ballot that saw both houses of Congress wrested from Republican control -- because the party "swapped principle for power."

His book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," is scheduled for release Monday. CNN obtained a copy Saturday.

In the book, Greenspan wrote that Bush essentially left an unbridled GOP Congress to spend money however it saw fit, and by not vetoing a single bill in six years, the president deprived the nation of checks and balances.

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Greenspan, an 81-year-old Republican who retired last year after five terms as Fed chairman, wrote that he made no secret of his view that Bush should reject some bills.

"It would send a message to Congress that it did not have carte blanche on spending," Greenspan recalls telling the administration. "But the answer I received from a senior White House official was that the president didn't want to challenge House Speaker Dennis Hastert. 'He thinks he can control him better by not antagonizing him,' the official said."

The White House, however, said that vetoes weren't necessary because Congress "worked with us."

"The Republican Congress stayed within the president's top-line numbers on non-national security appropriations bills. We had veto threats, which were used to good effect to keep spending within the president's numbers," said spokesman Tony Fratto.

Greenspan wrote in his book that the decision was costly.

"To my mind," he wrote, "Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake -- it cost the nation a check-and-balance mechanism essential to fiscal discipline."

He further wrote that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill "found himself the odd man out; much to my disappointment, economic policymaking in the Bush administration remained firmly in the hands of the White House staff."

Fratto countered that O'Neill and former Treasury Secretary John Snow "had the opportunity to present their ideas through the policymaking process. If ideas failed to carry the day, it probably had something to do with the force and logic of the policies being advocated, rather than anything about the 'process.' Ideas were considered, sometimes they achieved consensus, sometimes not -- nothing unusual there. At any rate, where we ended up on economic policy was right, as our records show."

"We're not going to apologize for increased spending to protect our national security," Fratto said. "That isn't just increased spending. It's an investment in the safety and security of the nation, which is also, by the way, an important economic objective."

Greenspan praised former President Clinton and his attitude toward economic policies, saying, "either Clinton shared many of my views on the way the economic system was evolving and on what should be done, or he was the cleverest chameleon I'd ever encountered."

"Clinton was often criticized for inconsistency and for a tendency to take all sides in a debate, but that was never true about his economic policy," he wrote. "A consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth became a hallmark of his presidency."

Greenspan said Clinton and former President Nixon were "by far the smartest presidents I've worked with."

The former Fed chairman says his view of the Bush administration was not always so grim, and that he was initially excited about Bush's election.

"I looked forward to at least four years of working collegially with many of the government's best and brightest men, with whom I had shared many memorable experiences. And on a personal basis, that is how it worked out," Greenspan wrote. "But on policy matters, I was soon to see my old friends veer off in unexpected directions."

Well, I hope that taking those statements out of context isn't a breach since they were out of context to start with.

AG has been my economic hero since he advised Kennedy. We won't see any more straight shooters like him in the future. Whether he was right or wrong, I tend to think he was right all along and he proved himself over and over.

A brilliant man.

many of AG's monetary policies have been under attack by other monetarists for years. Anti-AG writers provide a list of so called major screw up's.


current inflation and inflationary expectations are his fault say many.


even though Bush had to buy his congressional friends politics does provide a good tension to sell his book.. imo

Funny thing about AG, he wanted the US consumers to consume more and so made money easy to get. This did temporarily pump up the economy, but the unintended (?) consequence of major recession is here (after his watch is over) for the rest of us to deal with. And don't minimize his role in the home mortgage fiasco, he still is a proponent of the mortgage products other than the traditional fixed mortgage.

Yeah we should believe him.:o

He's selling his book, what would one expect.

You can't get an honest book published today, it's necessary to take some people down and tell some lies in order to get it into Barnes & Noble.

He kept his mouth shut for all those years while setting monetary policy and now he feels the obligation to puke his guts out to make more money. He's too old for porno flixs.

He has more money than you will ever dream of having. net worth of $4.2 million. yeah, it's about the money.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rol leyes::rolleyes:

I didn't say anything about money, it's an ego trip, it always is with people in the political limelight.

Andrea Mitchell probably has more than daddy anyway.

Mr Hunt, George Bush, Blood for Oil, Iraq.
Cheney, Halliburton, Oil

Follow the money, bitc$ches

As usual, your logic is undecipherable, b!tch!

Greenspan is the dominant figure in the US economy for the past two decades. He has more knowledge and experience, both at the highest levels of politics and economics, as well as down in the detailed data, than anyone - period. He did a pretty good job of being apolitical, not perfect but of all the major Washington figures he is the least political by miles. He made some mistakes as Fed Chairman, potentially some serious ones, because he is not omniscent. But I certainly think his book is worth reading, and I'd trust the truthfulness of the statements in his memoir about 100X more than I'd trust the denials of any elected politician.

I suspect very few who are writing in this thread will actually read Greenspan's book.

ALL About oil.
____________

Out of context, as usual.

He stated in a LIVE interview that Saddam, with the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons, presented a problem in that he may try and gain control of the Strait of Hormuz. Not just a USA problem, NOT just about USA needs.

"either Clinton shared many of my views on the way the economic system was evolving and on what should be done, or he was the cleverest chameleon I'd ever encountered."

sucker, even for asking himself the question...

The Federal Reserve virtually elects the politicians and our government is in the pocket of the Fed. There is little basis for your trust of a sitting or former Fed Chairman. They derive their power from the ill-conceived Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The People have paid the price ever since.